|
It generally assumes he's doing both. So you actually have your standard craft check to make the masterwork item that you're going to enchant with another craft check in the second stage of the process. the whole point of Master Craftsman is the " no spellcaster required" part of the deal.I don't know if it been answered before, or it's better serve by a FAQ, but does Master Craftsman feat implie that a non-caster is crafting the magical item, or simply allow him to imbue magical properties into an existing item?
Thanks
The master craftsman feat - other than providing a +2 bonus on the craft or profession skill in question - does not modify mundane crafting.
You can forge that masterwork longsword you are going to later turn into a magic item, but you might as well just buy one given how crappy the mundane crafting rules are.
The feat specifically allows you to craft magic items as a wizard does; that is to say, it allows you to imbue it with magical power (I really wish the whole line of craft feats used the word 'imbue' instead, as that is what you are really doing).
You can't combine all of that (manufacture and imbue) into one roll, as the physical creation of the item takes a long time (not to mention the item and the masterwork component are two different checks). And, of course, you need to make an item masterwork in order to imbue/enchant/craft it!
I flavor it for my players. They do all of it in one long crafting. They still make all of the individual rolls, but just because the mwk and item part is finished in terms of progress, it doesn't mean that the item is completed yet. I liken it to crafting a sword, especially like the story of Gram, where when the sword was completed, the dwarf crafter would slam it against the hardest stone, and if it broke, he started again. He continued this, then the same with sharpening until could cut a clump of wool as it floated down a small stream into the blade... Gram was believed by some to eventually become known as Excalibur...
|
|
In an upcoming sourcebook, we're going to write additional material for the magic item crafting rules, further explaining and clarifying the nuances of how this works.Hi Sean, would you please let us know which sourcebook product to look for this content? I want to make sure that I pick this one up. Thanks
Sean mentioned to me last GenCon he would be creating this thread and the clarifications would be in the upcoming Ultimate Campaign. Now, that was over 5 months ago, so it could have changed.
However, as the description in Ultimate Campaign says this:
A complete system for tracking what your character does between adventures, from opening a tavern to crafting a powerful magic item.I am guessing that we will see the clarifications in this book.
Would it be possible for the Paizo staff to confirm Hobburn’s remark? Is the Ultimate Campaign the correct sourcebook referenced in Sean's original post for this thread? Thank you
Expect some FAQs in January to clear up the "what can I use the +5 DC rule for?" questions.Are things still on track to see these FAQs in January? Thanks again!
Would it be possible for us to have an update on this FAQ? Thank you
|
One thing that came up when I was trying to create an item that had a continuous effect as a spell, but since it was constantly on, I wanted it a little watered down.
For example: Say a shield spell that is always on, but only offers a +2 shield bonus to AC, like the ring of force shield of sorts or heroism that offers a set +1 morale bonus to attack, skill and ability checks, and saving throws but constantly, how would you price something like that?
I am assuming that it would be a % off the cost, but that is something that I would like to see added to the list of cost factors.
I think this would fall under making a new spell, then making an item based on that new spell.
|
|
I think this would fall under making a new spell, then making an item based on that new spell.One thing that came up when I was trying to create an item that had a continuous effect as a spell, but since it was constantly on, I wanted it a little watered down.
For example: Say a shield spell that is always on, but only offers a +2 shield bonus to AC, like the ring of force shield of sorts or heroism that offers a set +1 morale bonus to attack, skill and ability checks, and saving throws but constantly, how would you price something like that?
I am assuming that it would be a % off the cost, but that is something that I would like to see added to the list of cost factors.
Honestly never thought of this method. I have always had a philosophy that a magic item with charges per day should be at full strength, but any item that was always on should be watered down a bit... maybe it's an old school philosophy, or maybe it's just something that always made sense to me... Don't know if I am alone in this.
Sean, could we get an 'honest cost' for casters making magic items?
The 'price' of a magic item assumes you are going to a magic item shop, NOT commissioning it directly from a crafter.
There is no reason a PC cannot solicit commissions and earn double value for crafting.
Ergo, is there ANY reason why using Spellcraft is not treated just like using a Profession or Crafting check, where the CL of the item is treated as the target DC? That way, the 'honest price' of a spellcaster's labor will be based on how 'good' he makes the item (the CL) and the level of his spellcaster check, 'added' to the base cost of the item?
Essentially, the better you are at Crafting, the more you can charge people, and you will earn money/day, just like any other crafter.
This isn't a revision to the rules...it's simply treating the craft of making magic items just like any other Craft. It might be adding a bit of a clarifier...
==Aelryinth
You can bypass almost everything that would normally come up. It's the obscure stuff that's somewhat questionable.
Without spending a single craft feat a fighter at level 8 easily has an AC of 28.
33000gp:
+1 Full Plate (2,150)
+1 Heavy Shield (1,150)
+1 Ring of Deflection (2,000)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2,000)
+2 Belt of Strength and Dexterity (10,000)
+2 Cloak of Resistance (4,000)
+2 Weapon (8,300)Total: 29600gp (3400remaining)
Total AC: 28
Ability Scores: Str22 (16+2racial+2level+2enhancement), Dex16 (14+2enh), Con14, Int/Wis/Cha10
Feats expended: 0Crafting Ranger (Arms and Armor, Wondrous Item):
+2 Mithral Breastplate (6,200)
+2 Heavy Shield (2,150)
+1 Ring of Deflection (2,000)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (1,000)
+2 Belt of Strength and Dexterity (5,000)
+2 Cloak of Resistance (2,000)
+3 Weapon (9,300)
+2 Headband of Wisdom (2000)Total: 29650 (3350remaining)
Total AC: 27
Ability Scores: Str22 (16+2racial+2level+2enhancement), Dex16 (14+2enh), Con14, Wis12 (10+2enh), Int/Cha10
Attack bonuses difference: +1attack/damage over the fighter.
Feats expended: 2As you can see. Neither the Fighter (who didnt craft) nor the Ranger (who did) is getting hit by the Ettercaps except on a 20.
Most of those other lesser CR creatures are not going to hit that easily either. That is just a fact of the game regardless of if you craft or not.Once again it is important to point out that the fighter cannot benefit from a fellow player who crafts. The fighter cannot get a discount on his equipment. The fighter cannot use the fellow player who crafts feat to exceed WBL. At least, not without the GM allowing it contrary to the FAQ. If that occurs, it is the GM's fault and not the fault of the game mechanics.
- Gauss
This is very misleading, because this is not what happens.
Let's use Fighter A, with the gear above, and then Fighter B, with the feats.
+1 Full Plate (2,150)
+1 Heavy Shield (1,150)
+1 Ring of Deflection (2,000)
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor (2,000)
+2 Belt of Strength and Dexterity (10,000)
+2 Cloak of Resistance (4,000)
+2 Weapon (8,300)
+2 Full Plate (5,150 gp)
+2 Belt of Perfection(+2 Str/Con/Dex) (16k)
+1 Amulet of Nat Armor (2k)
Heward's Handy Haversack (2k)
+2 Heavy Shield (4150 gp)
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (5000 gp) +1 Luck to AC
Cloak of Resistance +2 (4000 gp)
Ring of Deflection +1 (2k)
+2 Weapon (8300 gp)
Boots of Striding and Springing (5500 gp)
500 gp of consumables.
net Effect: +3 to AC (harder to hit); +10 to move and +9 to Jump (extra speed is VERY powerful);+2 to Con, and has a Haversack to put all his toys into. He can also reroll a crit against himself, meaning he has protection against game-ending enemy blows.
Note that by ditching the Haversack and Jingasa, he can swap up the boots to Boots of Speed, which are are considerably more of a game-changer.
This gets WORSE as the fighters level, as fighter B is the equal of Fighter A, and just keeps adding more options. There is no feat that gives +10 move and +9 jump. No feat that duplicates a +1 Luck bonus to AC with a reroll. That gives +2 Armor to AC (and I only took that instead of a second +2 weapon), or the simply utility and usefulness of the Haversack. No feat that duplicates +2 to Con (half of it, sure).
And I'm ignoring the fact he can make his own raw armor and weapons for 1/3 the price, which would net him another 1000 gp or so.
As money gets more and more plentiful, the gap starts to widen in terms of options and AC. More stats get buffed. One can fly, the other can't yet.
At level 20, one can have +10 weapons, armor and shield. For the same money, the other can have two +10 weapons (like a weapon and a bow) and 200k of wondrous items (Or maybe just Greater Energy Res x3 on his armor), and we haven't even gotten to the Wondrous items yet. Imagine what you could own with an extra 300k of toys at that level.
Sure, the AC and TH bonuses might max around level 10-12 or so...everything B gets A will get...eventually. But B will always have more game changing options, more money to spend on consumables, and just have plain more fun.
==Aelryinth
Honestly never thought of this method. I have always had a philosophy that a magic item with charges per day should be at full strength, but any item that was always on should be watered down a bit... maybe it's an old school philosophy, or maybe it's just something that always made sense to me... Don't know if I am alone in this.I think this would fall under making a new spell, then making an item based on that new spell.One thing that came up when I was trying to create an item that had a continuous effect as a spell, but since it was constantly on, I wanted it a little watered down.
For example: Say a shield spell that is always on, but only offers a +2 shield bonus to AC, like the ring of force shield of sorts or heroism that offers a set +1 morale bonus to attack, skill and ability checks, and saving throws but constantly, how would you price something like that?
I am assuming that it would be a % off the cost, but that is something that I would like to see added to the list of cost factors.
If it's a spell that is always on and provides a numerical bonus, compare to the table for numerical bonuses, not spell costs. A bracer of eternal mage armor is not cheaper than a bracer of armor +4, and the same accounts for other variants. An uncommon bonus type is worth more than a common one too - for example, if it only lists armor bonuses and not shield bonuses in the table, count on shield bonuses costing at LEAST 50% more. Probably double, if they're available at all.
I believe that the book went to printing this week.
|
|
Sean, could we get an 'honest cost' for casters making magic items?
The 'price' of a magic item assumes you are going to a magic item shop, NOT commissioning it directly from a crafter.
There is no reason a PC cannot solicit commissions and earn double value for crafting.
Ergo, is there ANY reason why using Spellcraft is not treated just like using a Profession or Crafting check, where the CL of the item is treated as the target DC? That way, the 'honest price' of a spellcaster's labor will be based on how 'good' he makes the item (the CL) and the level of his spellcaster check, 'added' to the base cost of the item?
Essentially, the better you are at Crafting, the more you can charge people, and you will earn money/day, just like any other crafter.
This isn't a revision to the rules...it's simply treating the craft of making magic items just like any other Craft. It might be adding a bit of a clarifier...
==Aelryinth
The "price" doesn't assume anything of the sort. It is the base price for reference, that would then be modified depending on what you are doing, I.E. buying, selling, or crafting.
If you look at the rules you can see what it will cost, half the gp of the base price, plus expensive material costs for some spells, time, and effort. The caster can then charge whatever they want for the item.
----
Truthfully though, I am not sure using spellcraft like that should happen. Magic items aren't supposed to be common enough to make money on a daily or weekly basis like the other skills, thus no need to use spellcraft as such.
An exception being potions and perhaps scrolls, which have other applicable skills, in fact all of the item types have other skills to be used.
Truthfully, though not RAW, I don't even allow spellcraft until the last check, and only after at least one craft/proffession check, just because it makes spellcraft too powerful to be the all in one magic making skill that allows someone to make a magic sword when they can't even make a normal sword.
|
|
Wold it be possible to make a chart or formula for the cnverson of Meta magic rods to Rings? Certain classes if they rafted items wold never make Metamaic rods if they could make a ring that had the same effect. Magus's are the class that benift the most form tis idea.
Two possibilities here, one, they are suppossed to be made as rings because they believe it would be OP to do what you are asking,
Or two, you follow the same rules for making the rod except require craft ring instead of craft rod.
Though clarifying the making of magic items that grant a feat, would be helpful.
Two weeks into February, no blog entry yet.
|
Honestly never thought of this method. I have always had a philosophy that a magic item with charges per day should be at full strength, but any item that was always on should be watered down a bit... maybe it's an old school philosophy, or maybe it's just something that always made sense to me... Don't know if I am alone in this.I think this would fall under making a new spell, then making an item based on that new spell.One thing that came up when I was trying to create an item that had a continuous effect as a spell, but since it was constantly on, I wanted it a little watered down.
For example: Say a shield spell that is always on, but only offers a +2 shield bonus to AC, like the ring of force shield of sorts or heroism that offers a set +1 morale bonus to attack, skill and ability checks, and saving throws but constantly, how would you price something like that?
I am assuming that it would be a % off the cost, but that is something that I would like to see added to the list of cost factors.
The cost of a "shield" item is based on:
AC bonus (other) Bonus squared x 2,500 gpplus a extra cost for the protection against magic missiles.
Heroism give a bonus to attack, skill and ability checks, so the cost of a item mimicking it will be formed by the skill bonus cost and a lot of ball parking based on existing items that give weapon use bonuses that stack with the weapon enhancements and ability bonuses.
Pricing a item on the basis of the spell used to make it is a last resort solution, unless you are making a item that cast that spell x times a day.
It is extremely easy to under price constant or use activated items if you base the price only on the spell used to make them.
Let's be patient and give Sean and company time guys. Our item creation rules have been very useful for more than a decade now and they are still incredibly useful (if a bit confusing at first). I'm sure they've got a lot of stuff on their plate and deadlines and community pressure is never comfortable for anyone. I know, personally, when someone nags at me for something I will provide out of courtesy rather than obligation it makes for a severe case of procrastination and feeling of lethargy.
Fun is fun but fair is fair too. They have a lot on their plate and don't get as much appreciation as they deserve (and this is coming from me who has debated and criticized {hopefully constructively} material or commentary by Sean and James Jacobs in the past, so I've virtually no sense of idolatry when it comes to the staff {sometimes I worry that they might think I dislike them them or something}).
This isn't even a big deal like with Monks. Our magic items aren't suddenly going to stop working and we're not suddenly losing the ability to make them until the staff decides on whether something should be X or Y. This is purely a matter of pure convenience for us that has been said will come in time.
Just sayin', but I've seen quite a few posts about it being post-January, and honestly if I was Sean it would be a big turnoff for me to even bother with. It's definitely the easier path to simply remain silent and pump out rules, so I think we should not take for granted a certain level of bravery and respect that goes into facing your consumers like this - and as friends and peers no less.
Happy V-day guys.
I don't know why you say "give them time". If they don't intend on updating the thread... then don't say that you're going to do it. Quite simple. Don't make a promise you can't keep.
Well life happens. Also, merely saying something isn't the same as a promise. At least not where I come from. Even companies for things like video game software actually do set dates and then push them back sometimes. I just feel like we should cut Sean some slack. He's probably really busy with RPG superstar in addition to his other duties (which I forgot about and didn't realize was going on until too later...maybe next year).
I don't know why you say "give them time". If they don't intend on updating the thread... then don't say that you're going to do it. Quite simple. Don't make a promise you can't keep.
First of all, as it was said, the book has already gone to print. Therefore any of the questions now posed in this thread will need to be addressed in the FAQ.
Two, I am not one to make excuses for Sean, or the developers in general, but they do go out of their way more than any large company that I know of. You can actually approach them (in the forums) and will get an answer eventually at some point.
But Ashiel indicated, he is extremely busy right now. Not only with RPG Superstar, but they (and I mean everyone) is under a huge time crunch to finish off Mythic Adventures and they can’t really delay it as it is their ‘GenCon’ release book. Yes, it’s only February, but the book then needs to be sent off to the printer and then back in time to take to the con. Just to give an idea, Ultimate Campaign was just sent to the printer for a May release.
I want to see the FAQ as much as anyone, but it will happen eventually. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big problem is not with them taking time to do things.
It is with them saying FAQ/Errata is important, and then it obviously not being important. If it's not important, then just come out and say so. I feel insulted when people keep saying 'This is important' and then it takes them a year (I am not kidding, go look at the Monk Flurry thing) for them to get around to answering it.
Anything that comprises one page of text and takes a year . Just come out and say FAQs are afterthoughts and be honest about it. Don't give dates, don't say they are important, be honest and say 'They are right at the bottom of our to do list' or 'they are right at the top of our filler work list' or whatever. But don't say they are important, and then blow them off month after month.
And by the way, they actually haven't updated the FAQ at all for months. They've done a couple of FAQ blog posts, but those blog posts have again not been added to the FAQ. Which again indicates just how not important these things are.
Again, if they ain't important, don't tell me they are. Just be honest with me. I was one of the people posting in the monk thread that they deserved time to get it right... for the first 6 months...
I just want some honesty, rather than being treated like some dumb hick who can be told over and over again for years 'you are important, we care about your concerns', but then nothing is ever done. It's insulting, just be honest.
|
|
I think the issue is that if one thing has a deadline and another thing doesn't, the thing with the deadline wins.
And in publishing, something always has a deadline. And it is something that they get income for as opposed to the FAQ which doesn't have a deadline and doesn't represent (at least not immediately) income.
Which is completely reasonable.
Add to that the issues about rulings being over ruled later, so the FAQs actually need to go through committees, which means time...
I don't think it is something they don't want to do. I just think in the context of being a relatively smallish publishing company with harsh deadlines it isn't going to be first on the list very often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of which I agree with, which means it is not important and will always be filler work, and should be stated as such. Don't give times, don't say it's important, don't say we really want to get this out, because you know you are not going to give it any priority at all. Just be honest and up front about it, rather than repeatedly posting and asking for more time and asking people to understand that it's important but other things come first.
The big issue is, it absolutely destroys the customer's trust. I honestly don't believe a single post anymore when Paizo dev's say they will answer an FAQ, or fix an errata, or whatever. I'm serious here, I'm not being hyperbolic or what have you. I literally have 0 trust anymore.
That is a bad thing when you are a publishing house, if people stop trusting you on one thing, they will stop trusting you on other things. I'm honestly debating whether to keep my subscriptions up. I've done it up till now because I've had trust that I'll get value for what I pay for. But my trust is eroding slowly, and the whole 'This is important we will do it' and then blowing it off for a year and such is making it hard to trust, which makes me second guess myself on the subscriptions. I could get the books cheaper from Amazon, even buying the PDFs separately. I've been wanting to support Paizo, but that wanting to support feeling is being shredded by the feelings of being patronized on FAQs and such. I'd much rather someone be honest about it rather than giving me a line of BS over and over again about how important it is to them and how they'll work hard on it and get it done when it's obviously the lowest priority (if it's even on the priority list, and not the filler work list).
That's just how it feels, whether that is the intention or not, like I'm being patronized and patted on the head.
Well, since the other thread was locked, I went and found this one to make my suggestion official.
It would be benificial to update the wording and pricing behind the speed property for weapons.
Since its been ruled only one speed/haste effect per person and not per weapon is useable, the wording could be clarified as such.
It also seems thier's a discrepency in the cost when considering this fact as similar items that do more can be had for cheaper cost.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know, I just wish they'd quit saying FAQ's are important. Important things aren't the last thing you do, they're something you prioritize.
FAQs are important. But it's hard to have a design meeting in January to hammer out answers about FAQs when the lead designer is at a convention one week, out sick with a highly contagious norovirus the next week (trust me, you don't want details), and healthy but still very contagious the week after that. Jason literally was out of the office three weeks in Jan-Feb. And if the choice is "don't have a meeting about FAQs" yet or "have Jason come in and infect all the designers, developers, editors, and managers so they can't work for 1-2 weeks," we're going to go with the former.
Would it be possible for the Paizo staff to confirm Hobburn’s remark? Is the Ultimate Campaign the correct sourcebook referenced in Sean's original post for this thread? Thank you
Yes, it's Ultimate Campaign. When I started this thread, the book hadn't been announced, so I couldn't say the name of it.
Are things still on track to see these FAQs in January? Thanks again!
Seeing as it is now February, no. But It's on my agenda for next week's FAQ meeting.
I know, I just wish they'd quit saying FAQ's are important. Important things aren't the last thing you do, they're something you prioritize.FAQs are important. But it's hard to have a design meeting in January tohammer out answers about FAQs when the lead designer is at a convention one week, out sick with a highly contagious norovirus the next week (trust me, you don't want details), and healthy but still very contagious the week after that. Jason literally was out of the office three weeks in Jan-Feb. And if the choice is "don't have a meeting about FAQs" yet or "have Jason come in and infect all the designers, developers, editors, and managers so they can't work for 1-2 weeks," we're going to go with the former.
And I could completely understand that Sean, but it seriously undermines you when it takes a year to get an FAQ up (Monk), and 3 to 6 months after FAQs are put into the Blog, they are still not updated on the FAQ site (A few that jump to mind, MOnkeying around with the Monk is still not in the FAQ section, FAQs of Life is still not in the FAQ section, several official in thread responses from both you and Jason Buhlman).
Again, I understand that things happen. But when things happen on a recurring basis, and it's always 'something more important came up', then these things are NOT important. Or at the very best, they are the most important of the unimportant things we have on our filler list.
Is anything I've said not true? In that it took 11 months to get the monk FAQ (which is still not in the FAQ section)? In that other FAQ blogs and official responses in threads are not being put into the FAQ? Or for that matter that no FAQs have been done since September of 2012? The FAQ says it was updated November 2012, but nothing in it was updated, so I suspect it was a edit or typo fix. Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb. 5 months, close to half a year.
Can you see why it seems these important things are really not all that important?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like many things people get upset about on the internet, you have only a tiny, tiny portion of the information necessary to understand why things are the way they are.
Wait a minute. I thought Jason was 20th level and that diseases really aren't an issue past 5th level.
Something smells funky about this explanation.
|
|
I know, I just wish they'd quit saying FAQ's are important. Important things aren't the last thing you do, they're something you prioritize.FAQs are important. But it's hard to have a design meeting in January to hammer out answers about FAQs when the lead designer is at a convention one week, out sick with a highly contagious norovirus the next week (trust me, you don't want details), and healthy but still very contagious the week after that. Jason literally was out of the office three weeks in Jan-Feb. And if the choice is "don't have a meeting about FAQs" yet or "have Jason come in and infect all the designers, developers, editors, and managers so they can't work for 1-2 weeks," we're going to go with the former.
I think the solution is to invest in Bio-Hazard suits. (s)
|
|
Is meeting the requirement through another caster meeting it or not? Can a wizard with brew potion have their cleric buddy bless the brew to make a potion of CLW?
Yes, it increase the DC to craft the item by 5.
Based on second paragraph of the PRD Magic Item creation:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
That is argueable, it can be argued that a caster that has access to the spell required has the spell, regardless of what form that access takes. I.E. a fellow wizard casting the requisite spell would count as the caster having that spell, thus no +5 DC.
I believe this is the concept that needs clarity, because having scrolls or other casters with the spells, could be argued either way as to whether the +5 DC counts here.
In my games, as long as the creator can ensure that the spell is cast on each day on their work, they don't have the +5 DC. The only exception being personal range spells, which are not usually allowed anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big problem is not with them taking time to do things.
It is with them saying FAQ/Errata is important, and then it obviously not being important. If it's not important, then just come out and say so. I feel insulted when people keep saying 'This is important' and then it takes them a year (I am not kidding, go look at the Monk Flurry thing) for them to get around to answering it.
It seem you have never written anything that should be read by a lot of people and hopefully comprehended by all of them in the same way.
That page of answer can take days of work, especially if you have do see what are the consequences of your FAQ.
You really want FAQs that require new FAQs to explain them?
Recent example: in which order you should resolve the attacks when fighting with two weapons?
A 2-hander weapon and a shield has at least 1 problem:If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.So you can't get all your iterative attacks using your sword with two hands and then all your iterative attacks with the shield.
You need to do shield or sword at your higher bonus, and then the weapon in your other hands at your higher bonus; followed by the attacks at yous next higher bonus and so on.
This actually incorrect. There is a FAQ covering how TWF is done:
So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon."Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
So you make all of your attacks with your primary weapon, followed by your attacks with your secondary weapon.That FAQ is just clarifying that you can choose either 2 attacks with the sword and 1 with the mace or 2 with the mace and 1 with the sword—it wasn't implying anything about the order in which you had to take them.
The "do them in order highest to lowest" rule only applies to attacks with that hand. In other words, if you're +11/+6/+1, you have to do +11 before you do +6, and have to do +6 before you do +1.
The rules don't actually state or care whether you start with your main hand or your offhand, just as long as each hand's "in order highest to lowest" rule is followed.
Sean, to clarify, Are you saying that an attack sequence of 11M/11Off/6M/6Off/1M is actually valid?There's nothing in the rules that says "you have to take all your main hand attacks, then all your offhand attacks," so yes, that's a valid attack sequence.
Using the FAQ and the basic rules of iterative attacks I had an opinion on how they have to be resolved, using the same data Ssalarn opinion was the exact opposite and Sean reply explain that the correct interpretation is a third one.
So giving FAQs isn't simply at all.
It will be published in May 2013.
Damn it got pushed back :(
It seem you have never written anything that should be read by a lot of people and hopefully comprehended by all of them in the same way.
Yes, I do all the time. I write technical documentation that has to be understood by non-technical people.
That page of answer can take days of work, especially if you have do see what are the consequences of your FAQ.
Which means that, if it is important then you will do it, and make it a priority to get it done, yes? You won't take a year to do a one page document, yes?
Let me turn this around for you, tax documents are vital and important (if you don't think they are, ask the IRS to let you not turn them in for a few years). You don't tell the IRS it's important and then not do it for a year, do you?
On the other hand, doing that church web page, that you're not being paid for, that's 'important' because people perceive you better for doing it. But it's not your top priority, you don't work on it unless you can squeeze it in amongst all the other things you have to do. So, is it still important to you? No, it's not. If it was, you'd get it done in under a year.
You really want FAQs that require new FAQs to explain them?
Strawman, there is always going to be someone who insists on not reading things plainly. Clear up ambiguous words, if someone insists on trying to misread, be done with it. Also strawman because I said stop saying they are important if they are not, I didn't say speed them up. I said either say they are important and match the action, or stop saying they are important and match the actions. Right now, it's "Oh, that is super important" in words, but actions are "Meh, I'll get around to it eventually".
Is meeting the requirement through another caster meeting it or not? Can a wizard with brew potion have their cleric buddy bless the brew to make a potion of CLW?
Yes, it increase the DC to craft the item by 5.
Based on second paragraph of the PRD Magic Item creation:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.That is argueable, it can be argued that a caster that has access to the spell required has the spell, regardless of what form that access takes. I.E. a fellow wizard casting the requisite spell would count as the caster having that spell, thus no +5 DC.
I believe this is the concept that needs clarity, because having scrolls or other casters with the spells, could be argued either way as to whether the +5 DC counts here.
In my games, as long as the creator can ensure that the spell is cast on each day on their work, they don't have the +5 DC. The only exception being personal range spells, which are not usually allowed anyway.
I agree with DLH (hope you don’t mind on the abbreviation), since you have an actual caster who can suppy CLW for the potion, there is no +5 DC.
Also, for the fact the Wizard can take a +5 DC to brew the potion without the Cleric cooperating with him, makes me think if he has the Cleric’s cooperation there would be no +5 DC.
However, it is seeing posts similar to this over and over where I have felt clarifications have been needed, and I am glad we will be receiving them in Ultimate Campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to solve the global energy crisis.
It is important to rescue a child from a building currently on fire.
One of these has a deadline that is less imminent. The importance of one does not reduce the importance of another. It does, however, influence which gets done first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to solve the global energy crisis.
It is important to rescue a child from a building currently on fire.One of these has a deadline that is less imminent. The importance of one does not reduce the importance of another. It does, however, influence which gets done first.
Whoa, let us not be hasty.
Saving a child from a burning buildings is lower priority than a FAQ question. Saving a puppy might be even with a FAQ quiestion though.I mean, have you ever been with a child? Age 0-4 they are horrid beasts no better than goblins. Age 5 they start to become human.
Remember: Terrible twos, horrible threes, and frantic fours was invented lingo because babies are pretty bad cresatures. :P
I really want to see something dedicated to gathering enchanting materials. You can gather things like dragon hide for leatherworking and armor making but what about items used in the making of magic items?
Example in Carion Crown adventure path you run across some flaming skulls. Why not be able to take the skull afterwords and maybe grind it to powder and have it provide some monitary benifit when you try to add something like flaming to a sword?
Maybe pixie wings can be used to help make dust of illusion? Stuff like that.
It is important to solve the global energy crisis.
It is important to rescue a child from a building currently on fire.One of these has a deadline that is less imminent. The importance of one does not reduce the importance of another. It does, however, influence which gets done first.
You're absolutely correct Ashiel.
Therefore, I move that we ALL stop playing PF, and we ALL dedicate ourselves to solving global energy and rescuing children from burning buildings.
When the global energy crisis is solved, and all children are safe from burning buildings, then we can return to playing PF, unless something more important comes up.
</sarcasm>
I have never, in any way shape or form, indicated that anyone should consider FAQs more important than a child in a burning building, and even if all you're trying to do is a reducto ad absurdium, it's insulting.
All ALL I have asked is that if theses things are important to them, then don't take a year to get them done, and to update their website more than once every 6 months. That is not an unreasonable request. You're demand that nobody ever complain about poor service is however. If they cannot be bothered to do any of this more than once every 6 months, then I have asked them to stop saying it's important, as it obviously isn't.
Basically, I find it insulting to my intelligence for someone to tell me repeatedly that something is important and they are working on it and it take a year to get a response that they can't even get into the FAQ officially, just a blog post. I'm perfectly fine if they never do another FAQ ever (I honestly don't expect them to do anything any more), but please stop insulting my intelligence by saying they are important then acting as if they are not.
I am sorry, I believe that one's actions indicate one's true feelings, not one's protestations.
|
@mdt While I generally feel like you are not only beating a dead horse but whining incessantly, I have to say that I do understand as I have been in this same situation with other companies. I've waited 6 months to a year (or longer) for promised actions that never came but were 'being discussed' or 'considered'.
Your feelings are validated. However, as Sean pointed out, we don't know everything that is taking place. I assume this off hand as I've worked on games before. There are business considerations, budget considerations, advertising, deadlines of other projects that have priority but aren't necessarily more important, bosses, investors, website design, bugs, printing issues, marketing problems, licensing, personal problems, and on and on. The list can really get long. So things that you might think and feel are important may not see attention until far, far down the road.
I can have 366 things to do that are all important and all require a fulls days work to get completed. But no matter how you slice the cake, one of those things won't be getting done that year. It doesn't mean that the thing is not important or less important. But there are realities we simply have no information about and which customers/players don't need to know about, quite frankly. And those realities aren't immutable. New things can be added to the mix which are important and those things can push an already important thing back depending on its nature. It's not a black and white 'this is important and this is not'. There are a plethora of shades of grey and different ways of categorizing each shade.
But from your end, it can suck when the thing you want isn't getting done and more than a reasonable amount of time has been given. It's a truly, deeply infuriating feeling. And feeling the way you do is totally understandable. I've felt the same way in the past. I am new to Paizo. They seem like a cool crew. I'll be purchasing my first book from them by the weekend. Due to the nature of their publishing material (the focus seems to be on quality content instead of splat) I'm inclined to trust them to do what they can when they can in regards to things like this. But your experience is different as your patience has been worn through.
Lastly, I must admit that I've been reading this thread and your posts are the ones I often skip. At this point, they feel like unnecessary reiterations of the original (and the several similar statements that followed). You may be simply trying to hammer into peoples brains that you've waited 365 freaking days for something that was claimed to be important (I hear you man). But in this instance, it's tedious, even if you are validated. I'd just like to politely suggest moving that argument elsewhere? Please?
I totally understand your position- But right now, (thank goodness) I am not in it. Every post you make regarding it *sounds* antagonistic, and reminds me heavily of my own experiences. And just as you're hating it- I'm not enjoying reliving it vicariously through your comments. So can you/us/we just move forward with the actual discussion? Pretty please....with sugar on top...or gravy if that's your thing.
I'm perfectly fine if they never do another FAQ ever (I honestly don't expect them to do anything any more)...
It amuses me that you say this several hours after 4 Core Rulebook FAQs were posted today...
Let me turn this around for you, tax documents are vital and important (if you don't think they are, ask the IRS to let you not turn them in for a few years). You don't tell the IRS it's important and then not do it for a year, do you?
Amusingly, I just about do. I file my taxes around October every year (filing for extensions every year). I'm not really sure why, as my wife does all our taxes, but I think it has something to do with her investments and part ownership of a company. I'm just along for the ride, really.
I'm perfectly fine if they never do another FAQ ever (I honestly don't expect them to do anything any more)...It amuses me that you say this several hours after 4 Core Rulebook FAQs were posted today...
Great work!
Make sure someone updates the 'last updated' date
It now says: "Last updated: November 30, 2012"