... which, of course, is a sterling example of how totally insanely broken the magic item creation rules are....
For someone with a higher Intelligence, some tools, some time, and maybe a bit of help, you can create a CL 15 potion very early.
I personally don't find it broken. You get what you pay for. It was very annoying that you had to be a level in which certain effects were worthless before you could craft those effects (prime examples being flaming weapons, which have a CL 10+). I don't mind that Paizo made it so you can create items with higher caster levels earlier; or that they tied item creation to spellcraft. It think the game's better this way.
It also makes the game more stable. In 3.x, it was assumed that high level fools were running around fairly regularly, and the GP limits were 100,000 gp in a metropolis. Pathfinder - by their modifications to the item creation rules - has made it much better. Sufficiently powerful items can be created with the proper investment of time and manpower, but without there being tons of high level artisans running amok. Now, you can happily have a few low-CR artisans like adepts running about making most of the items for people.
If anything, I actually curse the fact they errata'd the rules to make it so you couldn't increase the DC to create potions and similar items; since that kind of kills adepts for brewing potions and the like. Before the nerf, a 3rd level adept could have brew potion, and fill the need as local apothecary, and DC+5 potions whose spells weren't on their list.
Spellcasters should not be able to make items that can cast spells or have magical effects more powerful than spells the caster themselves could actually cast.
Period.
Spellcasters should not be able to make items that can cast spells or have magical effects more powerful than spells the caster themselves could actually cast.
Period.
Do you have a reason for that? Or is it just your personal preference? The way I see it, magical item creation is not the same as casting spells. In fact, that's probably why non-casters get a neutered version of magic item creation options. It's one thing to create something in your lab or during your downtime; using various magical components and such to fuel it (the more powerful the item the more it costs in raw components).
I have no problem with the idea that a 3rd level wizard, given enough time, could craft a necklace of fireballs. Due to the way wealth works, either he does this and saves it for a "let's crack the staff of the magi" moment, or he goes with something more appropriate for his wealth values.
I pointed out the apparent silliness of how expensive magic ammo was at 6th level. Dabbler pointed out that at 5th level you've only got 10,500 gp or so in all your equipment. That means weapons, armor, supplies, consumables, etc. Honestly, if you take the time to brew a potion that costs 1/10th your entire WBL, then by god use it. I hope it's everything you wanted it to be! ^.^"
If my argument isn't self-evident, then it's probably not worth debating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my argument isn't self-evident, then it's probably not worth debating.
Fair enough. Let us continue agreeing that standard enhanced ammo sucks. :P
However! In the vein of item creation not sucking, I pose that magic effects that are not tied to weapon enhancements are wonderful opportunities for making your Hawkeye character! The most common being use-activated arrows that count the creature hit as the target of a spell effect; similar to arrows of slaying or sleep arrows.
Someone in another thread recently asked about disrupt undead (the cantrip) on arrows. The cost of a single arrow of undead disrupting is only 66 gp (a +1 arrow that deals +1d6 damage vs undead). I could get down with that. It's kind of like bane-lite.
For the same price, you could get acid splash, ray of frost, or ray of fire arrows. +1d3 energy damage on a successful hit. Not exceptionally powerful, but you could use them for certain things (the fire ones might be sweet for lighting fires from long distances).
For more high-end fun, consider arrows of cursing. Basically it's just a pre-determined bestow curse spell on an arrow. DC 14 Will negates; CL 5th; costs 646 gp per arrow. I could probably get down with that. Shoot something and possibly land a curse? That's cool! I'd be exceptionally fond of the loss of actions curse, or the -4 to all checks curse.
If you wanted to be really cute, get some arrows that have healing spells attached to them, and then fire them at your allies with blunt arrows (choosing nonlethal damage) or with dye arrows which deal no damage. Such an arrow might be like:
Healing Arrow; deals damage as the arrow and then heals 3d8+5 points of HP damage (or deals that much to undead, DC 14 will save halves); CL 5th; costs 646 gp per arrow.
Cupid's Arrow; inflicts charm person on the person hit by the arrow; DC 6 Will negates (includes the +5 bonus that you get if under attack by the charmer); CL 1st; costs 86 gp.
No, it's +1/3 caster levels, so 15th level.Meanwhile, as I said before, a 2,250 gp potion gets you a +5 bow for 15 hours, for those of a higher level than 5th.Ashiel, I agree that potions are a much better option than magic ammunition and I don't mean to nitpick, but doesn't it take a 20th level caster to make a +5 potion of greater magic weapon? That would put the price at 3,000gp and a duration of 20 hours.Well, there you go. The world my group is in doesn't even have any known beings with 14 class levels. I doubt that this sort of situation is uncommon.
Threads like this make me sad. "Because X exists, why bother with Y?" It's too reminiscent of /general whining on various MMOs. It's not a video game, people. You're damn lucky if your GM even puts oil of magic weapon or magic arrows in the world, much less lets you go to Magi★Mart and buy it instead of burning a feat or class feature on Brew Potion or Craft Useless Arrow. Not everywhere is as crazy-high magic as Faerûn or Golarion.
You realize that the DC to create an item that requires a CL 15 is 20, right? Even ignoring a requirement (+5 to DC), you can hit that taking 10 with a +15. That'd set it at about 9th level for the creator, assuming the creator only had a +2 Int, class skill, and sheer ranks. It could actually be done much, much lower. In fact, you could do it immediately at 3rd level if you were trying (-2 for masterwork tools, -2 for familiar using Aid Another, -3 for skill focus, allowing you to hit it at 2nd level taking 10, a full level before you can even take Brew Potion on a non-alchemist).
For someone with a higher Intelligence, some tools, some time, and maybe a bit of help, you can create a CL 15 potion very early.
Not with an oil of magic weapon. You can't set the CL above your own.
Spellcasters should not be able to make items that can cast spells or have magical effects more powerful than spells the caster themselves could actually cast.
Period.
At the risk of alienating absolutely everyone for one reason or another, I see no mechanical problem with this, given appropriate counterbalancing. The campaign world I'm in essentially requires means of breaking the caster level barrier to produce effects. They use cooperative casting, Neglectful Precursors amplification technology, and a whole lot of study, but they do it, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
But in the context of brew potion, I absolutely agree with this.
If my argument isn't self-evident, then it's probably not worth debating.Fair enough. Let us continue agreeing that standard enhanced ammo sucks. :P
However! In the vein of item creation not sucking, I pose that magic effects that are not tied to weapon enhancements are wonderful opportunities for making your Hawkeye character! The most common being use-activated arrows that count the creature hit as the target of a spell effect; similar to arrows of slaying or sleep arrows.
Someone in another thread recently asked about disrupt undead (the cantrip) on arrows. The cost of a single arrow of undead disrupting is only 66 gp (a +1 arrow that deals +1d6 damage vs undead). I could get down with that. It's kind of like bane-lite.
For the same price, you could get acid splash, ray of frost, or ray of fire arrows. +1d3 energy damage on a successful hit. Not exceptionally powerful, but you could use them for certain things (the fire ones might be sweet for lighting fires from long distances).
For more high-end fun, consider arrows of cursing. Basically it's just a pre-determined bestow curse spell on an arrow. DC 14 Will negates; CL 5th; costs 646 gp per arrow. I could probably get down with that. Shoot something and possibly land a curse? That's cool! I'd be exceptionally fond of the loss of actions curse, or the -4 to all checks curse.
If you wanted to be really cute, get some arrows that have healing spells attached to them, and then fire them at your allies with blunt arrows (choosing nonlethal damage) or with dye arrows which deal no damage. Such an arrow might be like:
Healing Arrow; deals damage as the arrow and then heals 3d8+5 points of HP damage (or deals that much to undead, DC 14 will save halves); CL 5th; costs 646 gp per arrow.
Cupid's Arrow; inflicts...
These are good! I like all of this.
Not with an oil of magic weapon. You can't set the CL above your own.
Do you have an actual rule quote for that, or just the FAQ? To my knowledge there has been no official errata; so even if it's supposed to work that way, I cannot find anything that says it doesn't in the actual rules. The FAQ is not the rules. It's frequently asked questions. Wizards of the Coast had one too. In both Paizo and WotC's case, they have actually gotten their own FAQ answers wrong on some occasions.
These are good! I like all of this.
I'm pretty fond of them myself. A friend of mine and I were talking about why in many fantasy settings--particularly D&D settings--you can have civilizations a few thousand years old, with magic even, which haven't acquired AK-47s and the like. My comment was that people would generally explore magic more readily than mundane technology.
To give a real life example; our current society has issues because we rely on fossil fuels, and we have more or less neglected other energy possibilities for a very, very long time. Now that fossil fuel prices are becoming more harrowing, and the threat of greenhouse gasses screwing up our weather more and more, people have been jumping head first to try and play "catch up" in alternative fields.
So with that in mind, the drive for developing modern military technology would be a lot slower. I mean, why exactly would you need an artillery flak-cannon, when you could just arm a few of your longbowmen with arrows of detonation at 646 gp per arrow, and have them lob them 1100+ feet away into the middle of the enemy's formations. Doubly so if you could do it from the bag of a flying beast, high in the skies.
Here's a few others you might like.
Arrow of Paralysis; affects target struck as hold person; DC 13 Will negates (save each round); CL 3rd; costs 286 gp per arrow.
Concussive Arrow; releases a sound burst at the target that deals 1d8 sonic damage in a 10 ft. radius spread. Those caught in the blast must make a DC 13 Fortitude save or be stunned for 1 round; CL 3rd; costs 286 gp per arrow.
Arrow of Venom; creatures hit are injected with a horrible poison that inflicts 1d3 Constitution damage each round for 6 rounds. Poisoned creatures can make a DC 14 Fortitude save each round to negate the damage and end the affliction; CL 5th; costs 646 gp per arrow.
Eyebite Arrows; creatures hit with an eyebite arrow must make a DC 13 Fortitude save or be permanently blinded; CL 3rd; costs 246 gp per arrow.
Not with an oil of magic weapon. You can't set the CL above your own.Do you have an actual rule quote for that, or just the FAQ? To my knowledge there has been no official errata; so even if it's supposed to work that way, I cannot find anything that says it doesn't in the actual rules.
Nope, I don't have a rule quote for that that couldn't be handwaved away by the +5 rule. I went by the FAQ. Ignore it at your convenience. : D
Also, huzzah for awesome arrows!
Not with an oil of magic weapon. You can't set the CL above your own.Do you have an actual rule quote for that, or just the FAQ? To my knowledge there has been no official errata; so even if it's supposed to work that way, I cannot find anything that says it doesn't in the actual rules.Nope, I don't have a rule quote for that that couldn't be handwaved away by the +5 rule. I went by the FAQ. Ignore it at your convenience. : D
Also, huzzah for awesome arrows!
I might drop a few of these arrows in my tabletop game in the next adventure, just 'cause it's on my mind. I drop some custom magic items in the games from time to time. Usually items that do interesting things besides +X/+Y. For example, I once had a short-sword in the game called the "Arc-light" which was forged from the fang of a blue dragon and gifted to an assassin she tasked with killing the dragon slayer who felled her lover. It was lost to time and supposedly some replicas created (but the party didn't yet know they had the true version which would later awaken hidden powers no one knew about).
It was a +1 shocking short sword, but twice per day the blade could be transformed into a beam of lightning (allowing you to make a single attack with the blade as a touch attack with a +3 to hit vs metal that deal 5d6 electricity damage). As a boon for it being a weapon, abilities applying to it as a short sword (such as Weapon Focus or Weapon Training) applied.
Another custom magic item I created was an intelligent gauntlet that housed the spirit of a dwarven champion. It acted as a gauntlet of Strength and took up both hand slots despite only being one gauntlet; and had a special ability (which I priced based on items and spells of similar strength) which allowed the wielder to make a "devastating blow" as a standard action, which dealt normal weapon damage plus 1d6/2 HD (so a 6th level fighter with a greatsword would deal 2d6+(StrMod*1.5)+3d6 damage).
Another item I dropped into a game was a +1 heavy steel shield with the face of a red dragon engraved on it. It could be commanded as a standard action to belch fire from the shield. It had 5d4 points of fire damage per day, and it could be divided as the wearer liked (5d4 all at once, 5 instances of 1d4, or some other combination between) with a DC 11 save for half. Despite the apparent triviality of the damage, it was a favorite among the players and was wielded by the party's dwarf cleric for a long time.
Simple +X items are fine and dandy, but real magic items do stuff. ;)
|
Two words: Bane arrows.You get your +X bow of awesomeness, and it dishes decent damage. Now add in a stack of arrows with bane properties for anything you might happen to meet. That's +2 to hit and +2d6+2 to damage on each and every hit, thank you very much indeed. Bane only costs a +1 enhancement's worth, so it's about 160gp per arrow and you can buy them individually. At high level, it's well worth it for any fighter to keep a few on them for those hard-to-reach targets. You can also add adamantine arrows, silver arrows, cold iron arrows...
mmmh, my PF ranger would go through about 5 arrows on a full attack.
In another campaign it might be reasonable to carry about 10 arrows of each reasonable bane that you'd want the extra damage on. So thats about 835gp / round. Even hitting 3/5 shots, its such a waste.
The best things I can think of are:
1) Ammo can be shared. It might not be useful to have 50 flaming arrows. But a party of six characters and four henchmen with five flaming arrows each? Might be exactly what you need.
2) Versatility. In something like PFS games, where today might be giant vermin, and tomorrow is outsiders; where today is a balanced party, and tomorrow you are playing up, it can be nice to double stack the bonuses.
In a game where bad guys = CR appropriate for party, it's not as much of a big deal.
*special material ammo, on the other hand, is 100% worth it.
I like that, party pool, spread out the magic arrows.
Welcome Bob, here is your quiver of 15 fires, 15 acid. Use them well.
Magic ammo is awesome. How else is my 15th-level paladin supposed to make +5 axiomatic bane distance flaming-burst holy icy-burst seeking shocking-burst speed thundering attacks against the BBEG who's been foreshadowed for the last nine levels or so?
Not sure. Isn't that like 23 +1s worth of enhancements? Assuming greater magic weapon, a +1 bow with the trimmings, and rounding the rest out in arrows, that would cost...
200,000 gp for the bow (+1 with +9 worth of enhancements)
200,000 gp for 50 arrows (+1 with +9 worth of enhancements)
or 4,000 gp per arrow fired.
Considering that the WBL for a 15th level character is about 240,000 gp, I see a really big problem with this... :P
|
Do you have a reason for that?Spellcasters should not be able to make items that can cast spells or have magical effects more powerful than spells the caster themselves could actually cast.
Period.
Maybe because when you take away the "metagaming" elements you would have no knowledge that certain spells above your stature even exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, other than higher level spellcasters, magical lore about the spells of the archmages, evidence of artifact-level magic in the world...
It's not like the spellcaster studies these things, or has a skill check he can roll to see if he HAS heard of higher level spells than he can cast.
I'd love to see a one-time use Arrow of spell storing. Once a spell is store it remains until used. Could be fun.
|
|
Well, other than higher level spellcasters, magical lore about the spells of the archmages, evidence of artifact-level magic in the world...
It's not like the spellcaster studies these things, or has a skill check he can roll to see if he HAS heard of higher level spells than he can cast.
Something popping into your head doesn't transfer to your character I'm afraid with that regard, that is metagaming. Coming across it during the game and then rolling the appropriate skill check would be in order.
If you have never mentioned Wish, seen Wish cast or anything during the game and you suddenly mention it because you the player needs to know about it for a magic item you want to create is metagaming.
People really really need to learn how Knowledge skills are used.
Fact: Just because a Wizard may study spells doesn't automatically give him the future knowledge of all spells. Find me somewhere in the books that says so and I will shut up.
Well, other than higher level spellcasters, magical lore about the spells of the archmages, evidence of artifact-level magic in the world...
It's not like the spellcaster studies these things, or has a skill check he can roll to see if he HAS heard of higher level spells than he can cast.
Pretty much this. Most magic items can be forged without the perfect spell in question, but doing so is harder. I find it more metagamist to try and split item creation up by spell slots.
To me an artisan doesn't necessarily set out to create a "helmet of fireball", he or she decides they want a helmet that shoots fire, and then sets to building that. If they already have the means to produce fireballs, then the task is far, far easier; but if they do not, they increase the DC by +5 and keep working, potentially forging the first helmet that shoots fireballs from the eye-visors; and then begins working on the pantaloons of lightning bolts.
Personally, I have no trouble with the idea that the magicians responsible for forging particularly impressive armaments aren't powerful enough to cast them as simple spells. For example, the 5th level dwarven adept who has focused heavily on his trade of forging weapons of legendary strength. While he cannot weave such magics in spells, his art of the rune-forging is not to be underestimated. He shall not bring ruin to the goblin enemies by his spells, but with his hammer and his forge.
Well, other than higher level spellcasters, magical lore about the spells of the archmages, evidence of artifact-level magic in the world...
It's not like the spellcaster studies these things, or has a skill check he can roll to see if he HAS heard of higher level spells than he can cast.
Something popping into your head doesn't transfer to your character I'm afraid with that regard, that is metagaming. Coming across it during the game and then rolling the appropriate skill check would be in order.
If you have never mentioned Wish, seen Wish cast or anything during the game and you suddenly mention it because you the player needs to know about it for a magic item you want to create is metagaming.
People really really need to learn how Knowledge skills are used.
Fact: Just because a Wizard may study spells doesn't automatically give him the future knowledge of all spells. Find me somewhere in the books that says so and I will shut up.
I find your distinction of metagaming to be unhelpful and of little use. When I am playing, I am my character's brain. I don't roll on a chart to see if he has an idea, and another chart to find out what that idea is. I have an idea, if that idea makes sense for him to have, I give it to him.
People who spend years studying in their profession tend to have some knowledge that there are other people who also engage in that profession. Will a wizard know the Wish spell? Maybe not, but he'll know that 9th level spells exist and somewhere, someone can cast them.
No, it's +1/3 caster levels, so 15th level.From the PRD:
"This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."
Arrgh. I stand corrected.
My practical experience is to the contrary here. Specialist ammo is going to be bane ammo for the creatures you will fight at range with a lot of hit points.Didn't we already agree that bane arrows about the only ammo worth having?
You agreed when I stated they were a good option always usable. All in all, it depends what you are going up against - flame arrows is you are in a cold area, ice arrows in a hot one, are also useful.
You have your +5 distance seeking composite longbow, worth about 98,000gp. You know your next adventure is likely to be against something fire-based. Do you:
1) Invest 30,000gp enhancing your bow with the flaming quality which you may only need for one series of adventures and will take a month to do or ...
2) Invest 4,000gp in 100 +1 flaming arrows (all you could possibly need) that will take less than a week to custom make for you.
Spellcasters should not be able to make items that can cast spells or have magical effects more powerful than spells the caster themselves could actually cast.
Period.
So...you presumably disallow the Master Craftsman feat? If you don't, how come a guy with no spell-casting ability whatsoever can make stuff a spell-caster using your rule cannot?
Guys, just wait until he learns that this is a game and that a certain level of metagaming is assumed.
You know, like knowing your hit points. Or your attributes. Or your skills. Or spells. Or uses of skills. Or of the existence of feats. Or what the rules are.
Either that, or I'm waiting for "Fact: Just because a character may take a feat doesn't automatically give him the future knowledge of all feats he can take. Find me somewhere in the books that says so and I will shut up."
No, it's +1/3 caster levels, so 15th level.From the PRD:
"This spell functions like magic weapon, except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5). This bonus does not allow a weapon to bypass damage reduction aside from magic."Arrgh. I stand corrected.
My practical experience is to the contrary here. Specialist ammo is going to be bane ammo for the creatures you will fight at range with a lot of hit points.Didn't we already agree that bane arrows about the only ammo worth having?You agreed when I stated they were a good option always usable. All in all, it depends what you are going up against - flame arrows is you are in a cold area, ice arrows in a hot one, are also useful.
You have your +5 distance seeking composite longbow, worth about 98,000gp. You know your next adventure is likely to be against something fire-based. Do you:
1) Invest 30,000gp enhancing your bow with the flaming quality which you may only need for one series of adventures and will take a month to do or ...
2) Invest 4,000gp in 100 +1 flaming arrows (all you could possibly need) that will take less than a week to custom make for you.
Actually, 4,600gp ('cause I'm anal like that :P).
Incidentally, again, that's a lot of ammo-money for what amounts to +3.5 average damage assuming the enemy isn't resistant. Even against enemies with the Cold Subtype (vulnerable to fire) the average damage only increases by 5.25. Proving, simply, that once again bane is the only arrow worth having. Cold-bane arrows are not resistable, and increase average damage by 7 points.
If you just want fire (for setting things on fire), dip your arrows in oil and carry something to lite them with. A believe prestidigitation is pretty cheap, last I checked. Then you have arrows that deal arrow damage +1d3 fire damage, which costs you some pocket change.
That's not counting the fact if you have a +5 distance seeking bow, flaming has long, long, loooong outlived any real usefulness that it had.
It is not metagaming for a wizard or other spellcaster to be aware of spells they have not yet mastered. In fact I find the assertion that this is metagaming to be quite bizarre.
It is also not metagaming for a spellcaster to attempt something and fail at it because it is beyond their power.
One of the things that constantly comes up on these boards is complete disagreement on what some of the basic, most fundamental terms used in the game actually mean.
Metagaming is using knowledge the PC does not have to guide PC decisions. As Cheapy says, some level of metagaming is required to play the game. A character may not be aware of his own hit points, but the player will obviously play the character differently depending on how many hit points the character has remaining.
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
|
|
How does he learn about his new spell levels?
Well the 2 spells per level is not an excuse to use metamagaming when it comes to the Knowledge skills. Even though you may be taking Wish when you hit 17th level you can't use that future knowledge to help you in any way. You are actually granted the knowledge of that spell the moment you hit 17th and you take it as one of your spells. It's a bad rule unfortunately but it is RAW.
|
|
It is not metagaming for a wizard or other spellcaster to be aware of spells they have not yet mastered. In fact I find the assertion that this is metagaming to be quite bizarre.
It is also not metagaming for a spellcaster to attempt something and fail at it because it is beyond their power.
One of the things that constantly comes up on these boards is complete disagreement on what some of the basic, most fundamental terms used in the game actually mean.
Metagaming is using knowledge the PC does not have to guide PC decisions. As Cheapy says, some level of metagaming is required to play the game. A character may not be aware of his own hit points, but the player will obviously play the character differently depending on how many hit points the character has remaining.
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
That is what's being done here. You learn things in game as you interact with them. You don't know anything about a Wish spell unless something in game comes up. Looking at the prereq spells for an item to be created and then saying "Well my Wizard doesn't know those spells but I will roll a Knowledge check to see if he is aware of that spell" is metagaming. That is not how Knowledge skills work, you are using your outside knowledge to influence your PC.
Wizards do "not" automatically know the existence of all other arcane spells.
|
|
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
|
|
Well, other than higher level spellcasters, magical lore about the spells of the archmages, evidence of artifact-level magic in the world...
It's not like the spellcaster studies these things, or has a skill check he can roll to see if he HAS heard of higher level spells than he can cast.
Pretty much this. Most magic items can be forged without the perfect spell in question, but doing so is harder. I find it more metagamist to try and split item creation up by spell slots.
To me an artisan doesn't necessarily set out to create a "helmet of fireball", he or she decides they want a helmet that shoots fire, and then sets to building that. If they already have the means to produce fireballs, then the task is far, far easier; but if they do not, they increase the DC by +5 and keep working, potentially forging the first helmet that shoots fireballs from the eye-visors; and then begins working on the pantaloons of lightning bolts.
Personally, I have no trouble with the idea that the magicians responsible for forging particularly impressive armaments aren't powerful enough to cast them as simple spells. For example, the 5th level dwarven adept who has focused heavily on his trade of forging weapons of legendary strength. While he cannot weave such magics in spells, his art of the rune-forging is not to be underestimated. He shall not bring ruin to the goblin enemies by his spells, but with his hammer and his forge.
Fortunately, that's not the way it works.
If Wizards knew it all then they would start with max ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana and all Wizards would know each others secrets right off the bat because you all would posses the same knowledge.
It's exactly the same as looking at the DM's map of the dungeon with all the secret doors and traps marked.
How does he learn about his new spell levels?Well the 2 spells per level is not an excuse to use metamagaming when it comes to the Knowledge skills. Even though you may be taking Wish when you hit 17th level you can't use that future knowledge to help you in any way. You are actually granted the knowledge of that spell the moment you hit 17th and you take it as one of your spells. It's a bad rule unfortunately but it is RAW.
There is absolutely no reason I couldn't say my wizard had heard of wish level magics (or dreamed it up himself) and had spent the last several levels trying to master it.
Only upon 17th-level does he actually do so, but prior to that he could be fully aware of its existence and even have made some breakthroughs in his research (such as by picking up Limited Wish at an earlier level as a kind of stepping stone).
|
|
How does he learn about his new spell levels?Well the 2 spells per level is not an excuse to use metamagaming when it comes to the Knowledge skills. Even though you may be taking Wish when you hit 17th level you can't use that future knowledge to help you in any way. You are actually granted the knowledge of that spell the moment you hit 17th and you take it as one of your spells. It's a bad rule unfortunately but it is RAW.There is absolutely no reason I couldn't say my wizard had heard of wish level magics (or dreamed it up himself) and had spent the last several levels trying to master it.
Only upon 17th-level does he actually do so, but prior to that he could be fully aware of its existence and even have made some breakthroughs in his research (such as by picking up Limited Wish at an earlier level as a kind of stepping stone).
Now if that is something that you have made known and have actually done "in game" then that is fine. But if this has never ever come up in game until the moment you decided to need that knowledge then that is metagaming.
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
You're ignoring the fact that the crafter (PC or NPC; but you just keep saying PC) doesn't need to know the spell exists. The at 5th level adept I mentioned? He doesn't know shout. Hell he can't ever even learn shout. But he could attempt to create his king a horn of blasting. The DC to create such a marvel would be 17 (5 + CL 7 + 5 for not having shout), which he could make taking 10 because of his skill in Spellcraft (10 base, +5 ranks, +3 class skill, +2 Intelligence, +2 masterwork tools, +3 skill focus, +2 aid another from his familiar).
Said dwarven artisan could even create a Horn of Valhalla, which is a CL 13th item requiring summon monster VI (a spell the adept shall never have access to). The DC to craft it would be 23 (5 + CL + 5 ignore requirement). Truly, this dwarven artisan is a master worker of the runic arts; laying the seals of the gods upon such mortal materials.
Of course, most low-level PCs or NPCs aren't going to be crafting tons of these things. They cost small fortunes worth of gold pieces to buy/craft, so most of them are probably commissions. Since I personally prefer games where the majority of the population is CR 6 and under, with PCs and certain enemies being exceptional; I am happy with this. I'm entirely fine with the idea that the ancient master of item creation who forged the legendary "sword that split the sky" is actually a CR 8 expert. He sits atop the mountain of tears, where he perfects his art using dream-crystals mined from his mountain peak home; and awaits the next true hero to seek his services.
Why can't it be assumed? So many things about leveling up already are.
Heck hearing tales from a bard of high level magic when young could be a motavation to become a wizard in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
FACT: The Spellcraft skill allows you to identify spells you do not know, have never known, cannot know, and magic items beyond your capability to craft or those using spells beyond your personal experiences. A wizard can tell you that a druid is going to call down a peal of lightning, even though wizards cannot cast call lighting and it's not even of the same discipline that the wizard practices (divine vs arcane), and he can tell you this in less than 6 seconds. He can tell it so fast that he might even have time to disrupt the casting with a dispel magic.
Making up kooky limitations that lack consistency with the rest of the rules/world system does no one any favors, Shallow.
Back on topic...how exactly are you casting spells or rather cantrips on arrows? The only type of magical arrows my archer would carry are bane arrows, maybe a slaying arrow or two in case.
So far, from what i've seen there is no way to put any spells on arrows, unless it says so directly...such as flame arrows.
We're back on the "nothing about your character exists except what is explicitly role-played during sessions" discussion? : (
Back on topic...how exactly are you casting spells or rather cantrips on arrows? The only type of magical arrows my archer would carry are bane arrows, maybe a slaying arrow or two in case.
So far, from what i've seen there is no way to put any spells on arrows, unless it says so directly...such as flame arrows.
Custom item creation guidelines from CRB. You can certainly duplicate spell effects on an arrow if your group uses those guidelines, or if you are the GM and wish to introduce a new item into the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard: *rolls spellcraft while detecting magic* "The door seems to be warded with a powerful magic. It will transport anyone who does not speak the correct password to another dimension if tampered with."
Fighter: "So can you get it open, like you did that barred door before?"
Wizard: "I'm afraid no simple spells will open the way. It is not as simple as knocking at the gate. I may be able to dispel it, but I am uncertain. Whomever placed this ward far outstripped my power. I am surely the fool for even attempting to get into a place so heavily warded." *begins casting dispel magic in hopes of beating the caster level*
Fighter: "Hm, this is why I hate magic. Why can't people just use keys like normal people?"
Rogue: "Yeah I know, right!?"
Wizard: *fails to break the seal* "Blasted to damnation. I will need greater tools for this. Had my master's master been here, perhaps he would have been able to break the seal, but it is beyond me. How much money do you two have?"
Fighter & Rogue: "Err...why?"
Wizard: "Because I can create a key, but it would require quite an investment of resources. I imagine at least the value of five astral diamonds."
Fighter & Rogue: "What the ****!? **** man, what for!?"
Wizard: "Oh it gets worse, my friends. I can get us through the door with the right tools, but it will be consumed in the use. If you're certain you wish to enter, I will foot my share of the bill."
Fighter: "Well, if the legends are true, then we'll make it up, I guess. I'm in."
Rogue: "Well...I figure nobody puts a lock like this one something that isn't worth protecting, right? Sure, I'm in too."
========================================================================
Later the wizard spends the better part of a week forging a mystical key that breaks abjurations as a mage's disjuction when placed against something the warded object or cast into the warded area and the command word spoken by the user. It cost the wizard a bit more than 5,000 gp worth of resources, and required him to beat a DC 27 check to craft.
========================================================================
*After returning to the door.*
Wizard: "By the spirits of creation, I unmake you! Release you bonds that our path be unbarred!" *touches the key to the door*
In a great flash of light, the door is covered in a series of runes that shimmer like fireflies before appearing to drain away like rain across stone; followed by the key that melts away to nothingness.
Fighter: "Did it work!?"
Wizard: "Yes, I sense no further magical auras from the door. I believe it is your turn, locksmith?"
Rogue: *pulls on his lockpicking gloves* "Darn right! Now you're talking." *begins picking the more mundane locks on the door*
Fighter: "Let's hope there's no more doors like that. I'm missing that familiar weight in my pocket already."
Wizard: "Let's hope that door was the worst of it. I feel strange presences beyond the door, but cannot yet make out what they are..."
EDIT:
The fighter pulls out a quiver from his bag, containing lots of different arrows, all marked by color coded tips.
Wizard: "Hmm...what are those?"
Fighter: "Hey, wizards aren't the only ones with surprises." *evil grin*
There! Back on topic! :D
|
|
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
FACT: The Spellcraft skill allows you to identify spells you do not know, have never known, cannot know, and magic items beyond your capability to craft or those using spells beyond your personal experiences. A wizard can tell you that a druid is going to call down a peal of lightning, even though wizards cannot cast call lighting and it's not even of the same discipline that the wizard practices (divine vs arcane), and he can tell you this in less than 6 seconds. He can tell it so fast that he might even have time to disrupt the casting with a dispel magic.
Making up kooky limitations that lack consistency with the rest of the rules/world system does no one any favors, Shallow.
Okay let's finish your little fact there. You can attempt to have known about a spell that you come across in game. You can't sit there and go through the Corebook and roll your Spellcraft check starting with Acid Arrow to see if your Wizard knows about that spell.
If you are going to mark something as fact then please make sure you post the whole fact.
In game interaction is where your skills come into play.
Making up kooky advantages does no one any favors at all.
Let me give you an example of how it works.
DM: "You see a spellcaster casting a spell at you"
Wizard Player: "Okay I am going to roll my Spellcraft to see if I know of the spell." "Okay I roll high enough so my Wizard is actually aware of that spell."
That is an example as to how it works. Once you come into a situation "in game" that allows you to see if you know of the spell, and you roll high enough, you then know of that spell.
or....
DM: "While going through the library you come across an old book."
Wizard Player: "Okay I use my Knowledge Arcana to see if there is anything in the book I may know about."
DM: "Okay while reading you find an entry about a Wizard using a spell that creates a spell that launches a ball of fire at enemies."
You have been given reasons "in game" to have knowledge of certain spells. That is how Knowledge and Spellcraft work.
Let me give you an example of how it works.
DM: "You see a spellcaster casting a spell at you"
Wizard Player: "Okay I am going to roll my Spellcraft to see if I know of the spell." "Okay I roll high enough so my Wizard is actually aware of that spell."
That is an example as to how it works. Once you come into a situation "in game" that allows you to see if you know of the spell, and you roll high enough, you then know of that spell.
You have been given reasons "in game" to have knowledge of certain spells. That is how Knowledge and Spellcraft work.
Damn, and you accuse others of meta-gaming? You're the only person who seems to believe Schrodinger's Knowledge here. The idea that your character has no knowledge of anything until they're asked to identify the spell on demand, or suddenly recall information they didn't know about monsters only when they see it, is stupid.
Fighter: "So wizard, tell me about a spell that launches a ball of fire at people?"
Wizard: "A what? I've never even heard of such a thing. Don't be silly."
*later they are in a battle with an enemy wizard who begins to cast fireball*
Wizard: "Lookout, he is going to throw a fireball at us! Leap for cover, as it could fly upwards to five hundred or more feet to hit you, and it will be a great conflagration!"
Fighter: "WTF!? But you said...!" *boom*
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
FACT: The Spellcraft skill allows you to identify spells you do not know, have never known, cannot know, and magic items beyond your capability to craft or those using spells beyond your personal experiences. A wizard can tell you that a druid is going to call down a peal of lightning, even though wizards cannot cast call lighting and it's not even of the same discipline that the wizard practices (divine vs arcane), and he can tell you this in less than 6 seconds. He can tell it so fast that he might even have time to disrupt the casting with a dispel magic.
Making up kooky limitations that lack consistency with the rest of the rules/world system does no one any favors, Shallow.
Okay let's finish your little fact there. You can attempt to have known about a spell that you come across in game. You can't sit there and go through the Corebook and roll your Spellcraft check starting with Acid Arrow to see if your Wizard knows about that spell.
If you are going to mark something as fact then please make sure you post the whole fact.
In game interaction is where your skills come into play.
Making up kooky advantages does no one any...
And asking to make an item with X effect lets them roll a check and see if they've heard of it.
Problem. Solved.Of course there's really nothing stopping a Pc from just going through the MM and rolling random knowledge checks or through all the spells in the game one by one and making rolls. Nothing except the DM telling him that he can't, anyway.
Skills represent what the PC's know. There is no RAW reason to say that your character only knows something when he sees it in game.
"Zomg I've never heard of a Balor before but there one is! WOW I even know its name! and all its vulnerabilities and strenghts! thats so awesome!"
Nope. the PC *already knew* the info prior to facing the Balor.
If the PC is in the tavern and asks the Dm what (if anything) he knows about it- the DM should ask for an appropriate roll and then tell the PC.
(granted, if a PC really wanted to go through the MM or all the spell lists he'd probably get hit upside the head, with both books, at once and then again with each one singly for such a monumental waste of time.. but time management really isn't a RAW issue.)
-S
Spellcraft does not determine whether a caster KNOWS a given spell. It determines whether or not they can IDENTIFY a given spell. Seeing as hearing subtle arcane vernacular and watching very precise and quick hand movements while also trying to cast your own spells and avoid getting mangled by an enemy can be quite difficult at times, it's understandable that one would need a check for this.
This is supported by the fact that you take Perception penalties to Spellcraft checks made to IDENTIFY spells.
Schrodinger's knowledge is indeed idiotic.