| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so now that endless debate is finally done with: Taking ten on spellcraft to craft magic items. Allowed!
Sweet!
|
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.
You can't craft a potion if you don't have someone with the spell memorized. It is in the CRB and it has been repeated in the new FAQs.
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.
Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) Brewing a potion requires 1 day.
- * -
And now the FAQ about the FAQ (sorry Sean).
Can I take 10 on the Spellcraft check to craft a magic item?Yes.
—Pathfinder Design Team, today Back to Top
When crafting an item, can an arcane caster use a divine scroll to fulfill an item's divine spell requirement?
Yes. (Likewise, a divine caster could use an arcane scroll to fulfill an item's arcane spell requirement.)
However, the character has to be able to activate the scroll somehow as part of the crafting process. This probably requires the arcane caster to succeed at a Use Magic Device check to activate the divine spell. If the caster fails to cast the divine spell from the scroll, he makes no progress on the item that day unless he has another source for that divine spell (such as another copy of the scroll).—Pathfinder Design Team, today Back to Top
Two questions about these two FAQs.
1) If you are using a item to cast the needed spell and need to make a Use Magic Device check to activate it, you can take 10 on the spellcraft check?
Or making the UMD check, a skill with which you can't take 10, preclude you from taking 10 in the crafting check?
Spin off from that:
Making a UMD check count as a distracting activity and bar you from taking 10?
2) You can use a scroll or another item casting a spell to satisfy the the requirements for making a potion, scroll, wand or staff?
As an example: it is possible to use charges from a wand to make another wand or a staff?
- * -
mdt, what I am trying to explain to you is that you speak as if making a FAQ was a fast thing that can be done in a few minutes. Instead making a FAQ is a long process. A single, apparently simple, question can take hours of work from several developers and any company that want to stay solvent can't devote too many hours of work to non paying activities from its developers.
More complex questions will require even more time, so you will get only a few FAQ every year, apparently not enough to satisfy you.
Hm, I'm not seeing how being able to take 10 on your Spellcraft check would have any relation to using Use Magic Device to activate a scroll/wand. They are two separate actions. First you use UMD to activate the item, then, if that was successful, you can take ten with Spellcraft.
|
|
Hm, I'm not seeing how being able to take 10 on your Spellcraft check would have any relation to using Use Magic Device to activate a scroll/wand. They are two separate actions. First you use UMD to activate the item, then, if that was successful, you can take ten with Spellcraft.
To me it seem part of the same action, as you need to use UMD while you are enchanting the item, not before that.
Casting fireball on your laboratory before creating a necklace of fireball don't help you in making the item.
Make sure someone updates the 'last updated' date
It now says: "Last updated: November 30, 2012"
Hmm, it's supposed to update that automatically.
To me it seem part of the same action, as you need to use UMD while you are enchanting the item, not before that.
Casting fireball on your laboratory before creating a necklace of fireball don't help you in making the item.
No, but you still need to cast it before making your Spellcraft check. Furthermore, you may need multiple uses of UMD but only one single Spellcraft check for the entire ( maybe weeks long ) process. So they are separate actions, at least from the logical chain I am seeing in my mind.
Diego, I see the UMD to provide the spell as a separate thing. The spell only needs to be provided once per day. If you do not have that spell that day then you cannot work on it that day or must increase the DC by +5 (for items that are not potions or spell-completion/trigger). It has no bearing on the overall success or failure of the project.
Example:
I am Cleric working on a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 (4days of work)
Day 1: I use UMD to cast Cat's Grace from a wand. I roll a 20+ and succeed.
Day 2: I try to use UMD to cast Cat's Grace from a wand. After a few tries I succeed (no 1 is rolled).
Day 3: I try to use UMD to cast Cat's Grace from a wand. I roll a 1 and am thus prevented from using the wand for the rest of the day. I now have a choice, do not work on the Belt today or when the item is done add +5 to the DC.
Day 4 (+5 DC version) I complete the Belt and presumably roll my check with a +5 DC penalty. I say presumably because if I could have skipped the spell and still taken 10 I would have done so already.
Day 4 (no progress on day 3 version) I make my UMD check
Day 5 (no progress on day 3 version) I make my UMD check and then take 10 on my craft check.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, I'm not seeing how being able to take 10 on your Spellcraft check would have any relation to using Use Magic Device to activate a scroll/wand. They are two separate actions. First you use UMD to activate the item, then, if that was successful, you can take ten with Spellcraft.
This. They're two different things. Whether or not you're using your own spell, a buddy's spell, or a spell from a scroll, it doesn't have anything to do with you making a Spellcraft check to weave that magic into the item, and therefore doesn't affect whether or not you can take 10.
In other words, a wiz20 with a stack of cure light wounds scrolls can still take 10 when making a ring of cure light wounds 1/day, because it's an easy item, even though he's a wiz using a cleric spell.
|
Ah, so now that endless debate is finally done with: Taking ten on spellcraft to craft magic items. Allowed!
I hate that rule.
Just jack up your skill through the roof and you never fail.
Yeah, real fun there.
I would love to see some additional explanation for the "you can only craft 8 hours per day" rule.
Why can't you work more than 8 hours? Magical exhaustion?
Options to extend the hours per day (and thus accelerating the creation) with some negative effects would be cool. Like for some reason the lich slaying weapon must be ready within a week even though it would take 1 month to create, so the smith gives all his power, works day and night and as the weapon is done he falls over dead.
Maybe death is not the standard outcome, but I think it would make for some nice RP opportunities when a situation is dire that the caster can work faster, but risks severe penalties in the process.
Small things could be spellblights, or the objects are more likely to be cursed (since you are more accident prone when tired), the spells used in the creation can't be cast for a month, or a penalty to the casting attribute?
Also there are creatures that do not need sleep or rest (like undead). Why should they have a limit how long they can work on something?
Can more than 1 person work on an item? Like, can 3 casters work in shifts to work 24/7 on a single item?
In general, can more than one person work on an item, offering different spells for the process? (Again great RP stuff, where people of different spell casting classes and races work together on a plot item)
Can scrolls or other items be used to supply a needed spell?
More options to modify the price/speed would be nice, like reducing price by adding limitations or increasing price to reduce craft time etc...
For example:
Bread of healing instead of potion? It takes maybe 1 minute to eat (thus it can't be used in combat or on an unconscious person) and thus costs only 50% of the potion price (just some random numbers to get my point across). For cheaper after combat healing when no "heal-bot" is near.
Or increasing size and limiting mobility to reduce cost. So instead of a Ring of Sustainance, a Bed of sustainance. Basically, when you sleep at home in your own bed you only need 2 hours of sleep and can skip breakfast. Not much use on travel, but if your campaign is rather local it could be useful (and should cost much less than a ring).
Or busy, rich merchants would have that (not every item must be for PCs).
Karuth, while I cannot answer most of your questions (they are requesting things from Paizo) I can point out the rule to a couple.
Q: ...can more than one person work on an item, offering different spells for the process?
A: Yes, see quote below. Also, see the feat Cooperative Crafting (APG p156).
Q: Can scrolls or other items be used to supply a needed spell?
A: Yes, see quote below.
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).
- Gauss
Karuth, the current system is set up the way it is because there needs to some counter to the PCs multiplying their wealth via magic item crafting. If the WBL discount factor were removed from the rules ( which won't happen in this edition at the very least ), then crafting could be done faster.
And, before Gauss or someone else points it out, item crafting is only supposed to benefit the crafter. That FAQ ruling still needs additional context to make sense, because it contradicts a decade of precedent, lacks an in-game rationale and/or a rules rationale. So far it seems, on its face, arbitrary.
LOL Magnuskn, one would think people know me for my stance on Item Crafting or something. :)
- Gauss
We had a few spirited discussions on the topic, if you remember. :)
Boy, I really hate to contribute to this topic (man it's been long-winded), but here we go anyway.
First, where exactly does it say that you can't item craft to benefit other characters? I'm not questioning that it does, just trying to find the actual rule, for context. And yes, I've seen the PC WBL FAQ on Price vs. Cost, I just don't see where anything says we can't craft for other people.
Second, presuming that to be true: I still don't understand the purpose of that ruling. Sure, when creating characters, I understand why you can't craft magic items for someone else, but in game? If a Wizard wants to put in his precious free time to make his Fighter buddy a fancy sword, why on the gods' green Golarion can't he? I mean, that's how the folks the Fighter would usually buy it from do it, right? So he's just selling it to his friend at cost 'cause A) He's his friend, the Wizard wants to be courteous, and B) the Fighter routinely uses his Power Attack feat to murder the folks trying to kill them both, why can't the Wizard use his Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat to help him do so? Sure, it means the Fighter gets to shine a little brighter than he might without the help, but the Wizard knows the contribution he made, so good for him.
For PFS or other official sorts of play, okay, I get it. You don't want to go around explaining later why your fighter has super equipment ("I talked a Wizard last year into making me a sword, it's cool"). That should totally be an additional rule handed around for that sort of play. But around the casual table? What the heck? I know, of course, that we can GM handwave this extremely easily. I'm just not sure why it's there in the first place.
Edit: Oh, and finally - thanks Sean for starting this thread, and for the upcoming book. I'm preordering it tomorrow (payday!)
One question that I'm pretty sure it's going to be addressed in the book - How does setting up a magic item creation shop work? This is the sort of thing I and other players at my table have tried to do, and gotten shut down thoroughly by the GM.
Hmm, it's supposed to update that automatically.Make sure someone updates the 'last updated' date
It now says: "Last updated: November 30, 2012"
And not so ironic that I'm still seeing no updates 4 hours after they are made, no?
Viscount,
The FAQ does not spell it out. What it does say is that when a player crafts for himself, only the cost is counted against WBL. It also states that when you look at a party's WBL items the crafter crafted count as cost. If you counted the price it would look like he had excess treasure.
So, if the crafter crafts for others and gives them stuff it counts as price because they did not craft it. Since they are paying cost but it counts as Price against WBL they are over-equipped.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a group that is getting too powerful via the WBL chart because of one crafter supplying the group with stuff they are not paying for (in feats).
Even if the GM corrects for the Power level the crafter is getting progressively weaker than the rest of his group. Assuming unlimited time, the group winds up with close to double the amount of effective treasure compared to the crafter. Even without unlimited time the crafter is put into the position of being stingy as his fellows keep demanding they craft for them instead of himself.
How to fix that problem?
Some GMs ban crafting because of PCs who didn't pay for the feat getting the benefits.
Some adjust by reducing the amount of treasure the party gets. While this fixes the overall WBL of the group it does not balance the disparity between crafter and his fellows. The GM must come up with ways to balance it. It is a real pain.
Others, like myself, state that if you didn't craft it yourself you must pay full price. That full price goes into the ether, it does not go into anyone's pockets. This makes the GM's life simpler since he doesn't have to do extra work to re-balance the group.
Ever since 3.0 came out gold is no longer 'treasure'. It is now one metric for 'PC power'. That is what the WBL table is. The FAQ recognizes that the PC paid for his extra power with a feat. The other players have not.
- Gauss
|
|
Why can't you work more than 8 hours? Magical exhaustion?
Balance wise? You give some player the possibility to do something exceptional once in a while and it become their standard modus operandi.
To make an example of a possible houserule doing what you want: "if you work more than 8 hours/day on crafting magic items you get a cumulative +1 to the DC of crafting the item for each extra hour you spend in the day and you can't take 10. Your production advance by an extra 100 gp for each extra hour spent working."
Seem reasonable, right?
Let's see what happen with a 1.200 gp item that you can now make in a day with 10 hours of work.
Pipes of the Sewers CL 2 cost 1,150 gp DC 7
With 2 extra hours of work the DC become 9.
3rd level wizard with 18 intelligence and maximized spellcraft? +10 to the check. Automatic success as skills don't fail with a roll of 1.
Another example?
Pipes of sounding, CL2 cost 1,800 gp DC 7.
So 16 hours of work to make them in a day with our optional rule, DC 15.
Skill focus, int 20, maximized spellcraft. You can do that at level 3 as your total skill bonus is 3+5+3+3=+14, you are successful with a roll of 1.
Taking a +5 to the DC for double craft speed work better but if the crafter can combine the two things the players will find their "sweet spot" for production at each level and then produce items at the new speed.
- * -
If instead you use a flat failure chance, you really want to have an adventure where the key point is crafting item x in 3 days and all the adventure pivot on the success of failure of a single die roll?
Thank you design team.
One quibble: Does this FAQ on the +5 DC means that the (I believe accidentally added) rule in Ultimate Magic that you must meet the CL for making a construct has been overturned?
The DC to craft a construct is 5 + the default caster level of the construct, just like for a magic item. Like when crafting magic items, a creator with a sufficiently high skill bonus may ignore these requirements. Each missing requirement increases the Craft DC by 5. Regardless, the creator must meet all item creation feats and minimum caster level requirements.
Constructs are listed with "Creator must be XXth caster level" in their requirements.
My instinct is yes, but I'd like to make sure before I start telling people that.
Hmm, it's supposed to update that automatically.Make sure someone updates the 'last updated' date
It now says: "Last updated: November 30, 2012"
Either way I appreciate finally added a few new FAQS, bravo. That'll do for now.
Interesting, are there much racial requirements needed to be bypasses? The FAQ says you can with the +5, but I've never noticed how many race ones there are.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so now that endless debate is finally done with: Taking ten on spellcraft to craft magic items. Allowed!I hate that rule.
Just jack up your skill through the roof and you never fail.
Yeah, real fun there.
It amuses me that you think having a chance to fail at creating a routine, not-a-challenge, is-lower-level-than-you item is somehow "fun." I guess in the same way that someone maxing out their Acrobatics skill, but still having a chance to fail jumping over a 10-foot gap is somehow "fun."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And not so ironic that I'm still seeing no updates 4 hours after they are made, no?Hmm, it's supposed to update that automatically.Make sure someone updates the 'last updated' date
It now says: "Last updated: November 30, 2012"
No, it's still ironic. Just because you didn't see that FAQs were posted doesn't mean it's not ironic that you said it. The irony is the timing, not the awareness.
|
|
It amuses me that you think having a chance to fail at creating a routine, not-a-challenge, is-lower-level-than-you item is somehow "fun." I guess in the same way that someone maxing out their Acrobatics skill, but still having a chance to fail jumping over a 10-foot gap is somehow "fun."Ah, so now that endless debate is finally done with: Taking ten on spellcraft to craft magic items. Allowed!I hate that rule.
Just jack up your skill through the roof and you never fail.
Yeah, real fun there.
Respectfully, routine is relative. I get the logic of not wanting to waste time rolling the routine, or having someone fail %5 of the time on something they should succeed on 99.99999% of the time.
But there is something to be said about metagaming autosuccess not exactly adding excitement to a process.
I am not saying I disagree with the ruling, I'm just saying there is something about rolling dice and finding out that has value, and it is a bit harsh to not acknowledge that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And who says that crafting a +1 sword at wizard level 5 has to be "exciting"? Why shouldn't that be routine? It's just a +1 sword, it's not like he's taking 10 and crafting a holy avenger. Why isn't that as routine as casting fireball--which you automatically succeed at (barring having an enemy in your face) one or more times per day?
The point of the take 10 rule is to allow players to skip rolls that they should succeed at, but the swingy nature of the d20 means there is a small chance of failure anyway. You don't fail to remember your name 5% of the time, you don't fail to remember that bleach is poisonous 5% of the time, you don't fail to realize that an obviously-rabid dog is a danger 5% of the time, and so on.
What gain is there in allowing the character to skip the humiliation of failing to create an easy magic item? Cursed item are supposed to be very rare.
You can't craft a potion if you don't have someone with the spell memorized. It is in the CRB and it has been repeated in the new FAQs.
Hm, good point. Not sure why I added that last part in being able to add +5 DC for potions, I knew that already you could not.
But thank you.
Either way, the Wizard should be able to cooperate with the Cleric (or vice-versa) in making a potion. As long as the spell requirement is met.
Sean, thank you for the FAQs, but I hope this is just the beginning on FAQ clarifications on Magic Item creation. Many questions were asked in this thread, which I am sure a lot will not be addressed in Ultimate Campaign, with as you said, how specific they are.
I will say I am a bit surprised to see an FAQ on what can be used with a +5 DC, I had figured that would be addressed in Ultimate Campaign. I guess I was hoping for it to be addressed in a little more detail since it has been one of the biggest ongoing issues with magic item creation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But at a certain point, they would be taking 10 to craft a +5 Holy Avenger. And with how some people interpret things, I can see a thread showing how you can do it at 5th level coming up soon...
Like I said, I agree with the ruling, I just think you were a bit harsh on the criticism of people who like a little bit of chance to come into play on such things. And there are those of us who think adding a bit of chance to some of the more "broken" spells would be a good idea, since it would still allow the spell for story purposes but negate some of the cheese production.
Hm. I wonder if it'd be feasible as a house rule to have a potential bonus for actually rolling the die rather than take 10. Say savings or wasted gold to represent them taking a risk.
You may be focusing on the wrong thing ciretose. Magic items aren't that scary. Characters wielding them can be absolutely frightening.
One thing I really don't like in the theorycraft threads about crafting is they assume the GM gives a total pass on item creation including even the most mythic of items. According to the rules it might be legit but there's quite usually a story element in crafting. You can't reasonably expect to just keep holed up in your dungeon-o-gold to craft all teh loots without going out and getting resources to do that. Again, RAW you technically could but it'd fly at no GM table I know of.
I hope Ultimate Campaign helps shed light on these things including guidelines to what might be known and available to a 15th level wizard in absalom versus one in the mwangi expanse, for instance.
But at a certain point, they would be taking 10 to craft a +5 Holy Avenger.
And if your chance to fail crafting a holy avenger is just 15%, why shouldn't you use the "not rushed, not threatened" rule to carefully craft it with no chance of failure?
It's exciting to attempt a just-within-your-reach task and succeed because you're pushing your luck. It's lame to attempt a well-within-your-reach task and fail because the d20 is swingy.
BTW holy avenger is CL 18th, which is a DC 23 Spellcraft check. To take 10 and succeed you'd need a +13 modifier. Let's say Int 20 gives you +5, so the other +8 is from your ranks, which means you're level 8. Holy avenger costs 120,630 gp. A level 8 character's expected wealth is 33,000 gp... a little over 1/4th the cost of the weapon. So sure, he could take 10 on it, but he can't afford to make it (and even if he could, it would take 120 days to do so).
If you assume 1/3 wealth on offense, 1/3 on defense, and 1/3 on misc, that means spending 120k on offense means your overall wealth should be at least 360k for having such an item to be appropriate, which means your 16th or 17th level. If you max out Spellcraft, a level 16 wizard has at a +16 from ranks and a +5 or more from Int, for a total of +21, which means he's only failing on the check to make it with a 1 anyway. And a level 17 wizard would have a +22, which means he can't fail a DC 23 check. So why make either of them roll? They're not doing anything out of the ordinary by crafting such an item, so why should the swing of the dice mean they're out 120,000gp and 120 days of work? Let them take 10.
|
Ciretose, I have a summoner with craft wondrous item. He has a +10 bonus. Since skill checks cannot fail on a natural 1, do you think I should still roll on DC 10 or less magic items he crafts? Furthermore, would you adjudicate that, despite having mastered such a tier as low DC magic items, would you also add a failure chance which does not take into account my skill in crafting the most meager of magical devices?
If so, then this is GM judgement and you're definitely on the right track there to customize the guidelines as is fitting with your vision.
PERSONALLY, I don't find it exciting to roll when my success should be automatic. I'm crafting trinkets, not critical objects of true wonder or items otherwise out of my reach. I don't get excited about throwing punches, or kicks in a fight. I'm a master at those and they are beyond reliable. I get excited about opportunities to perform tumble maneuvers, rare throws and aerial strikes that are often only seen in movies.
I *can* do those moves. But they are beyond my level of mastery. So I have a reasonable chance of failure at them. THAT'S where the excitement is for me....the attempt to succeed at something in which I have notable room for improvement. There is nothing to excite me about throwing a punch and hitting someone, or grappling as in ufc. That stuff is automatic and guaranteed for me in any encounter, even when I am not trying. It's practically autonomous reflex.
Eventually, Holy Avengers aren't special. But that kind of argument is far and away beyond the scope of typical game play. And you're absolutely right about munchkinizers trying to make one at the lowest possible level with the highest degree of success. Kraft will be out of business then. :-P
I think that the chance element in otherwise broken spells is the saving throws allowed or the spell resistance.
Caster level is not a requirement.
Unless it's listed in the requirements section.
Yes, I stand corrected.
I don’t have it readily available, but I don't believe the Holy Avenger has a CL in the requirements section.
The prd is just a click away.
Caster level is not a requirement unless it's listed in the Requirements sections of the item (and it isn't for the holy avenger).
And my example was assuming optimal conditions, meaning he had a cleric buddy for the holy aura spell. It just as easily could have been an example about a luck blade, which is almost the same cost and craftable without divine spellcasting.
The prd is just a click away.
If I had access to it. I am at work right now. And why I said "not readily available".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw that you agreed.
I'm arguing that dice rolls don't always add excitement. Rolling to open a normal door isn't exciting. Rolling to put on your armor isn't exciting. Rolling to get a good night's sleep isn't exciting. Rolling to see whether or not you've just wasted 8 days and 4,000 gp trying to craft a +2 longsword isn't exciting. It's not fun, either (his original comment was, "yeah, real fun there"). I challenge the idea that adding dice always makes it more fun.
It's okay to let PC be good at things. At least, some things. :)
Sean, would there be any way to get clarification on a few of my questions/concerns I expressed before (4th post of mine above)?
Thank you.
This is the PRD. Note that I think it's hosted somewhere else though, as it tends to stay up when Paizo proper goes down.
|
|
To be clear about my position, I think the rulings are the only way to go with the system as it is, without a major overhaul.
And that ain't happening anytime soon.
If I were made King of the World and we were at a point we were re-doing it, things would be different. I think each developer would say that about any number of things in the game, and probably would all do it far better than I would. And the rules as they are are probably a lot better than anything I would come up with given the deadlines and restrictions they were made under.
But at this point, with the rules as they are, it is a pretty obvious take 10 situation.
Do I think it is a good thing that at 8th level (or earlier with some of the theorycrafting shown on here, I'm betting RD could do it at 5th) you can be commissioned by a wealthy benefactor to make a Holy Avenger?
Not particularly.
Is it the best solution given the system we have? Seems so.
Creation rules are always going to be a delicate balancing act between options and restrictions. You want to have more options, but you don't want to see it get silly.
Glad an FAQ was added, the ruling makes sense.
But we don't need to take shots at players who like a little chance to be involved in a dice based table top game.
Edit: Not to mention cursed items can be fun...
The PRD is hosted on this same site. If you have access to the boards, you have access to the PRD.The prd is just a click away.If I had access to it. I am at work right now. And why I said "not readily available".
What is the issue here? Why am I being called out here because I did not confirm the requirements of the Holy Avenger?
Should I say not readily available because I am at work and really don’t want/can’t also take the time open up the PRD? I was not asking for confirmation on the sword, I was just saying I didn’t believe it had a CL requirement.
|
|
Sea, I agree with the dice rolls part, less with the wealth part as a limiting factor.
Sure, the PC should not have that money, but the other people in the setting?
Why rich nations aren't commissioning statues of great heroes that cast Greater magic weapons and Magical vestment at CL 20 when you place some weapon and armor on the plinth to low level crafter?
Their army would get a big combat boost and the statues would be hard to steal or damage.
A Carroccio casting Prayer in a a large area?
Those are my main problems with easy to craft magic items and the ease of overcasting spells, how that affect the setting.
But at a certain point, they would be taking 10 to craft a +5 Holy Avenger.And if your chance to fail crafting a holy avenger is just 15%, why shouldn't you use the "not rushed, not threatened" rule to carefully craft it with no chance of failure?
It's exciting to attempt a just-within-your-reach task and succeed because you're pushing your luck. It's lame to attempt a well-within-your-reach task and fail because the d20 is swingy.
BTW holy avenger is CL 18th, which is a DC 23 Spellcraft check. To take 10 and succeed you'd need a +13 modifier. Let's say Int 20 gives you +5, so the other +8 is from your ranks, which means you're level 8. Holy avenger costs 120,630 gp. A level 8 character's expected wealth is 33,000 gp... a little over 1/4th the cost of the weapon. So sure, he could take 10 on it, but he can't afford to make it (and even if he could, it would take 120 days to do so).
If you assume 1/3 wealth on offense, 1/3 on defense, and 1/3 on misc, that means spending 120k on offense means your overall wealth should be at least 360k for having such an item to be appropriate, which means your 16th or 17th level. If you max out Spellcraft, a level 16 wizard has at a +16 from ranks and a +5 or more from Int, for a total of +21, which means he's only failing on the check to make it with a 1 anyway. And a level 17 wizard would have a +22, which means he can't fail a DC 23 check. So why make either of them roll? They're not doing anything out of the ordinary by crafting such an item, so why should the swing of the dice mean they're out 120,000gp and 120 days of work? Let them take 10.
I totally understand the reasoning behind the Take 10 rules and this is a clear cut example of why they are awesome, but sometimes they can make the game less fun because of the always pass/win mechanic and no dice involved.
If I'm Dming I would always make either the player or myself make a roll for any magic item creation process because of curse items...
...with that said... you need to fail the Spellcraft DC by 5 or more... but some DMs view a natural 1 on a d20 as curse no matter what...(I would give the item 2 chances above.. so if you rolled two natural one's in a roll then the item is cursed somehow.
Personally it would be horrible to have a PC spend that much time and effort on a magic item for it to be cursed, no matter the level. As a DM I would make the curse into a quest the PC must partake in order to correct or fix the item (perhaps it only works at night,ect.. must slay an Evil Vampire for the Holy Avenger to work,ect).
My Last wizard/fighter (it was a Divine/Fighter 1/2 Elf) was taking 10 at level 3 and learning spells,ect... just sort of killed the whole game process and fun of actually trying to learn new spells.
I remember back in 2nd edition I had a Wizard that had a 55 percent chance to learn new spells... and my list of failed spells known was LONGER than known spells, and it was one of the most memorable characters I've ever played.
Dice should always be involved... even if its a meager roll
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
heywaitaminute, I know it's too late for Ultimate Campaign to be changed, but did it talk about if you could upgrade specific weapons (dagger of venom, sylvan scimitar, etc) and specific armors?