|
Easy crafting DCs are not the problem. The problem is, by intending to make the crafting DCs easy, they have opened the possibility of making cheap magic items of levels above what players should have at their levels. There are alot of post with exemples of exploits, like:
The thing is, crafting DC wasn't meant to be the thing that limits low-level PCs from crafting high-level items. That's what Wealth by Level was meant for.
- At lvl 3, crafting +1 weapons for 2,300g at CL 20(and also most items).
You need CL 5 to take Craft Magic Arms & Armor. In addition, if you craft it, the price is actually lower; weapon + 300gp MW + (2000/2) +1 enchantment.
- A wizard can craft a scroll of any spell he wishes to learn.
You can't skip prerequisites on spell completion items.
- A 3rd lvl wizard could craft a Candle of Raise Dead with DC 24 and 1,125gp.
This is not a canonical item, so it falls under the "has to be specifically allowed by the GM in the first place" clause. It also sounds like a spell completion item so you can't actually skip the prerequisite. Finally, you forgot the 5000gp material component for the spell used.
- At lvl 3, you can create a +5 Spellcraft Amulet with DC 15 for 1,250g, and with it soon a +10 for 5,000g and +15 for 11,250g.
If he thinks that's a good use of his money, sure. Personally I'd go for the out-of-the-CRB +5 Perception item instead, that's more useful.
There are some relatively cheap magic items that can solve big problems:- At lvl 5, a druid could craft a teleportation spoon.
- A cleric could craft a flute of summon natures ally way above his level.
You're ignoring two important points in these examples;
1) The guidelines for designing new magic items are guidelines for the GM, and not rules that the players can force the GM to follow. Making custom magic items is not a "right", it's a privilege.
The guidelines also point out that they're not always right; that some items are more powerful than the formula would suggest and should therefore be more expensive, like the Ring of Invisibility.
If the GM thinks an item would be bad for the game, he doesn't have to allow it. If he thinks it would be very powerful, he can set a higher price tag.
2) The items you mention would consume vast amounts of the PC's WBL, and he'd probably be weaker than if he stuck with normal magic items.
These are problems, and we all shouldn't have to make the same house rule to prevent these, it should be in RAW, not the other way around as it is.Sure, a reasonable DM could fix all of this, but it would be much better if these rules didn't depend only on the reasoning of any DM. It would be much better if the rules were more strict, to prevent unreasonable DMs from doing crap, and the reasonable DMs would still be able to allow reasonable exceptions.
Every custom magic item is in effect a tiny houserule.
RAW isn't broken, you're ignoring some of the limits built into it, and then it starts to look broken.
|
@Diego: If you really, really think being able to craft weapons or armor or what-have-you at CL20 is broken, consider that the NPCs can craft things like, say scrolls or wands of Dispel Magic at CL20, as well.
SL*CL*MIC
So, 3*20*12.5 for a scroll of Dispel Magic: 750 gp per use
And, 3*20*375 for a wand of Dispel Magic: 22,500 gp, 450 per charge.
And, that, as the saying goes, would put paid to some of those CL20 items, at a much cheaper cost.
1d20+20 vs DC 20+11, so 50% chance of success. If the party has all their money tied up in one uber item, they are totally screwed by bout 1500 gp in consumables, which would be well within the wealth of an NPC encounter for APL7 for slow track, earlier for fast track.
We won't even mention the rogue in the night, and the disarm, sunder and steal combat maneuvers, etc.
Grease. Rust monsters. Green slime.
If it is a two-handed weapon, or not a weapon, it is worthless in a grapple.
Not to mention all those adventuring parties who hear of it, and decide that it should be theirs, not yours.
It's hard to count something as broken when there are soooo many counters.
A few years ago, I played in a Monty Haul campaign, the GM gave us all 10 Orbs of Dragonkind around 8th or 9th level. As things proceeded, we were soon trapped in a limited area, surrounded by angry Ancient dragons, trying to figure out how to get out of there alive.
Except that you cannot craft a partially charged wand.
|
|
Can the NPC actually use that CL 20 scroll? Doesn't the high caster level make it somewhat unreliable?Nominally a DC 21 for the scroll.
Of course, a partially charged wand is a different matter...
A DC 21 caster level check, that's a bit chancy isn't it? Significant chance of wasting time in combat (which is deadly), or if you're really unlucky, having a mishap (with results proportional to the hubris of the act).
Believability? In a game where dragons exist and a 175lb guy can carry hundreds (if not thousands) of pounds and still swim? But economics, something not even part of the game, is what breaks things for you?
Yes, "believability" or imagination sustentability, if you will. Like in the Matrix, people needed to belive it was real, or it would crash. It's the same reason Zorro can jump from a 2nd store building and land sitting on his horse, even though he's a man. In that particular reality, Zorro is a little more than human and can do that, and it's ok. Remember the new Superman movie? I liked it but it lacked some believability, cos of THIS.
What takes away the believability here is the wizard making a cure light wounds potion. It's not mechanically game breaking, but it didn't have to be this way.
The guidelines for designing new magic items are guidelines for the GM, and not rules that the players can force the GM to follow. Making custom magic items is not a "right", it's a privilege.
I Know. I wouldn't try to make these items, but unreasonable DMs do. Unfortunally, these creation formulas have to be the way they are so reasonable DMs can create their custom items. I just think that the +5 to DC rule gives even more freedom to something that needed less. It would be better to now allow the skiping of requirements by RAW, and let the reasonable DM that know what they are doing make exceptions.
I see a greater probability of games around the world "crashing" because of the +5 DC rule. Best to make the rules "safe" for the majority and let good and experienced DMs tweak with it.
We would have more to gain then to lose by removing the +5 to DC rule.
But I agree that WBL is the most determinant factor, if he has the gold, he can buy it even if his party can't make it.
As for crafting at higher CL, even if we don't allow it, as long as it costs nothing to raise the CL, there's nothing stoping a low level player from "going to his master" and asking him to doit for him for free. I think, not only it shouldn't be allowed, but we need to charge something for items at higher CL, even if the item's properties remain exactly the same, like a headband of intellect.
A stated design goal of the crafting rules is they're meant to be easy skill wise. Being 'able' to make the items has never been an issue. Paying for them and having the time to craft them is the scarceness in that aspect of the game.Easy crafting DCs are not the problem. The problem is, by intending to make the crafting DCs easy, they have opened the possibility of making cheap magic items of levels above what players should have at their levels. There are alot of post with exemples of exploits, like:
- At lvl 3, crafting +1 weapons for 2,300g at CL 20(and also most items).
- A wizard can craft a scroll of any spell he wishes to learn.
- A 3rd lvl wizard could craft a Candle of Raise Dead with DC 24 and 1,125gp.
- At lvl 3, you can create a +5 Spellcraft Amulet with DC 15 for 1,250g, and with it soon a +10 for 5,000g and +15 for 11,250g.
There are some relatively cheap magic items that can solve big problems:
- At lvl 5, a druid could craft a teleportation spoon.
- A cleric could craft a flute of summon natures ally way above his level.
These are problems, and we all shouldn't have to make the same house rule to prevent these, it should be in RAW, not the other way around as it is.
Sure, a reasonable DM could fix all of this, but it would be much better if these rules didn't depend only on the reasoning of any DM. It would be much better if the rules were more strict, to prevent unreasonable DMs from doing crap, and the reasonable DMs would still be able to allow reasonable exceptions.
The rules do not depend on reasoning. They depend on people reading them. Okay, they depend on both. ;) As per pages 460-461 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook...
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives
the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The
caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well
as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of
the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must
be contended with should the item come under the effect of a
dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the
caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast
the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For
other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item
itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as
the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a
higher minimum on the creator’s level).
That answers the whole "Characters can make items of higher caster levels than themselves." bit (i.e. they cannot). The only thing relating to Caster Level and Prerequisites is in a situation where it is possible to have an effect cast at a very low level, but the item prerequisites disallow lowering the Caster Level of the particular effect below a certain minimum required level for the item. While not the perfect example of this, a wand of fireballs has a minimum effect of 5d6, though it can be set as high as 10d6 (if the provider of the spell is 10th level). Any caster able to provide the fireball spell cannot provide an effect of less than 5d6 power though, as a spell trigger item must mimic the spell's parameters. Altering spell parameters for item effects falls outside of the realm of spell trigger items, and into the realms of Command Word or Use Activated items, like a ring of shooting stars or a necklace of fireballs. A better example would be a 1st level spell put into a non-trigger item, but that has an attached prerequisite "CL 5" for that particular spell, meaning the 1st level spell will always function at CL 5 with regard to duration and other effects.
Construction: With the exception of artifacts, most magic
items can be built by a spellcaster with the appropriate feats
and prerequisites. This section describes those prerequisites.
And...
Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order
for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells,
and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and
race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given
immediately following the item’s caster level.
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has
prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a
sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or
spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces
the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation
process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or
one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects
is used to supply a prerequisite.
It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in
the creation of an item, with each participant providing one
or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may
even be necessary.
If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they
must agree among themselves who will be considered the
creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s
level must be known.
And so the prerequisites for creating an item are given after the Caster Level, meaning the prerequisites do not include Caster Level (unless specifically stated for a spell, as I mentioned before), and so the overall Caster Level of an item cannot be ignored by taking the +5 DC penalty, as it is not a prerequisite.
By the way, the only reason I even recall this is due to my players very recently creating magic items (much to easily; seriously create a magic item on 2+ if you didn't build your character like a moron?) in my campaign. It's a giant book. I miss stuff all the time, and will no doubt continue to do so. :D Hope this helps with some of your questions.
|
|
What takes away the believability here is the wizard making a cure light wounds potion. It's not mechanically game breaking, but it didn't have to be this way.
He can't, potions are Spell Completion items, you can't skip that prerequisite.
The guidelines for designing new magic items are guidelines for the GM, and not rules that the players can force the GM to follow. Making custom magic items is not a "right", it's a privilege.I Know. I wouldn't try to make these items, but unreasonable DMs do.
First off, no amount of rules will stop a GM who's going to ignore them anyway. The rules work for people who read them and actually use them, including the existing limitations. It's hopeless to design rules for people who don't read them or just ignore them.
Unfortunally, these creation formulas have to be the way they are so reasonable DMs can create their custom items. I just think that the +5 to DC rule gives even more freedom to something that needed less. It would be better to now allow the skiping of requirements by RAW, and let the reasonable DM that know what they are doing make exceptions.
I see a greater probability of games around the world "crashing" because of the +5 DC rule. Best to make the rules "safe" for the majority and let good and experienced DMs tweak with it.
We would have more to gain then to lose by removing the +5 to DC rule.
I dunno if there are actually a lot of games crashing because of this. The skipping prerequisites bit, I mean. Is that actually happening, or are you just trying to prevent a problem that you think might occur?
I rather like the idea of skipping prerequisites. It means sorcerers and oracles can also craft some items, like tools that let them do more than their limited amount of spells known. Magic items are like technology, enabling people to do more by using tools. I like that.
It's a game element that can be used for good, I'd rather not get rid of it just because of the fear that someone will destroy the game with it - if there's not really any evidence that it's actually doing so.
But I agree that WBL is the most determinant factor, if he has the gold, he can buy it even if his party can't make it.As for crafting at higher CL, even if we don't allow it, as long as it costs nothing to raise the CL, there's nothing stopping a low level player from "going to his master" and asking him to do it for him for free. I think, not only it shouldn't be allowed, but we need to charge something for items at higher CL, even if the item's properties remain exactly the same, like a headband of intellect.
Actually, there are downsides to high CL.
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.
Identify the properties of a magic item using detect magic 15 + item's caster level
They're not huge downsides, but then, neither is a high caster level a really big upside. Trying to dispel magic items is very rarely a good tactic, because the CL of your Dispel Magic tends to be pretty close to the item's CL. So you have a roughly even chance at inflicting a mild debuff. Most SoS spells inflict nastier debuffs and with greater reliability.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.You can make items with a CL above your level.
We know this. It was already mentioned. The point being maxe which i also mentioned before was that you cant arbitrarily assign any caster level you want. As an example I cant just assign a caster level of 100 to a pearl of power.
Kchaka, a wizard cannot make a potion of Cure Light Wounds without help from either a magic item or another spellcaster (such as a cleric) that supplies the spell. I fail to see a problem with that.
_Ozy_, that FAQ is intended to allow you to REDUCE the caster level in cases where the caster level is clearly higher than minimum. IE: items such as the Pearl of Power where the stated CL is for the 9th level Pearl of Power and not the 1st level Pearl of Power.
Can you show Dev comments that state the FAQ is intended to allow arbitrary raising of CL without a cost increase or without the GM having input (ie saying no)?
_Ozy_, the section you bolded has nothing to do with making a CL 20 item that is normally CL 3.
What is has to do with is making an item that has a minimum caster level higher than your own.
_Ozy_, the section you bolded has nothing to do with making a CL 20 item that is normally CL 3.
What is has to do with is making an item that has a minimum caster level higher than your own.
Thank you for providing the quote from SKR.
We know this. It was already mentioned. The point being maxe which i also mentioned before was that you cant arbitrarily assign any caster level you want. As an example I cant just assign a caster level of 100 to a pearl of power.For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.You can make items with a CL above your level.Caster level 100 is not a normal caster level, that's mythic territory.
Is there any reason to believe that you can't slap on a CL20, based on the FAQ and various dev comments?
It does not matter if the number is 20 or 2000. Either the rules allow for you to assign a higher caster level or they do not. Show me the rule that says you can and then show me the rules that says the cap is 20.
Now if you are not saying that you can just assign any caster level you want to any item then you are not explaining yourself well.
What takes away the believability here is the wizard making a cure light wounds potion.
He can't, potions are Spell Completion items, you can't skip that prerequisite.
OMFG! Ok, forget the g%# d~&n potion. A Disruption Weapon that has Heal as a prerequisite, ok? A wizard can make one of those completly by himself. Is it clear now that we are talking about an exemple of a mage creating a magic item by himself which would normaly requires a divine healing spell? Do you get the point, that it's weird to see an arcane spellcaster doing something only a divine spellcaster should?
We know this. It was already mentioned. The point being maxe which i also mentioned before was that you cant arbitrarily assign any caster level you want. As an example I cant just assign a caster level of 100 to a pearl of power.For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.You can make items with a CL above your level.Caster level 100 is not a normal caster level, that's mythic territory.
Is there any reason to believe that you can't slap on a CL20, based on the FAQ and various dev comments?
It does not matter if the number is 20 or 2000. Either the rules allow for you to assign a higher caster level or they do not. Show me the rule that says you can and then show me the rules that says the cap is 20.
Now if you are not saying that you can just assign any caster level you want to any item then you are not explaining yourself well.Well, it certainly matters for the DC, no?
Know many crafters with +2000 spellcraft?
How do you square that the FAQ says a 3rd level crafter can create a CL17 9th level pearl of power with your claims?
Is it your claim that yes, a caster can create a 9th level pearl of power, CL17, but not a 1st level pearl...
Unless the CL is part of the requirement it does not get the +5DC modifier. As an example when adding certain enhancements to weapons has caster level X as a requirement. Those would add the +5 DC. If an item just happens to have a CL of X then there is no +5 to the DC.
My claim is that you can not just add any CL you want to an item, and my claim is also that if you are going to say you can add any CL you want and then claim 20 as the cap then you have to cite the rules for these.
As for the PoP the +5 is for when you are creating a PoP for a pearl that holds a 3rd level spell because the caster level of 5 is the minimum. What the FAQ b[]does not say[/b] is that you may go beyond the minimum needed for the particular pearl. In addition no +2000 spellcraft is needed because the DC is not +5/per caster level. It is just a flat +5.
You even bolded where it is connecting the 3rd level spell to the caster level of 5. At no point does it say anything about allowing a CL of 17 for a first level PoP if you are not a 17th level caster.
edit: There is no limit on CL's. There is a limit on the level of a spell casting class. The two are not synonymous since there are traits, feats, and magic items, that can raise your CL about your class level.
Ozy: You misunderstand. You can make items in the Core Book with a listed CL higher than the level of a character...only if the item in question has lesser versions of itself covered in its entry that do not exceed the creator's caster level.
The pearl of power example is perfect. A pearl for a spell of up to 9th level can be made, which has a required CL of 17- the minimum level to cast a 9th level spell. That is why 17 is the CL listed for a pearl of power (stupid notation method, but they list the greatest, not individually as they should). It doesn't mean that character below 17th level cannot make pearls of power though- they just cannot make one beyond their own caster level. No creator can make an item with an actual CL of its own greater than that of the creator.
For example, a Wizard 5 can make a pearl of power of 1st (CL 1), 2nd (CL 3), or 3rd (CL 5) level, but not a pearl of 4th level or higher, as they will have a CL of 7 or more which goes beyond the creator's caster level of 5.
So, go ahead and make them. Just be aware that the rules very much curtail creators to only being able to make items with a CL equal to, or less than, that of their creator. Hope that is clear enough.
Cebrion, that is not true. In Pathfinder CL is not a limit to what you can make except that it sets the DC.
There was such a rule in 3.5 but it was intentionally removed in Pathfinder and replaced by the (also intentionally easy) CL+5 DC system.
Heck, the Pathfinder Devs even errata'd their initial system to drop the DCs from CL+10 to CL+5.
The FAQ is intended to address the high DCs required for what should be low DCs. It doesn't make sense for a Pearl of Power 1 to have a CL of 17.
ok. I understand you now. I thought you were saying that you can just name any number you want and it can have that CL. Now I see that you are saying the CL can be set as long as you meet a DC of CL+5.
However that FAQ is still only for the pearl of power and the PDT has said that FAQ's only address what they address.
So it would take another FAQ to apply this to magic items as whole.
OMFG! Ok, forget the g%~ d!~n potion. A Disruption Weapon that has Heal as a prerequisite, ok? A wizard can make one of those completly by himself. Is it clear now that we are talking about an exemple of a mage creating a magic item by himself which would normaly requires a divine healing spell? Do you get the point, that it's weird to see an arcane spellcaster doing something only a divine spellcaster should?What takes away the believability here is the wizard making a cure light wounds potion.
He can't, potions are Spell Completion items, you can't skip that prerequisite.
This is not weird nor is it a problem. It is also covered by the +5 to the crafting of the item which allows you to bypass not having a particular spell available. The fact that the devs wrote a way to bypass the spells means this should be possible. To take it further fighters who can cast no spells at all can also make magic weapons. This was also mentioned earlier in the thread.
I think that's a pretty narrow, and likely incorrect reading. Is there any rule that contradicts applying the ruling from the FAQ more generally?
Do you have any reason to believe that you can set CLs to whatever you want for Pearls of Power, but not any other magic item? It's not like the FAQ is carving out an exception for the pearl of power, it is clarifying the magic item creation process, especially since he's using the words 'For example'. Instead, the pearl of power is used as an example of magic creation, not changing the rules just for the pearl of power.
Combine the FAQ with the comments from SKR in the previously linked thread, and I think it's pretty clear. Pearls of Power are not special in this regard.
The devs specifically said FAQ's only apply to what they are discussing, and that was recent. I am not saying they would not make a ruling that it applies in general. I am saying that we only have confirmation that it applies to PoP, and anything beyond that is speculation.
The FAQ specifically calls out PoP
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level.
However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
It references the pearl specifically throughout the entire FAQ. If they meant it as a general case they need to rewrite it so that it applies to items other than the PoP.
OMFG! Ok, forget the g@! d!~n potion. A Disruption Weapon that has Heal as a prerequisite, ok? A wizard can make one of those completly by himself. Is it clear now that we are talking about an exemple of a mage creating a magic item by himself which would normaly requires a divine healing spell? Do you get the point, that it's weird to see an arcane spellcaster doing something only a divine spellcaster should?
A dwarven mastersmith/craftsman can - with the right feats - create magical arms and armor, wondrous items and rings, even wands and staves without even able to cast spells at all, but a wizard who can make a disrupting weapon bugs you because it has a healing requirement?
I see no problem with this at all. I think it is even intended. If there is no cleric in the group to help this wizard craft this, the party might be in dire need of some magic gear to balance out the odds.
Crafting a magic item needs some requirements to mold magic into an object. Not everyone has divine magic, but this crafting wizard has the spellcraft skill, so he knows how magic on a fundamental level works. He can circumvent the requirement for a divine spell - he knows how to do it because of his skill - but it will be harder, hence, the DC+5.
|
|
OMFG! Ok, forget the g$@ d##n potion. A Disruption Weapon that has Heal as a prerequisite, ok? A wizard can make one of those completly by himself. Is it clear now that we are talking about an exemple of a mage creating a magic item by himself which would normaly requires a divine healing spell? Do you get the point, that it's weird to see an arcane spellcaster doing something only a divine spellcaster should?What takes away the believability here is the wizard making a cure light wounds potion.
He can't, potions are Spell Completion items, you can't skip that prerequisite.
Hey, you're the one who brings up examples of things that are "broken" that aren't actually allowed.
Anyway, no, I don't have a problem with a wizard making a disrupting weapon. It's doable but not super-easy. The wizard had to put some extra effort into boosting Spellcraft to the point where he can meet that DC.
I rather like the idea that magic items will let you do things that you couldn't do with normal spellcasting. It makes them more than just an efficient vehicle for getting more spells/stats per day.
I see what you mean about the FAQ. It throws everything off a cliff. How about one just creates a wand of fireballs at 5th level that has a caster level of 10th? That's just a DC of 5+ 10 + 5 = 20. Why, my Wizard 5 has five ranks in Spellcraft (a Class Skill), Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Magical Aptitude, and Int 18 for a total bonus of +17. So...to create an item which will break the game by allowing him to chuck fifty 10d6 fireballs against CR 6 encounters, he needs to roll...a 3+. Brilliant. If we are all understanding this correctly, the pearl of power FAQ person dropped a load in the bed on that one. Usually it is players who wil lbe hunting for ways to break the game balance, but you don't often have developers doing it for them in such a simple way. I thought the magic items creation rules were pretty bad before, which is why I use little to none of them, but apparently they are worse than I thought. They are certainly more complex than they need to be, are overly indulgent, and are unnecessarily scattered throughout the book.
|
We know this. It was already mentioned. The point being maxe which i also mentioned before was that you cant arbitrarily assign any caster level you want. As an example I cant just assign a caster level of 100 to a pearl of power.For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.You can make items with a CL above your level.Caster level 100 is not a normal caster level, that's mythic territory.
Is there any reason to believe that you can't slap on a CL20, based on the FAQ and various dev comments?
It does not matter if the number is 20 or 2000. Either the rules allow for you to assign a higher caster level or they do not. Show me the rule that says you can and then show me the rules that says the cap is 20.
Now if you are not saying that you can just assign any caster level you want to any item then you are not explaining yourself well.
The FAQ explicitly allow you to do it when making a item. You are adding a "only if required by the spell used to make the item" clause. You need to show where the rules or the FAQs say that.
You are arguing that it is not possible to say: "I want this item to work as if was casting fly at level 20"?|
|
I see what you mean about the FAQ. It throws everything off a cliff. How about one just creates a wand of fireballs at 5th level that has a caster level of 10th? That's just a DC of 5+ 10 + 5 = 20. Why, my Wizard 5 has five ranks in Spellcraft (a Class Skill), Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Magical Aptitude, and Int 18 for a total bonus of +17. So...to create an item which will break the game by allowing him to chuck fifty 10d6 fireballs against CR 6 encounters, he needs to roll...a 3+. Brilliant. If we are all understanding this correctly, the pearl of power FAQ person dropped a load in the bed on that one. I thought the magic items creation rules were pretty bad before, which is why I use little to none of them, but perhaps they are even worse than I thought. They are certainly more complex than they need to be, are overly indulgent/forgiving, and are unnecessarily scattered throughout the book. When is Pathfinder 2E coming out? :p
No.
Potions, scrolls and wands have a specific rule that was already cited in this thread:Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
Crafting magic items is full of exceptions. I hope that we will see a more streamlined or at least clearer version in the incoming Pathfinder Unchained book, but I don't think it will happen. it is too much a GM thing where every GM tweak it.
I see what you mean about the FAQ. It throws everything off a cliff. How about one just creates a wand of fireballs at 5th level that has a caster level of 10th? That's just a DC of 5+ 10 + 5 = 20. Why, my Wizard 5 has five ranks in Spellcraft (a Class Skill), Skill Focus (Spellcraft), Magical Aptitude, and Int 18 for a total bonus of +17. So...to create an item which will break the game by allowing him to chuck fifty 10d6 fireballs against CR 6 encounters, he needs to roll...a 3+. Brilliant. If we are all understanding this correctly, the pearl of power FAQ person dropped a load in the bed on that one. Usually it is players who wil lbe hunting for ways to break the game balance, but you don't often have developers doing it for them in such a simple way. I thought the magic items creation rules were pretty bad before, which is why I use little to none of them, but apparently they are worse than I thought. They are certainly more complex than they need to be, are overly indulgent, and are unnecessarily scattered throughout the book.
Aside from not being possible as Diego Rossi stated:
This wand of fireballs (CL 10) would cost 22,500 gp (3*10*750). The wizard would need 11,250 gp and it would require downtime to make it in 23 days. If the wizard keeps adventuring, it takes him 92 days.
The character wealth by level indicates, that a level 5 character should have 10,500 gp, so he falls 750 gp short and is not able to craft it because he can not pay for the materials (which have to be bought in advance).
Even if he could get those 750 gp, he would sink all his gp from 5 levels in creating this wand. He has no other gear whatsoever - no protection items, no ability boosting magic item, no nothing.
How realistic is this in actual gameplay?! Answer: it isnt. You all asume theoretical scenarios in a white room. That is not how gaming happens.
You can make a 20,000gp magic item in 10 days while adventuring, maybe. You can work a maximum of 8h a day on a magic item, and that can be divided into 2 4h blocks, each worth 500g of the total price of the item. If you raise the DC by 5, each 4h block will be worth double, so you can "make" 2,000g a day of that magic item. To work on the item, you need only a quiet place, away from eminent danger , the same type you use to prepare your spells. If you manage to work the 4h uninterrupted in that place without distractions (that means you are not on watch duty), even while adventuring, those 4h will count just as if you were in a city. If during those 4h something distracts you (like combat, or your "friends" in combat) those 4h count as just 2 "(just as with the adventuring caster)".
So, you get a ring os sustenance, sleep 2h, and while everybody else is sleeping and someone else is in watch duty, you work 8h on the magic item, 2 4h blocks, each worth 1,000g. If something happends during one of those 4h blocks, you net only 500g for it.
Right?
I think there's a also an elf wizard favored class option that increases by 200g the amount of the magic item you can make per day, so at lvl 5 that wizard could make magic items in half of this time.
We know this. It was already mentioned. The point being maxe which i also mentioned before was that you cant arbitrarily assign any caster level you want. As an example I cant just assign a caster level of 100 to a pearl of power.For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.You can make items with a CL above your level.Caster level 100 is not a normal caster level, that's mythic territory.
Is there any reason to believe that you can't slap on a CL20, based on the FAQ and various dev comments?
It does not matter if the number is 20 or 2000. Either the rules allow for you to assign a higher caster level or they do not. Show me the rule that says you can and then show me the rules that says the cap is 20.
Now if you are not saying that you can just assign any caster level you want to any item then you are not explaining yourself well.The FAQ explicitly allow you to do it when making a item. You are adding a "only if required by the spell used to make the item" clause. You need to show where the rules or the FAQs say that.
You are arguing that it is not possible to say: "I want this item to work as if was casting fly at level 20"?
You misread my post.
It references the pearl specifically throughout the entire FAQ. If they meant it as a general case they need to rewrite it so that it applies to items other than the PoP.Yes, I was asking you why you thought this isn't a general rule that was just clarified. The posts talks about the pearl of power because it was specifically answering a question about a pearl of power.
The crafting mechanics that it clarifies do not give any indication that they are 'special' for the pearl of power, especially given the context of SKRs many comments regarding CL for magic items.
Where would you place your money if you had to bet on developer RAI?
The reason "why" is because the devs said that an FAQ only answers the question asked, and has no bearing beyond that.
As for my money on developer RAI, had they not said an FAQ only answer the specific question asked and nothing else, which is basically saying "make another FAQ", I would have taken it as a general statement.
I do think it is very possible this could apply in general, but because of how they kept repeating PoP every time that had a chance in that FAQ it also seems likely that only the PoP was being discussed.
Once I get back home I will make another FAQ for magic items in general if nobody else gets to it first.
I think RAI are:
- "A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell."
- A creator should be able to increase the CL of any item he can make up to his own CL.
- If the item's higher CL improves the item's properties, like a wand of fireball that does 10d6 or winged boots that last longer, then you pay the price for the improvement according to the SLxCL formula.
- If the item's higher CL does nothing but improved dispell resistance, then you pay nothing (But I think you should pay for the service).
Aside from not being possible as Diego Rossi stated:
This wand of fireballs (CL 10) would cost 22,500 gp (3*10*750). The wizard would need 11,250 gp and it would require downtime to make it in 23 days. If the wizard keeps adventuring, it takes him 92 days.
The character wealth by level indicates, that a level 5 character should have 10,500 gp, so he falls 750 gp short and is not able to craft it because he can not pay for the materials (which have to be bought in advance).
Even if he could get those 750 gp, he would sink all his gp from 5 levels in creating this wand. He has no other gear whatsoever - no protection items, no ability boosting magic item, no nothing.
How realistic is this in actual gameplay?! Answer: it isnt. You all asume theoretical scenarios in a white room. That is not how gaming happens.
Well, thankfully the level of spell completion items can't be jacked up, but your point about money is not much of a point. As to character wealth in game and theoretical scenarios, character wealth per level is meaningless, because guess what my players are doing *right now*?. They are not being greedy, uncooperative, stupid fools, and so are pooling their money to have the magic item crafters make stuff to benefit the group. Pretty savy, no? So far they have made a wand of magic missiles (CL 5) and they have just made a wand of fireballs (CL 6), which cost 6,750 gp. They look forward to seeing it roast many enemies, and no doubt they will see it do just that. They have also made eight scrolls and a few potions. The downtime is not really a factor either (14 days to make the wand of fireballs; less for the others); merely relegating most magic item creation to downtime between adventures, or between parts of adventure series, which is what they are doing. How's that for theoreticals in a white room?
I don't have problem with any of that though. What I really have a problem with are characters effectively being able to "borrow" the item creation feats of other characters. And arcane crafters being able to create items able to accept divine magic from others, and divine crafters being able to create items that accept arcane magic from others. And the whole orcs making elven items bit, etc. And the crafting above the creator's own capabilities/caster level for some items. And the, in most cases, 2+ on a d20 success rate. The challenge in making magic items shouldn't just be in the money (and yes, suggestions are made in the core book to do this very thing, and I do them). But, that's a pretty big list of significant things to be unsatisfied with.
Cebrion except the rules (guidelines for Diego) specifically say the players cannot do that. Regardless of whether they pool their resources or not the player with the crafting feat can only increase his effective wealth by 25% (50% if he has multiple feats). If he crafts for someone else in the party that comes out of that 25% (or 50%) so your examples do not work.
Example: 4 Lvl 6 players decide to pool their wealth (16,000gp each). This gives the party 64,000gp.
The party crafter has multiple feats so he adds 50% to his effective WBL.
The total amount (price, not cost) the party can have is increased to 72,000gp. NOT 128,000gp.
I haven't read that. There is an "Im sorry guys. I can't make items beyond a cost of 24,000 gp until I get another level, no matter how much gold we have." rule? What page is this on, or do you mean it is one of Diego's house rules?
that is if you consider WBL 'rules'.
The WBL are not hard limitations for what characters can have, but are a guide for use in creating NPCs and giving them a generally acceptable level of money to purchase gear. That is why I am asking for more clarification as to what Gauss is referring to with this multiple item creation feats = +50% WBL thing. If that is part of the WBL, then it is for NPC generation guidelines. They could be used as guidelines to generate a PC, if a new player dropped into an existing group with higher level characters, but just at the start. It is no guideline or limitation on what characters can acquire afterwards.
The WBL are not hard limitations for what characters can have, but are a guide for use in creating NPCs and giving them a generally acceptable level of money to purchase gear. That is why I am asking for more clarification as to what Gauss is referring to with this multiple item creation feats = +50% WBL thing. If that is part of the WBL, then it is for NPC generation guidelines. They could be used as guidelines to generate a PC, if a new player dropped into an existing group with higher level characters, but just at the start. It is no guideline or limitation on what characters can acquire afterwards.
What Gauss is referring to is that the "intention" is that the craft magic item feats with regard to saving money is that they are supposed to only be used for the person with the feat. So if you use the feat to craft a magic item for yourself you get it at half price. If you use the feat for someone else you are supposed to pay the full price.
He did show me the text once, but I don't remember where it came from.
Normally when I run games the players tend to be on a sort of time limit. It is not so much they I say you have 7 days or the campaign is over, but the villains tend to be active so taking time off to craft might work against them. If someone takes a craft feat and the adventure seems to rush the players so there is no time at all then I might add in downtime between when they get the next hook. As an example I ran Age of Worms and the bad guys are actively making bad things happen so there is an urge to stop them ASAP.
I personally have never had problems with the magic item creation rules, but those GM's that do seem to be the ones who are more likely to not push the pace and/or give out more wealth than normal. The rules in the book do no suit every playstyle. If your(general statment) playstyle and the rules do not match up then I suggest making changes to how you run/play the game or change the rules.
PS: Sometime published adventures do have time limits that the players may not know about. For those of you who have time to write your own campaigns this might be something to look into.