magnuskn:
As long as economics battles with game mechanics there can be no cure.
As for WBL relating to CR there is no hard and fast rule for what CR increase or decrease a group with a higher or lower than normal WBL should have. However, Chapter 5 of the Gamemastery Guide does talk a bit about what to do when that happens. Mostly, it suggests bringing it into line with the WBL chart.
As for how Magic Item Crafting influences..that was discussed in the FAQ. Simply put: if a player crafts a magic item for himself, he pays the cost and the cost (not the price) counts against his WBL. If he crafts an item for someone else the price (and not the cost) counts against that person's WBL.
The logical extension of that is that it becomes the GMs job to balance out a player who takes advantage of the crafting feats of another player and as a result becomes too powerful. Either that or the players agree not to do it.
The GM in one of the games I play has had problems with crafting since 3.X. She has seen rampant abuses of crafting because players craft for the entire group. She has banned crafting as a result. However, once I told her about the WBL-Crafting FAQ she decided it was ok to let the feat back in on a trial basis. This is the fix she was looking for.
Frankly, I used that same concept back in my games in 3.X. I thought it was logical and I am please to see Paizo had the same conclusion. Of course, not everyone likes WBL and between WBL and selling everything for half it is a headache for the GM. But that is another issue.
- Gauss
@Wraithstrike: It's quite ironic to see how your methodology differs here from the Antagonize thread.
@Gauss: I agree that magic item crafting can be countered for a homebrewn campaign, although even there issues remain like "How do you make it that in-game the crafter gets less WBL compared to his compatriots?" Because there is little in-game rationale for his party to give him less money and giving less to the party overall punishes the other players, and does not balance the crafter.
However, my concern here in the specific question I posed to Sean is about WBL affects the CR calculation of standard monsters and, in relation to that, how magic item crafting affects those CRs. It is something I would like to see adressed in the context of the parameters Sean gave us for this future book.
magnuskn:
The crafter does not need to be balanced. He is benefiting properly from the feat.
Example: Crafter makes a magic item for 18,000gp (cost). This is priced at 36,000gp. When calculating his WBL he gets 18,000gp applied to his WBL not 36,000gp.
So lets assume that the group is composed of 4 level 10 PCs. 1 has a crafting feat and 3 do not. WBL states that they have 62,000gp.
Crafter has crafted items totalling 36,000gp (cost). When checking his WBL we do not check the price (72,000gp) of the crafted items but only check the cost. Thus, he has 36,000gp+26,000gp = 62000gp.
If a second player had the same exact equipment but no crafting feat that player would have: 72,000gp+26,000gp = 98,000gp worth of stuff and be 36,000gp over WBL.
As you can see, no balancing for the crafter needs to be done. Any treasure handed out by the GM should be split evenly for the group since the crafter making items at half price is exactly how it is supposed to work.
The real issue (as I have said before) is not that the crafter has 'more' because he does not have 'more'. It is if he crafts for his buddies who do not have the feat.
Regarding your concern: I still do not understand your question. WBL does not affect the CR calculation of monsters. WBL is a metric intended to gauge the equipment levels of PCs. Now, WBL can affect the encounter CRs (if you have an overpowered party, use higher CR monsters, and underpowered party = lower CR monsters). But encounter CRs are not the calculation of a monster's given CR.
- Gauss
Actually, yes, the crafter has more than his compatriots. Any crafter I have seen normally crafts first for himself and then, if time remains, for his compatriots. Since APs are very often hurried affairs, that means that the crafter will mostly reap the benefits from his feat.
Hence, the crafter gets not only a monetary advantage which no other type of feat can even compare to, but that advantage also actually costs the rest of the party effectiveness for their own character, since, per your own description, the GM is supposed to cut treasure income across the board. And that sucks for the other players.
As to the second point: I actually believe that WBL is a factor in the creation of monster CRs, since ( IMO, and please quote a developer/rule book if you try to point to a differing point of view ) monster CRs are created with a balanced party in mind. A balanced party would be four PCs, 15 point buy, party at WBL of their level.
magnuskn:
I think you misunderstood my statement. The GM is only supposed to cut treasure IF the crafter crafts for OTHER players. Not when he crafts for himself. And that cut applies to the other players, not the crafter. Those other players are NOT supposed to benefit from the crafter crafting items for them. Alternately: the GM can give the crafter extra stuff to balance the crafter with the other players since he was crafting for them.
As for the monetary advantage: it depends on the feat. Craft Wondrous Item is probably the worst offender (I think it should be split up into a couple feats but that is just me). Craft Magic Arms and Armor is pretty close to the value of a feat.
As for the second point: you are basically correct. However the monsters themselves are not adjusted for higher/lower than WBL characters. The encounter CRs are adjusted. IE: add/subtract creatures. Buff up monsters via levels or whatnot in order to increase CRs. In any case, you are correct there are no hard and fast guidelines for an increasing/decreasing the encounter CRs for an under/overpowered group.
- Gauss
And we are back with the original problem: The feats are inherently unbalancing, because we as GMs alaways have to resort to adjusting everything on the fly, just because those feats throw a spanner into the core balance of the game. I would like to see a fix at the core root of the problem, so that this unbalancing factor simply falls away for GMs.
My personal solution would be to bring up creation costs to 95% of market price, which transforms the feats from a money making tool into an almost pure customization tool. It also fixes one of the big illogical distortions of the game ( Why can't I sell my freshly crafted magic item at 100% market price, instead of 50%? ). If anybody wants to say "I wouldn't touch those feats now that I cannot make 50% more money out of them", I say: Good! That way those feats (CWI and CMAaA) become a choice, instead of "almost mandatory" for casters.
Proposing future solutions is not the purpose of this thread, however, as Sean clearly stated in the OP, so I remain with my original question from last page.
magnuskn:
With your suggestion they would not be worth a feat. Customization occurs by simply going to town and paying for what you want done to your item. No feat necessary.
Craft Arms and Armor: overpowered? I think not. At most it is a +1AC (armor), +1AC (shield IF you have a shield), and +1attack/damage (or equivalent). Is that worth a feat? Yes. Is that overpowered relative to other feats? I do not think so.
Craft Wondrous Item: overpowered? Perhaps. harder to quantify though. Honestly, I have two major crafters in my group and neither one are what I would consider OP with this.
Reminder: my group follows the WBL FAQ and thus the crafters only benefit from thier own feats. Nobody else benefit's from the crafter's feats.
Ultimately, it is your game. I would say if you had this big a problem with crafting just drop it from your game entirely. I have considered doing it myself (for other reasons, such as going back to an older style of play regarding treasure).
And you are right, we are off-topic so I will also drop this line of discussion. :)
- Gauss
|
Base price is defined under the description and pricing of the items that allow you to activate a spell:
Potions: If the potion has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create.
Wands: If the wand has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create once for each charge (50 × material component cost).
Scrolls: The price of a scroll is equal to the level of the spell × the creator's caster level × 25 gp. If the scroll has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create. (No base price here)
Then in the general crafting rules:
In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.
Crafting staffs make it clear that the component cost is separated by the actual enchanting cost:
The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends). Material components are consumed when he begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a staff can be reused.) The act of working on the staff triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the staff 's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
You miust have prepared the component for 50 casting and you consume them, but they aren't part of the price.
magnuskn:
With your suggestion they would not be worth a feat. Customization occurs by simply going to town and paying for what you want done to your item. No feat necessary.
Craft Arms and Armor: overpowered? I think not. At most it is a +1AC (armor), +1AC (shield IF you have a shield), and +1attack/damage (or equivalent). Is that worth a feat? Yes. Is that overpowered relative to other feats? I do not think so.
Craft Wondrous Item: overpowered? Perhaps. harder to quantify though. Honestly, I have two major crafters in my group and neither one are what I would consider OP with this.
Reminder: my group follows the WBL FAQ and thus the crafters only benefit from thier own feats. Nobody else benefit's from the crafter's feats.
Ultimately, it is your game. I would say if you had this big a problem with crafting just drop it from your game entirely. I have considered doing it myself (for other reasons, such as going back to an older style of play regarding treasure).
And you are right, we are off-topic so I will also drop this line of discussion. :)
- Gauss
One last post from me: Yes, some people would say that those changes make the feats worthless. I say, they would be transformed into customization tools. Want that +2 Vicious Fey Bane weapon? Okay, maybe you can get one in town. Maybe not. Or you can have your crafter work on it, to get it 100% assuredly.
I personally see the item crafting feats as overpowered, I know other people do not. But everybody feels the need to adjust his encounters for their inclusion. Which other type of feats have such a high impact on a campaign, which necessitate such a great variance of adjustments to encounter balancing?
|
|
Actually, yes, the crafter has more than his compatriots. Any crafter I have seen normally crafts first for himself and then, if time remains, for his compatriots. Since APs are very often hurried affairs, that means that the crafter will mostly reap the benefits from his feat.
Hence, the crafter gets not only a monetary advantage which no other type of feat can even compare to, but that advantage also actually costs the rest of the party effectiveness for their own character, since, per your own description, the GM is supposed to cut treasure income across the board. And that sucks for the other players.
As to the second point: I actually believe that WBL is a factor in the creation of monster CRs, since ( IMO, and please quote a developer/rule book if you try to point to a differing point of view ) monster CRs are created with a balanced party in mind. A balanced party would be four PCs, 15 point buy, party at WBL of their level.
Look what a Bladebound magus get for a class feature: +1 weapon at level 3, +2 at level 5. That is +66% WBL at 3rd level, +76% at level 5.
If you use strict WBL guidelines you must cut the other character rewards because there is a magus in group.The effect of feats/class features shouldn't be counted in the WBL.
|
|
As for the monetary advantage: it depends on the feat. Craft Wondrous Item is probably the worst offender (I think it should be split up into a couple feats but that is just me). Craft Magic Arms and Armor is pretty close to the value of a feat.
Agreed, there was a nice suggestion some time ago about changing the feats to:
- craft use activated item- craft spell completion items
- craft spell trigger items
- craft permanent items
- craft command word items
regardless of the item size/shape.
Maybe adding some finer distinction to keep it at seven feats like today.
Sadly the change is too complex to be added in this book, but that or something similar would be a great change for Pathfinder 2.0 or a optional system.
Look what a Bladebound magus get for a class feature: +1 weapon at level 3, +2 at level 5. That is +66% WBL at 3rd level, +76% at level 5.
If you use strict WBL guidelines you must cut the other character rewards because there is a magus in group.
The effect of feats/class features shouldn't be counted in the WBL.
I highly disagree with that last point. The Bladebound Magus is an entire archetype and not a feat.
|
|
This brings up something that's always bothered me. The disparity between wands with regards to wand costs.
If a spell is a 1st level spell for say, Rangers, and a 2nd level spell for say, Clerics, and a third level spell for say, Wizards/Sorcerers, then the wands are costed for Clerics & Wizards/Sorcerers. The question becomes, why would anyone pay more for the wand made by a Wizard/Sorcerer? It seems the market price for a wand of X should be based off the best combination of level/commonality, so the aforementioned wand should have a market value based off the cleric, given that there's a LOT more clerics that make wands than rangers that make wands. This means Rangers would make more off their wands (given they can sell it for the value of a 2nd level spell instead of a 1st level spell wand) and wizards/sorcerers would make less off the wand (given they can only sell it as a 2nd level spell wand, meaning they might not even break even on the sale).
What it all comes down to is, it seems to me that each spell should have a 'base level' that indicates what level wand it represents. This would end the whole thing and simplify things.
There is a rule that say that the items are always priced at the lowest production cost for sales (and the summoner is a pain for that, with his specal spell list). I remember it clearly but I haven't jet found it in the PRD. You can find a trace of that in the PFS rules as there is a specific rule changing that:
Purchasing Potions/Scrolls/Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics, or druids in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list. For example, a scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be
purchased as a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list.
I will hunt for the general rule and put it here if I find it.
Edit:
Reading the physical book sometime help ;-).
The search function of the PRD was sending my astray as the I was using the wrong keywords:
Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of the lowest possible level can make it for. Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item.
A ranger can cast a first level spell at level 4 but he is a 1rst level caster, so the item is made at Caster Level 1. So the price of a wand with a spell that is first level for a ranger, second for a druid and third for wizard is set by the ranger, not by the druid or wizard.
That make wand of lesser restoration very cheap.
|
|
I highly disagree with that last point. The Bladebound Magus is an entire archetype and not a feat.Look what a Bladebound magus get for a class feature: +1 weapon at level 3, +2 at level 5. That is +66% WBL at 3rd level, +76% at level 5.
If you use strict WBL guidelines you must cut the other character rewards because there is a magus in group.
The effect of feats/class features shouldn't be counted in the WBL.
The Blackblade is a class feature. There are a few class features that give "free" stuff,like a few feats and traits that give it.
You count the extra 900 gp from rich parents as part of the WBL of a group and reduce rewards for that?If you you count that kind of things against a character WBl you are robbing him of the benefit of the feat/trait/class feature.
Rich Parents is a one-time 900 GP boost. The Blackblade class feature costs the Magus other stuff he'd normally have and quite a lot of that.
The item crafting feats are dirt cheap for the benefit they will impart upon the character who has them, which can range from 125 to 1000 gold pieces per day, given sufficient money influx.
Going into a bit more hazy territory, one which probably will earn me just another round of "But in my campaign...": The psychological effect this "difficult to keep in check" stuff has on ( at least me as ) a GM is that I look for ways to shorten downtime between encounters and that the total time span of a campaign gets compressed. Where, before the 3.x/PF editions, homebrewn campaigns could last decades in-game, the sheer reality of unlimited crafting time is a severe factor in compressing that down to a much shorter time period. I GM'ed three D&D 3.x campaigns from levels 1-20 before switching over to PF and they only lasted each about two years in-game, in great part because of my concerns for what the players would do with their item crafting feats if I gave them a few years of downtime. I felt the impact of the stuff they did with their actual time pretty keenly.
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.
This book (and the FAQs that will cover anything peripheral to the book) cannot come too soon. What's the anticipated release date?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no. Really guys, I enjoy the beating.
No, no. Really guys, I enjoy the beating.
Oh man, SO many people misuse this idiom...
You do realize the "horse that's being beaten" isn't dead until the issue is resolved, right? :P| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But everybody feels the need to adjust his encounters for [the item creation feats'] inclusion.
Best not to make absolute blanket statements like that, lest you look the fool. For one, I know it isn't true in my case.
LazarX: Custom magic items (ie the formulae you mentioned) are just that, custom. I am not talking about custom items. I am talking about normal crafting and how it relates to WBL.
magnuskn's opinion is that the crafting feats inherently imbalance things if you follow the WBL rules and allow only the crafting cost to be counted towards WBL.
My opinion is that as long as you follow the WBL guidelines and the FAQ they are not inherently imbalanced although the one crafting feat that could be is Craft Wondrous Item.
magnuskn: If you are going to shorten downtime so that players cannot make proper use of thier crafting feats I hope you are upfront with your players about this. I would never take a feat that a GM prevented me from using.
- Gauss
One question I had is whether a crystal ball (or any item which duplicates a spell with a casting time longer than 1 standard action) still requires a standard action to activate.
If that's the case, how does one price the reduction in casting time? I noted the crystal ball has a nonstandard price.
To me, one of the implications in making things like sending and scrying too easy to pull off is that it can slow the game down as the number of off screen NPCs needing tracking increases dramatically.
magnuskn: If you are going to shorten downtime so that players cannot make proper use of thier crafting feats I hope you are upfront with your players about this. I would never take a feat that a GM prevented me from using.
- Gauss
I think I can keep my own counsel on how I handle my own campaigns. I don't feel the need to explain every one of my decisions to my players, since past experience shows that doing so results in some of them feeling entitled to hijack one hour of gaming time to argue about nonsense. While the other player roll their eyes and wish we would get on with the actual roleplaying part.
And, talking about those happenstances of when I did "shorten downtime", even so those campaigns lasted one and a half to two years of in-game time. For comparison, Carrion Crown lasts about two to three months.
But everybody feels the need to adjust his encounters for [the item creation feats'] inclusion.Best not to make absolute blanket statements like that, lest you look the fool. For one, I know it isn't true in my case.
Really now? You never ever had to adjust your planned encounters, because you suddenly discovered that your players had gained a huge spike in power, after crafting some potent magic items? Or did you simply never adjust your encounters to that new level of power and just let your players steamroll everything until the end of the campaign? Somehow I highly doubt that. Even you should not be that so focused on player power that you'd just let them overpower everything.
Darkwing Duck:
Lets take Craft Magic Arms and Armor:
Example 1:
Person A buys a +1 weapon (2000)
Person B crafts a +2 weapon (4000)
So for a cost of 2000gp (instead of 6000gp) he gains a +1attack and damage advantage.
Example 2:
Person A buys a +2 weapon (8000gp)
Person B crafts a +3weapon (9000gp)
So for a cost of 1000gp (instead of 10,000gp) he gets a +1 attack and damage advantage.
Example 3:
Person A buys a +3weapon (18,000gp)
Person B crafts a +4weapon (16,000gp)
So for a cost of -2000gp he gets a +1attack and damage advantage. It is worth noting at this point many adventures don't have much time for this level of crafting.
Example 4:
Person A buys a +4 weapon (32,000gp)
Person B crafts a +5weapon (25,000gp)
So for a cost of -7000gp he gets a +1attack and damage advantage. Again, it is worth noting at this point many adventures don't have much time for this level of crafting.
Armor and Shield AC increases work the same basic way.
Ultimately, Craft Magic Arms and Armor amounts to a +1attack/damage, +1AC (armor), and +1AC (shield) IF you have sufficient time. At early levels you still pay for the increases (just not as much). That is approximately equal to a feat.
Forge Ring, Craft Rod, etc are even more limited feats. They are of limited value.
The ONE feat that I have already agreed could be broken is Craft Wondrous Item and that is because of the vast scope of the feat. It really needs to be broken up into 2 or more feats.
- Gauss
Darkwing Duck:
What I am trying to 'prove':
You stated that magic items are more powerful than feats. I showed how the feat Craft Arms and Armor is roughly equivalent to a feat by only giving you slightly more power for roughly the same money.
Staves: How are they imbalancing? They give a slight boost in power temporarily and take 10days to full charge back up. Honestly, they are probably the feat least taken.
Wands: Mostly they increase the adventuring day. They rarely directly impact combat.
Rings: Now here you MIGHT have a point but frankly...I don't think so. I dont think that most people dont bother with Forge Ring since it is so limited.
Potions: Pretty much increase the adventuring day rather than add directly to power.
Scrolls: Same as potions but more versatile.
Rods: Metamagic rods are cool, but I do not think that they are game breaking. Not even at half cost.
Ultimately, the two main feats that consistently add directly to the combat abilities of a player are Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item. The first adds AC/attack/damage while the second adds ability score boosters, AC, saving throws, and skills.
I have already shown how Magic Arms and Armor is more or less equivalent to a feat and I have agreed that Wondrous Item is too large in scope to be equivalent to a feat. It is usually the first feat chosen by crafters as a result.
- Gauss
@Wraithstrike: It's quite ironic to see how your methodology differs here from the Antagonize thread.
I make way too many post a day to remember them all. What do you mean?
edit:A link to an example would be nice.
edit2: If you mean the rule 0 thing, that is different. Magic items, and the affect of WBL by their nature can't be set in a neat little box. That other feat, which I shall not name was not written with GM Fiat in mind, and while one could do that it should be needed for such a feat since it can be written in such as manner as to keep the fluff, and have mechanics that don't cause the problems that it does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really now? You never ever had to adjust your planned encounters, because you suddenly discovered that your players had gained a huge spike in power, after crafting some potent magic items? Or did you simply never adjust your encounters to that new level of power and just let your players steamroll everything until the end of the campaign? Somehow I highly doubt that. Even you should not be that so focused on player power that you'd just let them overpower everything.
Seeing as there is never any crafting done that I am not aware of, I am pretty much always on top of things. My encounters have yet to need adjusting for the inclusion of magic items because I expect said magic items from the very beginning--just like the game designers expect people to be using craft feats the way they were intended to be used. Who knew?
Even with said "power spikes," as you call them, my players rarely steamroll anything. More often than not, it's a fun and exciting encounter which is often quite challenging as well. Good tactics and planning on the part of smart NPCs will always trump a few extra magical items from a crafter.
If I were to "modify" encounters, I would be doing my players a disservice. I NEVER tailor encounters to the PCs unless it makes in-game sense to do so (such as a lich who scryed them for a month prior to sending out select assassins). If they make powerful characters, then they should feel powerful more often than not. Otherwise, it's just an arms race started by an immature GM.
In any case, magical item creation isn't nearly as powerful as people think, thanks to the way magical item prices often scale. More often then not, the Craft Wondrous Item feat nets you a +1 across the board. Powerful, but hardly broken. You get more variation then that amongst characters with the standard ability score generation method.
A GM who can't handle such minor differences in power should probably not be GMing.
And we are back with the original problem: The feats are inherently unbalancing, because we as GMs alaways have to resort to adjusting everything on the fly, just because those feats throw a spanner into the core balance of the game. I would like to see a fix at the core root of the problem, so that this unbalancing factor simply falls away for GMs.
My personal solution would be to bring up creation costs to 95% of market price, which transforms the feats from a money making tool into an almost pure customization tool. It also fixes one of the big illogical distortions of the game ( Why can't I sell my freshly crafted magic item at 100% market price, instead of 50%? ). If anybody wants to say "I wouldn't touch those feats now that I cannot make 50% more money out of them", I say: Good! That way those feats (CWI and CMAaA) become a choice, instead of "almost mandatory" for casters.
Proposing future solutions is not the purpose of this thread, however, as Sean clearly stated in the OP, so I remain with my original question from last page.
What is the difference between getting above WBL through a feat and getting there because a GM just decides to ignore it. I don't think your question can have a rules based answer or one that can apply across the boards since I have seen people post that ignore without issues, but with that aside your question should be on the affect of ignoring WBL rather than magic items since that is the real issue. Crafting is just one path you can take to get there.
But everybody feels the need to adjust his encounters for [the item creation feats'] inclusion.Best not to make absolute blanket statements like that, lest you look the fool. For one, I know it isn't true in my case.
I will also add that in another thread with Magnus I said that I change tactics or monsters based on how good the players are. If you are at WBL, but you are really good I up the ante. One can't really say I take a different path due to crafting. :)
My opinion is that as long as you follow the WBL guidelines and the FAQ they are not inherently imbalanced although the one crafting feat that could be is Craft Wondrous Item.
- GaussYou're wrong and its very easy to show you how.
Take any item your character wants. With the crafting feat, he can now make two of them for the price of one.
Fairly early in the game, magic items start to become more powerful than feats.
So, for the price of a feat, he can now have an item which is more powerful than a feat.
What if the party does not need two of them? Then they have just wasted time, and gained nothing. :)
Great post from RD.
+1
Darkwing Duck:
Some Wizards do have a use for Magic Arms and Armor. There are some martial wizard builds. Also: some wizards take Craft Construct (which has Magic Arms and Armor as a prerequisite).
Scrolls are better than wands for versatility. Crafting a 50charge wand for each spell I MIGHT need is just not worth it.
As for combat being 'all we have to be concerned with' I did not say it was. But that is the primary effect that these items have. The noncombat uses for these magic items are relatively limited and easily achieved with or without this feat (yes there are probably exceptions, this is a general statement). This game is a combat game with roleplay added. It was born out of a wargame and still adheres to those roots.
- Gauss
how much to create an item to increase Spell Resistance on someone who already has it ? (example: Daazzix's Vest from WotC's Dungeon Master's Guide II)
how much for an item to add an extra slot to hold a magic item (example: Hand of Glory)
My opinion is that as long as you follow the WBL guidelines and the FAQ they are not inherently imbalanced although the one crafting feat that could be is Craft Wondrous Item.
- GaussYou're wrong and its very easy to show you how.
Take any item your character wants. With the crafting feat, he can now make two of them for the price of one.
Fairly early in the game, magic items start to become more powerful than feats.
So, for the price of a feat, he can now have an item which is more powerful than a feat.
Ignoring for a moment that crafting is only accomplished through feats, do you realize there are multiple developer comments saying they made absolutely no effort to balance one feat in relation to another? They made each what they felt it should be without worrying about another. They've also made several comments that it's okay to play a suboptimal character and not every choice has to be best or even should be. I think it's obvious the crafting feats are certainly a more optimal choice than not. This doesn't mean crafting is bad. The FAQ simply reinforces the correct way the developers see crafting economics working.
how much to create an item to increase Spell Resistance on someone who already has it ? (example: Daazzix's Vest from WotC's Dungeon Master's Guide II)
how much for an item to add an extra slot to hold a magic item (example: Hand of Glory)
SR doesn't stack. It overlaps. Check out the prd in the glossary section of the PRD.
I would echo your question about things put in the pricing grid. For example, how much to replicate a feat or a class feature as several items do? I realize you may not be able to out a figure to it like a spell effect but a paragraph or two to show how you judge one ability versus another or just a quick ref table of items with like items with the cost of that specific ability would be awesome.
how much to create an item to increase Spell Resistance on someone who already has it ? (example: Daazzix's Vest from WotC's Dungeon Master's Guide II)
how much for an item to add an extra slot to hold a magic item (example: Hand of Glory)
I would think it would cost 10,000gp for each point of increase. For example, an item that increased your natural SR by +5 would cost 50,000gp.
This loosely follows the guidelines in the magical item chapter and seems like a good place to start.
Darkwing Duck:
It is interesting that you are implying that a character with crafting feats would steal all the glory.
The table I GM has 4 level 11 players: Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, and Rogue. The players that 'get all the glory' are the two that do not have Craft Wondrous Item. Ie: Paladin and Rogue. The paladin does have Craft Magic Arms and Armor but as I have shown it is equivalent to a feat.
The Wizard has just about every craft feat in the game including Craft Construct (his construct is a 9HD Graven Guardian of Iomedae)
The two-weapon fighting rogue (with no craft feats) regularly does just as much if not more damage than the greatsword wielding Paladin (who was built for maximum damage potential).
Simply put, the glory goes to the Rogue and the Paladin.
- Gauss
|
|
Darkwing Duck:
It is interesting that you are implying that a character with crafting feats would steal all the glory.
Even more so as Crafting feat are support feats, not something that is directly useful in combat or for resolving a situation.
In my campaigns people craft for for the otehr guys in the party, not only for themselves, and the wizard generally craft the weapons for the combatants. I fail to see how that will "steal all the glory" from the fighter or paladin.
Nobody needs the game designers' permission to play a sub-optimal character.They need the permission of the gamers sitting at their table. They, also, need to be the kind of people who -want- to be the sidekicks to the story.
Most players in my experience don't their characters to be sidekicks. They want to play the characters the story focuses on. They, also, want to play whatever character concept they want rather than being forced into one.
Playing a suboptimal character is a far cry from playing a sidekick. That gives me the impression you have a very narrow view on what is a correct way to play versus a wrong one with a similarly narrow selection of class builds that if not followed then "you're doing it wrong." Even so, I think you and I have fundamentally distinct playing backgrounds as I don't give two shakes what the other players at my table want me to play. As long as the GM okays it any concept I have is open season.
Can I create a metamagic rod without the metamagic feat in question?
Can I use powers that allow for a reroll (such as the luck domain or fortune hex) on n item creation role?
What about short duration spell such as prayer?
Are there masterwork items that add to item creation rolls?
Crafters fortune with the feat that allows creation through a craft roll?
You can create a magic item with any ability you want with the GM's permission. There is no limit on what magic items can do. The item creation roll is a skill check, and you can have a masterwork item for every skill in the game.
I don't know what crafter's fortune is or the other ability is so I can't comment on those.