Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason I've advocated needing a caster present is because it adds another level to the difficulty, just because you have knowledge of how to make a certain type of magic item with your character researched perhaps in an enchanting tree, I don't think that should mean that you can just make it. Requirements of knowing and being able to cast specific spells for the enchantments should be a big part of it to.
Though in the tabletop game a lot of the base spells required to add enchantment bonuses are low level spells. Like Bull's strength for a strength bonus, or Cat's grace for a Dexterity bonus, Mage Armor for an AC bonus, etc... After that the level of the bonus being dependant on a divisor of 3 on the caster level, having enough experience that was required available before you hopped over to the next level since you couldn't use enough to drop you a level, having the right components and tools, etc..
First off, I'd like to preface what I like in the games general plans and why I disagree. Many areas of the game are intended to encorage specialization, at least focus on one specialization at a time for shorterm boosting your power. Ryan's likened many parts to eve's system. Where no one hits the max of everything (at least as far as I know, no one is anywhere near yet). Which gives beginers a chance to play in semi even grounds with a vet. Assuming capstones at 2.5 years in, Someone who spent those 2.5 years specialized in Barbarian role related skills, will be on par with or better at barbarian style fighting than someone 10 years in, who has focused on other skills.
The main issue I have with it, first off you have to understand the difficulty in crafting something is a constant. IE if the dev's goal is for this item to start being made 8 months in, then focusing purely on that path, will take 8 months to get. Whether the skills they define as necessary are arcane transmutation, or enchanting transmutation. that in itself is a constant.
So no matter what, it takes 8 months. Now someone who has no interest in crafting plays a wizard for 3 years, someone who has no interest in anything other than crafting begins at that point, and focuses purely on crafting. The wizard kinda decides for the heck of it to dabble in crafting, because he already knows the spells. The fact that the wizard can just dabble in because he got half or more of the necessities while working on his combat, which is a completely different gameplay style, giving him an enormous head start, while the crafter is forced to get the crafting abilities. Meanwhile the fighter who's role is as equally unrelated to crafting as the wizard, Does have to go through the same work as a new starter.
So the issue isn't that it adds time for the crafter making him train extra skills. It is that it REMOVES time for someone who picked the arcane or divine casting role, while leaving the person who doesn't care to play as a combatant, or enjoys a non-magical combatant at an unfair disadvantage in the field of crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I don't understand the dicotomy, why can't "crafter classes" have arcane and/or even divine trees for adding keywords and abilities to their crafts?
I think it is much more logical for a master sword crafter to go learn how to advance his/her art by utilizing magic (which in PFO anyone who wants to train it - has access to) than it is for a wizard who casts all instanced, limited duration effects to learn how to artifice. But then, I am all for requiring both...
Think about an example of a crafter of holy items for use by clerics. The crafter must have the skill to craft the base item, but then they would also need the favor of the specific deity in question to give the permanent "blessing". Why not require the crafter to have x amount of crafting skill and y amount of divine casting skill? This would insure that "build" is in demand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi
Yes, the wizard should have the edge. If the person who had been focusing on learning to do every sort of crafting didn't go out of their way to focus on learning magic, why the heck should they be able to make magic items?
They can make the items that will be enchanted, because it still needs to be masterwork, but if they didn't want to learn magic, then they don't get to make magic items.
AND if someone focused on being a wizard and had a load of spells, they'd be able to make the magic items that fell under the wizards purview, but not items for which you needed other casting classes if they learned to enchant as well and took the time.
The game is meant to take a long time, so you can't max out super fast. If it goes your way, and someone focuses just on enchanting because enchanting has a skill tree and they don't need to be able to cast magic, or have to go find the spells as well then they'll be able to make the biggest baddest magical items in the game very quickly.
I'd imagine to get to the end of all the crafting skills it would take quite some time. If you didn't learn to do anything else except enchanting? I couldn't see it taking all that long at all with the way you're proposing.
But if you have to learn wizardry, or to be a cleric, or to be some other caster. Sure if you also focus on enchanting and crafting skills and happen to get the right spells, then you could make some magical items after awhile, and it would be probably around 3 years before you could make the biggest baddest stuff. As opposed to say 2 months with the way you're suggesting.
Magical items should require multiple combined skill sets. Not just one all powerful crafting skills tree.
You keep preaching give the crafters ALL the power. And you keep trying to say that people who want you to require to have a magic class are saying give the magic users ALL the power. We're not saying that. We're saying you should need BOTH, not just one.
It's magic users in the game world who made the magic items, so it makes sense in the MMO it should be too. That warrior who never took the time to learn magic, is it fair to the Wizard or Cleric who did that some jock with a sword can start making wands and other stuff to replicate their entire career? NO. Magic items are to bring magic to people who don't have it, or to enchance the magic that's already there or work along side it, it's made by magic users, not the blacksmith down the road, or the world weary Warrior.
What you're suggesting is that your crafter could learn all this crafting, then go off and say make a bunch of magical armor, and wands of fireballs and potions of healing, and who knows what else, then all of a sudden he's just as equipped to go out in the wilderness from sitting in his forge and fight on the same level as the people who have be fighting tooth and nail to master their craft. You need to think things through before you start getting greedy.
8 months huh? Well that would make the enchanting class the best class in the game. Because everyone else who was going strong if it takes 2.5 years to get to level 20, after 8 months maybe people are level 5 or 6. But the enchanter he can't cast magic so he can wear full plate with the max magical bonus, and have his belt pouch of wands for any occassion. Takes the time to learn to use wands, can't imagine the wand skill would take too much time, maybe a week or a few days to max out. Then pulls out his wand of Meteor shower and AoE's everything... something attacks him and he quaffs a potion of ultimate healing if he needs it because his rings of mega regeneration keep him up against anything the players a 8 months in could go against. Then he pulls out his tome of wish and dicks around with that for awhile, makes some adamantine golems to follow him around.
You should 100% require magical skill before making magical items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi
Yes, the wizard should have the edge. If the person who had been focusing on learning to do every sort of crafting didn't go out of their way to focus on learning magic, why the heck should they be able to make magic items?
The key question here is, why should it be more or less, why should it be the same magic tree? Why not have it's own seperate magic tree.
Why should a racecar driver, have an edge on building engines?
I find it perfectly acceptable for enchanting to have every challange as spellcasting, IE learning the enchants takes similar time, similar effort hastle of finding enchanting recepies int the same way that wizards have to find spells etc...
But if we are going to give wizards a shortcut to have half of their crafting training done. Things will need to be ballanced to avoid a huge abundance of wizards, or an excess of crafters.
Assuming comperable value in PVP, PVE etc... what do you think is going to be the swing here. Say joe here's 2 favorite classes are wizard and rogue. If both are comperably useful in the game... one can afterwards start with half of his crafting training done, one can't... well it's a no brainer, joe is going to train wizard, followed by grabbing crafting before learning rogue... end result we have a very homogenous world with a very clear wizard majority.
Second issue we wind up with... 2.5 years in, everyone who started as a wizard, is deciding the second role to take. Well half the work for the enchanting crafting line is half way done... Soo why the heck not, they all opt to wrap that up before leveling up any other adventuring role.
3.5 years in, we've got a world where half the population is wizards, and all of the first string wizards are now enchanters.
Now there are counterbalances that could be implimented.
1. Refreshes/castings etc... could intentionally be set to make wizards a sub-par adventuring class to compensate for their free bonus to crafting.
2. All other roles could get their own bonus to some other part of the harvesting/crafting portion. Say rogues skills grant a luck bonus to finding goods off of NPC monsters, The aristocrat role requires fighter role, ranger gives a bonus to harvesting etc... This would mitigate class imbalances, but it would still be a rude gesture to those who want to be pure crafters
3. My recomendation of which we avoid something like this by not giving any class a particular advantage in a role of which it is not directly similar in playstyle to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi
What you're suggesting is that your crafter could learn all this crafting, then go off and say make a bunch of magical armor, and wands of fireballs and potions of healing, and who knows what else, then all of a sudden he's just as equipped to go out in the wilderness from sitting in his forge and fight on the same level as the people who have be fighting tooth and nail to master their craft. You need to think things through before you start getting greedy.8 months huh? Well that would make the enchanting class the best class in the game. Because everyone else who was going strong if it takes 2.5 years to get to level 20, after 8 months maybe people are level 5 or 6. But the enchanter he can't cast magic so he can wear full plate with the max magical bonus, and have his belt pouch of wands for any occassion. Takes the time to learn to use wands, can't imagine the wand skill would take too much time, maybe a week or a few days to max out. Then pulls out his wand of Meteor shower and AoE's everything... something attacks him and he quaffs a potion of ultimate healing if he needs it because his rings of mega regeneration keep him up against anything the players a 8 months in could go against. Then he pulls out his tome of wish and dicks around with that for awhile, makes some adamantine golems to follow him around.
You should 100% require magical skill before making magical items.
I reiterate my previous statement, I had edited it likely while you were replying, so you might not have seen it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Magic items in d&d and in Pathfinder are just that, Items that can do what magic can do, sometimes to a better extent.
You're trying to make the enchanter into the ultimate class. There would be no point in EVER going Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid, or Bard, ever. You could spend less time learning to make the magic items that replicate what the magical classes train their entire careers to do.
You would wreck the game if you were in charge, and you wouldn't realize it until it was too late. You would enable the crafters to become the most powerful spellcasters. They wouldn't have to search the world to learn new spells, or take the years to master Wizard, and then Cleric, and whatever else. They could already utilize every spell from every spellcasting class much better and with more frequency in a shorter time period the way you want it. After 8 months they would essentially be a level 20 Wizard/Sorceror/Cleric/Druid with bard spells who could wear fullplate armor and still cast. 8 months to circumvent 10 years worth of play. Thanks for the short sightedness and greed, the game would then suck and be broken.
In a normal d&d world if a wizard or a cleric or druid or other casting class didn't decide to pick up the feats as they leveled up, they could do it at a higher level when they had the money and time. And then they could make a killing. That's how it works. But they had to learn the magic first.
And your analogy about race cars doesn't fit, not even remotely. A better analogy is that a lizard couldn't spontaneously give birth to a Human, because it's not a human.
Magic users cast spells, a magic item is just a static spell or static collection of spells that can be used over and over again that is fixed inside of an item. If should require being able to cast that spell to embue an item with the ability to do the same thing. Though that should not be the ONLY requirement, just one of them.
And you're all afraid that everyone is going to play a wizard because you can't seem to grasp there are other types of magic... well if magic is what makes them happy, then go for it.
These same rules apply in every d&d and pathfinder game that's ever been made, but you usually only have 1 wizard in a party, if that. Because you have to play 2.5 years non stop as a squishy wizard to get powerful.
People will play other classes, and they will mix and match, and a few will specialize. And if you want to craft, then you can craft, but if you want to make magic, you need to study magic too. There are also plenty of people who don't like crafting either, so those people wouldn't be sitting around learning to enchant stuff with their magic powers, they'd move on to another class.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key question here is, why should it be more or less, why should it be the same magic tree? Why not have it's own seperate magic tree.
Why should a racecar driver, have an edge on building engines?
+1, could not agree more.
Second issue we wind up with... 2.5 years in, everyone who started as a wizard, is deciding the second role to take. Well half the work for the enchanting crafting line is half way done... Soo why the heck not, they all opt to wrap that up before leveling up any other adventuring role.
Also agreed, I am convinced enchanting should be a separate "crafting" tree (crafting is in quotes because it does not really matter what umbrella "class" it is under since it will not be combat abilities). The tree represents study of the arcane, with a pure specialization in crafting. Anyone can multiclass.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi
I reiterate my previous statement, I had edited it likely while you were replying, so you might not have seen it.
What you're suggesting is that your crafter could learn all this crafting, then go off and say make a bunch of magical armor, and wands of fireballs and potions of healing, and who knows what else, then all of a sudden he's just as equipped to go out in the wilderness from sitting in his forge and fight on the same level as the people who have be fighting tooth and nail to master their craft. You need to think things through before you start getting greedy.8 months huh? Well that would make the enchanting class the best class in the game. Because everyone else who was going strong if it takes 2.5 years to get to level 20, after 8 months maybe people are level 5 or 6. But the enchanter he can't cast magic so he can wear full plate with the max magical bonus, and have his belt pouch of wands for any occassion. Takes the time to learn to use wands, can't imagine the wand skill would take too much time, maybe a week or a few days to max out. Then pulls out his wand of Meteor shower and AoE's everything... something attacks him and he quaffs a potion of ultimate healing if he needs it because his rings of mega regeneration keep him up against anything the players a 8 months in could go against. Then he pulls out his tome of wish and dicks around with that for awhile, makes some adamantine golems to follow him around.
You should 100% require magical skill before making magical items.
You seem to be misunderstanding much of what I have said, first off, I never said anything about reaching the end point in crafting at 8 months. I said that someone who has leveled in crafting for 8 months, should be better at crafting, vs someone who leveled in wizard for 3 years, then took a couple months in crafting. Just as I think someone who trained in wizard for 8 months, should be better at casting spells vs someone who spent 3 years in fighter and a couple months in wizard.
other situation I mentioned 8 months
The main issue I have with it, first off you have to understand the difficulty in crafting something is a constant. IE if the dev's goal is for this item to start being made 8 months in, then focusing purely on that path, will take 8 months to get. Whether the skills they define as necessary are arcane transmutation, or enchanting transmutation. that in itself is a constant.
I stated "this item" can be crafted in 8 months, I am not saying all items, or the best item, just one random item, much like if say dicintigrate is expected to show up 8 months in, then a straight wizard taking the most direct route to learning disintigrate, should take 8 months.
In addition, your example of this dues ex machina crafter, having super of the line gear makes very little sense. I expect and hope for crafting to be profitable, even in the case of a crafter who must buy 100% of his materials from people who go out into the dangerous wilds and get it. But I do not expect it to be so profitable that a crafter has 100x the money of an adventurer. So even if we pretend what I was calling for was for an 8 month crafter too have the ability to craft everything 8 months in, a pure crafter who did happen to have every uber end game recipie and the skills to craft them at end game, would still need to spend 70-90% of the cost of the item. So he'd only be able to use top of the line objects, 10-30% cheaper than your standard wizard, who would also be able to buy the dues ex machina gear.
This is of course completely ignoring the descriptions the developers have given in which using types of armor, weapons etc... will require specific training for each type of armor, weapons etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're trying to make the enchanter into the ultimate class. There would be no point in EVER going Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid, or Bard, ever. You could spend less time learning to make the magic items that replicate what the magical classes train their entire careers to do.
Ohkay lets slow down this chain right here... You are acting as if the pure crafter's main goal is to craft the items for himself, and 2. If the items are going to be enough that just having the items negates the need for the classes etc...
Well then the game is broken from the start... There is a market place... items sell, items trade... Vets will occasionally give much higher level items to new players etc... Your arguement works not against the ability of a crafter to be... good at crafting, the logical conclusion of your arguement is the items have to be unavailable to anyone other than the specific wizards it is approved for.
Oh also plex equivelant system. A new character with enough RL cash, can buy lots of training time, and trade it for whatever the best thing anyone can craft who might be willing to sell is.
Or we can make what IMO is a more logical assumption that enchantments are intended to enhance existing skills of classes. Rather than come to the conclusion that any ritch person who obtains good gear via any means, regardless of his other skills, automatically becomes superior to all other characters.
Throwing in training requirements involving the skill tree the class requires to USE the item, I can agree with you on. The idea of a pure crafter, is someone who MAKES items, and the intention of the games economy, is items are supposed to be possible to trade. If someone wants to multiclass between crafter and a class that uses the items, it should involve a time cost of splitting between them. But I see no reason why wizards should be the "chosen one" that is permitted not to have as significant of a time split as any other class.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
STOP SAYING WIZARD! They're just one of classes that can use magic. There are only like 3 classes in Pathfinder that CAN'T use magic. Warrior, Barbarian and Rogue, maybe Monk too , but they get chi abilities.
Any Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Wizard, Sorcerer, Ranger, or Bard has the ability to cast magic, so they could use that magic to enchant an item if they had the right feats, or enchantment tree in this case.
But you're too fixated on saying Wizard Wizard Wizard. There are far more spellcasting classes than the ones without magical abilities.
They're basing the system off of the Pathfinder game, there will be similar magical items. Any spell that any caster can be put in a wand. Other affects for the sake of making them longer lasting or always on can be put in other items that can be worn.
Crafters should be for crafting items. Magic users should be for magic. If you want to mix an item with magic, you should require both, it's very simple.
Well it seems a large number of restrictions should be put in for the creation and use of items to prevent abuse. It would be beyond a travesty if someone who was only a crafter and didn't invest any points into magical skills could even make the smallest magical item.
A pure crafter can make as many items as they want, and I think that's awesome, but if they refused to learn magic then they shouldn't be given any privilege in that area.
I can't even believe that I'm hearing an argument complaining that MAGIC USERS might have a privilege in making MAGIC over NON-magic users. I really don't want to be rude or throw names, but seriously?
I know plenty of brain dead redneck gear heads, or handymen. They can fix and build most things, they like working with their hands. So now you have the medieval versions of these guys who never went to go learn magic but all of a sudden can manufacture items of wonder. Not a chance.
And I think that the sole crafters should be able to craft most stuff in the game, except for magic items. That is something specialized, they may be able to make the non magic part of it, which means inversely that no sole magic user can make a magic item either, it would require both. This will help limit the mass manufacture of such things.
I can't see why you have an issue with this, it will require people to go out and get high level materials, and components possibly from high level monsters. A sole crafter would not be able to make any item whatsoever without someone to do this. Magic is just another component or material which can be harvested/supplied from a magic user of the appropriate level.
Perhaps add requirements like an enchantment that needed a level 10 magic user to put on a suit of armor, would mean that you'd need a level 10 character to wear the armor, etc..
There are plenty of ways to prevent the plex like situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Crafters should be for crafting items. Magic users should be for magic. If you want to mix an item with magic, you should require both, it's very simple.
So, by your argument a wizard should not be able to do melee? Even if (s)he has cast all their spells and are backed into a corner? What if the enemy is only a rat? Wizards are for cast magic, fighters are for melee, if you want to mix, you should need both...it's very simple.
It would be beyond a travesty if someone who was only a crafter and didn't invest any points into magical skills could even make the smallest magical item.
I agree with you here.
A pure crafter can make as many items as they want, and I think that's awesome, but if they refused to learn magic then they shouldn't be given any privilege in that area.
And here...however, I would like to point out, just as a fighter can be level 20 and not be trained on using a bow, a crafter should specialize in their trade. I would like to see a master sword smith require as much training time and effort as a master sword wielder. I also support small synergies between skills. I have no problem with blacksmiths getting small bonuses to combat (especially with hammers) as they progress. Nor do I have any problem with a master sword wielder getting bonuses to sword crafting. It is logical that that sword wielder would have a better understanding of functional sword use and hence relevant design choices...beyond a blacksmith who had never swung one before (no matter how many they crafted).
This is also relevant to enchanting. I can see the logic in having a synergy between arcane casting and arcane crafting...but I still think each should be their own tree, each 2.5 years tall.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Here's a thought: Since training skills grants +ability scores, and ability scores can be prerequisites for skills, suppose that crafting skills have ability score prerequisites that are higher than the scores achieved if one trains only crafting skills?
Perhaps assign different primary ability scores to different types of crafting; a blacksmith needs strength, while a bowyer might need dexterity, writing better spellbooks needs intelligence and someone who specializes in holy symbols might need a high wisdom. I don't see a problem with the ability score associated with a particular item generally being the same one that is increased by skills which use that item; it makes sense to me that the characters that use an item type could learn how to make them easier than characters that don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
STOP SAYING WIZARD! They're just one of classes that can use magic. There are only like 3 classes in Pathfinder that CAN'T use magic. Warrior, Barbarian and Rogue, maybe Monk too , but they get chi abilities.
When it comes to crafting items, and having the requirement of knowing the relevant spells, you are pretty much looking at wizard, druid and maybe cleric.
Spontanious casters... well, it is a pretty bad idea to do work for them if you want to craft, Having access to 5% of one classes magic, leaves you a bit non-versatile as a crafter, especially when you factor in that about 80% of those spells are available to one of the 3 classes that do not have the limitation which have a virtually unlimited list of options. There's a reason why in P&P it is almost unheard of for anything other than those 3 classes to even think about crafting item feats.
Lets take a look at just the first few spells in the magic weapon table, and classes (I'm not bothering to list APG classes) This list is taken from the table of +1 enhancements. Listing all of the core classes that have the relevant spells available to create them.
Impervious: Wiz/src, clr/ora
Glammored: Wiz/src, Brd
Allying: Wiz/src, Clr, Pal
Bane: Wiz/src, brd, clr
Benevolant: Clr
Called: Wiz/src
Conductive: Wiz/src
Corrosive: Wiz/src
Countering: wiz/src, drd, brd
Corageous: Wiz/src, Brd
Cruel: Wiz/Src, brd
Cunning: wiz/src
Deadly: Clr
Defending: wiz/src, clr
Dispelling: Brd, Clr, wiz/src, drd
Notice any slight trend... possibly one class showing up a bit more often than others?
I don't think many crafters want to invest potentially years of time, to continue chucking out the same 3 items day in and day out. Paladin + ranger... yeah puny miniscule spell selection, way later, and way lower level than a clerics, again nobody in the right mind would burn a year or more learning to craft items, for the benefit of making 2-3 things over and over again.
I can't even believe that I'm hearing an argument complaining that MAGIC USERS might have a privilege in making MAGIC over NON-magic users. I really don't want to be rude or throw names, but seriously?I know plenty of brain dead redneck gear heads, or handymen. They can fix and build most things, they like working with their hands. So now you have the medieval versions of these guys who never went to go learn magic but all of a sudden can manufacture items of wonder. Not a chance.
I've never said without learning, I'm saying applying magic to an item, and casting the spell, should be 2 completely different learning processes. Just as driving a car and building a car are different. Just as building a server and managing an SQL database, are are drastically different, etc...
My complaint, the big issue of mine, is that making items IMO, should have a long involved training on par with the combat roles etc... When we make it overlap the other roles, either
A. We're expecting item crafting to lag 2.5 years behind the real classes, thus everyone is going to be in garbage gear for the first 2.5 years of the game,
B. The class time is the majority of the crafting training, thus everyone is a crafter. There's no real market for crafted goods, because EVERYONE is a crafter.
Looking closer at your post though, if you are more or less saying that, if they modified the crafting system so that the majority of the weapon is the physical portion of it, and then it's just a caster using a spell on it to apply the enchantments. Well I suppose that's fine, it's a frivelous step, as in a settlement with hundreds of people, it would take 2 seconds to find a wiz, druid or cleric. Such would be such a minor formality it would be virtually unnoticeable.
It has also been mentioned that magic item crafting, is going to involve using parts from magical beasts etc... Now a casters are likely going to have the easiest time training Knowledge arcana (necessary for identifying and extracting the magical parts), so there already is a mechanic in which classes built for PVE fighting etc... already in a way are necessary for the crafting process, but the magic item may pass through middlemen etc... on the market before the crafter gets his hands on them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a thought: Since training skills grants +ability scores, and ability scores can be prerequisites for skills, suppose that crafting skills have ability score prerequisites that are higher than the scores achieved if one trains only crafting skills?
Perhaps assign different primary ability scores to different types of crafting; a blacksmith needs strength, while a bowyer might need dexterity, writing better spellbooks needs intelligence and someone who specializes in holy symbols might need a high wisdom. I don't see a problem with the ability score associated with a particular item generally being the same one that is increased by skills which use that item; it makes sense to me that the characters that use an item type could learn how to make them easier than characters that don't.
Sounds good to me, although I do not want to keep someone from following a single path. A level 20 sword-smith will still rock at making swords...even if they never wielded one. Assumingly, they learned theory from books, teachers, and feedback from customers.
Again though, a level 20 sword master level 20 sword crafter would make better swords (and would probably have a stronger sword arm than a non-crafting sword master).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I just read this thread (couldn't read every post) but I have one thing to say. It keeps getting said that if crafters are able to get the ability to craft magic items in their own tree, then they can deck themselves out and be OP in the game. That is INCORRECT. They may have the gear, but they wont have the training in using it, just creating it.
Let that crafter walk into the woods, decked out in all his magic t3 gear. When I walk by, after spending my time training for combat, in my normal/masterwork mix of t2/t3 gear, he will be a prime target. Then poof, I just got myself some new magic gear to use/sell
Edit: removed some names/reformated
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pannath
I suppose one key specific issue, that will determine if we are debating apples and oranges here, where are you picturing the bulk of the value in a crafted item being.
IE in P&P the physical portion of the weapon you are looking at,
between free and 400 GP for the base weapon
+300 for masterwork
+3000 for adamantine.
so roughly under 4,000 GP on the physical weapon.
Meanwhile, looking at up to 200k added value from the enchantments.
So we do the math, and determine that 1.96% of an item's value, is the physical item.
Now if we are talking about reversing this ratio of utility, then we are at a much different discussion. One of which I do not oppose so much. If we are talking the P&P ratio, in which the physical crafting, being under 2% of crafting, while the adventuring class is 98% of it... Well then the problem with such is pretty apparent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, in the PnP game, it is entirely possible for a 'Mundane' crafter to, with one feat, be able to make magical items dependant upon their crafting skill.
I could fully see that implemented in Pathfinder Online as 'Rune' Stations, where a character has to reach a specific 'badge' to use the 'Rune'/Enchanting Station to imbue the item with magic.
Spellcasting Classes might not need this badge, or be auto-assigned it upon 'selection' of the 'Class', but it allows non-casters to remain somewhat competitive in the Market, but still allows the Caster, especially the 'Godly Crafting' Wizard, to strut their stuff.
To further divide the 'Crafting Station' Enchanter from the 'Spellcasting Class' Enchanter, consider the following.
Using a 'Crafting Station' is a slower, more cumbersome process that might require specific components and a specially-prepared ritual or place to perform the final 'binding' of the enchantment to the desired item, but this can only be done to an item that the 'Creator' can make/has made, and is also at a greater risk of 'failure', meaning the enchanting items are wasted and the base-item remains unenchanted.
The up-side to this is that the 'Crafting Station' Enchanter isn't bound to a single Spellcaster's spell-list. He or she can put any number of enchantments on without needing to multi-class into different Spellcaster Classes.
In the case of the 'Spellcasting Class' Enchanter, the process is much quicker because of the 'training' the Enchanter has gone through and uses on a constant basis. Also, the 'binding' of the enchantment is much easier for the Spellcaster, using their 'Spellcasting' Badges, which they will be using regularly for their adventuring and self-defence to begin with, and they are thus less likely to waste materials in the enchanting phase.
The down-side to this is that while they can enchant items better and faster, the Spellcasting Class Enchanter is also limited to a small amount unless they wish to invite another Spellcaster of a different type to assist them in the process, which can dilute their profit somewhat.
The up-side is that the Spellcasting Class Enchanter isn't limited to a single 'type' of item they can enchant. Swords, Armors, Amulets, Robes, Scrolls, Vanity Items ... all of them are available to the Spellcasting Class Enchanter, while the 'Crafting Station' Enchanter is limited to only the items they can make/have made.
That gives players two different ways to 'Enchant', while still giving the lead to the 'Spellcasters', also gives ways for the 'Mundanes' to keep a secure, if smaller, grip on the markets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that if you're trying to craft a Staff that can cast Fireball, you need to be able to cast Fireball. Likewise, if you're crafting a Shield with a permanent +1 AC, you need to be able to cast a temporary +1 AC.
But that's not really the kind of crafting I see happening in PFO.
In PFO, I expect Crafters will try to craft a Staff with the "Fiery" keyword. And I want that Crafter to be required to train "Fiery Crafting" first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that if you're trying to craft a Staff that can cast Fireball, you need to be able to cast Fireball. Likewise, if you're crafting a Shield with a permanent +1 AC, you need to be able to cast a temporary +1 AC.
But that's not really the kind of crafting I see happening in PFO.
In PFO, I expect Crafters will try to craft a Staff with the "Fiery" keyword. And I want that Crafter to be required to train "Fiery Crafting" first.
My issue with that is I see an army of Archmages working in Arcane Sweatshops ... it becomes an 'insta-win' path for people who can get a sizeable amount of Crafting-Build Spellcasters together.
And since it's so profitable ... everyone will do it, which will make the economy have it's own set of issues as the market floods with items, nobody is getting their money's worth from the crafting, so it's dropped ... and then there's NOBODY crafting because it's commonly thought of as 'unprofitable'.
I don't disgree with your point, Nihimon, but at the same point, let's look at it from the gamer angle.
If Path A nets me Godlike Power AND Wealth, while Path B nets me Average Power and Reasonable Wealth, which is the path 90% of the playerbase is going to walk down?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that if you're trying to craft a Staff that can cast Fireball, you need to be able to cast Fireball. Likewise, if you're crafting a Shield with a permanent +1 AC, you need to be able to cast a temporary +1 AC.
But that's not really the kind of crafting I see happening in PFO.
In PFO, I expect Crafters will try to craft a Staff with the "Fiery" keyword. And I want that Crafter to be required to train "Fiery Crafting" first.
My issue with that is I see an army of Archmages working in Arcane Sweatshops ... it becomes an 'insta-win' path for people who can get a sizeable amount of Crafting-Build Spellcasters together.
And since it's so profitable ... everyone will do it, which will make the economy have it's own set of issues as the market floods with items, nobody is getting their money's worth from the crafting, so it's dropped ... and then there's NOBODY crafting because it's commonly thought of as 'unprofitable'.
I don't disgree with your point, Nihimon, but at the same point, let's look at it from the gamer angle.
If Path A nets me Godlike Power AND Wealth, while Path B nets me Average Power and Reasonable Wealth, which is the path 90% of the playerbase is going to walk down?
Indeed plus I do have to ask, what is the point of the expert role if wizard/cleric/druid is the role that does the heavy hitting portion of crafting.
Commoners focus on gathering and harvesting skills.
Experts focus on refining and crafting skills.
Aristocrats focus on leadership and social skills.
Each of these roles requires improving multiple skills, and grants access to bonuses that are unavailable to players who only focus on a small number of skills in addition to their combat feats. Increasing these roles is a great idea for players that want to focus on acquiring resources, manufacturing goods, or leading settlements and armies. Particularly for players that don't engage in a lot of combat, raising these roles provides a structured way to improve at other parts of the game.
The expert class as described in the blog is good for players who want a structured way for players who do not engage in a lot of combat, to improve at his crafting. Why bother with this role's existance, if it is just a minor subpoint designed to make a baseline material for the mundane portion of a weapon, and the real heavy hitting is done by the wizard/cleric/druid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If any player character qualifying can train a magic casting skill then any character qualifying can train a magic crafting skill.
There will be prerequisites for those skills. I think the debate is over whether it is appropriate to include some Caster skills as prerequisites for some Crafting skills. Personally, I think the best option is to make some prerequisites that can be filled either with Caster skills or with Crafter skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the only way to make enchanted gear, which will be a necessity for the most part, is to have a Spell-Casting Character, then why would anyone who is aiming to be successful in the merchant industy NOT use a Wizard, Cleric or Bard (or other!) for their character?
Now imagine that spread through every crafter in the game. Every Crafter is a Wizard, or a Cleric, or some other form of Caster.
Making items is for chumps, because the value of a sword is fodder compared to the value of the enchantment on the sword.
Which leads to a glut of magical items, crippling the economy because everybody focused on the 'high wealth' path, and only a handful of people bothered to make the base items.
Or worse still, everyone tries to 'level' their Enchanting skill at once, and the high demand for the materials drives the prices up, which in turn drives up the costs of the Enchanting Services, which in turn drives up the costs of the finished items and creates an inflation that can cause a large quantity of folks to never be able to afford the services rendered ... which leads, again, to a market collapse and a horde of dissatisfied people who have sunk MONTHS of their lives, if not longer, into this Crafting Path.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If any player character qualifying can train a magic casting skill then any character qualifying can train a magic crafting skill.There will be prerequisites for those skills. I think the debate is over whether it is appropriate to include some Caster skills as prerequisites for some Crafting skills. Personally, I think the best option is to make some prerequisites that can be filled either with Caster skills or with Crafter skills.
The key issue is, why would anyone chose the crafting skill, unless there is a huge reduction in training time. Do you want the ability to make a wand of fireball, or do you want the ability to cast fireball and make wands.
would you rather buy a car, or buy a car and get a laptop free?
and again we come to the crux of the problem. When we blur the roles of caster and crafter, we are giving a huge double function to casters, and/or crafters depending on which way we do it.
If the only way to make enchanted gear, which will be a necessity for the most part, is to have a Spell-Casting Character, then why would anyone who is aiming to be successful in the merchant industy NOT use a Wizard, Cleric or Bard (or other!) for their character?
I'd say we can scrap bard from the list, that would be a terrible choice if you want to be a crafter, Assuming spontaneous casters work anything like P&P, IE the limited known spells, you are looking at limiting your known spells to a tiny insignificant fraction, 90% of which are already covered by wizards or clerics, and none are above level 6 spells.
Just basic estimates,
wizards have the ability to know 90% of arcane spells within the game, assuming work and spell collection is done appropriately
druids have the ability to know about 70% of divine spells automatically with level
Clerics have the ability to know about 70% of divine spells automatically with level
Bards have access to roughly 25% of arcane spells, of which they have to chose 5% from, 90% of which overlap with wizard spells.
Sorcerers have access to the full 90% of arcane spells that wizards have, but are limited to knowing 5% or so of them.
and, rangers and paladins... well they have like 4% of divine spells. that don't even start till way late, and pretty much all overlap with cleric or druid spells.
Now imagine that spread through every crafter in the game. Every Crafter is a Wizard, or a Cleric, or some other form of Caster.
Making items is for chumps, because the value of a sword is fodder compared to the value of the enchantment on the sword.
Which leads to a glut of magical items, crippling the economy because everybody focused on the 'high wealth' path, and only a handful of people bothered to make the base items.
Well I don't see the handful of non-magical items, most the assumptions that the crafting of mundane will be needed to craft the magical items, which means demand will exist, and crafters will appear to fill the demand. But the bigger thing is, there won't be a high demand for swords, etc... because when in role decision you give people the option
would you rather be a crafter + adventurer, or just an adventurer... or just a crafter, all 3 options will take you the same time to train, I think a good 75% will chose the first, and thus we can expect to see a nice quantity of parties with diversity like
Cleric
Wizard
wizard
wizard
Druid
or
cleric
cleric
druid
wizard
wizard
and on occasion
cleric
cleric
wizard
wizard
druid
barbarian (yeah there will be occasional people who break the mold and will play the class they want regardless of whether the mechanics punish them)
Great news everyone, we changed the tank/healer/caster trinity, to the new caster/healer/hybrid trinity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To expand on what I said earlier, it seems reasonable to me that if I am an armsmaker I will tend to build a better weapon if I also know how to use that weapon. I will craft better armor if I know how it will feel to wear it.
So, since I have no magical casting ability in RL, I am unsure whether it will be better to be a caster when crafting a magical item or not, but it does seem reasonable that a caster would better know how it needs to be in order to be most useful.
That said, I also see no good reason why a master of a craft should not be able to learn a further 'magic item crafting' skill that would be available to anyone who qualifies (as with mastery in the mundane version of that craft).
If someone with no more qualification than the training purchase price, starmetal, and sufficient accumulated experience can take Wizardry 101 itself, then surely a master craftsman in mundane swordsmithing can qualify for magic swordsmithing 101.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@HalfOrc, did you read what I wrote?
It seems to me that if you're trying to craft a Staff that can cast Fireball, you need to be able to cast Fireball. Likewise, if you're crafting a Shield with a permanent +1 AC, you need to be able to cast a temporary +1 AC.
In PFO, I expect Crafters will try to craft a Staff with the "Fiery" keyword. And I want that Crafter to be required to train "Fiery Crafting" first.
If the only way to make enchanted gear...
I thought I was quite clear that I didn't think that should be the "only" way...
Personally, I think the best option is to make some prerequisites that can be filled either with Caster skills or with Crafter skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To imbue magic into an item, you need someone who can call up the requisite energies and bind them into an item. That means spellcasting and item creation feats.
Artifice (not enchantment, that's a school of mind-magic) could take the form of components which could be added to items of sufficient quality. For example, a set of silver buckles imbued with conjuration magic could be created by a caster with the appropriate spells and feats. Then a leatherworker could buy and install them on the straps of a masterwork backpack to turn it into a handy haversack.
You do need a caster to imbue magic items, but you don't have to be a caster yourself or to have one hanging around constantly. What should not happen is for the master-crafter to imbue magic from nothing, any more than the spellcaster should be allowed to produce them by skipping the step of getting a masterwork-quality item. Even scrolls, potions, and wands would take fine paper & inks, purified ingredients & containers that can contain energy as well as liquid, or sticks made of properly carved, stained, & adorned wood.
Eventually, crafters could study some magic on their own and casters could learn some of their own crafting, but no one is going to be able to do it all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Onishi's point (which I agree with) is basically this: You shouldn't need to learn the "fireball" spell to create wand of fireballs, you should need to learn the "enchant wand for casting fireballs" spell. Learning the latter doesn't make you a "spellcaster" in the traditional sense that the former does, it makes you a crafter.
Yes, this is not the same as the PnP magical item crafting, which is a good thing - nobody plays pure crafters in the PnP game, the PnP rules are designed for adventuring spellcasters to be able to make their own magical items (because often random treasure rolls don't give you what you really want) without having to sacrifice anything significant in terms of adventuring ability. This simply doesn't work in an MMO that specifically promotes the idea of having characters focused on crafting (including magical items).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite so.
The logic behind having to make the skills required by the crafter the same as for the end user is tenuous. An aircraft designer does not need to be a pilot, they need to be an aeronautical engineer.
A Enchanter (i.e. a crafter capable of making magic items) should know the theory behind the magic, and possibly have very minor magical ability, but is not a wizard. It ought to be about as difficult to learn to make a wand of fireballs as it is to cast the spell, but the one skill would not bestow the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see the point of a crafter with a background (of some kind) in his specialty, having some bonus. Not as much as a pure crafter of higher skill level, though. A 5 year pure crafter and warrior, I could see having a bonus, above a 2.5 year crafter, to craft weapons and armor. Should be very small at lower level combinations, though. That is some long range planning, to be sure. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see the point of a crafter with a background (of some kind) in his specialty, having some bonus. Not as much as a pure crafter of higher skill level, though. A 5 year pure crafter and warrior, I could see having a bonus, above a 2.5 year crafter, to craft weapons and armor. Should be very small at lower level combinations, though. That is some long range planning, to be sure. ;)
That I can agree with, a means to get a small extra bonus, So long as we aren't talking something that overwhelms, mainly what I oppose is someone who trained wiz/clr/druid for 2.5 years, then trained crafter for 1 year, as a better crafter than one who trained crafter for 2 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"enchant wand for casting fireballs"
I would prefer to see that broken down into "Enchant Wands" and "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". Being able to case "Fireball" should include "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". But "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs" should also be available elsewhere.
I think this would be a sufficient "bonus" to satisfy the condition Bringslite brought to light... *grins*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"enchant wand for casting fireballs"I would prefer to see that broken down into "Enchant Wands" and "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". Being able to case "Fireball" should include "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". But "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs" should also be available elsewhere.
I think this would be a sufficient "bonus" to satisfy the condition Bringslite brought to light... *grins*
The key thing to factor in is, what percentage of a wizards training can overlap with crafting, before wizard becomes the de-facto choice (or druid or cleric, but mostly wizard). IMO if the "magical aptitude" feats are 10% or less of what a wizard and/or expert trains, then it is no big deal, 10-20%, now it is a rather significant issue in that, if someone might want to dabble in crafting after maxing their class, they have a huge reason to chose wiz/clr/drd, first. 40%+, we now can now expect pretty much anyone who plans to dabble in crafting one day, to pick one of those as the starting class.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope that there would be very little overlap, just as there would be little overlap between an expert swordsmith and a champion swordsman.
A pure crafter role should be that, crafting. The ability to enchant items should be a crafting ability (or set of abilities) and not a spell-flinging one.
Naturally there will be the option to 'cross-class', just as there is in any other role, but an Enchanter role should not need to be in any real game sense a spell-casting one. The ability to imbue a wand with the ability to cast a spell ought not to require the crafter to be able to actually cast that spell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer to see that broken down into "Enchant Wands" and "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". Being able to case "Fireball" should include "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs". But "Magical Aptitude: Fireballs" should also be available elsewhere.
You are assuming that casting a fireball and creating an enchantment which casts a fireball are somehow fundamentally related. Since (as far as I know, I could well be wrong) there doesn't exist a "Pathfinder [Online] magical theory" to consult, I humbly suggest that this assumption is baseless. It may be logical from a scientific persepective, but magic is (almost?) by definition not science.
In terms of gameplay balance, it makes no sense for some archetypes to be inherently better suited to crafting all magic items than other archetypes.
However, it is both reasonable and not unbalanced for Wizards (or rather, those able to cast Arcane spells) to be a little better at specifically crafting items that duplicate Arcane spells, and Warriors (or rather, those skilled in martial weapons) to be a little better at crafting martial weapons (magical or not), and so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is also worth reitterating that in GW's general descriptions of the crafting system, most magic items, will take portions of magic beasts etc... so for many wonderous items etc.. rather than the ability to cast magic being relevant, knowledge arcana, (IE knowing where the magic organ/portion of the creature is) and how to apply it to the weapon, lore wise is fairly sound, and an actual ability to cast the spell is logically irrelevant when the task in question, is applying something that works with the effects of a spell innately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of gameplay balance, it makes no sense for some archetypes to be inherently better suited to crafting all magic items than other archetypes.
Well, I certainly didn't intend to imply that such a thing would make sense.
However, it is both reasonable and not unbalanced for Wizards (or rather, those able to cast Arcane spells) to be a little better at specifically crafting items that duplicate Arcane spells, and Warriors (or rather, those skilled in martial weapons) to be a little better at crafting martial weapons (magical or not), and so on.
Funny, I thought that's what I was suggesting...
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm not convinced that one character should typically make a wand and provide the enchantment.
Making a wand of fireballs is metalworking (to craft the metal into a wand shape) gem cutting and setting to place the rubies in the wand, and fire affinity to finish the processes. The result might have Fire, Inferno, and Igniting as keywords.
Using wood, emeralds, and earth affinity gets a wand of acid (Acid, Corrosive, Melting); bone, oynx, and death affinity make a wand of negative energy (Negative, Death)
Other combinations might make wands that are more general in nature, having keywords from different groups rather than higher-tier ones.
It seems reasonable that specializing in making bone wands doesn't have much synergy when making metal wands, as compared with making bone armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of gameplay balance, it makes no sense for some archetypes to be inherently better suited to crafting all magic items than other archetypes.Well, I certainly didn't intend to imply that such a thing would make sense.
However, it is both reasonable and not unbalanced for Wizards (or rather, those able to cast Arcane spells) to be a little better at specifically crafting items that duplicate Arcane spells, and Warriors (or rather, those skilled in martial weapons) to be a little better at crafting martial weapons (magical or not), and so on.Funny, I thought that's what I was suggesting...
Sorry, from your response it wasn't clear that you were intending something very specific about wands as opposed to using the ongoing example to make a general statement about crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't have the ability to call up specific magical energies, then you need items from someone or something which can.
What you're proposing is that a 'pure crafter' should be able to cut out those with specialized ability to call forth magical energy, which only makes sense if a 'pure spellcaster' can make magic items without specially-crafted base items.
If the crafter who can't manage a cantrip can make fireball wands, then the sorcerer who just picks up a random stick should be able to make them too.
No, I think "magic item" requires both "magic" and "item". To bring the two together requires a third ability to joins masterwork items with mastery of magic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't have the ability to call up specific magical energies, then you need items from someone or something which can.
What you're proposing is that a 'pure crafter' should be able to cut out those with specialized ability to call forth magical energy
No, we're proposing that a "pure crafter" can learn how to call forth magical energies in specifically the appropriate manner required to craft magical items, which may be entirely different from the manner that traditional spellcasters do their thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
we're proposing that a "pure crafter" can learn how to call forth magical energies in specifically the appropriate manner required to craft magical items
Cool, so a spellcaster could also just put spells into whatever random stuff is at hand without needing to know any crafting skills or buy fancy trinkets from those who do.