| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we remove a poster...
I'd recommend we start with the people asking for censorship.
Great post, think I'll go for a coffee.
|
On topic, where are people at with opening craft arms and armor to all classes and having the listed skills for armor and/or weapons be able to be used to replace caster level.
If it was missed it the debris, no removed, the argument for was that these things don't have spell requirements currently, so there is really no reason to have them be the exclusive domain of those who can cast spells.
Another option would be to simply implement magic weapon and armor crafting into the regular crafting when it comes to pure enhancement bonuses. Simply set a DC and of you go. (Like, crafting a +1 sword is a DC30 check, a +2 sword a DC34 check et cetera). When it's just for arms and armor, and not wondrous items, it seems pretty easy to do.
The bonuses could be considered nonmagical.
With such rules, crafters wouldn't even need a feat to craft, just time and cash.
|
|
Another option would be to simply implement magic weapon and armor crafting into the regular crafting when it comes to pure enhancement bonuses. Simply set a DC and of you go. (Like, crafting a +1 sword is a DC30 check, a +2 sword a DC34 check et cetera). When it's just for arms and armor, and not wondrous items, it seems pretty easy to do.
The bonuses could be considered nonmagical.
With such rules, crafters wouldn't even need a feat to craft, just time and cash.
I could get behind something like this. How would you handle special properties? The same?
I could get behind something like this. How would you handle special properties? The same?Another option would be to simply implement magic weapon and armor crafting into the regular crafting when it comes to pure enhancement bonuses. Simply set a DC and of you go. (Like, crafting a +1 sword is a DC30 check, a +2 sword a DC34 check et cetera). When it's just for arms and armor, and not wondrous items, it seems pretty easy to do.
The bonuses could be considered nonmagical.
With such rules, crafters wouldn't even need a feat to craft, just time and cash.
Depends on the goal of the ruling. If it's to allow non-casters to craft exceptional items, maybe leave them out completely and state that the enhancement bonuses are nonmagical (similar to the houserule i proposed in the other thread).
If it's to allow mundane crafters to craft actually magical weapons, you could just allow it the same way as the other things. Like, a +1 flaming sword is crafted as a +2 sword, so it works the same way.
Yes, that works, but to me, there is some charm in being able to do something that caster's cant. That look on the pesky wizard trying to dispel the master dwarfs battleaxe and too late realizing that there's no magic in it - just pure, perfect craftsmanship cutting into it's head.
I mean, I think there's a place for that too. And I like mundanes being able to do something _unique_. Something that cannot be replicated with magic.
I don't feel it's imbalanced regardless. Non-magic prevents dispelling, but magic allows bypassing DR.
One option would be to allow the crafter to choose.
Here's an example.
A jeweler's daughter dies. He obsessively crafts a cubic gate that leads to the land of the dead. He sends the characters to retrieve his daughter. The daughter is now a noble vampire.
So if the jeweler takes master craftsman, this is doable.
You missed the removed posts.Can we remove a poster...I'd recommend we start with the people asking for censorship.
Yeah, but I oppose banning people just because you disagree with their opinion.
The last highly disruptive person I remember being banned was due him admitting to Gary that he was creating threads just to disrupt discussion. While I think shallowsoul could work on his debating style ( and so could you, by the way, you often are also very abrasive ), he at least is legitimately trying to run a discussion.
Currently, giving a weapon a +1 enhancement is a DC 8 for both, casters and non casters. Your proposal makes it near impossible for anyone using it to enchant weapons until they have some outrageous rank bonus.
30 may be a little high, but reliably being able to craft at DC25 at level 5 should be no issue for someone that actively wants to craft. 5+3 ranks/class +3 feat +2 mw tools +2-+4 assistants = +15-17 even without intelligence modifier.
That wizard with +6 intelligence by level 5 won't even need a feat. And it could make it by then even with the DC30 check (though I agree, 30 is a bit high).
So this has been about hating casters all along and not wanting them to make nice things.This suggestion breaks spells, such as the noted dispel magic, and many other of the games current systems. You now have magic that isn't magic and an abjurist can't do anything about it. Why convolute a system that works into something that ruins more than it helps?
No, of course not. The caster can also learn to craft and in fact is no worse at doing so than the fighter (and quite a bit better if the caster is a wizard, magus or another int-based class).
But it's nice if there are some things that cannot be done with magic. I have no issues with magic being able to break the mundane laws of the world, but I do think it's nice if there are some things that can only be done the hard way.
And if someone spends like a year forging a sword, I see no issue making that sword a little different (maybe even a little better) than someone that makes a similar sword in a week.
And they don't "break spells". They just create a specific niche situation where a certain spell targeted in a certain way doesn't work. An abjurist may not be able to cast that specific spell. oh big deal if a single specialist of a single class gets slightly less effective. I mean, there are other spells you can use.
Saying that "breaks dispel magic" is like saying grimlocks having blindsight "breaks glitterdust".
And truth be told the number of times the caster in a party thinks "I know what I can do to be useful, I'll dispell the bonuses on the enemy's weapon!"...
*sigh*
Dont change the abilities of the existing classes. Make a prestige class called 'crafter of legend' and work out how he makes these mundane bonuses happen as a function of his levels in the prestige class.
|
How about Huge Magical items? The enchantment time is prohibitive for a flying ship (based around the old D&D rules for enchanting flying ships and castles). Sure a hundred wizards might band together to enchant a flying warship in a single year so their armies will rule the sky, but for the individual it is a foul monstrosity consuming decades if not centuries of a Wizard's life.
FLYING SHIP OF WAHUN THE PUZZLEMASTER
REQUIREMENTS: 20th Level Wizard, Fly (spell)
Description: A few centuries ago the Wizard Wahun crafted a flying ship. Realizing that the forces of Evil wanted the vessel and he himself aging rapidly (the enchantment process having taken some 103 years in a specially designed Stasis Laboratory - where time takes place at a very rapid rate allowing wizards to enchant in years in the Lab while only Days progress in the outside world), he broke the ship into 240 puzzle components (Each piece is 20 cubic feet of enchanted wood). Currently the ship is scattered across the known world in its 240 component parts. Collectors, Dragons, and an assortment of others are seeking the component parts of the vessel. If the PCs seek out the components, they will find 240 pieces of enchanted wood that will fit together to form the ship. Single Deck Vessel: 20' wide, 80' long, 15' draft with 1' Thick Hull and deck.
Enchant Frame Cost: 3000gp x Spell Levels
Time: 1 week per 1000gp
4th level spell MINOR ITEM CREATION(Wood) X 240 spells(12" x 12" x 12" x 20 cubic inches of wood) x 3,000gp = 2,880,000gp
3rd level spell FLY x 240 spells x 3000gp = 2,160,000gp
Total=5,040,000gp, Time=5,040 weeks (97 years)
|
|
You missed the removed posts.Can we remove a poster...I'd recommend we start with the people asking for censorship.Yeah, but I oppose banning people just because you disagree with their opinion.
The last highly disruptive person I remember being banned was due him admitting to Gary that he was creating threads just to disrupt discussion. While I think shallowsoul could work on his debating style ( and so could you, by the way, you often are also very abrasive ), he at least is legitimately trying to run a discussion.
It happens more often than you think. People just don't post about it when they've been given vacations.
And if someone spends like a year forging a sword, I see no issue making that sword a little different (maybe even a little better) than someone that makes a similar sword in a week.
As far as I understand the Master Craftsman feat, it does allow a non caster to select the following feats: craft magic arms and armors & craft wondrous items. When using craft wondrous item for both caster and non caster you are creating the item from scratch. While when you are using crafts arms and armors, you are simply imbuing a existing MW item so it get magical properties. It's no longer for caster or non caster.
As for my self I don't like the idea of non-caster imbuing magical properties in an existing object so I houseruled against, but also I don't like the idea of crafting wondrous items, wand, staves and the like without having to craft the item first. So in my game, caster can imbue magic into existing rings, or robe or belt, etc. but if they do it from raw material, they'll have to craft the item first.
Don't compare this to a wizard. Or any class that uses intelligence as a primary. They are a minority.
I took the wizard as one example because they've been mentioned a lot of times already - but your argument is fair.
Lv. 5 Anything non intelligence primary.5 ranks + 3 class + 1 stat(2 the most) + 2 tools (+1 trait) = 9(11)
Take 10 for 19(21)Doesn't see like a level 5 will hit the DCs.
That's for someone who's invested less than item crafting requires normally. Since the proposal was without feats as a hard requirement, it's fair to say the to-be-craft took a feat to boost it's effectiveness.
Also, you forget hired assistance. Unless you're crafting in the middle of now-where, it should be no hard to hire 2-4 assistants. On average, two assistants will give a +2 bonus for the price of 2 sp/day (neglible). Four assistants for +4.So it's more like, for a non-int-based class:
5 ranks +3 class +3 feat + 2 tools +2 aid another = +15 or take 10 for 25.
Add skill focus(so now you've added more fear tax) increases the total while taking 10 to 22(24).
No, just adding in a voluntary boost to be able to craft at the same time others can.
Without the rules, for a caster it takes level 5 and a feat to craft, and for non-casters it takes level 7 and two feats.With these rules, anyone can craft at level 5 with a feat (unless negative int) or at level 7 or so without the feat.
You guys have to realize that the designers ran the numbers. They did tests to check for balance to make this aspect of the game fun and easy for everyone.
Well, apparently it isn't fun and easy for everyone. Hence this thread.
The devs ran the numbers on everything. Not everyone thinks the game is perfect as it is. This is because people have different opinions on how the game should run - hence houserules. That is a strength of the system, and how pathfinder came to be from the very start (the 3.5 crew also ran the numbers, but paizo didn't settle for that because they percieved weaknesses/things that didn't fit their playstyle and played with houserules, that later became PFRPG).
There's many aspects of the game you're not accounting for. And I said many spells, such as the noted dispel magic. What about anti magic field? That legendary beholder from other fantasy realms now has its most powerful ability nerfed. Or most of spells of the abjuration school.
I don't know if I think it's fair to include monsters from other games in the discussion, but yeah, there's a handful of abilities that get slightly less powerful (because those they can all do a lot of other powerful stuff, it's not like "dispel the fighter's sword" is the only or even most common use of DM, GDM, antimagic field etc in my experience).
Loads of stuff are released all the time that circumvent or make less useful already established tactics.
As far as I understand the Master Craftsman feat, it does allow a non caster to select the following feats: craft magic arms and armors & craft wondrous items. When using craft wondrous item for both caster and non caster you are creating the item from scratch. While when you are using crafts arms and armors, you are simply imbuing a existing MW item so it get magical properties. It's no longer for caster or non caster.
While there is some disagreement on how master craftsman works, I think it's fair to assume that you have to actually create the weapon or armor that is imbued as it says you have to _create_ the item using X skill under the master craftsman rules. I agree it isn't clear-cut, but regardless we are discussing house rules, including changes to master craftsman, so I think it's fair to consider several different roads one could take.
Skill focus isn't a requirement, its a choice. If you want to be amazing with a skill, you can take it. If you don't, you don't.
I would like to point out that there's nothing in the Fabricate rules that allow for the setting of a DC and thus allowing for Masterwork items.
Thus, making arms and armor out of special materials is IMPOSSIBLE with Fabricate (they are all masterwork items). Furthermore, all items that are supposed to be enchanted are supposed to be masterwork to start with, no? So nothing made by Fabricate can be enchanted.
Which of course means they invented a spell to make things masterwork and bypass this step, but at least the cost is equal. You just get to substitute one spell for an infinite number of skill ranks
-----------
Magical Craftsman argument:
The wording on this feat comes down to what you believe "must use this skill to create this item" means.
If it means you must take raw materials, turn it into a crafted good, and then enchant it, then, yeah, you are automatically restricted because you can effectively only enchant stuff you make from scratch yourself.
If you believe that it means you use the skill to make a given item MAGICAL...that's a whole different story.
Profession (beggar) means you are begging the forces of magic to empower the device.
Profession (scribe) means you are carefully etching precise runes into the device.
Craft(armor) means you are reinforcing with studs and rivets and heat treatments.
Craft (woodworker) means you are carving and treating with oils and finishing.
The former view is EXTREMELY restrictive. A Magical Craftsman using Craft (armor) can make magical plate, but not a magical helm, despite it being the same skill...he MUST blow another feat.
THe latter view is more open, basically a straight sub of skill points invested for Spellcraft, and costing an extra feat. I would venture it is FAIRER then the prior rule.
In truth, I would personally approve that Magical Craftsman allows you to use a Craft Check in place of a spellcraft check to make ANY magical item that can be made with WOndrous Item or Arms and Armor, as long as you create it from scratch with a Craft check, and use the appropriate Craft check for the item in place of the spellcraft check.
Thus, a caster pays for making magic items by paying for one skill and several feats, and he gets his caster level and spells req automatically, and can make ANY item magical within the bounds of the feat. With Fabricate and Masterchange, he can invest a moderate slew of skill points and create the items from scratch for himself to work on.
A non-caster pays for it with skill points and one feat. To make all kinds of magical arms and armor, a given character will need Magical Craftsman and Craft- Armor, Weapons, Bows, and Leatherworking. However, he will also be able to make any wondrous items that also use those skills, such as Helms, Quivers, Girdles, Gauntlets, boots (which might fall under Profession (Corvisor) instead) and so forth. He pays a hefty cost in skill points, but less of a cost in feats.
I think that would be fairly balanced, don't you?
==Aelryinth
|
|
How is "you must use this skill to craft this item" unclear?
Further, how is "Skill Used in Creation" unclear as to that being the skill you use to create an item?
If under "Creating Magic Weapons" it said "Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons)." would that not be clear which skills are to be used for each thing?
So reduce the need for feats only to implement the need for skill focus?
Reduce the hard _requirement_ of a feat, and let skill focus allow you to craft _easier_. See the difference?
Youre not understanding what I mean by the developers balanced this. You're implementing rules that are conflicting with other rules forcing you to change more rules that will, again, conflict with more rules. You need to do mathematical analysis to see how it balances out vs. the necessity to take other things as a requirement.
And that is why we are discussing in this thread. Do you have an issue with this?
No one needs skill focus to do much of anything in this game. Acrobatics to avoid AoO is one of the only examples I can think of. They are flavor feats to make you a pinnacle of your skill. You've just turned them into a tax.
So you're saying item creation feats are a tax? Because these allow you to craft at the same level as you would with an item creation feat - just that they're voluntary in that you can wait a bit and craft later, and then not have to take them.
You don't "need" skill focus to craft with this system. You need it to craft at 5th level if you don't have a good intelligence score. Much like you need skill focus (whatever) if you want to be excellent at it at level 5 and don't have a good ability score for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I understand the Master Craftsman feat, it does allow a non caster to select the following feats: craft magic arms and armors & craft wondrous items. When using craft wondrous item for both caster and non caster you are creating the item from scratch. While when you are using crafts arms and armors, you are simply imbuing a existing MW item so it get magical properties. It's no longer for caster or non caster.While there is some disagreement on how master craftsman works, I think it's fair to assume that you have to actually create the weapon or armor that is imbued as it says you have to _create_ the item using X skill under the master craftsman rules. I agree it isn't clear-cut, but regardless we are discussing house rules, including changes to master craftsman, so I think it's fair to consider several different roads one could take.
I think you might be reading "create" differently than I do in the feat. I think it's referring to creating the magic item, not creating the item itself.
If a wizard makes a Robe of the Archmage, it's highly unlikely that they took silken thread and wove a robe, then imbued it with magical energy, it's more likely they got a nice robe and infused it with magic. They created the Robe of the Archmage, but they didn't create the robe itself.
|
|
I think what Ilja is saying is that unlike the Wizard who is imbuing an item via spellcraft, the master craftsman is using a skill to create an item.
Therefore, unlike the wizard, they actually have to create the item.
Again lets look at the feat, piece by piece.
"Master Craftsman
Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items."
Straightforward, you craft/create simple magic items
"Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. "
Note the 'one' part. You choose one. I suppose they could have said it must be the one you have 5 ranks in, but it seems so obvious they probably were saving the word count. Because, you know, it is obviously the intent.
"You receive a +2 bonus on your chosen Craft or Profession skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats."
So in the one skill you chose, you can count the ranks (not the points, the ranks) as your caster level for the purpose of qualifying for the feats listed. You get a +2 bonus, but those are points, not ranks.
"You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item."
You can now use the feats, with your ranks (again not the points) substituting for your total caster level. But you can only use the one skill you chose. If that skill is not a skill listed under the item/weapon/etc...you can't. There is no "Special" exception written into the feat. All rules still apply. If your skill or profession isn't listed as being used for it, you can't do it.
"The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item."
This part is just saying you still need to meet all the requirements listed (like the correct skill), and all DC penalties still apply. Because all rules apply. The only change is allowing non-spellcasters to access the feat. Which they say....
"Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats."
...There. Presumably self explanatory, although there have been some creative readings...
So, they get the half cost discount if they craft the item, and they don't have to pay the feat tax, master craftsman, if they have the spells to enchant it. In either case, NPC or caster, they need the craft feat to enchant it. Let me add something to this band wagon, philters and such should be put back into Potions and Oils.
|
|
There are specific skill requirements for arms and armor. In fact all of them have specific skill or profession requirements except magic item, which says
"Skill Used In Creation: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check."
Why? Because there are too many variables to narrow it down so it falls to GM discretion.
But there are very clear guidelines for weapons, armor, etc...aren't there?