| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My blog post on magic items, just for my own tracking since these boards rotate content so quickly...
Very interesting post. I get where you're coming from, and I do think it'd be pretty interesting to see how the game played out with magic items designed the way you suggest. However, I also think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the magic item crafting system is broken, when the real issue is that you disagree with the entirety of the design of magical items.
Paizo has provided a system in which magical items work in a specific way (even if that is in large part a holdover from previous editions). I think we have to assume that either they are happy with that design, or do not believe that changing it provides enough benefit to be worthwhile. Any reasonable discussion about the magic item crafting system needs to be taken in that light. Arguments that rely on
- broken homebrew items,
- the idea that entire design of magic items is wrong, or
- that the system does not easily support settings with a different level of magic than what Pathfinder was designed for
are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the crafting system is broken.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying those aren't discussions worth having. I'm simply saying that I don't think those are part of this discussion.
Raider, if you read my posts on this subject you'll see that I have repeatedly stressed my opinion that the magic item system itself is broken, and the magic item creation problems are a minor part of that.
However, I do agree with many, if not most, of the concerns expressed about the magic item creation rules/guidelines. I just think the bigger issue is a, well, bigger issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that it's effectively persisted through two editions (three counting Pathfinder) plus a minor tweak by Paizo when put into Pathfinder, kind of argues against your prejudgement that there is a groundswell of seething discontent with it. Your general unhappiness is the reliance on GM Fiat, whereas most of us don't see that as a problem.
But that's my point. When Paizo decided to make Monks carry two weapons to flurry, there wasn't a simple "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it." It was a thousand post freakout-fest. Any time someone has a Paladin alignment question, it's never "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it," it's pages and pages of the same moral relativism arguments. Yet someone points out brokenness within the item crafting rules, and the answer is "
*yawn* GM Fiat."Clearly the players are very concerned about GM fiat in most of the rules, but presume it to be commonplace in the crafting rules. That's the true answer to the top post's question.
The fact that it's effectively persisted through two editions (three counting Pathfinder) plus a minor tweak by Paizo when put into Pathfinder, kind of argues against your prejudgement that there is a groundswell of seething discontent with it. Your general unhappiness is the reliance on GM Fiat, whereas most of us don't see that as a problem.But that's my point. When Paizo decided to make Monks carry two weapons to flurry, there wasn't a simple "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it." It was a thousand post freakout-fest. Any time someone has a Paladin alignment question, it's never "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it," it's pages and pages of the same moral relativism arguments. Yet someone points out brokenness within the item crafting rules, and the answer is "
*yawn* GM Fiat."Clearly the players are very concerned about GM fiat in most of the rules, but presume it to be commonplace in the crafting rules. That's the true answer to the top post's question.
The Flurry ruling impacted PFS organized play, where GM fiat is supposed to be kept to a minimum, and houseruling isn't allowed.
Magic item creation is not allowed in PFS, therefore the impact of the item creation rules is only on home play. That is a big part of the difference in reaction.
The players want more treasure, easier fights, etc. Should they get that just because they want it? The players want to know the AC, HP, defenses, offenses, special abilities, etc. of everything they fight, should they get that?Because players want it? Because the suggestions work as either no limitation or a ban depending on playstyle. Which is a bad thing.
Because you're trying to limit crafting by using a limit that works only by GM fiat, since the GM controls the pace of events. Or doesn't in some sandbox games, so there is no limit.
If you're going to limit it by metagame fiat, just do so. Don't pretend.
If that's what your players actually want, then you have a bigger problem. It's not what I want as a player.
I mean, it can be fun for awhile, stomping around on everything with no effort, decking yourself out in piles of magic items. Classic Monty Haul campaigns. I played that way in middle school. At the time, I enjoyed. Now I enjoy other aspects of the game.
Actually, I take the initial statement back. If your players (and you) have fun playing that way, why not? Go for it. If your players really do want to play that way, why ruin their fun by forcing them into a different style.But, that's all sort of beside the point. When I said "players" I was including GMs, since they're also part of the player base.
My point was the suggested limits don't work.
Obviously all players don't want it. If they did, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Judging from threads about DPR and character optimization, there appears to be a lot of players that want to stomp around on everything with no effort. Players that believe if you haven't optimized your character for maximum damage output you are hurting your party.
The fact that it's effectively persisted through two editions (three counting Pathfinder) plus a minor tweak by Paizo when put into Pathfinder, kind of argues against your prejudgement that there is a groundswell of seething discontent with it. Your general unhappiness is the reliance on GM Fiat, whereas most of us don't see that as a problem.But that's my point. When Paizo decided to make Monks carry two weapons to flurry, there wasn't a simple "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it." It was a thousand post freakout-fest. Any time someone has a Paladin alignment question, it's never "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it," it's pages and pages of the same moral relativism arguments. Yet someone points out brokenness within the item crafting rules, and the answer is "
*yawn* GM Fiat."Clearly the players are very concerned about GM fiat in most of the rules, but presume it to be commonplace in the crafting rules. That's the true answer to the top post's question.
The Flurry ruling impacted PFS organized play, where GM fiat is supposed to be kept to a minimum, and houseruling isn't allowed.
Magic item creation is not allowed in PFS, therefore the impact of the item creation rules is only on home play. That is a big part of the difference in reaction.
Agreed on this.
The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
|
The fact that it's effectively persisted through two editions (three counting Pathfinder) plus a minor tweak by Paizo when put into Pathfinder, kind of argues against your prejudgement that there is a groundswell of seething discontent with it. Your general unhappiness is the reliance on GM Fiat, whereas most of us don't see that as a problem.But that's my point. When Paizo decided to make Monks carry two weapons to flurry, there wasn't a simple "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it." It was a thousand post freakout-fest. Any time someone has a Paladin alignment question, it's never "*yawn* just have your GM Fiat it," it's pages and pages of the same moral relativism arguments. Yet someone points out brokenness within the item crafting rules, and the answer is "
*yawn* GM Fiat."Clearly the players are very concerned about GM fiat in most of the rules, but presume it to be commonplace in the crafting rules. That's the true answer to the top post's question.
The Flurry ruling impacted PFS organized play, where GM fiat is supposed to be kept to a minimum, and houseruling isn't allowed.
Magic item creation is not allowed in PFS, therefore the impact of the item creation rules is only on home play. That is a big part of the difference in reaction.
Agreed on this.
The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
You have hit on a big point. If the magic item creation rules were so good and so stable then there would be no problem with them being allowed in PFS but the fact that they aren't should be evidence enough that the own devs don't trust the system in organized play.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.
Pretty simple in home games...require a knowledge(arcana) to know a specific item exists. Then you throw specific requirements to create them item...that vorpal sword must be quenched in elemental water and mercury. The sun sword must have hairs of a solar incorporated into it....etc.
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
Pretty much this. Infinitely this. I've participated in quite a few living campaigns (not RPGA/PFS events but smaller ones) and inventory in general is kind of a pain in the ass without figuring out some generic reward system that ensures everyone gets a fair shake. And since you must be able change out PCs quickly, it makes it difficult to deal with things like crafting time and keeping track of who got what, where, if it was acceptable, if a GM gave too much or too little, etc.
I've been using the crafting rules since 3E came out. They haven't changed much because they're damn good at what they do. There's only a few alterations I would make to them.
1) A few more sidebars explaining certain calculations would be convenient for newbies.
2) Considerations/restrictions for personal range spells.
3) Applying updates to the system (such as swift/immediate actions).
Overall, the system is very, very good.
Pretty simple in home games...require a knowledge(arcana) to know a specific item exists. Then you throw specific requirements to create them item...that vorpal sword must be quenched in elemental water and mercury. The sun sword must have hairs of a solar incorporated into it....etc.
All of this is subsumed into the gold cost to create an item.
==Aelryinth
|
|
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
I call BS on that.
Magic Item Creation is s dependent on the GM that it would be impossible to implement into organized play. It has nothing to do with throwing in complicated things. Every DM doesn't see eye to eye on item creation because it doesn't have a hard and fast rule that every GM can go by.
|
|
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
Pretty much this. Infinitely this. I've participated in quite a few living campaigns (not RPGA/PFS events but smaller ones) and inventory in general is kind of a pain in the ass without figuring out some generic reward system that ensures everyone gets a fair shake. And since you must be able change out PCs quickly, it makes it difficult to deal with things like crafting time and keeping track of who got what, where, if it was acceptable, if a GM gave too much or too little, etc.
I've been using the crafting rules since 3E came out. They haven't changed much because they're damn good at what they do. There's only a few alterations I would make to them.
1) A few more sidebars explaining certain calculations would be convenient for newbies.
2) Considerations/restrictions for personal range spells.
3) Applying updates to the system (such as swift/immediate actions).Overall, the system is very, very good.
Sorry but it ain't that. I play in organized play and I GM organized play so I can tell you from being in the front lines that the current rules are impossible to use in organized play due to their balance issues and GM fiat.
|
|
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
I call BS on that.
Magic Item Creation is s dependent on the GM that it would be impossible to implement into organized play. It has nothing to do with throwing in complicated things. Every DM doesn't see eye to eye on item creation because it doesn't have a hard and fast rule that every GM can go by.
Actually, there should be very little table variance for the base magic item creation rules. The prices are there, the DCs are there. If a GM wants to ban certain things like taking 10 on Spellcraft, raising the DCs to make up for spells not known, etc., that is the GM's perogative; however, without custom item creation, there are plenty of hard and fast rules to go by.
The complications involved is in checking on each and every chronicle sheet that a crafter might have. Furthermore, people would want other players to craft for them, which would be even more difficult to adjudicate in an organized play environment. That isn't the rules' fault though, that's something organized play brings.
|
|
It has little or nothing to do with fears of it being unbalanced. It's merely much more complicated to throw crafting into an organized play environment.The fact magic item creation can be so unbalancing is a big reason it's never been allowed in just about any variant of society play, 3E forwards.
==Aelryinth
I call BS on that.
Magic Item Creation is s dependent on the GM that it would be impossible to implement into organized play. It has nothing to do with throwing in complicated things. Every DM doesn't see eye to eye on item creation because it doesn't have a hard and fast rule that every GM can go by.
Actually, there should be very little table variance for the base magic item creation rules. The prices are there, the DCs are there. If a GM wants to ban certain things like taking 10 on Spellcraft, raising the DCs to make up for spells not known, etc., that is the GM's perogative; however, without custom item creation, there are plenty of hard and fast rules to go by.
The complications involved is in checking on each and every chronicle sheet that a crafter might have. Furthermore, people would want other players to craft for them, which would be even more difficult to adjudicate in an organized play environment. That isn't the rules' fault though, that's something organized play brings.
Organized play means that everyone in society plays exactly by the rules. This is also why we play scenarios in organized play and not homebrew campaigns. Crafting will throw a party out of whack when trying to follow the WBL and some DM's may give the party downtime while others do not so this automatically makes it unavailable for organized play because it doesn't keep everyone on the same page. That is also why you are only allowed to by certain things.
|
|
Organized play means that everyone in society plays exactly by the rules. This is also why we play scenarios in organized play and not homebrew campaigns. Crafting will throw a party out of whack when trying to follow the WBL and some DM's may give the party downtime while others do not so this automatically makes it unavailable for organized play because it doesn't keep everyone on the same page. That is also why you are only allowed to by certain things.
You are only allowed to buy certain things according to Fame, and that system of restriction works fine; the same could be applied to crafting if they really wanted to put it in. Crafting for oneself would only throw one's own WBL 'out of whack', and PFS WBL is pretty far out of whack anyway. The trade of crafting feats for more wealth is fine.
Crafting is not overpowered; it's just too complicated for organized play. I would not want to go to a convention and have to audit every one of a character's magic item creations.
Yeah it's good when you find more and more ways to exploit it, cheat it and break it.
Hell, I could see why someone would love an unstable system like that.
Quite the contrary. The item creation rules - which are nearly unchanged - are very well built. And the % reductions (for things like alignment) weren't part of the item creation rules and instead a sidebar explanation for how a GM should ad-hoc certain items (see 3E or 3.5 DMG); though they were included along with the rules themselves on the SRD and then apparently later in Pathfinder wihout indication that they weren't the rules (but the 3.x DMGs were explicit about them not being part of the item creation rules themselves).
The vast majority of the issues that people bring up with custom item creation come in misusing the rules - usually on accident - which leads to bizarre issues. This is why I said I wouldn't mind a little more explanation. A great example is the infamous "sword of true strike" which can't legally be created but is often thought to be legal.
As far as the item creation rules without custom items are concerned (such as crafting scrolls/wands/rings/wondrous/arms/rods already published) there is effectively nothing wrong with them. It's not easier than intended to be, and isn't a large enough effect to screw with WBL (in fact, it's more detrimental to balance to be under-WBL than over WBL in most cases, and yet the PF core rules support play with roughly half and double WBL for low and high fantasy respectively).
Personally, I like them because they're useful, work well, allow me to quickly and efficiently design new magic items for my games (and I use custom magic items frequently in my games and have given examples of such in my previous posts: shields with dragons that breath fire, quivers of plenty, etc). I like them because they're not easily abused unless you're trying or simply doing it wrong. On the whole I find it to be a nice, clean system, with only a few bugs to be worked out (I've never bothered to modify the few bugs I did find because it didn't seem worth the effort when what I was using was more than good enough for my purposes).
But when it comes to saying "I craft a +2 cloak of resistance" that's not abuse. That's how the game is meant to be played.
So the problem is you need GM fiat to make it work.first of all, those rules are somewhat optional, nobody forces you to use them (or play Pathfinder for that matter), if what in your mind is broken is so easily fixed, just homebrew it. I don't see the point in starting the same topic over and over again every other day.
No GM I ever played with allows staves of infinite wishes, the recipes problem is basically a flavour and WBL is just a guideline to begin with.
Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
/thread
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
*not sarcasm* Shallowsoul, have you considered finding a new game to play? You obviously despise a large part of Pathfinder. If the 3.5 rules fit you so much better, there is nothing stopping you from going back to play it.
If you post something to a forum, expect people to disagree with you; just like you have the right to complain, we have the right to disagree without having to expect you throwing a hissy-fit automatically. If all you want is people to agree with you instantaneously, go to a mirror; opposing viewpoints lead to good ideas. It is the reason democratic countries have multiple parties, keeps checks and balances and makes you come up with new stuff. You think something is too lenient, others don't. It works.
Whether it is a minority or majority of people who do not like this particular section of the rules is inconsequential. A concise rewrite of the item creation system would be a major work (which would probably also include major changes to other parts of the game too) or would be very clinical in nature, removing all the customization (new, unique items) that is viable with it. Assuming it is an economical issue, Paizo will cater to the clientele that bothers to tell them that there is a problem, and as of right now on the official Paizo forums, it seems this problem fall into the minority.
Saying "I want something that does not require dm fiat" is illogical. They tell you pretty early on that some stuff you are going to have to decide on your own.
All dm's have to go through the ropes and figure out how to do things, its part of the learning curve. You can't expect every rule in a game as complex as Pathfinder to go through a "new dm screen" each time. There are plenty of magic items in the corebook for a new dm to simply not deal with item creation until he or she feels comfortable dealing with it.
Casters are already paying with Xp for their items. They have to level, then invest a feat in order to gain the ability to create something. Now they have to find the resources and time to create it. You can easily role play the component gathering sections, which would slow down item creation. Furthermore, circumstantial bonuses or penalties can apply to the necessary skill rolls, slowing down things further.
I have seen dm's abuse xp costs in both spells and magic item creation before, screwing over players. that is the flip side of a newbie dm doing a Monty Hall. So xp costs are not all that great. And parties with multiple levels are usually a bigger headache for the dm as the definition of a proper challenge changes. Not withstanding the fact that the Pathfinder experience system is not designed to handle it, it is extra bookkeeping as well.
Based on your posts (btw, most of your posts on this thread have a pretty negative tones or are simply full of attitude towards anyone who does not agree with you, don't expect people to be very nice or agreeable when you write like that) you sound like you want magic items to have a 1e/2e/ad&d/lotr/conan feel, which is Sword and Sorcery fantasy. Pathfinder is designed to be high fantasy.
Each item has a name, and making an item is more intensive. People hold on to something, and get it enchanted further later, because +1 weapons don't happen to be sitting everywhere. That sword your dad took from a battlefield long ago means much more, since it slayed 100 ogres.
You can do that already, there have been plenty of suggestions that will bring that saveur de vie that you wish for on this thread.
As to those that have a problem with his repeated questions, just don't bother posting to his threads, they will just die out. He has the right to ask, you have the right not to answer.
|
|
*not sarcasm* Shallowsoul, have you considered finding a new game to play? You obviously despise a large part of Pathfinder. If the 3.5 rules fit you so much better, there is nothing stopping you from going back to play it.
If you post something to a forum, expect people to disagree with you; just like you have the right to complain, we have the right to disagree without having to expect you throwing a hissy-fit automatically. If all you want is people to agree with you instantaneously, go to a mirror; opposing viewpoints lead to good ideas. It is the reason democratic countries have multiple parties, keeps checks and balances and makes you come up with new stuff. You think something is too lenient, others don't. It works.
Whether it is a minority or majority of people who do not like this particular section of the rules is inconsequential. A concise rewrite of the item creation system would be a major work (which would probably also include major changes to other parts of the game too) or would be very clinical in nature, removing all the customization (new, unique items) that is viable with it. Assuming it is an economical issue, Paizo will cater to the clientele that bothers to tell them that there is a problem, and as of right now on the official Paizo forums, it seems this problem fall into the minority.
Saying "I want something that does not require dm fiat" is illogical. They tell you pretty early on that some stuff you are going to have to decide on your own.
All dm's have to go through the ropes and figure out how to do things, its part of the learning curve. You can't expect every rule in a game as complex as Pathfinder to go through a "new dm screen" each time. There are plenty of magic items in the corebook for a new dm to simply not deal with item creation until he or she feels comfortable dealing with it.
Casters are already paying with Xp for their items. They have to level, then invest a feat in order to gain the ability to create something. Now they have to find the...
Im not sure how much you know the game but magic item creation is not a huge part of the yame. Also, I dont need to look to another game if I dont like it 100% because if that were true then everyone would be switching games like they do underwear. Please, lets not try and go thwre shall we? Thats grasping at straws just to make your argument. Need I remind you that these forums are not only a place to discuss the rules you like but also the rules you dont like.
Actually thw number of people who do not like a certain rule is very important when it comes to a business or future design of a current product so it is relevant.
Basically its down to this, if you like the rule then great but dont come in telling someone they need to move on to another game because they dont like a small fraction of the rules and want to see it changed.
|
|
Sorry but it ain't that. I play in organized play and I GM organized play so I can tell you from being in the front lines that the current rules are impossible to use in organized play due to their balance issues and GM fiat.
I'm curious: which Organized Play system is that you're GMing and playing, because crafting feats are not legal in Pathfinder Society OP.
PFS doesn't use crafting because to do so they would need to create a super list of every item you can legally create in organized play. Then they would need to publish this small book so that every GM could have a copy at hand in case they need to deal with a crafter. Further they would have to constantly add to this small book every time a new supplement came out they wanted to include items from. Simply stated it's not worth the hassle.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are NO RULES for custom magic items. Zip, zilch, nada. There is a GUIDELINE for it...but absolutely no rules. Why do people continually mistaken guidelines for rules?!?
The reason that crafting never existed in any of the D&D organized play is because organized play isn't good for it...at all. I don't care how codified you make the crafting rules, you just can't have on in organized play because of the need to track items in organized play. So any crafting will be a HUGE bureaucratic headache. I use to run a regional LARP and yeah item tracking is one of the biggest headaches there is...now multiply my headache 1000 fold for something national and you wanna make it even MORE complicated so it crumbles under it's own weight? Yeah no...just no. So no crafting is not about power...it's about the sanity of the people who run society (the people in the back that nobody really sees and nobody really thanks and are just pretty much abused by people who b~%*! about this or that isn't run well without knowing jack about what it takes to actually make the system work).
Shadow...you don't dislike a SMALL portion of PF, you dislike pretty much all of it from all those posts you make about how much you hate various aspects of PF. That is why people are telling you to find something else. It is rather PAINFULLY obvious that you dislike PF...or are a troll. So either go find a system you actually like...or if your troll...just go.
Just because you paid 50 bucks for a book does NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DICTATE HOW THE PRODUCT SHOULD BE. You have the right to like or dislike it...but you have no right to DEMAND that the magic system get "fixed". You have a right to that 50 dollar book and that is all. You go to Mcdonalds and order a burger. You have a right to that burger. You have right to say it was good or bad. You have NO right to demand that Mcdonalds now must use kobe beef because your a paying customer.
And no, I do not like the current magic system. I would like pre-reqs to ACTUALLY be pre-reqs...but the list of pre-reqs on the items as it is enough of a mess to make that unfeasible without a complete re-write (as spells can't be used as pre-reqs as that eliminated spont casters from crafting for example). Same thing with using caster level as a limiting factor (CL 17 for a pearl of power 1...really?!?). Using XP would honestly be a pain in the neck for a lot of games as with the whole no way to lose a level deal, many games are run XPless and everyone's just on the same track. Multiple tiers of crafts items would be an idea is the CL made even a lick of sense and as such needs a re-write. Increasing crafting costs to 75% would not be too bad I suppose...but you still have the increased treasure issue...just to a smaller degree. You know what houserule I find useful for crafting? Crafting costs full market value. You may salvage magical items for full market value when used for crafting (sans MW or special material costs...none weapon/armor is assumed to be a masterwork item worth 50 GP...but that part can be left out for simplicity sake). The item must be from the same craft category as the item you are making (so no using a several +1 sword to make a belt of con +4 for example).