Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Keep in mind that wands don't cast spells the way they do in PnP. They work more like in Harry Potter, where they are a tool used by spellcasters to cast spells. There will be wands that are ideal for casting particular spells, because they have the best keywords for those spells, but not wands that replace spellbooks.
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 itemsCool, 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.
No, because a "spellcaster" wouldn't learn how to "call forth magical energies in specifically the manner required to craft magical items" (i.e. crafting), they would learn how to cast spells to affect things/people directly.
|
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 itemsCool, 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.No, because a "spellcaster" wouldn't learn how to "call forth magical energies in specifically the manner required to craft magical items" (i.e. crafting), they would learn how to cast spells to affect things/people directly.
Ah, double standards, then.
There are three components here; the magic itself, the vessel suitable to contain it, and the ability to bind the two together. You're suggesting that the crafter get all three. I guess magic is so much simpler when you're storing it than when you're trying to cast it directly, so there's really no point in becoming a spellcaster when you can just craft items without really needing to the spell training. Maybe you could even train a monkey to craft the items, since magic is such a simple, common thing. I know when I first played a fantasy RPG long ago we had artifacts everywhere. I think we were about 8 at the time...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason I fear the 'Archwizard Sweatshop' ... well, let me use an Example. For the average player, a Mithril Longsword is expensive, but a mere +1 Enchantment costs almost the same.
Eventually, I see that imbalance leading to one of two endings.
1) Inflated Base Item Cost: Since a lot of people would go for the 'big' money in Enchanting, the number of people making the Base Items would be unnaturally small, leading to a huge inflation of prices of the Base Items, which will cause the Enchanters to either have to up their costs significantly to cover this, or force them to operate at subsistence levels just to remain competitive.
And don't forget, we're talking 2.5 to develop the skill to it's maximum here. 2.5 years to become Enchanter #684731 would be increasingly depressing.
Also the sheer volume of all those Wizards, Clerics and Wiz/Clrc Characters would push the Development Indexes of the Settlements towards Magical Society Builds, which is going to seem really, really odd in a backwater place like the River Kingdoms ...
2) Enchanting is Cheap: To compensate for the difference between Base-Item Crafting and Enchanting, Goblinworks decides to lower the costs of Enchanting to be roughly similar to that of the 'Higher End' Base Items. While this works on the surface, it also means that Enchanting becomes, well, basic. It becomes something that everyone has almost everything enchanted all the time rather than something that is carefully calculated for the best bang for your buck.
If Non-Magical Crafters are able to enchant items ONLY from their chosen Crafting-Skill, then it allows people to Refine and Build 'in house', which helps keep inflation from middle-men down but also implies they will need specialty gear to perform said enchanting. Which ties them to the Settlement they have settled in, meaning there will be a greater demand on them to help defend and support the local Players.
Magical Crafters I could fully see being able to go from town to town without a concern, because the power to enchant is tied to THEM, not a Magic Anvil or a Rune-Covered Loom.
I'd argue that a Spellcaster might make the best 'Generalist' Enchanter, while a Non-Magical Crafter could become a 'Specialist' Enchanter, but a Spellcaster that focuses on Basic Items and then Enchants them further would invariably be a 'Superior' Enchanter due to the additional powers they could imbue into their items above and beyond what a 'Specialist' could do.
|
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 itemsCool, 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.
No.
The proposal is for crafters to make magical items, not for them to be spellcasters. Therefore spellcasters would not be automatically crafters.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
HOWAHoD:
I think you misunderstand economic theory. If so few people make basic items that prices rise, the rise in prices encourages more people to craft basic items. Lowering the cost of adding enchantments would increase demand (and, if the supply were artificially limited, increase prices).
The expected effect of the initial condition "almost nobody makes X, but lots of people want X" is "people who want X offer larger amounts for it, until additional people determine that the rewards for overcoming the startup costs are worthwhile; now enough people make X".
It's not like you need to reach maximum ability to begin doing anything useful, either. There's a constant market for disposable equipment, which will most often not be the highest-keyword equipment available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
so there's really no point in becoming a spellcaster when you can just craft items without really needing to the spell training. Maybe you could even train a monkey to craft the items, since magic is such a simple, common thing. I know when I first played a fantasy RPG long ago we had artifacts everywhere. I think we were about 8 at the time...
This arguement here still baffles me. "there's no point being a spellcaster if a crafter can craft items". The key obvious difference is
1. For the most part those talking on crafting, are more focused on the wonderous, weapon enchant portions etc... while those arguing in favor of spellcasters being the superior crafters, are focused more on the wands/scrolls, and other items that directly duplicate spells.
First off the most obvious counter point is, there's absolutely no arguement that the crafters inherently should get the abilities to USE what they craft. Just as there is no expectancy that being able to make exotic weapons makes you proficient with them. Using items SHOULD require training in the class that the items are intended for. If we are talking a wand of fireball, then yes it should take some training in wizard, if we are talking a flaming sword, it should take training in swordsmanship, and possibly a special tree in swordsmanship that involves using of magical weapons etc... If this is not the case, it isn't crafters that are brokenly strong, but anyone with the means to obtain money.
Secondly even if that isn't the case, say we are talking wands, that work just as wands in P&P, where taking 1 level in wizard automatically bestows the ability to use 4th level wands, with 100% success. Does a wizard with this ability completely blow away a real wizard. Not really, the time spent gathering the materials to make said wands, etc... would mean this character that is using wands for everything, is spending massive amounts of time and money on a regular basis. He isn't going to be able to participate in the battles to get the materials, because he's going to be spending more than he makes as he's blowing through charges on his wands like crazy, vs a wizard casting from his spellbook etc... who gets his abilities back on refreshes + day changes.
Secondly you also have to note the direct cap in the crafting, IE that wands are limited to 3rd or 4th level spells, after that you are looking at scrolls, which have a caster level check, IE you do need to be a wizard, close to the correct level to use the spell, or else you will botch it quite regularly.
I don't see how the arguement that if crafters can make magic items they encroach on wizards spellcasting, that doesn't doesn't also mean EVERYTHING with the ability to obtain magic items, wouldn't be broken, regardless of whether it was makable by the wizard, or anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you guys really want to find common ground I think you will have to back up and explore each others "Philosophy of Magic". There seems to be a difference in fundamental assumptions about the nature of magic. So, you are each being logical, building upon the foundation of your own assumptions...but rightfully not finding construction congruities because you are building upon different terrains.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, double standards, then.There are three components here; the magic itself, the vessel suitable to contain it, and the ability to bind the two together. You're suggesting that the crafter get all three. I guess magic is so much simpler when you're storing it than when you're trying to cast it directly, so there's really no point in becoming a spellcaster when you can just craft items without really needing to the spell training. Maybe you could even train a monkey to craft the items, since magic is such a simple, common thing. I know when I first played a fantasy RPG long ago we had artifacts everywhere. I think we were about 8 at the time...
Not at all. You are equating "the magic itself" involved with a crafter creating a magical item as somehow being equal and equivalent with "the magic itself" that a spellcaster uses to toss fireballs. They are not the same. The former lets the crafter make magic items which they can sell (but most likely not use themselves unless they have some non-crafting training). The latter lets wizards make crispy critters and so on.
Never in this thread have I stated that learning to craft magical items should somehow be simpler than casting spells - that is your own assumption based on your unspoken premise that somehow learning spellcasting is the toughest thing in the world, despite the evidence presented in this very thread to the contrary ("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." - Pannath).
Are you not aware that crafters, too, will need to spend 2.5 years to reach the top of their profession? And that achievement will allow them to be good at creating a relatively small set of magical effects on a single category of items, not craft everything under the sun and make all-powerful artifacts.
What we're in fact proposing is confining the creation of magical items to a specialty class, and not let any old spellcaster engage in magical item creation with minimal training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you guys really want to find common ground I think you will have to back up and explore each others "Philosophy of Magic". There seems to be a difference in fundamental assumptions about the nature of magic. So, you are each being logical, building upon the foundation of your own assumptions...but rightfully not finding construction congruities because you are building upon different terrains.
I think charisma-casters like sorcerers are innately magical creatures, effectively using spell-like abilities to call and release it all at once, wisdom-casters are calling upon a facilitator to plant spellcasting in their heads, and intelligence-casters are also using their own minds as magical storage devices, but through specialized knowledge rather than a facilitator. The ability to bind magic into items for much longer periods is more difficult than the ability to store it in oneself short-term, so it takes expensive objects and specialized feats on top of the ability to use it period.
Never in this thread have I stated that learning to craft magical items should somehow be simpler than casting spells - that is your own assumption based on your unspoken premise that somehow learning spellcasting is the toughest thing in the world, despite the evidence presented in this very thread to the contrary ("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." - Pannath).
Magic is what makes the setting a fantasy one, so of course it's going to be a part of most player classes, but most people in the setting are not part of one of those classes.
There are three components here; the magic itself, the vessel suitable to contain it, and the ability to bind the two together. You're suggesting that the crafter get all three.Not at all. You are equating "the magic itself" involved with a crafter creating a magical item as somehow being equal and equivalent with "the magic itself" that a spellcaster uses to toss fireballs. They are not the same. The former lets the crafter make magic items which they can sell (but most likely not use themselves unless they have some non-crafting training). The latter lets wizards make crispy critters and so on.
What we're in fact proposing is confining the creation of magical items to a specialty class
So basically it would be a role that specifically deals with magic items, like the Artificer from Eberron?
Are you not aware that crafters, too, will need to spend 2.5 years to reach the top of their profession? And that achievement will allow them to be good at creating a relatively small set of magical effects on a single category of items, not craft everything under the sun and make all-powerful artifacts.
No skill will take 205 years to learn. That may be how long it takes to get to the final skill in a chain of role-specific skills, but there would be useful links in that chain the whole way. I'm looking at it similar to a series of college courses leading toward a degree. Getting to that final class will take a lot of prerequisites, some of which are specified and some which are elective, and many which would apply toward many different roles. For example, introductory metalworking would be common to both armourers and weaponsmiths, so if you've trained it once you wouldn't need to again. If later roles have a lot in common with earlier ones, it wouldn't take as long to complete them. Those who dedicate themselves only to crafting could train multiple types, while a fighter could pick up just enough to make basic field repairs, or the ability to find & collect a couple types of resources. Having a 'minor' shouldn't interfere or slow down one's 'major'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
DeciusBruts said:
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.
If this type of wand making (for example) provided the "permanent" enchantment, while a wizard - or cleric or whatever - was required to "charge" the item, both would be involved in the creation process without giving an unfair advantage to the caster if he or she then became a crafter. It should take a reasonably long time to be able to learn how to craft such keywords into items, and if there are significant material components involved they should be required at this point in the process - the artificing rather than the charging. Note that I am not suggesting that casters should then be able to recharge things, or it would cut crafters out of that secondary market completely.
If a wizard (to take the most commonly chosen caster) chooses to specialise in crafting as well I don't see why they shouldn't have a *small* advantage over someone with no magical aptitude, but it should take as long for them to learn the crating side of things as it would for a crafter to learn to charge items. If they are willing to commit that much time to both, then they should be rewarded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the blog 02/13
Commoners, Experts, and Aristocrats
We've talked a lot about the roles of the game that are derived from Pathfinder's adventuring classes, but we haven't yet mentioned that the same idea also extends to reusing some of the NPC classes from the tabletop game. Specifically, players may pursue three additional roles:
Commoners focus on gathering and harvesting skills.
Experts focus on refining and crafting skills.
Aristocrats focus on leadership and social skills.
3 step from raw to the item is enough. no enchentment. Wizard could have some crafting skill requiring for the role. But the expert should be the expert and anyone should could do item without magic. Execpt for spell completion or spell charged item. Like wizard. But high level in spellcasting should not be requiring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a wizard (to take the most commonly chosen caster) chooses to specialise in crafting as well I don't see why they shouldn't have a *small* advantage over someone with no magical aptitude, but it should take as long for them to learn the crating side of things as it would for a crafter to learn to charge items. If they are willing to commit that much time to both, then they should be rewarded.
The concept I disagree with in here is that the crafter is necessarily someone with no magical aptitude, unless by "magical aptitude" what you really mean is "wizardly spellcasting aptitude" - in which case, I don't really see why wizards would be better at something which is not wizardly spellcasting than some other magically-skilled person.
Wizards may well have a slight advantage in crafting items intended for use by wizards, because they have some deeper insight into how the item will be used - and I hope they do, because it would help to differentiate the thousands of crafter alts a little further. The same would apply to any class, of course.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's likely that crafting magic items will require you to earn character abilities related to various types and subtypes of items. It's a very large fractal space and that implies a correspondingly potentially large space of character abilities.
Being able to cast a spell will likely not affect your ability to craft an item that casts a spell. Them there's two different things you have to make choices about when you develop your character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's likely that crafting magic items will require you to earn character abilities related to various types and subtypes of items. It's a very large fractal space and that implies a correspondingly potentially large space of character abilities.
Being able to cast a spell will likely not affect your ability to craft an item that casts a spell. Them there's two different things you have to make choices about when you develop your character.
So for clarity you are saying, say for a hypothetical here.
-General Crafting
--craft metal shields
---exotic crafting Adamantine shields
---exotic crafting mithral shields
--Enchant shields
---Enchant shields abjuration
--craft heavy chestpiece armor
---exotic adamantine
---exotic mithral
---exotic yadda yadda
As hypothetical branches (not saying in the least this is any indication of what it is, but is that the general gist of what you are saying more or less? If so that was more or less a good portion of what I was thinking, and exactly what I am most in favor of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wizards may well have a slight advantage in crafting items intended for use by wizards, because they have some deeper insight into how the item will be used - and I hope they do, because it would help to differentiate the thousands of crafter alts a little further. The same would apply to any class, of course.
At some level the skills that allow crafting of some magical items might also require high Int as a prerequisite. So such skills might not be blocked to non-wizards, but wizards who have picked up a lot of little increments of Int on their skill/spell paths can "buy" these crafting skills fairly easily. Other areas of magical crafting aren't so readily available to a mostly Int character. That's what I'm reading.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that crafters in PFO will have more in common with Artificers from Eberron than spellcasters who've picked up a few feats. If this is the case then your character could dedicate himself to making items, some of which he won’t be able to use due to not having access to the required abilities. Conversely spellcasters will be reliant of crafters to make powerful items for them. This seems like a good trade-off as both roles are reliant on the other. One to provide money and resources and the other to provide the finished goods. Characters can dabble in both sets of skills at the cost of not being as powerful/versatile as a single role specialist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tuoweit wrote:
The concept I disagree with in here is that the crafter is necessarily someone with no magical aptitude, unless by "magical aptitude" what you really mean is "wizardly spellcasting aptitude" - in which case, I don't really see why wizards would be better at something which is not wizardly spellcasting than some other magically-skilled person.
You're right. They shouldn't be. I should have made that clearer. It's a moot point now anyway.
Urman wrote:
At some level the skills that allow crafting of some magical items might also require high Int as a prerequisite. So such skills might not be blocked to non-wizards, but wizards who have picked up a lot of little increments of Int on their skill/spell paths can "buy" these crafting skills fairly easily. Other areas of magical crafting aren't so readily available to a mostly Int character. That's what I'm reading.
Well it's more than I wrote but a far more elegant solution, and given what Ryan Dancey has just clarified in the thread, seems to be about the only possible way that being a wizard (or cleric or druid) would be of benefit when starting a crafting career.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How similar to Ryzom's skill tree system is/should the feat tree be?
e.g.
-Crafting
--Armor Crafting
...
--Weapon Crafting
---1-handed weapon crafting
----Sword crafting
...
---2 handed weapon crafting
----greataxe crafting
...
The implication being that for a long time there will be room for specialists in very narrow fields, which rewards coordinating very early among groups with lots of crafters so that they have different specializations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bad Horse, your avatar matches another player who posts here very often, and it took me until your 2nd post to realize you were someone different.
Had I paid more attention to your name on that first post, I would have immediately greeted you with a hearty "Hail, Thoroughbred of Sin!" :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bad Horse, your avatar matches another player who posts here very often, and it took me until your 2nd post to realize you were someone different.
Had I paid more attention to your name on that first post, I would have immediately greeted you with a hearty "Hail, Thoroughbred of Sin!" :)
At last a connoisseur of quality entertainment. I was going to have “He rides across the nation the thoroughbred of sin” as my signature but I failed my Intelligence check. It’s true I did get the idea from seeing Xeen’s avatar. Once I saw the headless horsemen picture I just had to create this alias, apparently 14 people use that picture also. My shameful geek confession is that I use the bad horse song as my ring tone on my cell phone.