headband +6 18,000, cloak +5 12,500, bracers of armor +8 32,000
headband +4 16,000, cloak +4 16,000, bracers of armor +6 36,000
1) 62,500 +2 intelligence, +1 saves, +2 armor and 5,500 gold
2) 68,000
So that is the difference of characters looking for similar gear, the first has craft wondrous item and the second doesn't.
If the crafter crafts for the entire party they could potentially all have +2 to an ability score and +1 on saves for example making this feat very powerful. If he doesn't he will just pull ahead of the other characters.
Oddly enough, the thread died shortly after my post, apparently leaving naysayers like MagnusKin no alternative, but to spew their bile elsewhere.
As it happens, I sometimes take a few days off from the boards or lose track of threads, because they fall of the front page. But, whatever. Also, it seems you just picked up that "+1 across the board" meme instead of creating it. Gauss was already talking about that months earlier than January, IIRC.
And those stat blocks are a joke. The non-crafting wizard has only a +4 INT headband at fifteenth level? He is wearing a mithral chain shirt? What? Why doesn't he have Scribe Scroll, he's a Wizard!
This stat block simply does not take into account that players specialize their characters with crafting. And the game doesn't start at level 15, that is actually the ending played level for the majority of APs. Having a crafting feat and specializing will give you a huge advantage over the whole course of a campaign. Of course at level 15 things even out a bit, because you cannot raise certain boosters above the limits the game puts on them. That difference seems quite academic, however, if you as a GM have to deal with save DCs for SoD spells, which level appropiate challenge ratings ( up to the boss level ) can very rarely save against.
Instead of continuing to repeat your own views, why not post some numbers/sample characters to back up your claims?
And they both have Scribe Scroll.
Yeah, like I am going to write up two Wizard characters at every level after level three through fifteenth. -.- Sorry, but I will not spend one entire productive day to just "mathematically" prove something which should be evident to anybody who can semantically comprehend how specialization works.
Not even to mention the large advantage the crafting character has in getting to customize his gear as he sees fit, compared to a non-crafter having to live at the mercy of the GM.
And, yeah, I misread the number of scrolls on the second Wizard compared to the first, which is from where the prize discrepancy comes from. I still question why someone needs a gazillion scrolls of every of those spells, but that error is on me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with specialization you're concentrating too much if you even approach half your wealth into a single item. The problem with theorycraft is that it works in theory. For a practical adventuring load out you need an array of gear from offensive, defensive and "other." This is true even for high levels because the threats you face are more diverse.
Pathfinder is a game which overwhelmingly rewards having a better offense over having a better defense. Given how adventurers run around in packs of four to eight and normally face opposition which is either weaker in power but numerous or low numbers of elite enemies, concentrating on improving your offense to take out enemies as fast as possible is almost always the best solution. Outside of the lowest levels (1-5), that is, when spell slots are still few and hitpoints are low.
As such, specialization into killing enemies faster is very much superior over spreading yourself out.
Wizards, aside from already being the most powerful class in the game by themselves, are also the class which benefits most disproportionally from access to using the Craft Wondrous Item feat. Since their offense does not happen through weapons and their defense is not really based on armor class, they don't need to spread out their feat selection to more than this particular crafting feat. Taking a ring as your arcane bond focus also eliminates the need to take Craft Rings ( you will inevitably find rather sooner than later enough Rings of Protection for everybody in the party ) and the other crafting feats are purely optional.
Pathfinder is a game which overwhelmingly rewards having a better offense over having a better defense.
I lose more characters to that line of thinking. Really. You'd end up in a graveyard very, very quickly with that reasoning. Especially since the system is designed from its very foundation to make raising defenses cheaper than raising offenses.
A +2 sword costs 8,000 gp. A +1 armor, shield, and ring of protection cost 8,000 gp combined.
Given how adventurers run around in packs of four to eight and normally face opposition which is either weaker in power but numerous or low numbers of elite enemies, concentrating on improving your offense to take out enemies as fast as possible is almost always the best solution.
Trash mobs get much stronger as you go along. In encounters with lots of weaker enemies you are going to feel the sting of lacking defenses far more frequently. Likewise, pumping offense fiercely has a plateau point. At a certain point it doesn't matter how much damage you do if you're going to 1 shot an enemy. Anything else is waste.
Outside of the lowest levels (1-5), that is, when spell slots are still few and hitpoints are low.
As such, specialization into killing enemies faster is very much superior over spreading yourself out.
Experiences have taught me much differently, both in the mathematical perspective and in actual gameplay. I've seen a PC that was "unstoppably overpowered" in a group I GMed for as a favor. Said PC died more or less by accident during a warm up encounter with enemies who weren't even worth XP, because of this really bizarre idea that all-out-offense is the best defense.
The '+1 bonus' effect generally only applies at the lower levels, too.
A +5 Sword is 50k. A 100k sword is +7. A 200k Sword is +10. The difference grows over levels, and applies also with armor, and AC and save enhancing items.
It does not apply with stat buffs, which plateau much more quickly.
25k gets you armor +4 and a shield +3. With Crafting, it gets you a shield +5 adn Armor +5...+3 to AC.
100k gets you a shield +7 and armor +7 normally. With Crafting, it gets you a shield +10 and Armor +10.
Likewise, an amulet of NatAC +4 and Cloak/res +3 is 25k. With Crafting, both of those are now +5.
Doubling your cash is powerful, and only gets better with time.
==Aelryinth
CWI does not double your wealth. That's a common mistake I often see from posters. To truly double your wealth you would have to invest in several item creation feats. Hardly overpowered once you consider the 3-4 feats it would actually take.
90% of your cash, as a melee, goes into Craft arms and armor, and CWI. Rings are a corner case. With casters it's probably closer to 80%, but still dominates.
==Aelryinth
The bonuses Aelryinth listed only cost one item creation feat. For example, if you're investing 100k in armor and shields, a single Craft Magic Arms & Armor feat is worth a +6 to your AC (on top of whatever it's doing to your weapon).
Almost everything uses either Craft Wonderous Item or Craft Magic Arms & Armor so it comes pretty close to doubling your WBL for only a small investment - especially for wizards, who don't really care about armor, shields, and swords anyhow. You might pay sticker price for a rod or ring at some point, but CWI covers almost everything you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, comparing armor cost vs weapon cost is not a complete analysis of offense vs defense.
In fact your cost analysis is actually a good example of why focusing on offense is a good idea. Defense is cheap and easy. Offense is expensive.
Nobody is saying that you should ignore defense. But focusing on offense is, in fact, good strategy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CWI does not double your wealth. That's a common mistake I often see from posters.In you example CWI, it saved you 112,250gp, giving you a net worth of 146% of the expected wealth by level.
I don't think you are going to find many feats that are more effective than an extra 46% wealth.
Or comparing the two sample builds. Is it really that much of a toss up between Greater Spell Focus Abjuration and Craft Wonderous Items? I know which one I think is more powerful and its not even close.
The crafting feats require more in game time to become powerful than immediately adjust the DC of some of your spells. it is a trade off between an immediate benefit and a long term one (same thing for the choice between weapon focus and a crafting feat).
That said in the long run a crafting feat is more powerful, especially if you allow custom items. Even if they are well balanced in price and power they are still items that are tailored for your character and campaign.
Experiences have taught me much differently, both in the mathematical perspective and in actual gameplay. I've seen a PC that was "unstoppably overpowered" in a group I GMed for as a favor. Said PC died more or less by accident during a warm up encounter with enemies who weren't even worth XP, because of this really bizarre idea that all-out-offense is the best defense.
It pretty much has held true in 15 years as a player and GM. The other thing is that defensive magical gear is way more common monster loot in APs than weapons, because it is cheaper. Players can get by with those items almost exclusively and still retain decent armor class. A player who focuses on improving his defenses soon runs way ahead of the curve, in the vein that those "no XP" encounters can't even touch him, but that comes at the cost of not contributing much but his survival.
CWI does not double your wealth. That's a common mistake I often see from posters. To truly double your wealth you would have to invest in several item creation feats. Hardly overpowered once you consider the 3-4 feats it would actually take.
Wizards need only to invest in CWI, as I laid out above. Other classes... well, there is a reason why Wizards are first on the power scale.
Ashiel, comparing armor cost vs weapon cost is not a complete analysis of offense vs defense.
In fact your cost analysis is actually a good example of why focusing on offense is a good idea. Defense is cheap and easy. Offense is expensive.
Nobody is saying that you should ignore defense. But focusing on offense is, in fact, good strategy.
That was put more succintly than I did. :)