| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, would there be any way to get clarification on a few of my questions/concerns I expressed before (4th post of mine above)?
Now that we've started having our FAQ meetings, I plan to address lingering questions.
Wait, I don't need RD.
+5 Int, +3 since it is a class skill takes us to 8, +5 ranks at 5th level is 13.
Is that correct?
Yes. Which is why I don't like to create detailed answers for print before breakfast. :)
Just to be clear, the standard "The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon." would still apply right?
Yes. It was a hasty example to show that a crafter making a level-appropriate item is going to have an easy time with the Spellcraft DC (note that I didn't include his +3 for class skill, so that +5 DC increase for not meeting the 3 x enhancement requirement still isn't a big deal).
That's what could be replaced with +5DC. Or does that not apply to specific weapons?
It still applies.
And it's not so much the "divine" part as the 8th level spell part, when you're talking about at how low a level you could craft it. Of course, if your 8th level crafter has a 15th level cleric buddy...
Yep. No reason an 18th level cleric can't work with a 5th level wizard to craft the item.
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.
Well, if you think what I said was a "potshot," then we have different definitions of "potshot" (one definition of which is "unfounded criticism). :)
Given the Golarion world setting it makes sense even though the rules are *supposed* to be setting agnostic. Otherwise I fail to see how those items would exist. Very few people ever reach over level 5. Around level 10 is the place of royalty and military leaders. Level 15 is the place of high level wizards and kings. 20's almost never exist or sparingly so.
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...
You could just as easily say "If I'm DMing I would always make the player make a roll for any jump check because there's a chance of falling." If a guy with Acrobatics +20 wants to take 10 on a DC 23 jump over a pit, you'd let him, right? So if a guy with Spellcraft +23 wants to take 10 on a DC 23 crafting check, why force him to make the roll when you wouldn't make the jumper?
Is the crafter rushed? No. Is he threatened? No. Is he distracted? No. Then he should be able to take 10, because that is the rule for taking 10 on skills. Characters shouldn't fail at routine tasks when they're not rushed, threatened, or distracted.
High level casters do exist...they just tend to be evil. And I don't see an evil guy working with a kingdom for that purpose. There're better uses of their time...like taking over the world.
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?
Yes, it does address that. And it even says, "if you can't figure out a reasonable explanation for the pricing of such items, it's okay to just craft it into something else."
Thank you, Sean! I felt like I just got some of the book for free. :D
|
Well, if you think what I said was a "potshot," then we have different definitions of "potshot" (one definition of which is "unfounded criticism). :)
Based on my forum history, one would think I would know a thing or two about taking potshots :)
On topic, I honestly am grateful whenever the Devs wade in, even when I am shown to be wrong. And on this topic, I think all of the rulings make sense, given the framework.
But given the framework...I don't know how to address what seems to be a general concern in the current format that your run of the mill 5th level hedge wizard is only prevented from making the near artifact level items, without any chance of failure by lack of possessing half of the items value in gold.
That "feels" wrong and seems potentially setting disruptive if followed to logical conclusions, even considering the time investment. Now a GM has all the control in the world to prevent this, so I'm not charging the barracades. But I hope whenever the time comes for a version change, this part of the ruleset gets a very strong look for major overhaul.
I don't want to see a game where things aren't possible. That restricts story. I do think there needs to be some thought as to making it involve more choices in order to do any one thing.
I wouldn't mind if you had to basically invest everything to be able to do a specific amazing thing, like be able to make a specific uber weapon at a very low level. I don't know that it is a good idea to be able to do all things at that level, without risk, and with the only limiting factor being cost.
I do think there should be some risk for a 5th level crafter messing with forces that should be beyond his capacity. I think that thematically adds.
But as the rules are currently constituted, I think you made the right call.
And thanks for all the hard work and time. We all really do enjoy the game, as much as we complain all the time :)
Just to be pedantic.
5th Level Synthesist Summoner :
Craft Magical Arms & Armor (5th level requirement).
+5 Int Bonus
+3 Class Skill
+5 Ranks
+8 Racial Bonus (Skilled Evolution)
+1 Int Bonus Boost (Ability Increase Evolution)
+3 Skill Focus (3rd level feat)
+2 Masterwork Tools (Enhancement Bonus)
+1 Trait Bonus (Classically Schooled)
That's, at level 5, 5+3+5+8+1+3+2+1 = +28. +28, so basically, zero failure chance at anything in the book on a +10 (giving final 38). At least, I don't know of anything in the book with a DC more than 38. Even tossing in a couple of things you don't have (Caster level, spell, race). I think that's about +15 Dc, so 20 (Highest CL in book) + 15 = 35.
I'm sure if we had to do it all over again we could fiddle with the numbers to make beyond-your-reach items more challenging, either by increasing the base number (+5), the caster level factor (currently x1), and the modifier for missing a requirement (currently +5). Or, hey, actually have a crafting DC in the item stat block, if we felt it was important enough.
And remember that most of those CLs are inherited from 3E, and therefore weren't assigned with the idea that you'd make a Spellcraft check to succeed an crafting them.
Remember also that in 3E, crafting was an automatic success, and the only way you could create a cursed item was by deliberately choosing to do so, or by the DM deciding there was a corrupting factor.
So PFRPG having a chance for crafters to fail at crafting or accidentally create cursed items at all is a big step toward "there should be a random element in crafting magic items." The use of the take 10 rule just means you don't have to worry about it for most things you'd want to craft...
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
Not trying to call you out, just handing out free information. I know *I* was happy to learn I could access the PRD at work, thought you might be too. :)
Yep np.
|
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.
I guess that is why our gamestyles differ.
Also, why do you keep using the 10ft gap example in all of your arguments? Jumping over a 10ft gap is not the same a crafting a magical item.
I like chances for failure, auto success get's boring extremely quick.
Just to be pedantic.
5th Level Synthesist Summoner :
Craft Magical Arms & Armor (5th level requirement).
+5 Int Bonus
+3 Class Skill
+5 Ranks
+8 Racial Bonus (Skilled Evolution)
+1 Int Bonus Boost (Ability Increase Evolution)
+3 Skill Focus (3rd level feat)
+2 Masterwork Tools (Enhancement Bonus)
+1 Trait Bonus (Classically Schooled)That's, at level 5, 5+3+5+8+1+3+2+1 = +28. +28, so basically, zero failure chance at anything in the book on a +10 (giving final 38). At least, I don't know of anything in the book with a DC more than 38. Even tossing in a couple of things you don't have (Caster level, spell, race). I think that's about +15 Dc, so 20 (Highest CL in book) + 15 = 35.
This!
Auto succeed at level 5. I can't believe designers would be happy with this type of mechanic.
well before it was just auto succeed....
at the same time, who;s to say its always an INT based caster doing the crafting? i guess clerics, paladins, rangers, oracles, sorcerers, druids, inquisitors, bards.... anything that doesnt require a high INT anywayyou guys are comparing completely optimized for crafting builds to the mechanic itself
obviously INT based casters who value spellcraft are going to be the best crafters... but what about the other classes? chances are they wont be
again, shallowsoul, you are power gaming too much
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.I guess that is why our gamestyles differ.
Also, why do you keep using the 10ft gap example in all of your arguments? Jumping over a 10ft gap is not the same a crafting a magical item.
I like chances for failure, auto success get's boring extremely quick.
Maybe I'm missing some nuance in the crafting rules, but its just a Spellcraft check + time + money, yes? Because if that's the case, jacking up your skill ranks would prevent failure anyways, since a natural 1 doesn't auto-fail skills, just attack rolls & saving throws (since those are the only two things that specifically state as such).
The same is basically true of any skill because of this.
|
Let's take a look at a non optimized character who wants to craft and also is playing the game and trying to do more than a very specific few things: ie, a 'real' character.
Level 6.
Int: 13.
Spellcraft: 4.
Ioun Stone: +2 int.
Class Skill: +3.
----
Said character has a +9. If they made no investment into Int at all, then a +8. If they were too pressed for skill points in other areas (let's say taking a couple of knowledge skills and making the ranks useful) they could have a rank or two fewer in spellcraft. They can still craft things. Reliably, too. But there are clearly items beyond their ability to reliably make that someone who devoted more skill ranks, feats, was smarter or had better traits could do.
Not every character taking a craft feat is built with the exact stats, traits, max skill ranks, int boosting items, etc, to be the best at it. In the even we are talking about characters who are trying to be very good or the best at crafting, then quite a few things are easily within their capacity to make without failure chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And your inability to see an extreme example and gain insight to its meaning makes me a sad panda. I'm going to chew some bamboo now that is moistened with my tears of sadness, while I write this response.
For those who've failed to get the point, sometimes you have multiple responsibilities. In general all responsibilities are important but there must be priorities based on the situation. The example was pretty simple. Both are "important". One however is more pressing.
It's really not hard - at all - to grasp that multiple things can be important but with things like circumstances or more important things coming into the mix one has to make choices. It doesn't make one no longer important but it may delay it.
I think you especially need to give Sean and the staff a break. Again, I say this as someone who is most definitely not a Paizo-fanatic. I've crossed words with Sean and JJ several times and while I'm pretty vocal about my issues with the game or some of its directions, I do think for the most part that the staff have done a good job. They really have.
We spend hours on these forums b~@#*ing and moaning and groaning and complaining about this and that and the other until our eyes are ready to melt and our fingers fall from their nubs. Yet at the end of the day we're playing a game that - despite being imperfect - is generally much better than the game it was derived from. People moan about casters, but damnit in 3.x all martials in the core book were losers, and now you can actually run all but 3 of the core classes in a party with great results (and even those 3 aren't s crippled as they used to be).
We bemoan the magic item system. Yet they made great leaps and bounds in both determining availability of magical items, the creation of magic items, and the verisimilitude of magic item creation. I facepalm every time I see another thread (usually by the same poster, wink wink) about how magic items are too easy (Protip: In Core Pathfinder the upper limits for respectable item availability is 16,000 gp; while in 3.x it is 100,000 gp which literally is every item in the book barring a few odd items like super staffs, holy avengers or nigh-epic weaponry).
I probably don't thank them enough for keeping my favorite hobby alive and kicking. I probably don't thank them enough for the time and effort they put into making me and ten other people on the boards at any given time (who probably all would be disgusted to play with each other because their styles are so alien) and keeping it fun and appealing to us all. I probably don't thank them for being cool enough to actually come and argue with me on things like alignment or whether it's cool to have a ton of spells in Ultimate Combat and lots of poor martial options. In fact...
THANKS GUYS
Thank you guys (especially Sean and James who I've crossed opinions and words with on the boards in the past, and to Ross 'cause he puts up with us all the time) for everything you do. I'm not sure when I'll get around to recanting it but feel free to read a "thank you" at the end of each of my posts written in invisible ink until the next time.
Back at the Ranch
Yet we bemoan their perceived sluggishness (despite literally now knowing things like scheduling, sickness, deadlines, and so forth are things pushing it back) and practically accuse them of lying about it being important. I'm left with this bit of a "wtf" look on my face that not only can someone be so incredibly hard as to not be able to understand something that is just a common fact of working life, but also seems incapable of even relating or understanding the concept behind it.
I mean hell, even video game companies sometimes have to push back their release dates due to circumstances. Do you think their release dates aren't "important"? Really. Bah, I'm just going to go play Minecraft for a while since I'm going in circles trying to fathom the mindset behind this sort of whining.
Let's take a look at a non optimized character who wants to craft and also is playing the game and trying to do more than a very specific few things: ie, a 'real' character.
Level 6.
Int: 13.
Spellcraft: 4.
Ioun Stone: +2 int.
Class Skill: +3.
----Said character has a +9. If they made no investment into Int at all, then a +8. If they were too pressed for skill points in other areas (let's say taking a couple of knowledge skills and making the ranks useful) they could have a rank or two fewer in spellcraft. They can still craft things. Reliably, too. But there are clearly items beyond their ability to reliably make that someone who devoted more skill ranks, feats, was smarter or had better traits could do.
Not every character taking a craft feat is built with the exact stats, traits, max skill ranks, int boosting items, etc, to be the best at it. In the even we are talking about characters who are trying to be very good or the best at crafting, then quite a few things are easily within their capacity to make without failure chance.
Exactly why does a 6th level character have an 8,000 gp magic item in this example?
|
|
It was just me demonstrating that they had an additional +1 int. I could have given them 14 int from level instead, I guess. But paying that level of attention would have involved me paying attention to wealth by level, etc, and that went beyond the scope of my post- which was purely to show that a character can be clearly trying to do something well enough and not have the kinds of numbers we tend to so casually put up as 'normal'. They're only normal for the players who think and play like we do.
Wait, I don't need RD.
+5 Int, +3 since it is a class skill takes us to 8, +5 ranks at 5th level is 13.
Is that correct?
If you have Skill Focus (Spellcraft) which isn't a horrible feat at all (especially if you get the human "three skill focuses instead of one general feat"), you can do it at level 2. 5 int + 3 class + 3 feat + 2 ranks.
Lol.
But yeah, I too agree with the ruling. And your point, ciretose.
|
|
Just to be clear, the standard "The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon." would still apply right?Yes. It was a hasty example to show that a crafter making a level-appropriate item is going to have an easy time with the Spellcraft DC (note that I didn't include his +3 for class skill, so that +5 DC increase for not meeting the 3 x enhancement requirement still isn't a big deal).
It is possible to bypass the "The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon." rule taking a +5 to the DC?
And the same thing apply to the other items that have that kind of special rule?|
|
Let's take a look at a non optimized character who wants to craft and also is playing the game and trying to do more than a very specific few things: ie, a 'real' character.
Level 6.
Int: 13.
Spellcraft: 4.
Ioun Stone: +2 int.
Class Skill: +3.
----Said character has a +9. If they made no investment into Int at all, then a +8. If they were too pressed for skill points in other areas (let's say taking a couple of knowledge skills and making the ranks useful) they could have a rank or two fewer in spellcraft. They can still craft things. Reliably, too. But there are clearly items beyond their ability to reliably make that someone who devoted more skill ranks, feats, was smarter or had better traits could do.
Not every character taking a craft feat is built with the exact stats, traits, max skill ranks, int boosting items, etc, to be the best at it. In the even we are talking about characters who are trying to be very good or the best at crafting, then quite a few things are easily within their capacity to make without failure chance.
With minimal investment:
Int 10, 1 rank in spellcraft, spellcraft not a class skill.He has a +1.
He craft a crow of intelligence +2 with the spellcraft skill in it. DC 8, so a auto success.
Now he has 1 skill point/level in spellcraft, regardless of how he use his actual skills.
Level 6 he get a +6 for the skill, +1 for his increased intelligence, for a total skill bonus of +7 at level 6 at the expense of 1 skill point, 0 Ability score points at character generation and 2.000 gp.
As a further bonus his spellcraft skill will increase with his level.
That is a minimum investment.
Take a class for which spellcraft is a class skill and you get a check bonus +10 at level 6.
If your GM allow custom items, make a pair of gloves or glasses giving a competence bonus to spellcraft, with a price of "Bonus squared x 100 gp" 3 points will cost 450 gp and rise your skill check bonus to +13.
|
|
Remember also that in 3E, crafting was an automatic success, and the only way you could create a cursed item was by deliberately choosing to do so, or by the DM deciding there was a corrupting factor.
It was an automatic success but there was no way to bypass the need to know the appropriate spells.
The current version is way better for the spontaneous spellcasters, but while plugging an hole it opened another.There's a FAQ about that. :)
Yes, but I haven't jet internalized how far it get. :-P
Some part of my brain don't want to recall that it include "(such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus")".
|
|
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.I guess that is why our gamestyles differ.
Also, why do you keep using the 10ft gap example in all of your arguments? Jumping over a 10ft gap is not the same a crafting a magical item.
I like chances for failure, auto success get's boring extremely quick.
Maybe I'm missing some nuance in the crafting rules, but its just a Spellcraft check + time + money, yes? Because if that's the case, jacking up your skill ranks would prevent failure anyways, since a natural 1 doesn't auto-fail skills, just attack rolls & saving throws (since those are the only two things that specifically state as such).
The same is basically true of any skill because of this.
Well the skill system itself is a problem but that's for another thread. I would change it to where you can only take 10 if you have a certain number of ranks in that skill. It's not the ranks itself that make you great, it's all the bonuses you can get.
|
|
I actually think Shallowsouls idea is pretty solid. If you have x ranks, it represents your autonomic mastery of the skill to the point that you can take a 10. Makes low level stuff more exciting due to failure (you're gambling really) and makes it so that by the time you can take a 10, you've not only earned it, but the excitement part comes from the really powerful or obscure or useful things you want but which require a good deal more advancement to make reliably...so now you have to take your chances and roll (cross fingers).
I'd be more than happy to follow that rule. Very reasonable middle ground.
*edit* and sorry, but I couldn't find it: but what is the caster level on items with no spells in the requirements? ie, gloves of elven kind and armillary amulets. I thought it was bonus x3 as CL but that didn't make sense with the items that gave +5 and 10 competence bonuses. I don't think it's the caster level listed on the item, but I'll go with that until I get word otherwise. I thought I read the answer on one of these threads but like...they're long and I read so many of them. Backtracking mind shattering. :(
I thought I was going crazy. For a second I thought shallowsoul was double posting to agree with himself.
Damned same avatars! :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think Shallowsouls idea is pretty solid. If you have x ranks, it represents your autonomic mastery of the skill to the point that you can take a 10.
Except that means some parts of your skill bonus are worth more than others; the +3 from your 3 ranks in Acrobatics is worth more than the +3 from your 16 Dex or the +3 from Skill Focus or the +5 from the magic item that's supposed to make you better at Acrobatics. Which also means that not only would your character sheet need to track your skill bonus for each skill, it would have to track your ranks, too, just in case you wanted to take 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
==Aelryinth
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
==Aelryinth
Actually, ranks are used as requirements for feats and prestige classes. Bonuses from feats, magic items, and other sources do not help. So your ranks *are* more valuable than those bonuses, precisely because they *do* represent what you have learned.
That they are not more valuable in the way you want them to be does not make them "not more valuable" overall, or in other ways.
what is shallowsoul still upset with again that we can actually change? seems like he just wants to make the devs heads explode
honestly, the rules that say you can take 10 just make it easy for characters who can succeed with more than a 50-50 chance to skip out on the roll
if you are in a position to craft an item and taking 10 wont guarantee that you successfully craft it, then why are you even trying?
this whole power gamer vs. dev war is getting old
especially because not every player in every game ever will fully optimize their character specifically for crafting and be able to break the game
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
if SS or anyone else thinks its too easy to make magic items, then just homebrew a game where you raise the DC by another 5, then you have to wait an extra 5 levels before taking 10 will get the same effect
if you have a problem with allowing someone to take 10, then worry more about the mechanics of taking 10 than the mechanics of crafting the items
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
==Aelryinth
Can you expand on that? It seems to me that the "plus 10" is a precise, quantifiable measurement of how good the relevant factor is - spell, item or circumstance....
A plus ten bonus means worth ten ranks doesn't it? (If it were only worth eight ranks it would be a plus eight bonus, wouldn't it?)
I feel like I'm missing something. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
1) When you level up, you can just put 1 rank per skill, and (assuming you didn't mess up your previous level), you won't go over your max. So you don't need to track your ranks, you can just keep adding to them (in the same way that you don't have to track your hit points by level, you just keep adding to them as you level up).
2) And yeah, technically you do need to track them for some feats and prestige classes. Bleh, prestige classes...
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
And I think that if want to make boots of striding and springing, which requires me to have 5 ranks in Acrobatics and grants a +5 bonus on your Acrobatics skill, and I hand those boots to some idiot bard who has 5 ranks in Acrobatics, I'd damn well expect that the +5 I put into those boots, which cost me 2,750 gp, are just as good as the +5 he has from his ranks.
It also would create dumb situations where, if you're facing a DC 11 check, if you have 1 rank and +7 from other sources, you can't take 10, but if you have 2 ranks and +5 from other sources, you can... even though both give a total of +8, and there's only a 10% chance of failure for either situation.
And that +X/+Y threshold is completely arbitrary, and there are some cases where it's going to only be a difference of 1 rank... and it's going to have to be different breakpoints for DC 11 tasks, DC 16 tasks, DC 21 tasks, and so on.
The point of the take 10 rule is to make the game run faster and more smoothly, not to force you to parse out exactly how many ranks are necessary for it to "count" enough to take 10.
Some skills also have abilities reliant on their rank. Off the bat linguistics give one bonus language per rank, and taking skill focus does not give you 3/6 extra languages. There may be more skills like that but unsure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get where Shallowsoul is coming from, I think. I don't think I entirely agree (since I like that a skilled character is basically guaranteed to craft an item that they set their mind to).
I'm also a bit poorly right now, so can't really parse the implications in my head right now, but what would the implications be of raising the base DC to 10 + CL? 15+CL? (Yes, I know this bumping into house rule territory). Off the top of my head, the CL modifier essentially says "have this many ranks", and the +5 is wiped out by Class Skill (+3), a measly +1 Intelligence bonus and the minimum dice roll. In terms of item creation, therefore, every single additional bonus to Spellcraft that you can leverage adds to the CL of the items that you never need to bother rolling for. And there are a lot of ways to crank skills. So if we set it to 10+CL, a character need to find 5 more points of bonus before it becomes a trivial task. Set it to 15+CL and we're squarely at ranks, class skill, 14 Intelligence and take 10.
I suspect that's the issue: under the current rules, you can trivially create an item at +9 CL just by taking 10.
Some skills also have abilities reliant on their rank. Off the bat linguistics give one bonus language per rank, and taking skill focus does not give you 3/6 extra languages. There may be more skills like that but unsure.
And those skills have very strait forward examples that are tracked once. Acrobatics X or higher gives you a slight boost to fighting defensively + total defense, for example. Linguistics ranks give +1 language per rank. Awesome and easy to manage.
Having to stop and determine based on ranks vs DC to see if you can even take 10 is just adding more clutter and creates really stupid scenarios in the case of hidden DCs, opposed checks (if you take 10 on a disguise check to routinely disguise yourself, what do you do when someone's Perception roll is too high - and thus setting a DC where taking 10 would be illegal for some arbitrary reason), and so forth.
It adds pretty much nothing to the game other than excessive bookkeeping. There's enough bookkeeping already without having to complicate skill checks more than they already are.
An earlier printing of the CRB had 10+CL as the mechanic. They reprinted it with 5+CL and stated that it was intended to be easy to craft magic items.
This is not a flaw in the system, it is an intentional design choice. One that many people disagree with. Note that I am one of them.
- Gauss
Some skills also have abilities reliant on their rank. Off the bat linguistics give one bonus language per rank, and taking skill focus does not give you 3/6 extra languages. There may be more skills like that but unsure.And those skills have very strait forward examples that are tracked once. Acrobatics X or higher gives you a slight boost to fighting defensively + total defense, for example. Linguistics ranks give +1 language per rank. Awesome and easy to manage.
Agreed, implementations have to be simple.
and thus setting a DC where taking 10 would be illegal for some arbitrary reason), and so forth.
Everything in the game is more or less arbitrary.
It adds pretty much nothing to the game other than excessive bookkeeping. There's enough bookkeeping already without having to complicate skill checks more than they already are.
Well, it adds difficulty which for some people is reason enough.
It's not a house rule I'd use, I think the difficulty is like the _least_ issue with the MIC rules, but saying that something is "arbitrary" and "adds nothing" is pretty vague as a counterargument as the same can be said for most rules in the rulebook, depending on which perspective one has on what kind of game one wants.
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.
...
First up, a quibble with this idea based on the wording. The FAQ says, "If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost.", and "If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost." I don't see it being mentioned anywhere that it's only when a player crafts for himself, nor that a player can only craft for himself (which is what I was questioning). Then, another point of confusion arises - shouldn't everybody be calculating their crafted (by the crafter, not them) items at cost, just like they have a wizard making magic junk for them? Since they, in fact, do?
Now, for a new point: I'm not questioning the power creep issue. When the power metric is largely represented by how much magic junk you've picked up, and you're getting a wide swath of said magic junk at half cost, then sure, power starts to eke its way beyond its expected bounds. But I can in no way figure out how this idea of crafters not benefiting their party make any sense within a game world. That is, presuming PCs are allowed to make magic items at all. If magic items that work for people not the creator exist (and they do, obviously), and we're allowing our PCs the ability to make said items, I just don't see why they can't pass 'em around.
If we start ruling that PCs aren't allowed the Craft feats (which is fair, I've known many a GM that does this), then the point is moot, but if we are allowing them...? Then I don't see how a GM can simply say, "Sorry, you can't give the Fighter that sword you just made. Oh, but that other magic sword, exactly the same as the one you made, that you found just now? Yeah, he can have that." I pretty much demand that my setting make more sense than that. Every so often, some little glitch in the rules pops up that makes it hard, but this, if true, seems like a really blatant sort of plot hole.
Honestly you can pretty much double (maybe even triple or quadruple) wealth by level and not significantly impact most encounters. Pathfinder is already calibrated up to "high fantasy" which pretty much doubles treasure values without cranking up the difficulty of NPCs in any meaningful way.
|
|
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
==Aelryinth
Exactly!
That was the main reason I came up with that because I assumed Ranks represented the learning aspect. Ever notice how some prereqs are Skill Ranks and not Skill total?