You cannot arbitrarily lower the caster level to most magical items (excluding spell completion and spell trigger items). Doing so creates a new item and would have a dramatic effect on its cost and, if based on a spell, its abilities.
I know this to be true. It was one of the firs things I attempted when I joined these forums and the designers said "no."
Relevant linkCaster levels for items cannot be changed, as a general rule, unless they're things like wands or scrolls or other spell trigger or spell completion items.
You could theoretically increase the caster level for a wondrous item or other magic item, but that'd need GM approval and would increase the base cost of the item as appropriate.
Simply rolling well on your craft check won't let you end-run around these rules. Caster level is not determined by your check's result.
Thanks for the link!
Honestly, RD I think you are totally in the right here. You gave him plenty of chances and asked him plenty of times "are you sure you want to do that?" Which is DM speak for "you are screwed if you do that..."
Tell him to read the rules on it. He really sounds like he needs to put on his big boy pants and stop nerd raging over things that are listed in the books and the consequences if he doesn't follow the criteria/prereqs.
Saying he is upset is an understatement.
That seems ridiculous, is there more going on here than that?
I'd be tempted to allow a side quest to fix it somehow, but it would have to be a one off.
Everything was going swimmingly before I broke the news. Heck we were having a pleasant conversation moments before.
Also, again, our friendship is not in jeopardy.
Show him the rules, then remind him that the witch can't see her character sheet to know what her bonus is, nor the rulebook to see what the DC is.I am pretty sure this is not the intended behavior; there is nothing that suggests that people crafting magic items shouldn't know what they can and can't do. And you obviously have to know, or the world would be full of people who'd gotten together some random amount of money, tried to craft something, and been mystified that they didn't have enough money for the materials.
That said... Even if you imagine that the witch is somehow totally unclear on how her crafting feat works, and might not know the exact targets, I'm pretty sure that someone with a +13 spellcraft looking at a 36 DC (CL16 +5 = 21, three missing prepreqs = +15, so 36) ought to have SOME kind of inkling of "don't be stupid, that's not even remotely possible for me".
Why go back and forth endlessly about what level of item a cohort can make, when the rules tell you that cohorts should not be crafting items in the first place?
Why go back and forth endlessly about what level of item a cohort can make, when the rules tell you that cohorts should not be crafting items in the first place?
Where on earth do they say that pray tell?
Where on earth do they say that pray tell?Why go back and forth endlessly about what level of item a cohort can make, when the rules tell you that cohorts should not be crafting items in the first place?
I'd like to know that myself.
I think it's probably a good rule, cohort run item sweatshops stink of cheese.
I've never seen it though and would like to know where it's written.
- Torger
Where on earth do they say that pray tell?Why go back and forth endlessly about what level of item a cohort can make, when the rules tell you that cohorts should not be crafting items in the first place?
I'd like to know that myself.
I think it's probably a good rule, cohort run item sweatshops stink of cheese.
I've never seen it though and would like to know where it's written.
- Torger
While it's not against the rules, Ultimate Campaign does list it as an abuse of Leadership.
I believe the reference is to UCamp and advancing companions.
"A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion, and therefore you get to decide how the cohort advances. The GM might step in if you make choices that are inappropriate for the cohort, use the cohort as a mechanism for pushing the boundaries of the game rules, or treat the cohort unfairly."
...
"Examples of inappropriate advancement choices are a good-aligned companion selecting morally questionable feats, a clumsy cohort suddenly putting many ranks in Disable Device (so he can take all the risks in searching for traps instead of you), a spellcaster cohort taking nothing but item creation feats (so you get access to plenty of cheap magic items at the cost of just one feat, Leadership), a fighter cohort taking a level in wizard when he had no previous interest in magic, or you not interacting with your cleric cohort other than to gain defensive spells from a different class or a flanking bonus."
Good to know! (Even though the cohort in question only has one crafting feat.)
"Examples of inappropriate advancement choices are a good-aligned companion selecting morally questionable feats, a clumsy cohort suddenly putting many ranks in Disable Device (so he can take all the risks in searching for traps instead of you), a spellcaster cohort taking nothing but item creation feats (so you get access to plenty of cheap magic items at the cost of just one feat, Leadership)"
Ok, so it's not really "against the rules for Cohort to Craft," it's against the spirit/intent of the rules to turn them into a craftingbot (something that was already known), but in between "no crafting" and "craftingbot" still remains the grey-area of DM judgement as to when a PC is abusing things.
Now, given what they did say ("get access of to plenty of cheap items at the cost of one feat, Leadership"), maybe they should just say "cohort crafting costs full price" or some such, but they didn't.
Btw: I'm not arguing for letting players get away with abusing the Cohort. But when people invoke "against the rules," they should characterize it accurately (as was done by the direct quote).
It's not against the rules per se for the player to have had his cohort craft. So we're still back with the original issue. (Which, I think his RQing/tantrum means he should get no cookie, even if RD wouldn't do it the same way if he had to do it over again. As I said in the other thread, I think it's reasonable that the Cohort would have informed the PC that crafting this item was beyond the Cohort's abilities, but now that the player has thrown a fit to get his way, um, too bad).
|
I think this really comes down to whether your opinion that the creator of the item knows her limitations. If yes, then she knew it was a problem to conduct the requested action. If acting in the interest of the main character rather than on her own agenda, it seems reasonable that she would have communicated this. The cohort HS that info, whether played by the GM or player, and would reasonably communicate it. Whether the player knows it or not is irrelevant. Springing the result on the player sounds adversarial in the "Gotcha!" GM style.
If your position is that characters don't know their limitations, maybe everyone involved doesn't share that understanding. Which, again, comes off as a "Gotcha!" moment. This would be an unusual style of playing, but more power to you if everyone is on the same page.
Either there has been a misunderstanding of the style of play, the ramifications of the GM's actions weren't thought through, or the cohort has her own agenda, which in itself would sound like a style of play that should have been understood from the get go.
RD, however you look at it, I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than you being in the wrong. Own up to it, explain it, and allow a do-over. If the player doesn't accept this, you have no control over that. His loss at that point.
When one player takes a crafting feat, all the other characters in the party benefit even though they themselves have not taken said feat.
I don't see the cohort crafter being any different.
RD, however you look at it, I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than you being in the wrong. Own up to it, explain it, and allow a do-over.
Well, he started a different thread on whether he was wrong or not, in the original ruling, and in my blithering response in that one I edged around saying. . .he was wrong, and should have done it differently.
But in this thread, it's about how to handle the situation after the fact given the player's behavior/reaction, and the fact that it's not the first time the player has thrown a fit to get his way.
When one player takes a crafting feat, all the other characters in the party benefit even though they themselves have not taken said feat.
I don't see the cohort crafter being any different.
I agree with that; that's why I still see it as DM judgement as to whether a PC is "abusing a Cohort by turning it into a CraftingBot" or "treating the Cohort as any other fellow party member, contributing to the entire cause with all its abilities."
IMO the language in Ultimate Campaign on Cohort abuse (quoted above) is fine, it's useful as a passage the DM can point to when a PC does abuse the Cohort, but it's nothing like the red-line injunction against Cohort Crafting some were making it out to be and simply reinforces the fact that a DM can intervene if a player goes too far in treating a Cohort as a tool/bot rather than contributing teammate.
RD, however you look at it, I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than you being in the wrong. Own up to it, explain it, and allow a do-over. If the player doesn't accept this, you have no control over that. His loss at that point.
Here's my latest compromise solution which gives everyone involved exactly what they deserve (justice at last!)
A do-over. Cohort creates a Bib of Physical Perfection, +2; the item is cursed, it has the following curse: it works just as a Belt of Physical Perfection does (and takes up a Belt slot), but only when worn & displayed openly. It appears exactly as a baby bib, with a cute toy rattle embroidered on it (or maybe this). If worn under anything (armor, garments, tabards, tunics, or anything else), or otherwise covered up, disguised (including but not limited to transformed/enchanted/illusion to look like something else), turned inside out, or any variation of not displaying it openly in its normal appearance so that it is visible to all around, it gives -2 to all physical ability scores.
So, it works, but it has a curse. The Character gets what he asked for, the enchanting rules are enforced (the Cohort couldn't make this item without a Curse), and the player gets what he deserves. Justice is served and the problem is solved.
A quote from Ultimate campaign about leadership and crafting.
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't have Ultimate Campaign yet. Good to see the specific language used.
- Torger
First, I don't think this is a SPOILED child but, a frustrated player...
I didn't see anyone respond to "Ascalaphus" note that the witch could take 10??? I'm also curious as to why if the designers say you can take 10 in crafting, why you can not take 20???
If this feat had 0% chance of creation, the witch, being a inteligent being should have adviced the player he/she thought it was a bad idea...
Ravingdork, I think unlike all the consolers here, that added mostly useless back pats and insults directed at your players... as a GM you clearly misplayed this on multiple fronts.
1.) You should ROLEPLAY all the NPC interactions
2.) Just because a player has a skill and access to an NPC and gold DOES NOT mean the NPCs always do what they are told... Not sure about Pathfinder but, typically if an NPC had followers in previous versions of D&D games and consistantly abused followers, they ceased to have followers.... The WITCH WOULD NOT HAVE BECOME THE PLAYER'S SWEAT SHOP!!!
... pretty sure that is what it means by abuse...
3.) My honest opinion is your player made a power move, it urked you a little, and you allowed it to make a cursed item.... GO back in time and SAY: "We need to ROLE PLAY this interaction"... acknowledge you made an error!
A couple of wider questions raised:
Is it a question of 'the GM should have role-played the cohort better' or are cohorts under direct player control?
How much should you punish a player for poor system mastery? If an inexperienced player tries to do something impossible under the rules, the GM should probably tell them. Is there a fixed expiration date on this?
This is why most DM's either outlaw Cohort crafting or outlaw Cohorts all together.
Players tend to want to use them to get around the rules or want to use them in ways that NPC wouldn't want.
I have literally never seen one used in a way that they were intended to be.As loyal npc's who have there own personalities and goals that follow the player character out of respect.
It's always been one of these.
A-As dungeon fodder/Trap Detectors who mindlessly put themselves in great danger.
B-As crafters who's sole reason for living is to work a sweatshop for the pc.
C-As skill monkeys who's sole reason for living is to provide the pc with skills that pc didn't want to waste skills on.
Frankly at this point.Give the pc his money back.Let him repick his feat and outlaw Leadership.While it might actually make sense to have it as a feat the vast majority of pc's wouldn't know what good leadership was unless it killed and ate them.
The can of worms it opens is MUCH greater than any benefit it brings to the game.
The witch would have never attempted making the item. She does not have any of the three spells and she does not meet the CL to make the item (+20 DC). The DC of the item is 41. With a +13 and skill checks not auto-succeeding, she would know it was impossible. If her patron is agility, endurance, or strength, the DC would be 36 and still impossible.
*When I do cohorts, I do dedicated healers like templars or merciful healers - because dedicated healers are sometimes boring to play or an unfilled role in a party.
@Ascalaphus:
Take 20
When a character or creature has plenty of time, and is not faced with threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, he/it can take 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the check, just calculate the result as if the die had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you continue trying until you get it right, and assumes that you will fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties).
-- Taking 20 means failure in this case. It also means spending 160k gold (20 x 8k) and spending 320 days of game time to realize the witch cannot make the item.
|
Can you take 10 on a magic item crafting check?
Not having the answer to hand, I don't know, but it would be strange if nailing down a primal force like magic into a physical item satisfies the criteria.
Okay you won't be in combat, but isn't wrestling with the forces of the universe a little distracting?
You cannot take ten when using the Use Magic Device skill, and there the magic is already 'tamed'!
I have literally never seen one used in a way that they were intended to be.As loyal npc's who have there own personalities and goals that follow the player character out of respect.
I'm not sure that having a witch cohort with one crafting feat is abusive. Since I don't know why the witch is following this evil pirate, or what their relationship is, I can't make judgements there.
It seemed very organic story-wise. I think that's an example of a cohort being used in an appropriate way. We battled together against our hated foes, trained, rebuilt Fort Rannick, and discussed engineering at length!
Yes. That's right. The witch never had a chance of succeeding. However, I gave the player several chances to get what he wanted, if indirectly.For one, he hadn't finished picking all the witch's known spells yet. I told him she couldn't craft ANYTHING *wink wink* until we knew what her spells were. When he picked none of the prerequisite spells, I even went so far as to say "Are you sure this is what you want? You can change them before the next game if you find something better." (I will hold to this offer by the way, if he can get over himself long enough to ask me to change the spell list to lower the DC, then I will.) I even showed him the valet familiar archetype, in the hopes he would take it and it would increase his chances of not ending up with the cursed item (he did take it, and that's how he KNOWS the item is cursed; otherwise, he would have been clueless for several game sessions).
I think I've been more than generous.
======================================
I actually had to press him to pick his spells. Initially, he asked me to do it. I told him that I don't make peoples' characters for them and that if he was too busy, we could work it out later (and we did).And it was his character. He even went so far as to say his character's organization, The Red Mantis Assassins, had sent her along specifically to help his character succeed in his missions.
People can be pretty oblivious. That's why it is suggested in most adventure design that all plot relevant things have 3 ways to find them. IMO, instead of hinting around *wink wink*, you should have just outright told him it was impossible.
That is what I would be upset about if I were him. I would think my cohort should be skilled enough to estimate the chance of success. If it was 50/50 and I rolled bad, that's luck. The fact that you knew it was impossible and didn't tell me, that's not luck, that's (IMHO)"gotcha" dming.
Your player is not blameless and throwing a tantrum was not very mature either. He/she should have looked into the rules and asked you about the numbers. Particularly if this is your typical dming style. Perhaps he did look at the rules and came up with different numbers, and thought it was possible.
I believe the reference is to UCamp and advancing companions.
"A cohort is generally considered a player-controlled companion, and therefore you get to decide how the cohort advances. The GM might step in if you make choices that are inappropriate for the cohort, use the cohort as a mechanism for pushing the boundaries of the game rules, or treat the cohort unfairly."
...
"Examples of inappropriate advancement choices are a good-aligned companion selecting morally questionable feats, a clumsy cohort suddenly putting many ranks in Disable Device (so he can take all the risks in searching for traps instead of you), a spellcaster cohort taking nothing but item creation feats (so you get access to plenty of cheap magic items at the cost of just one feat, Leadership), a fighter cohort taking a level in wizard when he had no previous interest in magic, or you not interacting with your cleric cohort other than to gain defensive spells from a different class or a flanking bonus."
Yes, good cite. The devs have also said that a crafting cohort should not increase WBL.
A couple of wider questions raised:
Is it a question of 'the GM should have role-played the cohort better' or are cohorts under direct player control?How much should you punish a player for poor system mastery? If an inexperienced player tries to do something impossible under the rules, the GM should probably tell them. Is there a fixed expiration date on this?
In my games, players make and control their own cohorts, but like any character they still require my approval. However, they are still considered NPCs, use NPC rules (such as starting funds, average hit points, and ability scores) and can be controlled by the GM at any time (such as to prevent abuse or to further plot).
The player may not be wholly aware of my stance on this yet as I have not out and out said it as such, but we've had long talks about our expectations, so I think he probably has the general idea.
You pose some interesting questions, Matt. You err, however. I am not punishing the player--at least that is not my intent. I am merely following the rules of the game as I perceive them. As I said before, I am a generous GM and I often do tell my players when something is impossible.
...which might be why I'm in this mess now that I think about it.
The devs have also said that a crafting cohort should not increase WBL.
But crafting feats don't increase WBL.
Perhaps it was a sense of betrayal of expectations? When I DM, I put all the cards on the table, not hinting or suggesting things. I give them the best advice (if it is for something they would know, like a witch with a crafting feat knows what is involved in crafting something) and then let them make the decision.
So I would have come out and said, unless you pick this, this and this spell or have someone cast them for you during the process, the DC will be almost impossible.
If your player was expecting that and you then did what you say happened, I could see him getting pretty upset. It kind of betrays some measure of trust in the DM, which is always important.
prototype00
Dear [Player],
I've been thinking a great deal on your being upset with the belt of physical perfection situation and I've come to a few conclusions on the matter:
Though I still believe that your cohort could not truly know her likelihood of success or failure in the task given to her, she most definitely would have known that she didn't have the three requisite spells, and that, that would have made the task much, much harder on her (and be extension, that she could not auto-succeed by taking 10). That is something I feel she (and by extension, I) should have brought to your character's attention beforehand.
Therefore, I would like to apologize for causing you such stress over the matter. I'm sure you felt totally ambushed as I am normally rather generous about warnings. I was merely trying to follow the rules of the game as I perceived them (see below) and I'm sorry to have diminished the amount of fun you were having as a result.
Furthermore, due to this realization, I will be allowing you to keep the resources and time invested in the belt. You may put it into other, easier to craft magical items or else spend additional funds on scrolls, spellcasters, or whatever else you need to make crafting the belt of physical perfection a more likely possibility (unless you get the DC low enough to take 10, I will be using the original roll result though). In short, a do over of sorts.
In the future though, please know your characters better and try to keep a cooler head when you have a complaint about my GMing style/games. Swearing, threatening to quit, and storming off is not the best way to convey a problem to your GM, me in particular. It only stresses me out and makes me want to dig in my heels more (especially since this isn't the first time this has happened). I feel that courteous dialogue will help us both better resolve our differences in the future and more quickly get back to the game that we both know we love.
If I have somehow misinterpreted the focus of your rage, please do not hesitate to (calmly) direct me to the heart of the real problem.
Sincerely,
[Your GM]
P.S. - Just to be absolutely clear, the rules assume a character (PC and NPCs alike) doesn't know how well they rolled in situations such as this (that's metagame information). Crafting an item you can't take 10 on is like making an appraise check or looking for a trap. Those are rolls made by the GM for the player (so that the player doesn't know how well they really did, allowing the game to be more exciting and fun). As such characters rarely know if they've crafted a cursed item unless they check their work (and even then it's pretty difficult to uncover the truth). Therefore I will continue to roll all magic item crafting checks that have a risk of failure (anything you can't take 10 on for automatic success). What's more, should you remember to ask an NPC, I will have them inform you if there is a risk of failure in the future (note that not being able to succeed on a natural 20 will still be considered a "risk of failure" in this instance as many NPCs don't know what they are capable of until they try). This is something I feel I should have made absolutely clear to all of my players BEFORE making any of the crafting checks behind my screen, and I apologize for that. I will strive to do better in similar situations just as I'm sure you will.
Also, I will not be hosting Pirates this weekend, but if someone else wants to host their campaign, I'm game.
Just FYI Ravingdork. You don't auto-succeed on skill checks with a nat 20. Nor do you auto fail on a nat 1.
Other than that, I think your email is very well laid out and explains things pretty well.
I didn't say that...did I?
Somehow I misread "(note that not being able to succeed on a natural 20 will still be considered a "risk of failure" in this instance as many NPCs don't know what they are capable of until they try)" as saying that if they could only succeed on a nat 20. My mistake.
I think it is a nice gesture on your part, kudos.
Golden Frog = a bad game master
Hum, this might make it more difficult to game master.... lets not do it...
That's like the scenerio I ran into today. A player came to me at the local comic shop and said; "my current GM, won't let anyone play non good characters"...
I can see why, it means characters actually have to roleplay out differences and there is a possibility one character may actually kill another character..... HUM, sounds like D&D.... I'm pretty sure I recall character conflict from EVERY D&D novel I read....
I read another I need help on the forums from a DM asking how often to kill characters.... typically I said unless you are running multiple characters per player... NEVER... LET CHARACTERS KILL CHARACTERS... the players have more fun that way...
Our jobs as game masters is to tell a story. In stories the heroes are SUPPOSED to win... In the epic final battle often a hero perish and occasionally, players just put together bad combinations and make bad decisions....
As a game master step back and be a novelist for a minute.... Their game is your novel... How do you want the novel to flow: "And the hero got a cursed belt"???
I think it is a nice gesture on your part, kudos.
It was a nice gesture on your part, RD. You get +2 Internets for being the bigger man.
Please do let us know when he RQs again and how that is resolved.
** spoiler omitted **...
That letter is outstanding. I hope he responds well.
So I'm late to the party, and hope my input is still useful, but...
There are actually TWO issues here, that are related.
The first issue is RD's having the witch make an item she couldn't possibly succeed at. Now, I'm of the school of thought that players should know their own abilities (including cohorts) unless they are fairly new to the game... but I also think at least a warning of, "Are you sure?" is in order when there is no chance of success. That's my verbal cue to tell the player to double-check the rules. However, this all comes down to GM/Group style. So really, that's up to RD and his group.
However, the second issue is the player's behavior. And frankly, it is unacceptable *even if RD is in the wrong on the first issue*. The player is throwing a tantrum! And honestly, I would take the player aside, tell him we are still friends, and I'd still like to hang out with him... but I wouldn't GM for him anymore. He'd be out of the game, because the way he's behaving is simply unacceptable.
Now, RD has chosen to overlook it, and that's his decision. But I'd keep a close eye out, and take a zero-tolerance stance on future outbursts.
Golden Frog = a bad game master
Hum, this might make it more difficult to game master.... lets not do it...
That's like the scenerio I ran into today. A player came to me at the local comic shop and said; "my current GM, won't let anyone play non good characters"...
I can see why, it means characters actually have to roleplay out differences and there is a possibility one character may actually kill another character..... HUM, sounds like D&D.... I'm pretty sure I recall character conflict from EVERY D&D novel I read....
I read another I need help on the forums from a DM asking how often to kill characters.... typically I said unless you are running multiple characters per player... NEVER... LET CHARACTERS KILL CHARACTERS... the players have more fun that way...
Our jobs as game masters is to tell a story. In stories the heroes are SUPPOSED to win... In the epic final battle often a hero perish and occasionally, players just put together bad combinations and make bad decisions....
As a game master step back and be a novelist for a minute.... Their game is your novel... How do you want the novel to flow: "And the hero got a cursed belt"???
I have been playing D&D for over 35 years and DMed MORE than my share of bad games that's for sure.
The Cohort issue isn't one of game difficulty at all though.It's one of player skill or the lack of it. MANY players are NOT capable of role playing one character well,let alone a secondary cohort npc without enslaving that cohort to the pc's will REGARDLESS of that npc's own interests. Can it be done? Sure! Many players could/have pulled it off. However dealing with those that can't detracts from the game.
I don't allow Evil characters in my games either. Not because role playing out differences is a bad thing(though I will point out that doesn't require evil alignments)but because I don't have fun running a game where murder,rape,torture and all the other activities that Evil implies.Now could someone play Evil in such a way that it would still be fun?Sure!However the likelihood that two different peoples idea of what would be acceptable Evil being the same are slim.
Your idea of what a game master job is is different than mine. I don't tell a story. I try and run a fun game and those games end up telling stories.Sometimes those stories are GREAT! Sometimes they suck arse! All of them are fun however.
BTW you should read more. The heroes getting a cursed object is literally the start of thousands of stories. I would point you towards my favorite such story Elric of Melniboné.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, RD has chosen to overlook it, and that's his decision. But I'd keep a close eye out, and take a zero-tolerance stance on future outbursts.
I don't really consider this "overlooking it." I've plainly stated what I thought the problem was on both sides and asked that we move on. What's more, if there is a similar uncontrolled outburst in the future, I likely will "dig in my heels" and let him rage quit himself out of a great game.
Interested in the response from the player. The letter was well worded and a nice gesture.
Good luck with this player.
Finally got a response via E-mail today.
To which I responded with "Fck you! You're out! Not just the game, but my life! You screwed up ten times too many!"
;)
Just kidding about that last part. :P
I really like happy endings!