Feat + gold + time (sometimes handwaved) is too hard?I find crafting magic items too hard. It's too many feats to be able to make everything. If I know how to put a spell in a wand, why can't I put it in a wondrous item, or a potion, or my weapon, or a rod, or a staff? Why should I need craft wondrous items and magic arms and armor to make golems.
Or just a high enough Spellcraft. If I understand magic, why can't I imbue items with it? As a wizard, I can know every spell on my spell list. Why can't I also know how to manipulate those spells into items?
Dont yo also need to know the spell(s) and have the appropriate caster level you listed with the item?
|
Dont yo also need to know the spell(s) and have the appropriate caster level you listed with the item?Feat + gold + time (sometimes handwaved) is too hard?I find crafting magic items too hard. It's too many feats to be able to make everything. If I know how to put a spell in a wand, why can't I put it in a wondrous item, or a potion, or my weapon, or a rod, or a staff? Why should I need craft wondrous items and magic arms and armor to make golems.
Or just a high enough Spellcraft. If I understand magic, why can't I imbue items with it? As a wizard, I can know every spell on my spell list. Why can't I also know how to manipulate those spells into items?
Level yes, spell no. You can get someone else to cast it for you.
Edit. I could be wrong about the level requirement.
Okay, but unless that other person is an obliging member of the party they will charge you more money for casting the spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not really about funding what your character needs, its about getting those specific items that will fully optimize your character.
...
Again, its beyond the "need". You need a certain number to hit a creatures AC, optimization is not getting to the point where you just hit, optimization is the point where you can hit their AC easily and you are doing way more damage than you normally should and passing skill checks by 10 or even 15 points above the DC.
And the truth comes out. This has nothing to do with magic items but anti-optimization sentiment. And also a questionable argument. Optimization is not about being above everything else. It is about being competent at what you do. From another thread:
This reminds me of an aspect of power gaming that few tend to appreciate [or talk about]. That's knowing when enough is enough and time to focus on shoring up your other strengths. It's one of the reasons that I don't bother taking Power Attack at 1st level most of the time (unless I can't really think of something I'd rather take). +3 damage is huge at 1st level. However, it's not really useful. Most foes aren't going to have more than 10 Hp at that level, and honestly 2d6+6 (or even 1d8+6) is enough to one-shot almost everything you come across (most things CR 3 or less will be dropped in 1-2 rounds just the same). You'd get way more mileage out of something like Improved Initiative, Toughness, or even Skill Focus at that point.
What's actually funny about this scenario is that by specializing to such a powerful degree, the character has only harmed their chances of success. Sure, it might mean the character could do worthwhile amounts of damage to creatures several CRs higher than his or herself, but the likelihood of succeeding in such encounters is very poor, while being more well rounded would ensure a greater chance of survival/victory.
Shallow, you're not going to get rid of optimization. It will never happen. It's happened as far back as Chainmail. Furthermore, lashing out angrily at all these different facets of the game because of it is pointless and misguided. Magic Items are not a problem, and magic item creation is less of a problem. If anything magic item creation opens up many interesting avenues for roleplaying. Trying to stifle people by imperial edict as to which magic items they have access to is not going to end power gaming, but it might encourage it (frankly if I wasn't going to have access to magic items, I'd optimize the hell out of what I was playing, play a full caster, probably a druid or theurge, and pull out all the stops to make up for the severe deficiency. I don't care to fight monsters of legend nekkid).
Every few weeks you come in, post a thread about something you hate in the game, then shout down people who don't agree with you. It seems like it is usually something that you find to be an example of those dirty power gamers ruining everything. Or someone looks at one of your character builds and is left unimpressed because we think it wouldn't survive in our games, and then you rant on about how DPR calculation is bad (even when DPR wasn't even a major factor in the evaluation).
A Note from Behind the Mask
I actually enjoy oldschool game feel with newschool mechanics. I do not use "wish lists" or anything of the sort. I make good use of the random generation rules to avoid any bias or perceived bias as well. I don't believe in Magic Marts where you can go anywhere and buy any magic item you like (and a number of anti-magic-abuse and anti-power gamers have attacked me for it because it was unfair to fighters).
It's one of the reasons I appreciate and recommend magic creation feats to people. Especially if they are doing something odd. For example: Wielding a falcata in one of my games is probably a 98% sure method of ensuring that you will never find your favorite weapon as part of general treasure, so you'd best be prepared to make 'em yourself. :P
And I don't break the rules for my encounters. Unlike your Rat King, I don't break rules or create exceptions to be against the players, and yet games are hard. Really hard. All it takes is just following the rules. And yet, the normal Pathfinder is enough to threaten the lives of my players who you'd probably describe as "dirty optimizers with their magic items and intricate backstories and character concepts". Sometimes I throw in some sort of tweaked monster or individual (generally as an optional boss).
Fido was also an optional encounter. It was possible to avoid Fido entirely, or attempt to lay siege to his base directly. There was reward for the risk. Experience points, additional treasures lodged in Fido's body, etc. But ultimately, this abomination was there for the PCs to "test their might" against if they wanted to. Much like the optional bosses of Final Fantasy fame. :P
Yeah, that Rat King, why didn't the player use UMD?
He could have emulated Rat King (race) and the pipes would HAVE to act like they did for the Rat King. Otherwise DM would have been a liar.
One thing I found with my group is the fact that once they know they can make the gear they want then dungeon crawling and exploration become a chore and finding items along the wayis just looked at as finding condensed gold . It has actually taken a good bit of the exvitement out of the game in that regard.Fun for them or fun for you?
Fun for all of us actually which is the whole point.
You change things around until you find what works.
Gotta problem with that?
Yes, yes I do.
If the group likes that sort of game, i dont even know why you would post what you did.But i don't think that is what is going on.
The DM does not change things around until He/She finds out what works, the group as a whole changes things around until they find out what works.
So is it working in your game?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The item creation rules were made to make things fair to the characters. Removing or limiting them just encourages optimizing as a way of compensating for an extra hard setting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guidelines, not rules.
Very different.
Yes, rules. Adding abilities without justification or cost, which others cannot acquire, is pretty much cheating. If a player did it, the GM would throw the book at them. It works both ways. It's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of 4E as a GM. There was tons of stuff that was NPC-only, which breaks verisimilitude and just makes you look like a fool as a GM.
A great example would be this time I was asked to GM for this group by request of the usual GM. The adventure he wanted me to run was very basic. It was a tower adventure (pretty much entirely combat, going from room to room fighting), and the only thing was that it had to have a lich boss at the end. For the lich boss, he recommended that it be like a 17th level lich wizard, and okayed the use of PC-wealth and some "artifacts" that "only work for the lich" that gave the lich things like Spell-Resistance vs enemies, +8 to mental statistics, etc. The justification was so the lich could last "more than one round". I agreed to run the game, but I scrapped the lich as was. I rebuilt the lich as a 15th level lich-wizard with core material and NPC wealth, and tossed a pair of advanced Allips into the fight and called it a day. Adventure went great. No cheatery needed.
But the point is twofold. The first is obviously that cheating is wrong, unnecessary, and being a bad sport, even if it's the GM that does it. The second is related to the point that magic items don't make power gamers and power gaming has nothing to do with magic items.
I'm a power gamer/optimizer. I am in every thing I play and do. It is my nature. It has nothing to do with magic items. Magic items aren't a symptom. It doesn't require cheating to do or to meet. I have a healthy respect for normal dangers. I'm often the first in our games to suggest a tactical retreat if things look bad. Power gaming means you'll make the most out of what you've got, and making magic items harder to craft isn't going to stifle a power gamer. If anything, it will probably make them even more noticeable; because it is the power gamer who is most likely to thrive in such conditions.
|
|
Its not really about funding what your character needs, its about getting those specific items that will fully optimize your character.
...
Again, its beyond the "need". You need a certain number to hit a creatures AC, optimization is not getting to the point where you just hit, optimization is the point where you can hit their AC easily and you are doing way more damage than you normally should and passing skill checks by 10 or even 15 points above the DC.
And the truth comes out. This has nothing to do with magic items but anti-optimization sentiment. And also a questionable argument. Optimization is not about being above everything else. It is about being competent at what you do. From another thread:
Shallow, you're not going to get rid of optimization. It will never happen. It's happened as far back as...This reminds me of an aspect of power gaming that few tend to appreciate [or talk about]. That's knowing when enough is enough and time to focus on shoring up your other strengths. It's one of the reasons that I don't bother taking Power Attack at 1st level most of the time (unless I can't really think of something I'd rather take). +3 damage is huge at 1st level. However, it's not really useful. Most foes aren't going to have more than 10 Hp at that level, and honestly 2d6+6 (or even 1d8+6) is enough to one-shot almost everything you come across (most things CR 3 or less will be dropped in 1-2 rounds just the same). You'd get way more mileage out of something like Improved Initiative, Toughness, or even Skill Focus at that point.
What's actually funny about this scenario is that by specializing to such a powerful degree, the character has only harmed their chances of success. Sure, it might mean the character could do worthwhile amounts of damage to creatures several CRs higher than his or herself, but the likelihood of succeeding in such encounters is very poor, while being more well rounded would ensure a greater chance of survival/victory.
I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.
|
|
Guidelines, not rules.
Very different.
Yes, rules. Adding abilities without justification or cost, which others cannot acquire, is pretty much cheating. If a player did it, the GM would throw the book at them. It works both ways. It's one of the reasons I'm not a fan of 4E as a GM. There was tons of stuff that was NPC-only, which breaks verisimilitude and just makes you look like a fool as a GM.
A great example would be this time I was asked to GM for this group by request of the usual GM. The adventure he wanted me to run was very basic. It was a tower adventure (pretty much entirely combat, going from room to room fighting), and the only thing was that it had to have a lich boss at the end. For the lich boss, he recommended that it be like a 17th level lich wizard, and okayed the use of PC-wealth and some "artifacts" that "only work for the lich" that gave the lich things like Spell-Resistance vs enemies, +8 to mental statistics, etc. The justification was so the lich could last "more than one round". I agreed to run the game, but I scrapped the lich as was. I rebuilt the lich as a 15th level lich-wizard with core material and NPC wealth, and tossed a pair of advanced Allips into the fight and called it a day. Adventure went great. No cheatery needed.
But the point is twofold. The first is obviously that cheating is wrong, unnecessary, and being a bad sport, even if it's the GM that does it. The second is related to the point that magic items don't make power gamers and power gaming has nothing to do with magic items.
I'm a power gamer/optimizer. I am in every thing I play and do. It is my nature. It has nothing to do with magic items. Magic items aren't a symptom. It doesn't require cheating to do or to meet. I have a healthy respect for normal dangers. I'm often the first in our games to suggest a tactical retreat if things look bad. Power gaming means you'll make the most out of what you've got, and making magic items harder to craft isn't going to stifle a power...
False.
The DMG actually gives DMs the go ahead to change what ever they feel they need to change.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.
This game is built on the chassis of 3.5e D&D and it's fanbase are people who either embraced the magic item paradigm of 3E or they don't give a fling about it. Those who didn't like it either swallowed the bitter pill or moved on (or back) to retroclones where magic items are DM territory.
In either case, you're a Catholic priest who's trying to convince a bunch of Baptists that they're doing it wrong.
|
|
Yeah, that Rat King, why didn't the player use UMD?
He could have emulated Rat King (race) and the pipes would HAVE to act like they did for the Rat King. Otherwise DM would have been a liar.
Incorrect.
Thats not how UMD works and if you read the thread you would see that it was the Rat King that had the ability and not the pipes. UMD only works if the item has a certain requirement. The pipes didnt have "Rat King" as its prereq.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I search for the term "Magic Item Rules". No luck. I even searched the text for the word "Rule." No luck again.
I did not find it.
I did however find this:
"Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."
And then I posted it here and bolded it for emphasis.
If the formula is written in a book, you can make it for that cost with the prerequisties, by rule.
Anything else, is a guideline.
|
|
I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.This game is built on the chassis of 3.5e D&D and it's fanbase are people who either embraced the magic item paradigm of 3E or they don't give a fling about it. Those who didn't like it either swallowed the bitter pill or moved on (or back) to retroclones where magic items are DM territory.
In either case, you're a Catholic priest who's trying to convince a bunch of Baptists that they're doing it wrong.
Or you know, actually change the rules which is something people have done.
In 3.5, XP loss helped to curb the magic item appetite but Pathfinder felt it needed to be easier.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.This game is built on the chassis of 3.5e D&D and it's fanbase are people who either embraced the magic item paradigm of 3E or they don't give a fling about it. Those who didn't like it either swallowed the bitter pill or moved on (or back) to retroclones where magic items are DM territory.
In either case, you're a Catholic priest who's trying to convince a bunch of Baptists that they're doing it wrong.
Or you know, actually change the rules which is something people have done.
In 3.5, XP loss helped to curb the magic item appetite but Pathfinder felt it needed to be easier.
It "helped" nothing, it was a lame mechanic that's missed by no-one. Seriously, more people have been throwing fits over Barbarians not being any more illiterate in Pathfinder than they were throwing over XP costs removed for crafting.
|
|
It "helped" nothing, it was a lame mechanic that's missed by no-one. Seriously, more people have been throwing fits over Barbarians not being any more illiterate in Pathfinder than they were throwing over XP costs removed for crafting.I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.This game is built on the chassis of 3.5e D&D and it's fanbase are people who either embraced the magic item paradigm of 3E or they don't give a fling about it. Those who didn't like it either swallowed the bitter pill or moved on (or back) to retroclones where magic items are DM territory.
In either case, you're a Catholic priest who's trying to convince a bunch of Baptists that they're doing it wrong.
Or you know, actually change the rules which is something people have done.
In 3.5, XP loss helped to curb the magic item appetite but Pathfinder felt it needed to be easier.
Helped in our games, sorry it didnt in yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with magic item creation being too simple which leads to other problems such as " if your not optimized then your character is pointless" and magic items being all too common and expected at certain levels.
It doesn't lead to that, and to my knowledge nobody said that. I criticized several builds you presented for monks and fighters. Not because of their magic items but because they wouldn't have made it very long in one of my games unless you were holy-damn-clever. Not because my NPCs are optimized but because I play hardball. I don't softball and patronize you. I play the NPCs as they would be. That means that yes, if the kobold sorcerer drops you with a sleep or colorspray, you can bet that there is a kobold in the mix that is itching to coup your behind with his x3 critical spear.
Likewise, if you insist on fighting an ogre in melee, you'd best be ready to lay the smack down or get your body laid down instead. It has nothing to do with magic items, other than magic items are generally tools that you can use to improve your capability.
False.
The DMG actually gives DMs the go ahead to change what ever they feel they need to change.
Actually, it says to do it as a group.
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.
And changing rules is different from ignoring them when you feel like it. If I say that I'm changing the way falling damage works in my games, it's not cool if I only apply those rules to PCs or NPCs. If I say that fireball is banned (maybe my world's metaphysics cannot support such displays) and then an NPC wizard drops a fireball on the party, I'm a failure. And honestly, if a GM I played with made a habit of cheating like this, I'd walk. I have better things to do than to play with people who don't want the rules to apply to everyone. It breaks verisimilitude, and I find it to be a stupid and unnecessary practice because experience has taught me that it isn't needed.
I did not find it.
I did however find this:
"Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."
And then I posted it here and bolded it for emphasis.
If the formula is written in a book, you can make it for that cost with the prerequisties, by rule.
Anything else, is a guideline.
Newsflash. This just in. A scroll of CL 1 magic missile is 25 gp, takes 1 day to craft, and 12.5 gp. A cloak of resistance +5 is 25,000 gp, takes 25 days to craft, and 12,500 gp. An elixir of hiding is 250 gp, takes 1 day to craft, and 125 gp. I'm not sure what the point of linking me to part of the book that said creating new magic items wasn't always a direct process, but it has little to nothing to do with the benefits or simplicity of creating magic items.
I love how any 5th level magic arms crafter with enough resources can craft items with Wish spells in them in PF, even if there are no casters in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.
The easiest way to nip this stuff in the bud is make the prerequisites actual prerequisites. Just strike the language allowing prerequisites to be bypassed.
It "helped" nothing, it was a lame mechanic that's missed by no-one. Seriously, more people have been throwing fits over Barbarians not being any more illiterate in Pathfinder than they were throwing over XP costs removed for crafting.
Gorbacz is right. And XP costs didn't do anything to curb power gamers. In fact, it was an example of how the knowledge of the system rewarded system mastery. XP costs seemed like a deterrent for those who didn't understand it. Meanwhile, those of us who understood how the XP system worked knew that we could get power from magic items right now and get all the XP refunded to use in leaps and bounds later. There are cases where item crafters ended up ahead of the non-crafters because of this.
The reason is simple. You got more XP for things if you were a lower level, and less XP for things if you were a higher level. Here's an example of how this worked.
I'm a 7th level wizard. My party is 8th level. I'm 1 level behind because I've been crafting magic items like it was my god given duty. However, the power these magic items grant me means I'm not particularly concerned (because if I've made enough magic items to actually fall a whole level behind, I must be freaking blinged).
So now we go on our adventure. Our APL = 8. We encounter 14 APL-1 encounters (7) and 6 APL encounters (8). Our XP spread looks like this.
CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR7 CR8 CR8 CR8 CR8 CR8 CR8 CR8 CR8 TOTAL TO AWARD
L7 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 2100 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 3150 54600 13650 Exp
L8 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 41600 10400 Exp
L8 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 41600 10400 Exp
L8 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 41600 10400 Exp
We just earned 3,250 XP more than the rest of the party. Which means to have no caught up with them (or even passed them), we would have needed to have crafted 81,250 gp worth of magic items at level 7-8.
XP costs didn't do anything except add more bookkeeping and deter the inexperienced from using their class features.
I think I am going to have to agree with Ashiel on all points so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you know, actually change the rules which is something people have done.
If this is what you are after then clearly you posted in the wrong forum.
You need to ask the mods to move this to House Rules. On that forum you will see far more support and less resistance. Because here people will defend what is right. And RAW is right.
Well with an AP there is usually time pressure involved, so crafting isn't a good option (though with kingmaker and skull and shackles there is nearly infinite time so even that isn't universal).
But in a home brew game, anything goes. IMHO there is aging rules for a reason, if the party isn't in a time sensitive mission (and who really likes from level 1-20 constant time pressure?), then they can choose to take time off to actually use the wealth they have been gaining.
I love how any 5th level magic arms crafter with enough resources can craft items with Wish spells in them in PF, even if there are no casters in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.The easiest way to nip this stuff in the bud is make the prerequisites actual prerequisites. Just strike the language allowing prerequisites to be bypassed.
This is actually what I love the most about PF's item creation system. It's astoundingly good from a world-building standpoint. Traditionally it is assumed that high level characters are rare, and yet you end up with issues that high level magic items exist, can be found, bought, sold, traded, etc. Eberron exemplified the problem with this understanding. In Eberron, the highest level individuals - including liches and the like - were expected to be about 10th level. Yet if you paged through the book, many of the magic items that were present throughout the world such as airships, lightning trains, and so forth, required CLs of extreme levels (11+); creating a verisimilitude problem.
In Pathfinder, it's entirely possible that an adept (those NPC classed casters who aren't very powerful but are supposed to fill the generic caster and common casting needs for communities) can craft things. It explains why there is a decent and wide trade of lower level magic items, but nothing readily available over about 16,000 gp.
I like that. As for amassing a ton of wealth and making a fairly difficult (for common casters) check to craft a Wish-item, that doesn't bother me. Wish isn't that special, and there are easier methods. The DC to create a wish item is a minimum of 27. To do so without chance of failing you'd need a +17 spellcraft. Not likely unless you're already at least a mid-level caster. And then you're probably flushing money. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, it's entirely possible that an adept (those NPC classed casters who aren't very powerful but are supposed to fill the generic caster and common casting needs for communities) can craft things. It explains why there is a decent and wide trade of lower level magic items, but nothing readily available over about 16,000 gp.
That does help explain why there are cursed items as the DC is low enough that normal casters wouldn't fail.
The fact that low level casters can craft items capable of casting wish is an absurd, laughable, downright insane aspect that is just one of many, many examples of how totally, irrevocably, irretrievably broken the magic item system is in PF.
There are many factors that come into play and the only way to get any data is to sit down and monitor an on going campaign.Not true. They also prevent the use of storyline based leveling, which has become very popular in Pathfinder.
Um, I think you may have a misquote. I don't recall saying that. Could you point out where I did? O.o
Show me how this is done using the appropriate WBL of a 5th level character, and then we'll talk. Games that shower such a character with a million gold pieces need not apply.
I love how any 5th level magic arms crafter with enough resources can craft items with Wish spells in them in PF, even if there are no casters in the entire campaign capable of casting Wish.The easiest way to nip this stuff in the bud is make the prerequisites actual prerequisites. Just strike the language allowing prerequisites to be bypassed.
Scenario 1:
*King knocks on PC's door.**PC answers door*
"Hi, I'm the King. Make me a luck blade. Here's some gold."
"Okay."
Scenario 2:
*near total party wipe*
*caster survives, picks up the other member's gear.*
If WBL is the only thing you're going on to cap power level in your game system, why have "levels" at all?
There's also that any 3rd level caster can craft a Candle of Invocation and cast Gate, at real bargain prices as well. That's only 4200 gp to craft - same cost as about five potions, depending on who's brewing them.
All this nonsense goes away if you make the prereqs act like actual prereqs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who realizes that with time, effort, and practice you can create things vastly beyond your own capabilities? The people who created the Atomic Bomb cannot look at a city and level it with their will alone, but through industrious activities created a tool that could do just that.
This is how I view magic. This is how magic would likely function in the world. No, you can't make fireballs spring from your fingertips. You're not advanced enough for that, but given enough time and resources, and some know-how, you can achieve the same effect.
Honestly, that's a plot device of its own. The BBEGs working to create a tool to cast earthquake without the aid of a high level druid to use as a weapon against a rival power is a perfect example of how this would play out.
Am I the only one who realizes that with time, effort, and practice you can create things vastly beyond your own capabilities? The people who created the Atomic Bomb cannot look at a city and level it with their will alone, but through industrious activities created a tool that could do just that.
This is how I view magic. This is how magic would likely function in the world. No, you can't make fireballs spring from your fingertips. You're not advanced enough for that, but given enough time and resources, and some know-how, you can achieve the same effect.
Honestly, that's a plot device of its own. The BBEGs working to create a tool to cast earthquake without the aid of a high level druid to use as a weapon against a rival power is a perfect example of how this would play out.
I don't view magic this way. And I don't agree at all with your atomic bomb analogy. If magic worked by people assembling little parts of a magic spell, all of which work independently, but can then be combined into a larger magic spell, then your analogy would have some merit.
But magic spells don't work that way. They work because an individual can cast them. I can't get three druids to each cast 1/3 of a spell and add them together. I can make a bomb that way.
We've had this disagreement before Ashiel. You want magic to work this way because it allows you to do things that I find to be ridiculous exploits, like having level 5 casters make items that can cast wish.
It's absurd on the face of it. It breaks game balance. It breaks verisimilitude. I repeat myself, it is just one single aspect of a magic item system that is totally, irredeemably, irretrievably, broken.
When a new book comes out that has wonderous items in it, you technically know how to create it automatically, all with just a single feat investment.For my own personal opinion: Craft Wondrous Item doesn't grant you the knowledge to make every item automatically. That would be silly. Think of it more like being a chef. A spellcaster with Craft Wondrous Item knows his way around a kitchen, but just like a chef, he doesn't know every recipe there is in the world. But chef know how to cook without recipes (there's enough culinary reality shows around to prove that.) If they suddenly need to make a stir-fry, despite never having working in an asian restaurant before, a good chef will be able to make a reasonable facsimile.
In the same way, Fighter McGee walks into Mage McWizardton's item shop and says "I'm tired of monsters grabbing me and pinning me down where I can't even swing a sword. Is there anything you have that will, I don't know, light them on fire or fill them with spikes or something?". McWizardton has never made a shirt of immolation before: maybe he normally works more on bags of holding and elixers of love. Heck, maybe no one on that world had ever made one before. But he's still a wizard and he knows the flame shield spell, so he comes up with something. And the end result is a shirt of immolation.
I love this metaphor. You, Sir, get a cookie.
*hands over cookie*
|
|
Newsflash. This just in. A scroll of CL 1 magic missile is 25 gp, takes 1 day to craft, and 12.5 gp. A cloak of resistance +5 is 25,000 gp, takes 25 days to craft, and 12,500 gp. An elixir of hiding is 250 gp, takes 1 day to craft, and 125 gp. I'm not sure what the point of linking me to part of the book that said creating new magic items wasn't always a direct process, but it has little to nothing to do with the benefits or simplicity of creating magic items.
And water is wet.
Those are things that have specific listed costs and pre-requisites in the book.
If it ain't in the book, it's a guideline.
If the book lists a price it is the price.
How do you determine prices of items not in the book?And you start by looking at other items for pricing rather try to find a cheaper way to do it using the guidelines.
Because they are guidelines, not rules.
Too bad the devs haven't weighed in on this...
I will second that Atarlost... These forums seem unwieldy or at the very least unfriendly toward corrections and quotes.