As to why each item doesn't have a skill listed, because the only time a skill comes into play is with master craftsman and that would add ridiculous word count if included on every single item you could craft.
Because using your interpretation does not work for the other half of the feat.
I've already broken the text down, literally. Not using inference like you. I even took the time to break down the specific sentence that's causing you such trouble.
ciretose wrote: As to why each item doesn't have a skill listed, because the only time a skill comes into play is with master craftsman and that would add ridiculous word count if included on every single item you could craft. The skill comes into play with casters who don't need master craftsman. They don't have to use Spellcraft to make items if they don't want to. The option is there for casters to use a craft or profession.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just drop the assumption that you require the specific skill listed to match your chosen skill and you'll notice you don't have to infer anything. The mechanics work how the words are literally stated. If they needed to match up, it would literally tell you, instead of a line that says you must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.
Does it seem like its wrong? Doesn't matter because the feat literally tells you this is what you do.
If I said solve 4+3x2 and told you that you must do addition first, it would seem wrong. Order of operations says multiply first and you would get 10. Instead I told you to do addition first so you get 14.
The item: weapon +1
The check to create: DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (weapon)
Chosen skill: profession (midwife)
You must use profession (midwife) for the DC 8 Spellcraft or Craft (weapon) check to make a weapon +1. Sounds wrong. Doesn't matter because the feat told you to do it this way.
Maybe aiding in the birthing of so many children taught you the magic of life and birth. You apply this magic to make magic items.
It isn't an assumption that it requires a skill. It is a listed rule.
GIGO as to your calculations. If you have to ignore a rule, you have ignored a rule.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You are not ignoring a rule. You have another rule, the feat, that is superseding the original rule. Without the feat, you cannot get around this rule.
Why is this even a big deal? This is what you wanted for non casters and are attempting to devise new feats or a new system to replace it.
Is it really that you just need accreditation and a need to create something new?
Where does it say you ignore the listed skill?
You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item.
It does not say that you must use your chosen skill for the check to make the check, unless the skill required is not your chosen skill.
It doesn't say that the chosen skill can make the item either. That is your inference.
There are skills listed as required. Nothing in the feat overrides that, so...
You're right. It makes perfect sense. The developers intended for non crafters to have to take 2 feats for a chance to only upgrade your sword. Seems legit. Two feats to function as worse than one alone is what I look for in a feat. When I take Power Attack and Cleave, I just play like cleave doesn't work and power attack only gives me a +1 to damage for every -1 to hit with my Greatsword.
And now that I have all the prerequisites to take craft wondrous items too, I can take it... Oh but wait. I can only make weapons and this feat doesn't help me now. I wish the developers didn't create a feat that I could take for absolutely no benefit.
Do you really think the people that created an entire gaming system based around fantasy tropes do not know about all of the fantasy tropes you argued for? Do you think they would make something as restrictive as your interpretation in an attempt to introduce these concepts?
You can create everything that the skill you put points in makes you eligible for.
ciretose wrote: You can create everything that the skill you put points in makes you eligible for. Craft (weapons) doesn't help you with craft wondrous items. So you have all the prerequisites for a feat but the feat does absolutely nothing.
Khrysaor wrote: ciretose wrote: You can create everything that the skill you put points in makes you eligible for. Craft (weapons) doesn't help you with craft wondrous items. So you have all the prerequisites for a feat but the feat does absolutely nothing. You can craft weapons if you take craft arms and armor and you choose the skill Craft (weapons)
If you chose the skill craft (Jewelry) I think most GMs would allow magic amulets (but not rings, as that is under Craft Magic Rings)
You are the one arguing profession (midwife) can be used to make swords and armor, not me.
No, I'm arguing the line in the Feat is ambiguous. As I've said many times. I've just been trying to get you to admit you have to make an inference that leads to something so restrictive it belittles two feats and would cripple any PC to take them.
My argument has grounds that the prerequisite of Master Craftsman says ANY craft or profession. Under your interpretation, this means every craft and profession can be used to make some item.
What items are applicable to profession (midwife, merchant, baker, cook, gambler, gardener, courtesan, farmer, shepherd)? I'm sure you can abstractly come up with a couple items for each one, but it'll be a stretch and how does a couple items justify two feats. It's ludicrous.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Uhm, weren't you "no, it's not ambiguous at all, this is clearly written in the feat!" until like just some hours ago? Everyone else has said basically "it isn't a 100% definite by RAW but *the way we interpret it* makes most sense considering the wording", and people have asked you to FAQ it if you feel unsure et cetera and you've been all "no this is clearly how it works and RAI is completely irrelevant!" and now... You say the same thing we've said the whole time, and claim you've said so the whole time... Then why are you arguing against this?
Ilja wrote: ciretose wrote: Ilja wrote: 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? 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. A lot of special properties can be seen as nonmagical as easily as an enhancement bonus can. Sure, something like Corrosive seems pretty clearly to have magic in it somewhere, but Keen just means the sword is really sharp; why does it have to be really sharp because wizards instead of really sharp because of really good craftsmanship? The same could be said of many other properties. Why does Fortifying some of the weak points of a suit of armor require magic instead of just really good craftsmanship and design? Why does it take witchcraft to create a firearm Reliable enough to not self-destruct after a minute of use?
Plus, in general there's some weird cognitive dissonance in "No, your stupid fighter can't ever make a sword that it is possible to throw! That requires magic, and you don't have the right spell, so you can't do it, it's impossible. What's that, Cleric? You want to make an item that requires a spell you don't know, you can't possibly know, and in fact that no divine caster knows? Not a problem, just take a trivial minor increase to the DC and you'll be fine." There's quite clearly one rule for some and another rule for others, and the contrast is jarring.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think crafting of any sort would be mundane in a world of magic. Its like having a tall ship being crafted today, it just wont happen(outside of some kind of archeological interest). That was kind of the point behind the crafting rule I suggested. If your character has been training in the art of a weapon smith to the degree that he is considered a master(master craftsman feat) then he already knows magical formula as they relate to crafting. He never learned any of the "science" behind magic, and couldn't possibly use the knowledge he has to cast a fire ball because it is highly specialized.
I kind of equate it to a wizard being a structural engineer, and a smith being a carpenter. A carpenter may build a house perfectly well, but an engineer can use his more fundamental knowledge to apply to a wider range of things...
That makes sense, I guess.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
