| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic rolls are stress rolls due to magic's nature. You can't take 10 on a stress roll.I also don't allow Take 10 on skill rolls involving magic.Orly?
I think that's a fantastic house rule and would really mitigate how "Current Magic Item Creation Rules are Just Too Easy," however, taking 10 is legal under the existing rules as written, despite how dumb that may seem to you and I.
|
What a lot of us want is to have a system that doesn't require as much GM adjudication of such things because of how exploitable some things are because players keep saying "It's within the rules" when they mean "The rules don't expressly forbid it and I've found guidelines that I can exploit!"To be fair that is not a problem of the magic item ystem but a problem with bad players.
True that they exist, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to reduce the severity of dealing with the problem where possible.
I think "the idea that looting your dead party members creating a wbl imbalance so it shouldnt be allowed" is hillarious. Clearly his loot is lying right there. He'd want you to have it unless he's the kind of party member who'd yell at you all night for letting him get killed and not bringing him back, but thats overcomplicating things... Truth is we just wouldnt want to anger Galactonerf-the-Allfather by taking whats clearly lying right in front of us. If wbl is more important than common sense then I'm hopping the first Roc off this rock because this metahammer just jumped the beej67... I mean the shark.
If the gm doesnt like it well hey. Sometimes killing off a party member doesnt work in your favor. Thems the breaks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My word it's hard to keep up with this...
Ciretose: I used the phrase "riled up" because every post of yours seems to just be saying "It's a guideline". Repeating a truth isn't going to make anyone hear it better, it's just going to annoy the people who have to read it over and over.
Adamantine Dragon: Lying about "Thousands of supporting threads" sure doesn't help your point... not when the lie is so obvious. Until this thread (and it's spawns) the only real raging debate was over alignment. OR are you suggesting this is across the whole history of the internet in which case there are probably thousands of threads to support ANY viewpoint making it a pointless claim.
I for one think the magic item creation system works just fine.
Fortunately the developers agree with me.
It is fairly well defined and works as perfectly as any system can.
-You have feats which allow you to build some set of items at half cost.
-Any custom items are completely up to the GM and are priced by comparing them to existing items and the table...
Could it be tweaked to work better? Sure... but any changes are going to probably irritate more people than leaving it alone will. Best at this point to leave it in the GMs capable hands since this works best. Later I highly suggest extensive play testing of any changes before deciding whether to actually use them. Most changes just create more problems than they solve. So the wise course is to tread carefully.
|
My word it's hard to keep up with this...
Ciretose: I used the phrase "riled up" because every post of yours seems to just be saying "It's a guideline". Repeating a truth isn't going to make anyone hear it better, it's just going to annoy the people who have to read it over and over.
Adamantine Dragon: Lying about "Thousands of supporting threads" sure doesn't help your point... not when the lie is so obvious. Until this thread (and it's spawns) the only real raging debate was over alignment. OR are you suggesting this is across the whole history of the internet in which case there are probably thousands of threads to support ANY viewpoint making it a pointless claim.
I for one think the magic item creation system works just fine.
Fortunately the developers agree with me.It is fairly well defined and works as perfectly as any system can.
-You have feats which allow you to build some set of items at half cost.
-Any custom items are completely up to the GM and are priced by comparing them to existing items and the table...Could it be tweaked to work better? Sure... but any changes are going to probably irritate more people than leaving it alone will. Best at this point to leave it in the GMs capable hands since this works best. Later I highly suggest extensive play testing of any changes before deciding whether to actually use them. Most changes just create more problems than they solve. So the wise course is to tread carefully.
Please give us some examples as to how well the system currently works.
What makes it so great in your eyes?
PS: You do realize that the current system is only held together through GM fiat.
4. Provide an actual algorithm based custom magic item creating system that allows the creation of unique and interesting magic items without requiring the GM to try to figure out complex pricing "guidelines" which are nothing but an open invitation to argument from the player.
I think this is not a reasonable request. pricing a +x on an item is something reasonable, pricing unique and interesting items is other very diferent thing.
Eve if someone can mae such algoristhm there will be people complaing and people bending to obtain the most powerful benefits .
Personally I am fine with Dms pricing the items, it is part of the Dm work afther all.
If "people complaining and people bending to obtain the most powerful benefits" is a measure of how "unreasonable" a rules system is, the one we have is already a prime example of such a thing. So why is it so "unreasonable" to suggest an alternative that I believe would actually IMPROVE the situation?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My word it's hard to keep up with this...
Ciretose: I used the phrase "riled up" because every post of yours seems to just be saying "It's a guideline". Repeating a truth isn't going to make anyone hear it better, it's just going to annoy the people who have to read it over and over.
Adamantine Dragon: Lying about "Thousands of supporting threads" sure doesn't help your point... not when the lie is so obvious. Until this thread (and it's spawns) the only real raging debate was over alignment. OR are you suggesting this is across the whole history of the internet in which case there are probably thousands of threads to support ANY viewpoint making it a pointless claim.
I for one think the magic item creation system works just fine.
Fortunately the developers agree with me.It is fairly well defined and works as perfectly as any system can.
-You have feats which allow you to build some set of items at half cost.
-Any custom items are completely up to the GM and are priced by comparing them to existing items and the table...Could it be tweaked to work better? Sure... but any changes are going to probably irritate more people than leaving it alone will. Best at this point to leave it in the GMs capable hands since this works best. Later I highly suggest extensive play testing of any changes before deciding whether to actually use them. Most changes just create more problems than they solve. So the wise course is to tread carefully.
Please give us some examples as to how well the system currently works.
What makes it so great in your eyes?
PS: You do realize that the current system is only held together through GM fiat.
No... custom items are held by GM fiat not the whole creation system. This IS good because not every game is the same. An item might be allowed in one game and not in another. Allowed custom items might only work in a specific type of game and alterations in costs for custom gear is best arbitrated by the one who knows THE SPECIFIC GAME best, the GM. If you want your character's items to be portable across any game then you stick to the core items which can be built by the rules as they stand. Items which were deemed balanced by our fine team of developers are safe to use at the listed costs and requirements, anything else is pure GM fiat.
Careful everyone. It's this kind of talk that got us 4E in the first place.
Also, taking Craft feats is roughly equivalent to a +1 bonus across the board due to the price scaling. This has already been shown in several threads. Crafting is hardly "a joke."
And this was actually shown to be totally erroneous as soon as you start doing basic math.
It actually works out as +2 to +5, CUMULATIVE, depending on what is being addressed. Very easy test...take a given amount of money, spend it on item of your choice. Then either double it or halve it, and you get the effect without Crafting.
Let's use 25k Gp.
Weapon? 25k buys a +3 Weapon. If you are a crafter, it buys you a +5 Weapon...or close to 3 +3 weapons. That's +2...or a lot of +3 weapons.
Armor and Shield. This buys you Armor+4 and Shield +3. If you are a crafter, it buys you +5 in each. That's +3.
Cloak of Resistance. 25k buys you +5. If you are a crafter, it buys you that, and your Amulet of Nat AC+5. That's +5.
Stat buffs? 25k buys you a +4 to one stat. If you are a crafter, it buys you +4 to THREE stats. You get Str, I'll add Dex and Con, too, tyvm.
It buys you two wands of CLW, instead of one. It buys you twice as much condition removal via scrolls. Removal of crippling debuffs, and/or the application of strategic targeted buffs (like death ward) can be more important then 'all on' buffs.
Someone with crafting can easily be +5 ahead on AC for their level, +3 to hit and damage, +3 on saves, etc...and all thsoe buffs stack with buff spells.
It's the cumulative power of Crafting feats that is telling, not just for one item or category.
==Aelryinth
---------
Ashiel, you are underestimating the xp cost of wishes in 3.5. Remember, xp/level was 1k x your current level. If you cast three wishes, that's 15k out of the 17k you need for next level GONE...and you can't LOSE a level to xp costs, so you effectively can't cast a wish until you gain more xp.
Everyone remember Mhoire Caste, and Eli Tomorast, the wizard there? ever add up the xp cost of the wishes for his inherent bonuses? It was on the order of 55k gp or somesuch. IF he hadn't used those wishes, he'd have been 22nd level and an Epic character with Epic spells, at a minimum.
They should reinstate xp costs in PF for ONE reason...to stop the idiocy of simulacarum with the crafting feats being able to make magic items. Simulacra don't have xp, and so wouldn't be able to make stuff. The xp cost is truly negligible in PF, but it would still keep the flavor aspect of investing a bit of one's self into what one makes.
Also, a home rule that was popular with DM's in my area was that giving up xp for magic items didn't actually make you lower level for gaining xp. You just kept track of the xp, and were considered the same level you would be if you hadn't spent it. You replaced character levels with magic, that didn't mean you earned xp any faster.
As for 'safe' uses of wishes, wishes are exactly as safe as they are non-exploitative. If you use a wish loophole to do something, the DM is perfectly within their rights to loophole you right back in return.
==Aelryinth
No. that's not an answer. I want you to show me HOW a 5th level character can pull off making a Wish granting item. A complete answer involving skills, spells, equipment, and cost.Feat: Craft Arms and Armor
Luck Blade
ICL 17
Crafting Cost 43,835 gp
(not-really-pre)prequisites: Miracle or Wish
Spellcraft Check = 5 + 17(CL) + 5(missing prereq) = 27
Spellcraft Skill = 3(class skill) + 5(ability mod) + 2(trait) +5(rank) +2(aid) = 17
Take 10 on the roll.A caster who was part of a 4 man party who nearly TPWed could do this with the party resources at 5th level. He also gets a shiny reroll-providing short sword as a bonus.
Of course, the same guy could craft ten Candles of Invocation and summon ten Balor demons, which might be a little more fun in the long run.
Luck blade is a +2 weapon. To create a +2 enhancement bonus on weapons, the creator must have a level that is 3 times the enhancement bonus. This is unavoidable and makes it impossible for a level 5 character to make a +2 weapon/shield/armor. It's an exclusive rule to craft magic arms and armor.
You're also arguing for something that isn't covered by the rules. Farming dead party members for their resources. This is considered faux pas by most people and is usually avoided. Keeping the items from dead companions, unless story/quest related, would skew the balance of the campaign as it introduces more treasure with additional characters that didn't exist in the campaign.
So level 6 then.
No rule that requires the players to metagame is a good rule.
Technically, aren't you missing three pre-reqs: Caster level for the Enhancement bonus; Caster level for the Wish spell; and since you don't have the price in there for the Wish spell on a scroll, missing the spell itself.
Looks like a +15 DC to the spellcraft check.
==Aelryinth
|
|
No... custom items are held by GM fiat not the whole creation system. This IS good because not every game is the same. An item might be allowed in one game and not in another. Allowed custom items might only work in a specific type of game and alterations in costs for custom gear is best...My word it's hard to keep up with this...
Ciretose: I used the phrase "riled up" because every post of yours seems to just be saying "It's a guideline". Repeating a truth isn't going to make anyone hear it better, it's just going to annoy the people who have to read it over and over.
Adamantine Dragon: Lying about "Thousands of supporting threads" sure doesn't help your point... not when the lie is so obvious. Until this thread (and it's spawns) the only real raging debate was over alignment. OR are you suggesting this is across the whole history of the internet in which case there are probably thousands of threads to support ANY viewpoint making it a pointless claim.
I for one think the magic item creation system works just fine.
Fortunately the developers agree with me.It is fairly well defined and works as perfectly as any system can.
-You have feats which allow you to build some set of items at half cost.
-Any custom items are completely up to the GM and are priced by comparing them to existing items and the table...Could it be tweaked to work better? Sure... but any changes are going to probably irritate more people than leaving it alone will. Best at this point to leave it in the GMs capable hands since this works best. Later I highly suggest extensive play testing of any changes before deciding whether to actually use them. Most changes just create more problems than they solve. So the wise course is to tread carefully.
Please give us some examples as to how well the system currently works.
What makes it so great in your eyes?
PS: You do realize that the current system is only held together through GM fiat.
Why are you dodging my question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A reminder to keep it civil, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always thought that they needed to include a "High", "Medium" and "Low" magic crafting set of rules. They inluded Slow, Medium and Fast experience tracks to allow campaign customization. The same could be done for magic crafting (or crafting in general for that matter). High would be the current default PF rules. Medium would involve more time / money, special ingredients (?), etc. Low would require XP costs, NPC help (or crafting skills as appropriate) etc.. The different levels would probably involve different rules about caster levels / restrictions etc.
The experience rules / encounter guidelines would probably need a makeover to fit with the different levels. Creatures with DR Magic would be tougher on characters in a low magic setting for example. A lot of work to do? Yes. More widely usable game? Yes. The current one is by default aimed squarely at the AP user, not surprisingly given their business centers around it. All imo, of course.
This way there would be default methods to customize games / settings. Might come in handy for different APs as well. Assuming people just don't follow the suggestions for levelling up PCs in an AP anyway.
"Doable" I think, and something for a homebrew discussion thread. Honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been done by a 3PP...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, taking Craft feats is roughly equivalent to a +1 bonus across the board due to the price scaling. This has already been shown in several threads. Crafting is hardly "a joke."And this was actually shown to be totally erroneous as soon as you start doing basic math.
It actually works out as +2 to +5, CUMULATIVE, depending on what is being addressed. Very easy test...take a given amount of money, spend it on item of your choice. Then either double it or halve it, and you get the effect without Crafting.
Let's use 25k Gp.
That would be one approach, yes. Though I'd argue that specializing in one specific stat at the expense of others isn't really a fair comparison. It's definitely something to be considered, but I think it's already pretty well accepted that this is a game where you can make sacrifices in other areas to maximize another.
We should also look at what happens when you spread that 25k gp around to all of the big six. (Currently, I have no idea how this will actually end up -- it may or may not support Ravingdork's assertion. Let's find out, shall we?) Based on a quick search, it looks like the big six is most commonly defined as weapon, armor, cloak of resistance, stat belt/headband, ring of protection, and amulet of natural armor.
Weapon: +1 2000, +2 8000, +3 18000
Armor: +1 1000, +2 4000, +3 9000
Cloak: +1 1000, +2 4000, +3 9000
Stats: +2 4000, +4 16000
Ring: +1 2000, +2 8000, +3 18000
Amulet: +1 2000, +2 8000, +3 18000
We can effectively get +2 Armor, Cloak, and Stats, then +1 Weapon, Ring, and Amulet for 18000. We can bump the Weapon, Ring, OR Amulet up to +2 for a total of 24000 gp. That's close enough to our 25000 limit.
For the crafter, we get double the effective money. That gives us +3 Armor and Cloak, +2 Stats to two stats, +2 Weapon, Ring, and Amulet for an effective 50000 gp.
So, net difference between the two is +2 to one stat, and +1 to Armor, Cloak, Weapon, Ring, and Amulet. Ignoring that this is spread across three feats (Craft Magical Arms and Armor, Forge Ring, and Craft Wondrous Item) and requires a caster level of 9 (as opposed to 6) to meet the requirements for the Armor and Cloak, this pretty much matches up with Ravingdork's assertion exactly.
Overall, I'm pretty happy with this balance of crafting giving the choice of a +1 all around, or letting you specialize into 2 stats, rather than just 1.
Mr. Soul:
While i dont want to play your game, i respect you for addressing what you think is wrong.
BUT
Would you mind posting a concrete example or two of what you think a proper magic/crafting system should look like? You might get more positive feedback if we were to have something to compare your stament with.
VR
Why are you dodging my question?
Am I?
You asked why I liked the current system I am explaining it's flexibility allowing it to be what each GM needs it to be... THAT is why I like it. The second you hard code away GM fiat you remove flexibility.
As for examples of the current system: you don't need me for that, you just need a rulebook.
|
|
Why are you dodging my question?Am I?
You asked why I liked the current system I am explaining it's flexibility allowing it to be what each GM needs it to be... THAT is why I like it. The second you hard code away GM fiat you remove flexibility.
As for examples of the current system: you don't need me for that, you just need a rulebook.
A GM can actually do that with any rule so what makes the current magic item rule so special?
Made a simply fantasy system the other day, lot of opposed, varying dice, no high modifiers and no requirement to have magic items to punch at your expected weight. It was quite refreshing.
I recall monty haul campaigns in AD&D, no need for crafting there. I recall 3-3.5 without much in the way of crafting across the games I played in. Good fun could be had.
Then I get to PF, casters start wasting my damn time as a player and dm while they ensure all their slots are filled. The loot they actually earn, that mostly gets converted to coin so they can get the bonuses later. Something was lost in this transition; and there is the problem of fixation on items, dependency, call it what you will. Games more becoming about getting the expected magic item stuff, and less about the setting, the quests, the combat. Very unhappy customer, but if I recall correctly, Gygax said he wasn't happy how this was going way back in 3.5, when it started to rear its head.
No... custom items are held by GM fiat not the whole creation system. This IS good because not every game is the same. An item might be allowed in one game and not in another. Allowed custom items might only work in a specific type of game and alterations in costs for custom gear is best...
This is exactly true, well said :) I wish you had entered the conversation earlier. Although "Guideline" in terms of Item Pricing is restricted to one of two choices. Just to honor the suggestion made by the good man above, Dictionary.com define's "Guideline" as the following:
"A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action: guidelines for the completion of tax returns."
"a principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action"
"guideline - a rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior
guidepost, rule of thumb
rule, regulation - a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior; "it was his rule to take a walk before breakfast"; "short haircuts were the regulation"
And because Pathfinder is a collection of Instructions, which are Regulations, they are therefore restrictive. I'm arguing game theory here, is all, and as LazarX has pointed out, the Golden Rule trumps at one's own table.
And I appreciate that this is an argument over something as simple as this.
As to your bit about AD playing a false hand in claiming "Thousands," he's already denied that he meant that those thousands were in support of his position. I'm not exactly sure after his reprimand what he is assuming about support of his position from this community, though perhaps it was rhetorical posturing on his part? "Many threads on this topic means that something is wrong" seems like the most reasonable way of understanding him.
They could change the Item Creation Rules to be more gritty and of lower power, I'd be happy with that too. I think my position is simply to play by the rules as much as possible what ever they may be. I'm sure that he'll at least agree with that sentiment.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head for me, claymade.
I think the biggest divergence here is that some people want a gameworld where magic is rare and special. With Pathfinder core rules, magic is commonplace... and I love it! I love the idea of magic as just another tool and resource to be studied and carefully applied, it's awesome. I don't want another world where magic is rare and amazing, those are a dime a dozen in fantasy novels.
Besides, it would take a massive overhaul to remove magic items from the balance of the game, so in my opinion it's best just to enjoy the game for what it is, rather than get bent out of shape. There are plenty of other RPGs out there if you want a magic-devoid world anyway. Maybe you could try GURPS?
If magic is lower though, you have to rely less on the items and more on what your character actually brings to the fore, as opposed to what the magic hands over or magnifies in power. Weaknesses are harder to smooth over too, so it is less safe (saves lower unless you made them great through feats and such, less gigantic to hit and damage numbers, that sort of thing). Less safe and less samey (fill all my slots, again and again) is what some people want.
Why are you dodging my question?Am I?
You asked why I liked the current system I am explaining it's flexibility allowing it to be what each GM needs it to be... THAT is why I like it. The second you hard code away GM fiat you remove flexibility.
As for examples of the current system: you don't need me for that, you just need a rulebook.
If a system can only work by GM fiat, it is a bad system. It behooves the developers to re-write the system to work equally good for everybody, without inexperienced GMs getting rolled by more experienced players.
Then I get to PF, casters start wasting my damn time as a player and dm while they ensure all their slots are filled. The loot they actually earn, that mostly gets converted to coin so they can get the bonuses later. Something was lost in this transition; and there is the problem of fixation on items, dependency, call it what you will. Games more becoming about getting the expected magic item stuff, and less about the setting, the quests, the combat. Very unhappy customer, but if I recall correctly, Gygax said he wasn't happy how this was going way back in 3.5, when it started to rear its head.
I think taking away the option to customize their gear from players would at this point be a bad idea. However, taking away the financial incentive would solve most problems with the balance factor it brings to the game, making taking item creation feats an actual choice between "more other feats to customize my character" and "gear customization".
I think taking away the option to customize their gear from players would at this point be a bad idea. However, taking away the financial incentive would solve most problems with the balance factor in the game, making taking item creation feats an actual choice between "more other feats to customize my character" and "gear customization".
This is a fair way of thinking about the issue. If the general 'we' are playing Pathfinder, there aren't any balance issues, only a distaste for the flavor. Pathfinder is about accommodating any playstyle, and its easier to slim down, than to build up; the massive resistance to Adding custom items to the game is proof of this. Its when we attempt to mold the feel of the game to better suit our tastes, that we are forced to Fiat. That's not a problem with the game as was released. And its not a problem with your personal tastes. Its not a problem. If you want to alter the game, there's work required to pull it off. We call those who are good at doing this "Skilled."
A skilled GM can make anything work because he understands the fundamentals of game design to the extent needed to manipulate the material.
I GM'd Rifts for over 11 years, I guess one could call that the school of hard knocks, because one must work very hard to make sense of the mechanics. When I started playing 3E, I came into the game with those instincts to alter and shape, and over the last 13 years or so years I have learned that's it not necessary to change anything, 3.0 worked in its own context, 3.5 worked, and 3P works. They play a bit differently is all. My group loves Pathfinder, for all its warts, its still Fun.
As for balance in general, there's no way to make a game system immune to power gaming. If it can be engineered, it can be reverse engineered. And there's also the problem with making a game so restrictive, that one can't help but feel like the designers are at war with their consumers. Players want options, not railroading. Railroading is for video games. If one chooses to sit in the GM's seat, you accept the responsibility of mastering the game system, and should by now have learned that GM'ing is an art, not a recipe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If magic is lower though, you have to rely less on the items and more on what your character actually brings to the fore, as opposed to what the magic hands over or magnifies in power. Weaknesses are harder to smooth over too, so it is less safe (saves lower unless you made them great through feats and such, less gigantic to hit and damage numbers, that sort of thing). Less safe and less samey (fill all my slots, again and again) is what some people want.
Gritty is a playstyle, and the power-dynamic must be adjusted down as a result. Highfantasy is also a playstyle, which means the power-dynamic can scale to otherwise "impossible" degrees.
May I suggest, if one wants less magic, but also to maintain balance, the most effective, straightforward, least fiat-y way to do this is to increase the Attribute Point Buy at character creation. Even 5 points over that suggested by the AP is noticeable at all levels against stock material. You don't have to do anything else, simply make getting magical gear a special event, upgrading items an unheard of sort of thing, and now magic is extremely special. Since handing out gear is already a GM's judgement call, its not any more effort.
Your players will win every fight by class ability and player gumption :P
This is a fair way of thinking about the issue. If the general 'we' are playing Pathfinder, there aren't any balance issues, only a distaste for the flavor. Pathfinder is about accommodating any playstyle, and its easier to slim down, than to build up; the massive resistance to Adding custom items to the game is proof of this. Its when we attempt to mold the feel of the game to better suit our tastes, that we are forced to Fiat. That's not a problem with the game as was released. And its not a problem with your personal tastes. Its not a problem. If you want to alter the game, there's work required to pull it off. We call those who are good at doing this "Skilled."
A skilled GM can make anything work because he understands the fundamentals of game design to the extent needed to manipulate the material.
Yeah, and for the first years I was not a skilled GM, but a learning one. Those years could have been more fun for me if the system was better balanced, instead of relying on GMs to see the problems for themselves and adjudicate when needed. Hence I advocate for tweaking the current system to remove those imbalancing factors, which, IMO, is the money-making-machine effect of magic item crafting.
As for balance in general, there's no way to make a game system immune to power gaming. If it can be engineered, it can be reverse engineered. And there's also the problem with making a game so restrictive, that one can't help but feel like the designers are at war with their consumers. Players want options, not railroading. Railroading is for video games. If one chooses to sit in the GM's seat, you accept the responsibility of mastering the game system, and should by now have learned that GM'ing is an art, not a recipe.
As I said, I think it is a bad idea to take away the customization factor of magic item crafting. I'll repost my own home-brewn take on how this could be done one more time, so at least you know where I am coming from.
- Crafting price is 95% of market price, except for consumables, which stay with 50% crafting price to market price.
- Crafting times are sped up to 200%, i.e. 2000 gp per day and 4000 gp/day with the +5 DC modifier.
- Crafting time per day is reduced to two hours spent per day on crafting, one hour in quiet meditation/contemplation/concentration, one hour on actual crafting. The first hour is there to justify why "crafting while adventuring" gives only 50% result.
- Many crafting feats are consolidated. Feats remaining are Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Arms and Armor, Craft Potions, Scrolls and Wands, Craft Staffs, Rods and Rings.
- The 50% mark-up for added secondary functions to items is eliminated. You still have to use existing wondrous items as they are instead of just crafting your own custom versions, i.e. +6/+6/+6 belts still cost 50% more on the second and third function.
Some of that stuff is very experimental, like consumables still being cheaper to produce and the prohibition on just creating better, cheaper versions of existing items. But as for the rest, the overall effect is to eliminate the imbalances to the system and make the crafting feats tools of customization, instead of money making machines. The upside for players is that they can craft faster and not have to spend all day in a laboratory, which benefits constantly "on-the-road" adventurers and unusual crafting classes, like Rangers or Druids, who you'd normally expect to do other stuff in the world than rubbing in magical powders into a bracer all day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that the biggest problem I have with crafting is the time...
It is way to quick. You can enchant armor to be +1 in a day. That is faster than the production of the base item.
It's actually harder to create a Masterwork item than it is to make a magic one.
To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item, follow these steps.
1. Find the item's price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
2. Find the item's DC from Table: Craft Skills.
3. Pay 1/3 of the item's price for the raw material cost.
4. Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week's worth of work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you've completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn't equal the price, then it represents the progress you've made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.
If you fail a check by 4 or less, you make no progress this week. If you fail by 5 or more, you ruin half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.
Progress by the Day: You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) should be divided by the number of days in a week.
Create Masterwork Items: You can make a masterwork item: a weapon, suit of armor, shield, or tool that conveys a bonus on its use through its exceptional craftsmanship. To create a masterwork item, you create the masterwork component as if it were a separate item in addition to the standard item. The masterwork component has its own price (300 gp for a weapon or 150 gp for a suit of armor or a shield, see Equipment for the price of other masterwork tools) and a Craft DC of 20. Once both the standard component and the masterwork component are completed, the masterwork item is finished. The cost you pay for the masterwork component is one-third of the given amount, just as it is for the cost in raw materials.
Which means that anything under 15th level caster has a lower DC than the Masterwork item it is created from. So a +1 sword requires a DC 8 check and 2 8 hour days to make, but the Masterwork sword took a DC15 and a DC 20 check and about a weeks work.
Does this make sense to anyone?
in fantasy for centuries, including mythology and fairytales. magic has always been perceived as a means to cheat the natural laws mortals are bound by. such examples of commonly cheated laws are professional mastery and the associated time, the speed at which a task is accomplished, the difficulty in accomplishing the task, and the convenience of the task.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a system can only work by GM fiat, it is a bad system. It behooves the developers to re-write the system to work equally good for everybody, without inexperienced GMs getting rolled by more experienced players.
RPGs by their nature run on GM fiat. If you remove all elements of it, you might as well be playing a computer game.
If a system can only work by GM fiat, it is a bad system. It behooves the developers to re-write the system to work equally good for everybody, without inexperienced GMs getting rolled by more experienced players.RPGs by their nature run on GM fiat. If you remove all elements of it, you might as well be playing a computer game.
Well, if you want to play magical tea party, you can always remove all rules for combat, too.
AD&D loyalist here, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM fiat should never be used to fix something.
An interesting conundrum: if it is my opinion that the game is broken because it is not the flavor I prefer, am I not then forcing myself to Fiat in order to achieve said flavor?
Aren't you forcing your own hand in this situation?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I don't think he is speaking of PC. The problem that that rule generate are the questions:
- why rich kingdoms don't have piles of wish granting gems whit unlimited uses if it cost less than 1.5 millions to make them and they can be made by 5th level wizards?- why the same kingdoms don't have statues of great warriors that enchant the weapons put on the pedestal whit Greater magic weapons, cast at level 20th as a 6th level wizard can make them (again, with unlimited uses in a day)?
- same thing for magical vestment?
and so on.
"The golden guard of the kingdom of Tombar present his weapons and armor to the statues of the great hero Mios to bet them blessed with is might."
in game translation:
"The soldiers place their gear on the pedestal of the statue before donning it and it get a +5 enhancement for 20 hours. Enjoy meeting the militia guards with +5 spears, +5 studded leathers and +5 shields that will become normal items the next day."
The statues can even have the limitation that they work only people of the appropriate alignment for a discount in the crafting price and added security.
|
|
Adamantine Dragon: Lying about "Thousands of supporting threads" sure doesn't help your point... not when the lie is so obvious. Until this thread (and it's spawns) the only real raging debate was over alignment. OR are you suggesting this is across the whole history of the internet in which case there are probably thousands of threads to support ANY viewpoint making it a pointless claim.I for one think the magic item creation system works just fine.
Fortunately the developers agree with me.
You have missed a lot of threads in the forum if you think that there isn't a debate about magic items. I suggest you to read this one, started by SKR: Magic Item Crafting any unresolved questions?. It is a good recap.
BTW, SKR is one of the developers of Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he is speaking of PC. The problem that that rule generate are the questions:
- why rich kingdoms don't have piles of wish granting gems whit unlimited uses if it cost less than 1.5 millions to make them and they can be made by 5th level wizards?
A castle is worth more than unlimited wish. People really need to get off this wish nonsense. It's not that special. Everyone keeps mentioning wish like it was cool. Why not mention a spell that's actually kind of awesome?
why the same kingdoms don't have statues of great warriors that enchant the weapons put on the pedestal whit Greater magic weapons, cast at level 20th as a 6th level wizard can make them (again, with unlimited uses in a day)?
- same thing for magical vestment?
and so on."The golden guard of the kingdom of Tombar present his weapons and armor to the statues of the great hero Mios to bet them blessed with is might."
in game translation:
"The soldiers place their gear on the pedestal of the statue before donning it and it get a +5 enhancement for 20 hours. Enjoy meeting the militia guards with +5 spears, +5 studded leathers and +5 shields that will become normal items the next day."The statues can even have the limitation that they work only people of the appropriate alignment for a discount in the crafting price and added security.
That sounds freaking awesome. It would also make lower level individuals more potent when they have a home-field advantage (and I don't just mean against PCs). I mean, if the 1st-3rd level castle patrols were buffed with greater magic weapon/magic vestment/heroism each day, they would be exceptionally well equipped to defend their people against threats. In a world where things like DR X/Magic is somewhat commonplace, this seems like an excellent idea both tactically and from a world-building/flavor standpoint.
"Sir, our assassin Karneth has just sent word via carrier pidgeon that the three great pillars of Amoni are blessing the weapons of their defenses. If we attempt to take the city now, their forces will be at a great advantage." - Higher Ranking Soldier
"Very well then. Assemble a strike force of our best men and women. We'll have this small force make their way inside and destroy or disable the pillars. We shall see how well Gorlin arrows fly when not carried on the wings of magic." - Leader
GM fiat should never be used to fix something.An interesting conundrum: if it is my opinion that the game is broken because it is not the flavor I prefer, am I not then forcing myself to Fiat in order to achieve said flavor?
Aren't you forcing your own hand in this situation?
You are again asserting that someone said something they didn't say and then pouncing on your own straw man to try to prove your point.
This has been addressed before. The idea that because a GM can change a rule means that no rule can be "broken" is one of the worst fallacies I've ever seen expressed on these boards. Rules are rules. They should work. They should be internally consistent and clear enough that reasonable people agree what they mean. When rules do not meet these standards is it quite accurate to say that they "don't work" or "are broken".
If the rules of Chess were so vague that the movement of the knight could not be agreed upon by reasonably intelligent people, it would be quite accurate to call Chess a "broken game." The fact that any two players could agree for any one game how the knight would move does not "fix" Chess. It just means that people have had to agree to a single interpretation that may or may not match anyone elses.
A statue that could grant greater magic weapon at a CL of 20 an unlimited number of times a day would cost 144,000gp and require a standard action to activate. A statue to cast magic vestments at CL20 would be 108,000gp. A combined item would be 306,000gp. Having multiples of these quickly takes up the entire resource pool. 5 of them exceed the 1.5 million you listed and means the king has no keep, no land, no wizards to make the items, mo guards, no army, no servants, no subjects. Not much of a king. Even having 1 will affect something else about the kingdom, and kingdoms, like countries, take money to run. If you don't pay people to do things, they won't do them.This is also a custom item and could be deemed to be more valuable than the comparing to other items or using the table would dictate, and require a GM to balance. Allowing this means the GM is already allowing custom items, so using judgement to base pricing isn't that big a deal.
No, use the trap rules. Reseting ones.
They are much cheaper.
GM fiat should never be used to fix something.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is less chess and more Civil Code or any other compilation of law. Parts of it were developed recently, parts years ago, parts don't change because of tradition, parts of it are not necessarily in sync with each other (the entire 3.5 skill system is a transplant that acts weird when confronted with some other rules systems, eg. combat), parts of it are just plain strange(hello, falling rules?), parts of it are pretty much rules for rules sake, and it's all so beautifully contrived that I'm almost inclined to use it as a teaching tool for students of Legal Theory.
It's that wonderful, in its' very own way.
A statue that could grant greater magic weapon at a CL of 20 an unlimited number of times a day would cost 144,000gp and require a standard action to activate. A statue to cast magic vestments at CL20 would be 108,000gp. A combined item would be 306,000gp. Having multiples of these quickly takes up the entire resource pool. 5 of them exceed the 1.5 million you listed and means the king has no keep, no land, no wizards to make the items, mo guards, no army, no servants, no subjects. Not much of a king. Even having 1 will affect something else about the kingdom, and kingdoms, like countries, take money to run. If you don't pay people to do things, they won't do them.
This is something worth considering. I'm very big into the world-building aspects of the game, and this is a major issue that is worth noting. Unless the GM just hand-waves quite literally everything concerning anyone except the PCs, realizing the cost vs gain for communities is pretty huge. For the market price of an at-will CL 20 Greater Magic Weapon spell, you could acquire 720 everburning torches (57,600 ft. of light) at market value and light your city (likely reducing crime rate pretty heavily in those areas).
Where is all the money coming from? The taxation level in Pathfinder assumes that 10 gp / month allows you to live and average but comfortable lifestyle, including housing and taxation. Assuming you make about 5 gp / citizen in your kingdom due to taxes (a reasonable portion I imagine), you can make quite a lot of money. At about 25,000+ people (a metropolis), that's 125,000 gp per month in taxes. Suddenly we can afford magic items galore! Right!?
Wrong. A ton of that money then has to go back out into the world as you pay laborers, guards, legal system, architects, military, etc. You have to maintain your infrastructure (roads, ports, bridges, etc). Can you afford to support your people with magical items? Certainly. But you probably won't be purchasing any major magic items on a regular basis.
It's far more productive to do with lesser forms of magic, often in large quantities, than it is to deal with exceptionally high level magics. For a city, shocking grasp has more practical applications than wish does and isn't even on the radar in price comparison.
If the rules of Chess were so vague that the movement of the knight could not be agreed upon by reasonably intelligent people, it would be quite accurate to call Chess a "broken game." The fact that any two players could agree for any one game how the knight would move does not "fix" Chess. It just means that people have had to agree to a single interpretation that may or may not match anyone elses.So what you're asserting is that the developers of the Pathfinder game aren't reasonably intelligent people, who agreed on the rules of item creation prior to authoring the rule books, and everyone else in the various threads who don't agree with your interpretation, wrong or right, are not reasonably intelligent people because they can't come to an agreement.
Pathfinder, just like chess, has a determined set of rules that are balanced by their designers, to the goals they sought to achieve. The argument of change is akin to saying pawns should be able to attack head on and not just on a diagonal. It doesn't change the movement limitations of the piece for spaces moved, but now it changes a lot about game strategy.
Reminds me of .... :P
|
|
GM fiat should never be used to fix something.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.
Im sorry but the above is not a fix nor was it meant to be. Changing a rule because you dont like it is something completely different than needing to change it because it has elements that dont work.