Blake Duffey wrote: I do not believe that was the intent of the feat. And I wouldn't allow it in my games. I think if you use the classic legal standard - a 'reasonable person' would not agree with your interpretation. If an interpretation of a rule or feat makes it seem useless to exactly the characters it is aimed at, then I find it unlikely to be the correct interpretation.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Blake Duffey wrote: I do not believe that was the intent of the feat. And I wouldn't allow it in my games. I think if you use the classic legal standard - a 'reasonable person' would not agree with your interpretation. If an interpretation of a rule or feat makes it seem useless to exactly the characters it is aimed at, then I find it unlikely to be the correct interpretation. It's not useless, though. It's just relatively weak if you pick a poor craft.
If you pick craft (weapons) as your craft, and then take craft magic arms and armor, you can make all the magic weapons except bows, without having to be a spellcaster. That's not totally useless.
If you pick create wondrous item, though, you're gonna be sorta screwed no matter what since there are so many very different craft requirements for wondrous items.
The problem here is, you're acting as though the feat is completely useless as written. And it's not. It's just a pretty poor choice for most characters, and for some items. Weapons and armor, it works pretty well.
This again! It's two schools of thought and it never gets answered. Set up a good FAQ question for it then everyone hit the FAQ button and move on. The wording is ambiguous and an interpretation can be seen from both sides.
|
12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Does the Master Craftsman feat allow a character with a magic item creation feat to create items only applicable to the craft or profession skill chosen or does it grant the ability to make any item under a craft feat by using the chosen craft or profession skill?
I've yet to see any argument for the theory that it would let you create arbitrary items with a given craft feat that made sense, but I agree that the feat is pretty weak the way it seems to be written.
That said, if you are taking craft (weapons) anyway, it's not an awful way to get your weapons.
seebs wrote: I've yet to see any argument for the theory that it would let you create arbitrary items with a given craft feat that made sense, but I agree that the feat is pretty weak the way it seems to be written.
That said, if you are taking craft (weapons) anyway, it's not an awful way to get your weapons.
The general confusion comes from the "you must you your chosen skill for the check" line. One side sees it as a restriction limiting the type of items made to the skill where others see that line saying the check, regardless of the other listings, must be made with the chosen skill.
I'm personally all for letting it do whatever you need it for. Let's non casters have fun at item creation at a 100% feat cost increase over casters. Forces them to put ranks into a craft or profession which in all honesty is a poor choice as an adventurer. Spellcraft is a great skill for casters so that's moot.
This also doesn't unbalance anything so it really shouldn't matter. Using the restriction method really makes this a poor choice for anyone. It may fit some theme for some players, but it takes 2 of your 10 feats and 5 skill points that you have to keeps killing up to overcome all the penalties that will follow for lacking requisites. Your level 5 and 7 feat will be used for this option to make your sword better? A very small benefit over losing two feats.
It's also a little a weird hearing the restriction argument because it's usually coupled with the "it's meant to mimic the legendary crafter trope". I don't think I've read a book where a legendary crafter makes every type of weapon. Usually it's about a guy who makes amazing swords or something specific or a group of people that were master weapon makers which implies its not one guy knowing how to make everything.
See, that's a good argument for changing the rule, but it's not a good argument for interpreting it differently, I don't think.
And it seems to me that if they wanted to say you could use this skill, they'd say you "can", because that's what they normally do when giving you an option; "must" usually gets used when it's a restriction that you may not like.
I've FAQ'd both the original and Khrysaor's post.
Master Craftsman is a representation of mastership of a specific craft, so much, that you could actually work magic into your works. The flavor text itself is:
Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items.
I think it is obvious that this implies that you are so good at this specific craft, that the items you normally make with this craft can then be made magical. Therefore, yes, you can only enchant items that are created via your specialized craft. The wording regarding MUST use this craft check for making the item is a restriction on the normal magic item creation rules that allow you to use either the specific craft check OR spellcraft.
A fighter is still never going to be as good a wondrous crafter as a wizard, but it provides at least some path towards it. You can't normally take this feat until 5th level (when you've got enough craft ranks), and then can't take craft wondrous or craft arms and armor until the next feat at 7. (Technically, if your campaign allows retraining, you could retrain an earlier feat at 5th level into one or the other of these and start crafting at 5th).
If anything, the only bit missing here is that they should have had the blurb in there that allows you to take this feat multiple times, each time applying it to a different craft or profession skill.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Blake Duffey wrote: I do not believe that was the intent of the feat. And I wouldn't allow it in my games. I think if you use the classic legal standard - a 'reasonable person' would not agree with your interpretation. If an interpretation of a rule or feat makes it seem useless to exactly the characters it is aimed at, then I find it unlikely to be the correct interpretation. You not liking it does not make it incorrect. The book does not agree with you. The best way to read the rules is with no bias.
Wow this got silly.
Arguing the language implications of "the" and "can" isn't helping here.
This is one of those "Use Common Sense" rules. So if you have a weird Craft or Profession skill, come up with a viable reason to make Master Craftsman work. It's perfectly reasonable that an Engraver or Calligrapher could trace "magic script" on a
masterwork item and get an enchantment. Or maybe the Moonshine you cook up is so spectacular that when you soak masterwork jewelry in it it can stop magic missiles.
RULE OF COOL
This is a very fringe feat, a double feat tax, and extremely limited.
Quote: Seebs wrote:
Yes, this feat sucks horribly. It's insanely weak. It would make more sense to just let anyone do this for free than to charge a feat tax for it.
Exactly.
Once you get 7 or 8 ranks go to town, you still gotta spend the gold. It would also explain all the magic junk laying around these game worlds.
TBH, I make full casters take the Craft/Profession skills to craft and no one complains.
The purpose of feats like this is to save money in low to mid tier magic games it's a bad choice in most campaigns, all PFS events and any one off game.
It does benefit a TWF build, but that's a feat intensive path already so it's a wash.
Also as a DM, with the single skill interpretation, your being a douch if you don't count Craft Magic Arms and Armor as a single skill. Thats just silly considering you will let the Wizard craft anything based on his knowledge of how spells work, without making anything of real permanent artistic worth.
I'll write it in a simple way, in order to make it understandable for anyone.
In a normal way, you need a couple things to create a magic item :
1 - A feat to craft a type of magic item (create magic arms and armor, create wondrous items, ...).
To take a crafting feat, you need to be a spellcaster. Master craftsman allows you to take one even if you're not a spellcaster, providing the CL requirement of the feat with your craft ranks in a chosen craft skill.
2 - Providing some additionnal prerequisites (such as a spell prerequisite, a CL prerequisite, a feat prerequisite, ...)
You certainly can't provide the spell prerequisites by yourself if you're not a spellcaster. You can, however, have an ally that can provide them for you, or add +5 to the skill check DC for each conditions you do not meet. CL prerequisite can be met by you with sufficient ranks (notably for magic weapons and armors, as master craftsman allows you to), by an ally or by overcoming it with a +5 DC to the skill check.
3 - Time and gold
It doesn't change for a non-spellcaster. You can even quicken crafting magic items as any spellcaster crafter can (+5 DC = crafting twice more rapid).
4 - A successful check on a skill, depending on an item.
A spellcaster can choose amongst several skills to craft her items (for example, to craft a magic sword, she can choose between spellcraft and craft (weapons)).
A non-spellcaster MUST use the chosen craft skill. She can't use another craft skill or spellcraft.
So, if she chose craft (armor), the Craft Magic Arms and armor, and that she wants to craft a weapon, she can only make a craft (armor) check but must choose between spellcraft or craft (weapon). She can't make the check, BECAUSE SHE MUST USE CRAFT(armor) AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO USE IT.
Avh wrote: 4 - A successful check on a skill, depending on an item.
A spellcaster can choose amongst several skills to craft her items (for example, to craft a magic sword, she can choose between spellcraft and craft (weapons)).
A non-spellcaster MUST use the chosen craft skill. She can't use another craft skill or spellcraft.
So, if she chose craft (armor), the Craft Magic Arms and armor, and that she wants to craft a weapon, she can only make a craft (armor) check but must choose between spellcraft or craft (weapon). She can't make the check, BECAUSE SHE MUST USE CRAFT(armor) AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO USE IT.
I appreciate your use of capital letters, small words, and a bulletized list. I can also imagine your speaking very slowly and loudly, so that I'd understand.
Unfortunately, all of that is either understood by all parties (bullets 1-3), or where the actual disagreement lies (bullet 4).
I still disagree with this interpratation.
zagnabbit wrote: This is one of those "Use Common Sense" rules. So if you have a weird Craft or Profession skill, come up with a viable reason to make Master Craftsman work. It's perfectly reasonable that an Engraver or Calligrapher could trace "magic script" on a
masterwork item and get an enchantment. Or maybe the Moonshine you cook up is so spectacular that when you soak masterwork jewelry in it it can stop magic missiles.
RULE OF COOL
I agree with this. As long as the player can justify how they are making the object magical using their skill I call it good.
If a stonemason wants to build a special building "to focus magical energies" that's fine with me.
If a barrister wants to imbue their item with the "last hope of a wrongly accused man" that works too.
A little creativity makes the feat chain both less harsh and more flavorful. That sounds like a win to me.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Avh wrote: 4 - A successful check on a skill, depending on an item.
A spellcaster can choose amongst several skills to craft her items (for example, to craft a magic sword, she can choose between spellcraft and craft (weapons)).
A non-spellcaster MUST use the chosen craft skill. She can't use another craft skill or spellcraft.
So, if she chose craft (armor), the Craft Magic Arms and armor, and that she wants to craft a weapon, she can only make a craft (armor) check but must choose between spellcraft or craft (weapon). She can't make the check, BECAUSE SHE MUST USE CRAFT(armor) AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO USE IT.
I appreciate your use of capital letters, small words, and a bulletized list. I can also imagine your speaking very slowly and loudly, so that I'd understand.
Unfortunately, all of that is either understood by all parties (bullets 1-3), or where the actual disagreement lies (bullet 4).
I still disagree with this interpratation. You disagree but most people in this thread use the same interpretation as me.
I guess you want an official statement that clarify the thing for you, but none of the posters here are, so you won't have it.
If you want those so badly, do a FAQ topic, or post in a "JJ answers your questions here" type of topic, and you might have one.
I'm a huge fan of inscribing magic runes through calligraphy all over weapons, armor, shields, wondrous items to enchant them. It fits the tropes people like to argue and makes more sense than the ordinary "I spend gold, make roll, weapon is magic", that is the wizard route.
What I don't like is the argument that you have to still use the listed skills when the feat says you must use your chosen skill. When blacksmiths were noted for making weapons, armor, and shields in medieval history yet profession blacksmith isn't a viable option to making weapons or armor in PF apparently.
It doesn't matter about any consensus on this thread Avh. These boards are not a representation of the player population or of the designers intent. FAQ It and move on. Your self righteousness is insulting to others and only leads to less people posting on these boards and more of the population being the like minded bullies.
The core rules DO list what skills are needed for various magical items.
Armor: Spellcraft, Craft (armor)
Weapons: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons)
Potions: Spellcraft or Craft (alchemy)
Rings: Spellcraft or Craft (jewelry)
Rods: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Craft (weapons).
Scrolls: Spellcraft, Craft (calligraphy), or Profession (scribe)
Staves: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Profession (woodcutter)
Wands: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Profession (woodcutter)
Wondrous Items: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check.
On Wondrous Items, the important word here is applicable. Using all the others as guidance, it becomes obvious that what is applicable is the skill that would be required to make the mundane base item. Nothing in the Master Craftsman feat changes that part of the wording at all. All it does is say you MUST use the craft/profession option (eliminating Spellcraft as a valid choice).
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Avh wrote: 4 - A successful check on a skill, depending on an item.
A spellcaster can choose amongst several skills to craft her items (for example, to craft a magic sword, she can choose between spellcraft and craft (weapons)).
A non-spellcaster MUST use the chosen craft skill. She can't use another craft skill or spellcraft.
So, if she chose craft (armor), the Craft Magic Arms and armor, and that she wants to craft a weapon, she can only make a craft (armor) check but must choose between spellcraft or craft (weapon). She can't make the check, BECAUSE SHE MUST USE CRAFT(armor) AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO USE IT.
I appreciate your use of capital letters, small words, and a bulletized list. I can also imagine your speaking very slowly and loudly, so that I'd understand.
Unfortunately, all of that is either understood by all parties (bullets 1-3), or where the actual disagreement lies (bullet 4).
I still disagree with this interpratation. Do you dispute that a spellcaster can create magic items without using or having any ranks in spellcraft?
Khrysaor wrote: I'm a huge fan of inscribing magic runes through calligraphy all over weapons, armor, shields, wondrous items to enchant them. It fits the tropes people like to argue and makes more sense than the ordinary "I spend gold, make roll, weapon is magic", that is the wizard route.
What I don't like is the argument that you have to still use the listed skills when the feat says you must use your chosen skill.
So imagine that you took weapon focus (longsword), and wanted to make a trip attempt. Would it be horribly unfair to deny you the +1 to-hit, on the grounds that a longsword is not a weapon which allows trip attempts?
Because your argument seems to be that it's horribly unfair to say that you still have to use a trip weapon to make trip attempts when weapon focus says you have to use the weapon you actually took weapon focus with in order to get that +1 bonus.
Seriously, that's basically what's at issue here: The feat is saying that, in order to benefit from the virtual caster levels, you have to be using your chosen craft skill. That's all it is saying. It is not changing anything else about the rules. Every magic item still has a small set of allowed skills, including spellcraft and one or more craft skills, which can be used to craft it.
You have three options:
1. You make an appropriate craft check, and you have this feat to allow you to use your ranks in that craft as your caster level.
2. You don't make an appropriate craft check, and can't create magic items at all because you aren't making an appropriate craft check.
3. You make an appropriate craft check, using a craft for which you haven't taken this feat, and you can't create magic items at all because you aren't a spellcaster.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: I'm a huge fan of inscribing magic runes through calligraphy all over weapons, armor, shields, wondrous items to enchant them. It fits the tropes people like to argue and makes more sense than the ordinary "I spend gold, make roll, weapon is magic", that is the wizard route.
What I don't like is the argument that you have to still use the listed skills when the feat says you must use your chosen skill.
So imagine that you took weapon focus (longsword), and wanted to make a trip attempt. Would it be horribly unfair to deny you the +1 to-hit, on the grounds that a longsword is not a weapon which allows trip attempts?
Because your argument seems to be that it's horribly unfair to say that you still have to use a trip weapon to make trip attempts when weapon focus says you have to use the weapon you actually took weapon focus with in order to get that +1 bonus.
Seriously, that's basically what's at issue here: The feat is saying that, in order to benefit from the virtual caster levels, you have to be using your chosen craft skill. That's all it is saying. It is not changing anything else about the rules. Every magic item still has a small set of allowed skills, including spellcraft and one or more craft skills, which can be used to craft it.
You have three options:
1. You make an appropriate craft check, and you have this feat to allow you to use your ranks in that craft as your caster level.
2. You don't make an appropriate craft check, and can't create magic items at all because you aren't making an appropriate craft check.
3. You make an appropriate craft check, using a craft for which you haven't taken this feat, and you can't create magic items at all because you aren't a spellcaster. I didn't say anything is horribly unfair. Please don't infer words into my statements.
Nothing stops you from tripping with a long sword. Weapons with the trip ability come with a bonus. You can attempt a trip maneuver with anything.
Nor is that what the feat says as you're adding a few lines, but there won't be any resolution without some official response.
This was the exact same thing during the item creation feat debate where one side argued the benefit of the feats are to make whatever items you want vs. the feats affect your wealth. It's just two schools of thought that can see the validity of their side. I can even see it from your side, but it's so debilitating to spend two feats and 5 to 20 skill points to get such minimal benefit that it doesn't seem an appropriate interpretation. Much as it was in the argument that crafting feats only provide the benefit of item choice.
seebs wrote: Do you dispute that a spellcaster can create magic items without using or having any ranks in spellcraft? Heavens no, here you go with the requisite text:
PRD wrote: At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. I could provide you with a complete list of the alternate skills the CRB calls out, but CraziFuzzy already did that above.
Of course, most users of Master Craftsman aren't spellcasters, so that sentence doesn't necessarily apply to them.
Are there any other rules you'd like me to quote for you?
See, that's why I am confused, I think.
Your argument keeps revolving around saying that master craftsman lets you "substitute" for "the spellcraft check".
That cannot be correct unless item creation has a mandatory spellcraft check. Without a mandatory spellcraft check, a spellcraft check which must be there without this feat, there is no "the" spellcraft check to substitute for.
If the ordinary state of things was that you could not ever craft a magic item using a craft skill, only with spellcraft, then it would make sense to say "this feat is allowing you to use a craft skill to craft magic items." But you could always use craft skills to craft magic items. The feat doesn't have to give you that ability, since it's always been there.
The feat is granting you the ability to substitute your ranks in a craft skill for caster level when crafting items using that craft skill, and when qualifying for item creation feats. That is all it does. It is not substituting the craft skill for any other skill, it is only substituting it for caster levels. And it works only when you are using that craft skill.
The entire edifice of arguments about substituting for spellcraft is dependent on a claim which is false, and which no one is asserting is true, which is that there is such a thing as "the" spellcraft check in magic item creation. There isn't.
So even though blacksmiths can make weapons, and do make weapons, a professional blacksmith couldn't take master craftsman to make magic weapons while one of his workers who only knows how to craft weapons and learned everything from the blacksmith can make magic weapons?
Khrysaor wrote: So even though blacksmiths can make weapons, and do make weapons, a professional blacksmith couldn't take master craftsman to make magic weapons while one of his workers who only knows how to craft weapons and learned everything from the blacksmith can make magic weapons? That's a fascinating question, and I think the answer is:
If I were a GM, I would allow someone to use profession (blacksmith) for metal weapons and armor item creation.
Basically, the way I understand it is this:
If you have an item creation feat and meet the requirements to craft an item, you can usually make it using either spellcraft or an appropriate skill check, with the appropriate skills most often being craft skills, with a few profession skills listed in some cases. (Like, profession (woodcutter) for staves.)
You can use a craft/profession skill if, and only if, it is appropriate, which for everything but wondrous items means it is in the short list, and for wondrous items means GM fiat.
This feat does not change that, because there's no need for it to change that. It only changes whether or not you need to be a spellcaster at all to take the item creation feats it permits, and gives you a caster level. And you gain the benefits of this feat only when you comply with its requirement, which is that you are using the craft or profession skill you chose when crafting the item.
If a spellcaster with caster levels and the item creation feat couldn't use the skill in question to create the magic item in question, then you can't using this feat either, because it doesn't change anything.
That said, I do concede that it's pretty ridiculous that profession (blacksmith) isn't listed at all for craft magic arms and armor.
But now you're the one deciding what's appropriate which is all the other side has been arguing. I find it completely appropriate that someone with craft calligraphy could draw magical script onto armor, weapons, anything and imbue an enchantment. As much as anyone else could think a professional cook could boil an item in a cauldron and imbue magic powers to an item. Or a midwife who's figured out the mysteries of life and can give birth to the magic inherent to an item.
I also find it absurd that a professional blacksmith can't make magic weapons and armor or a professional woodworker can't make magic bows, but that's the interpretation the other side has been pushing.
People like stating how the "fluff" doesn't mean anything as well which is what the description portion of items are. The mechanics aren't altered by the descriptions. A bag of holding being a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size could easily be made of fine metal links, leather, basket weave.
The only thing I get out of master craftsman is that the items you make will be unique to your character and flavored to your craft.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Armorsmith and Weaponsmith are, it seems to me, specializations or variations of Blacksmith. The skill involved in creating armor or weapons is beyond that of a simple blacksmith. Yes, I know there's nothing like this in RAW. That's how I'd houserule it.
Ed Reppert wrote: Armorsmith and Weaponsmith are, it seems to me, specializations or variations of Blacksmith. The skill involved in creating armor or weapons is beyond that of a simple blacksmith. Yes, I know there's nothing like this in RAW. That's how I'd houserule it. Profession armor smith or weapon smith aren't listed under the creation either. So a professional weapon smith couldn't make the magic weapon but his apprentice with craft weapons could. And historically blacksmiths made weapons. No level of specialization involved other than how to work with "black" metals. If you knew how to make a sword you could make nails, horse shoes, locks, armor, shields.
Arguably a profession (engineer) would know how to do all of those as well. Including an even broader understanding of working parts like a portcullis, drawbridge, manufacturing metal and wooden beams for constructing buildings.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote: The core rules DO list what skills are needed for various magical items.
Armor: Spellcraft, Craft (armor)
Weapons: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons)
Potions: Spellcraft or Craft (alchemy)
Rings: Spellcraft or Craft (jewelry)
Rods: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Craft (weapons).
Scrolls: Spellcraft, Craft (calligraphy), or Profession (scribe)
Staves: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Profession (woodcutter)
Wands: Spellcraft, Craft (jewelry), Craft (sculptures), or Profession (woodcutter)
Wondrous Items: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check.
On Wondrous Items, the important word here is applicable. Using all the others as guidance, it becomes obvious that what is applicable is the skill that would be required to make the mundane base item. Nothing in the Master Craftsman feat changes that part of the wording at all. All it does is say you MUST use the craft/profession option (eliminating Spellcraft as a valid choice).
The whole point of the Master Craftsman feat is to enable magic item crafting for non spell casters who would not be taking ranks in spell craft. Spellcasters who wouldn't be going this route anyway are a different story.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote: So even though blacksmiths can make weapons, and do make weapons, a professional blacksmith couldn't take master craftsman to make magic weapons while one of his workers who only knows how to craft weapons and learned everything from the blacksmith can make magic weapons? Where do you get that idea from? Presumably a blacksmith is someone who would have a crafting skill. Someone without the crafting skill and only the profession skill isn't an actual blacksmith, only someone who knows how to manage the business of a shop, so it makes sense that master craftsman IS out of his reach.
In order to be a Master Craftsman, it kind of makes sense you you do need to know how to Craft in the first place.
Craft (Weapons) is the skill a Weaponsmith uses. Craft (Armor) is the skill an Armorsmith uses. Craft (Bows) is the skill a Fletcher uses. Profession (Blacksmith) is the skill a Blacksmith uses (a blacksmith is someone who works iron into tools, pots, horseshoes, etc). I believe Craft (weapons, armor, bows) were created because having a single profession/craft skill that could make 95% of the items the average adventurer needs would require too few skill points.
I have no problem allowing someone with Profession (blacksmith) creating Horseshoes of Speed, Amazing Tools of Manufacture, etc - but when creating implements of war, I feel that more specialized skill is required. there is far more nuance in crafting even a simple sword than there is in creating the finest horseshoes the land has seen.
I would likely allow someone with Profession (blacksmith) to create metal weapons, but none of masterwork quality, therefore, none that could be enchanted. Remember, in the context of the Master Craftsman feat, we're talking about someone who is ery devoted to the craft - which usually tends to create specialization, and a lack of broad spectrum capability.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: If an interpretation of a rule or feat makes it seem useless to exactly the characters it is aimed at, then I find it unlikely to be the correct interpretation. I don't find my interpretation to be 'useless' - it allows a martial character to craft a limited set of magical items. Without this feat, that is restricted to casters only.
I find it very flavorful that my samurai could craft his own magical weapons.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Umm, does RAW truly matter since absolutely none of this would apply for PFS since there is no item creation allowed in PFS?
LazarX wrote: Khrysaor wrote: So even though blacksmiths can make weapons, and do make weapons, a professional blacksmith couldn't take master craftsman to make magic weapons while one of his workers who only knows how to craft weapons and learned everything from the blacksmith can make magic weapons? Where do you get that idea from? Presumably a blacksmith is someone who would have a crafting skill. Someone without the crafting skill and only the profession skill isn't an actual blacksmith, only someone who knows how to manage the business of a shop, so it makes sense that master craftsman IS out of his reach.
In order to be a Master Craftsman, it kind of makes sense you you do need to know how to Craft in the first place. Dictionary wrote: Blacksmith: A person who makes and repairs things in iron by hand. Sitemaker.umich.edu wrote: Behind every weapon in medieval literature lies perhaps the most important person in medieval civilization- The Medieval Blacksmith. PRD wrote: While a Craft skill represents ability in creating an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge. Broader range of less specific knowledge does not say you don't know how to craft items. It says you learned less on crafting and more about everything else. Becoming a professional does not make you a book keeper. A person with craft weapons only knows how to make weapons. A blacksmith can make anything out of iron.
The argument isn't about making basic items. It's about making items magical and is one of the mechanical changes of the feat. A crafter can make items regardless of feats. A master crafter can make items magical based on having two feats and using the skill that he has magical talent in to imbue them. A legendary blacksmith with master craftsman could make anything made of metal magical because they know everything about metal.
Your assertion also invalidates your other quotation of profession woodcutter being able to create staves or wands or any applicable profession to making wondrous items since they're not craft skills and all you know is how to run a wood cutting shop.
Your assertion also invalidates the feat text from master craftsman that says you can use a chosen profession check OR a craft check which means the craft check is not necessary.
Your assertion makes the craft check the only valid use and requires characters to take craft skills along with profession skills.
Unseelie wrote: Umm, does RAW truly matter since absolutely none of this would apply for PFS since there is no item creation allowed in PFS? Of course RAW doesn't matter here, it's all a matter of interpretation. If we're being honest, going by RAW, crafting simply doesn't work. Crafting, is probably the least refined part of the core ruleset, and it is something that has practically zero attention by the developers. This, primarily, is due to the fact that if is not PFS legal, and it seems that the pathfinder devs have devoted 95% of their time to focusing on PFS. Home campaigns seem to play second fiddle.
Crafting being so terrible, and PFS being somehow considered 'important' is the reason the Soul Forger is considered a 'weak' archetype. It's not because it's power is low, it's because it is focused crafting - which is straight up ignored by not only PFS, but by many home GM's due to the terrible state of the rules. (Mundane crafting is especially borked).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
CraziFuzzy wrote: Craft (Weapons) is the skill a Weaponsmith uses. Craft (Armor) is the skill an Armorsmith uses. Craft (Bows) is the skill a Fletcher uses. Profession (Blacksmith) is the skill a Blacksmith uses (a blacksmith is someone who works iron into tools, pots, horseshoes, etc). I believe Craft (weapons, armor, bows) were created because having a single profession/craft skill that could make 95% of the items the average adventurer needs would require too few skill points.
I have no problem allowing someone with Profession (blacksmith) creating Horseshoes of Speed, Amazing Tools of Manufacture, etc - but when creating implements of war, I feel that more specialized skill is required. there is far more nuance in crafting even a simple sword than there is in creating the finest horseshoes the land has seen.
I would likely allow someone with Profession (blacksmith) to create metal weapons, but none of masterwork quality, therefore, none that could be enchanted. Remember, in the context of the Master Craftsman feat, we're talking about someone who is ery devoted to the craft - which usually tends to create specialization, and a lack of broad spectrum capability.
This level of specialization is nonsense. Blacksmiths made weapons as well as armor, tools, nails, horseshoes, locks, portcullises, cogs for gear systems, and anything made of iron. If you know how to work metal to make weaponry you more than likely knew how to make tools and everything else listed. Making weapons is not some specialist field where you don't know how to make anything else. This is ridiculous.
Generic weaponry for soldiers could be banged out quickly. A masterwork item for some noble just required more time.
Khrysaor wrote: But now you're the one deciding what's appropriate which is all the other side has been arguing. The rules are really consistent in requiring crafts suitable for creating the base item, rather than allowing arbitrary unrelated crafts.
Furthermore, that's not at all what people have been arguing. They've been arguing that this particular feat overrides the usual requirements. They've not been arguing that any spellcaster could always have used craft (calligraphy) to enchant any item, but only that someone who has taken this specific feat should be able to use whatever craft they picked, no matter what it is, to create any item, regardless of what that item is, as long as they have the item creation feat.
That's what I find unsupportable.
Quote: I also find it absurd that a professional blacksmith can't make magic weapons and armor or a professional woodworker can't make magic bows, but that's the interpretation the other side has been pushing. Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's more than two positions here.
The one I'm arguing against is that, no matter what craft you picked, no matter what item you want to create, if you have this feat and an item creation feat, you can use that craft to make checks to create the item, period, full stop, because the feat says you "must" use the skill in question.
That's the thing I'm opposing. I'm arguing that you can't use craft (weapons) to make magic carpets or portable holes.
I'm aware that the rules on which things you can use are often stupid. My favorite so far is that you can use profession (woodcutter) with craft staff. This is wrong in two ways:
1. According to the skill rules, profession skills can't be used to make things, because that's craft skills.
2. Woodcutters are the people who make firewood, not the people who make intricately-carved things.
So there's lots of room for overruling them in specific ways, without going all the way to "without limitation, no matter what the item is, you can always use the craft skill you picked to create the item". That's Zahir's "substitute for the spellcraft roll" argument, and it's completely incompatible with the rules as written, and I'm pretty sure it's also completely incompatible with the rules as intended.
Arguing for a more nuanced view, like suggesting that craft (armor) would allow you to make a chainmail bag of holding? Well, that's more interesting and not nearly as unambiguous, partially because the rules for "appropriate" craft/profession skills for wondrous items are wide open.
It is apparent that the huge disparity between the different opinions here is based on huge disparities in how magic crafting works 'normally'. If you don't have a handle on how magic item creation is done traditionally, then of course you won't be able to properly interpret the way this feat modifies that process.
I'll use a +1 Flaming Longsword as my example:
Step 1: Acquire a Masterwork Longsword. This can be done a few ways. Finding, Buying, or Building. Finding and Buying are obvious. Building goes to the mundane crafting process, which can only use a single skill: Craft (Weapons). That process itself will require two skill checks - one to create the base longsword, and one to create the 'masterwork component'.
Step 2: Enchant the Masterwork Longsword into a +1 Flaming Longsword. This has a few Prerequisites:
- Prerequisite 1: Item Creation Feat, in this case, Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
- Prerequisite 2: Caster Level, in this case level 6 (for weapons, required caster level is 3 x enchantment bonus)
- Prerequisite 3: Spells required by special weapon powers must be prepared (or known for spontaneous). This requirement can be met by an assisting spellcaster, or a spell providing magic item. This prerequisite can be omitted by adding +5 to the DC of the final check for each prerequisite that is skipped. In the case of our +1 Flaming Longsword, the required spell is either flame blade, flame strike, or fireball.
Step 3: Completion check: If all prerequisites are met, and the time is spent on the enchanting (base speed is 1 8 hour work day per 1,000gp of value - 4 hours per 1000gp if accelerated by a +5 DC), then upon the completion of the required time, a skill check is made to determine the success of the endeavor. That skill check is specified in the Magic Item Creation section of the core rulebook, and varies depending on the item being enchanted. In the case of our +1 Flaming Longsword, the skill check can be made with either Spellcraft, or Craft (weapons), whichever the enchanter chooses. The DC will be 5 + the caster level requirement of the item (in this case, DC 11). If the spell was unavailable, the DC would be DC 16.
That's crafting a +1 Flaming Longsword in a nutshell (well, a pile of crumpled nutshells).
Now that that's out of the way, we can finally start to discuss the Master Craftsmen feat. It affects 3 areas that are talked about above.
- Modification 1 - it allows the 'chosen craft or profession skill' ranks to qualify as caster level for the Create Magic Arms & Armor feat. Normally, this requires a spell caster level of 5. It allows the 'chosen craft or profession skill' ranks to quality as caster level for the Create Wondrous Item feat. Normally, this requires a spell caster level of 3.
- Modification 2 - it allows the 'chosen craft or progression skill' ranks to be used to meet prerequisite 2 above (caster level). Normally, this is satisfied only by a spell casters level.
- Modification 3 - it restricts the skill choice of step 3 to the 'chosen craft of profession skill'. Normally, any skill listed in under the appropriate section of the Magic Item Creation section of the Core Rulebook would be allowed.
The result of Modification 3, is that unless the 'chosen craft or profession skill' is of an applicable type for the item you are enchanting (spelled out specifically for arms and armor, and left to GM interpretation for wondrous items), there is no way to complete step 3, and no way for this character to enchant the particular item.
A note on the skill choices: The reason a legitimate spell caster might choose to use a craft or profession check over a spellcraft check to enchant the item is that there are FAR more feats, traits, racial and class abilities that improve a craft and/or profession check than there are that improve a spellcraft check. Masterwork tools will improve the appropriate craft or profession check (there are no masterwork spellcraft tools). As an example, I have a 5th level Soul Forger Magus. He has 5 ranks in Craft (weapons), and 5 ranks in Spellcraft. His modifier for Craft (weapons) is +19, his modifier for Spellcraft is +12.
That's a really good summary. That said, I'm not 100% sure there's no such thing as masterwork tools for spellcraft, because I think there's a Paizo post at one point suggesting that even UMD could be given a bonus with the right masterwork tools (!?!?!).
The other big advantage craft skills have: Crafter's Fortune. +5 to any one craft check. Can't do it with spellcraft.
My highly-specialized, epic, mythic, wizard has Craft (alchemy) +49, and Craft (spellcraft) +40. Taking 10, with Crafter's Fortune, I can do DC 64 alchemy, and only DC 50 spellcraft.
seebs wrote: That's a really good summary. That said, I'm not 100% sure there's no such thing as masterwork tools for spellcraft, because I think there's a Paizo post at one point suggesting that even UMD could be given a bonus with the right masterwork tools (!?!?!). closest would likely be a masterwork book. I usually rule that books can't be used for combat related stuff, but something like a crafting spellcraft check makes sense to infer a circumstance bonus. There are rooms in the downtime rules that grant bonuses like this as well. A magical Repository grants a +1 bonus on spellcraft checks for crafting magic items.
seebs wrote:
Furthermore, that's not at all what people have been arguing. They've been arguing that this particular feat overrides the usual requirements. They've not been arguing that any spellcaster could always have used craft (calligraphy) to enchant any item.
You may want to read what I've actually posted because I haven't said this. Please stop inferring words into my argument.
Seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: I also find it absurd that a professional blacksmith can't make magic weapons and armor or a professional woodworker can't make magic bows, but that's the interpretation the other side has been pushing. Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's more than two positions here.
The one I'm arguing against is that, no matter what craft you picked, no matter what item you want to create, if you have this feat and an item creation feat, you can use that craft to make checks to create the item, period, full stop, because the feat says you "must" use the skill in question.
That's the thing I'm opposing. I'm arguing that you can't use craft (weapons) to make magic carpets or portable holes. As I've said there's two schools of thought on this. One side says you can use your chosen skill to make items magical vs. the other side saying you must use the skills listed in the magic item creation tables. Where's this excluded middle fallacy. The rules are either one or he other. Can't make concessions to some skills, but not others. That's just fiat.
Seebs wrote:
So there's lots of room for overruling them in specific ways There's 0 room for overruling in a rules discussion on the rules forum. Everyone knows at your table you can rule however you want. Someone asked a question about the rules and there are two specific rules related responses. Chosen skill works for all items or it doesn't.
I've even given some thought into taking the Master Craftsman feat on a spell caster. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to take full advantage of it, but say we're discussing my 5th level Soul Forger I discussed above. If I decide to dip away from Soul Forger and add straight fighter levels (extra feats and BAB are attractive), Those levels that are not in my spellcasting class are not used for my magic weapon crafting. If I take Master Craftsman, it will allow me to continue to raise my caster level (and therefore the enhancement cap on my weapons) by continuing to pump a rank into Craft (weapons) every level. This would keep my magic weapon's progression (and, frankly, that of my entire party) climbing at 1 enhancement point per 3 levels. This could be advantageous for any multiclassed spellcaster whose interested in crafting.
Crazifuzzy wrote: . It is apparent that the huge disparity between the different opinions here is based on a huge disparity in how magic creation works 'normally'. If you don't have a handle on how magic item creation is done traditionally, then of course you won't be able to interpret the way the feat modifies that process. Think you could have been any more condescending? The only portion in question has always been "modification 3".
CraziFuzzy wrote: - Modification 3 - it restricts the skill choice of step 3 to the 'chosen craft of profession skill'. Normally, any skill listed in under the appropriate section of the Magic Item Creation section of the Core Rulebook would be allowed.
The result of Modification 3, is that unless the 'chosen craft or profession skill' is of an applicable type for the item you are enchanting (spelled out specifically for arms and armor, and left to GM interpretation for wondrous items), there is no way to complete step 3, and no way for this character to enchant the particular item.
You say restricts, others say permits. This is the fundamental argument that leads to one skill can/can't craft anything when complemented with the master craftsman feat.
There's already been an applicable quotation from the rules. Spellcasters make a Spellcraft or applicable craft check. A master craftsman is not a Spellcaster and the master craftsman must use the chosen skill.
Crazifuzzy wrote: A note on the skill choices: The reason a legitimate spell caster might choose to use a craft or profession check over a spellcraft check to enchant the item is that there are FAR more feats, traits, racial and class abilities that improve a craft and/or profession check than there are that improve a spellcraft check. Masterwork tools will improve the appropriate craft or profession check (there are no masterwork spellcraft tools). As an example, I have a 5th level Soul Forger Magus. He has 5 ranks in Craft (weapons), and 5 ranks in Spellcraft. His modifier for Craft (weapons) is +19, his modifier for Spellcraft is +12. Never is there a reason for a caster to invest in this feat. There is no benefit to the feat for a Spellcaster and taking it cripples your already limited number of feats and potential skill points. You're suggesting that feat starved classes that can inherently take the MIC feats should take this god awful feat under your interpretation and then invest further with more feats.
Magic item creation is one of the easiest systems to use in the game. The DCs to make items are a joke and have been intended to be easy by the developers who have said as much. This system was intended to be easy to make it inviting to players and as such making unnecessary restrictions only serves to complicate what they wanted to be easy.
At level 3 and having CWI a caster will have a minimum of +6 to their check and can take 10 to boost it to 16. That's a 3 skill point investment with no intelligence modifier and no trait to boost it. +1 trait, +1 or 2 int modifier, +2 tools and you've hit 20 or 21. You can make any item you will have wealth for with ease and rushing your efforts. Even if you rule no Spellcraft tools the check is 18 or 19 on the low side. An int based caster will likely be 21 with no tools at this point. A single spell puts a wizard to 26.
Making magic weapons is just as easy.
The funny thing with all this hate on martials being able to craft magic is that all it takes is a race with a spell like ability. Half elves with drow magic can play non casters and qualify for MIC feats and avoid master craftsman.
Khrysaor wrote: You say restricts, others say permits. This is the fundamental argument that leads to one skill can/can't craft anything when complemented with the master craftsman feat. Quote: You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. I say restricts because in rule-speak, the word MUST is a restrictive word. If it was written with CAN or MAY, it would be permissive.
Khrysaor wrote: The funny thing with all this hate on martials being able to craft magic is that all it takes is a race with a spell like ability. Half elves with drow magic can play non casters and qualify for MIC feats and avoid master craftsman. I think this also shows that you simply choose to go as permissive as possible, as it suits you. That's fine, if it's your table, you can play how you like, but I have read nothing that implies racial Spell-like abilities meet prerequisites for any creation feats.
Drow Magic wrote: A few half-elves with drow ancestry exhibit the innate magic of that race. Half-elves with this trait have drow blood somewhere in their background, and can cast dancing lights, darkness, and faerie fire each once per day, using the half-elf's character level as the caster level for these spell-like abilities. This racial trait replaces the adaptability and multitalented racial traits. This restricts this 'caster level' to apply just for these spell-like abilities, just as the wording in master craftsman restricts the skill ranks to work as caster level for the feat prerequisite and item power cap. To say that the Drow Magic wording allows you to take MIC feats is equivalent to saying that Master Craftman would allow a Wizard-3/Fighter-4 with 7 ranks in Craft (brewing) to cast 4 magic missiles, because the feat says that you use chosen skill ranks as caster level.
CraziFuzzy wrote: Khrysaor wrote: You say restricts, others say permits. This is the fundamental argument that leads to one skill can/can't craft anything when complemented with the master craftsman feat. Quote: You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. I say restricts because in rule-speak, the word MUST is a restrictive word. If it was written with CAN or MAY, it would be permissive.
Khrysaor wrote: The funny thing with all this hate on martials being able to craft magic is that all it takes is a race with a spell like ability. Half elves with drow magic can play non casters and qualify for MIC feats and avoid master craftsman. I think this also shows that you simply choose to go as permissive as possible, as it suits you. That's fine, if it's your table, you can play how you like, but I have read nothing that implies racial Spell-like abilities meet prerequisites for any creation feats.
Drow Magic wrote: A few half-elves with drow ancestry exhibit the innate magic of that race. Half-elves with this trait have drow blood somewhere in their background, and can cast dancing lights, darkness, and faerie fire each once per day, using the half-elf's character level as the caster level for these spell-like abilities. This racial trait replaces the adaptability and multitalented racial traits. This restricts this 'caster level' to apply just for these spell-like abilities, just as the wording in master craftsman restricts the skill ranks to work as caster level for the feat prerequisite and item power cap. To say that the Drow Magic wording allows you to take MIC feats is equivalent to saying that Master Craftman would allow a Wizard-3/Fighter-4 with 7 ranks in Craft (brewing) to cast 4 magic missiles, because the feat says that you use chosen skill ranks as caster level. You might want to check the FAQs on SLAs qualifying you for MICs.
As I said, the game developers have made this as easy as possible. Thanks for trying to insult me though.
Khrysaor wrote: seebs wrote:
Furthermore, that's not at all what people have been arguing. They've been arguing that this particular feat overrides the usual requirements. They've not been arguing that any spellcaster could always have used craft (calligraphy) to enchant any item.
You may want to read what I've actually posted because I haven't said this. Please stop inferring words into my argument. Did you notice the plural word "people"?
I was talking about what multiple participants had been arguing prior to your arrival in the thread. Which was that you could use any craft skill, no matter what it was to make any magic item, no matter what it was with this feat.
Quote:
Quote:
That's the thing I'm opposing. I'm arguing that you can't use craft (weapons) to make magic carpets or portable holes.
As I've said there's two schools of thought on this. One side says you can use your chosen skill to make items magical vs. the other side saying you must use the skills listed in the magic item creation tables. Where's this excluded middle fallacy. The rules are either one or he other. Can't make concessions to some skills, but not others. That's just fiat.
Uh. The rules specifically use the term "applicable" with crafts for wondrous items, strongly suggesting that they believe that you might approve some and not others.
The excluded middle is that you're dismissing any thought of positions other than:
1. No matter what your craft is, whether or not there is any conceivable way it could be used in conjunction with or relation to the item, you can use the craft because the feat lets you substitute your craft check for "the spellcraft check".
2. You must use exactly and only the craft skills listed in the book, there can be no exceptions.
But I've already illustrated a plausible third position:
3. If it is reasonably clear that you would be allowed to make a given item using a given craft, then that craft can be used to make that item.
Quote: There's 0 room for overruling in a rules discussion on the rules forum. Everyone knows at your table you can rule however you want. Someone asked a question about the rules and there are two specific rules related responses. Chosen skill works for all items or it doesn't. No, that is not how rules work. We are not required to pretend we are stupid in order to make rulings. In fact, we are strongly encouraged to make rulings that reflect circumstance and nuance and other things.
Khrysaor wrote: CraziFuzzy wrote: A note on the skill choices: The reason a legitimate spell caster might choose to use a craft or profession check over a spellcraft check to enchant the item is that there are FAR more feats, traits, racial and class abilities that improve a craft and/or profession check than there are that improve a spellcraft check. Masterwork tools will improve the appropriate craft or profession check (there are no masterwork spellcraft tools). As an example, I have a 5th level Soul Forger Magus. He has 5 ranks in Craft (weapons), and 5 ranks in Spellcraft. His modifier for Craft (weapons) is +19, his modifier for Spellcraft is +12. Never is there a reason for a caster to invest in this feat. There is no benefit to the feat for a Spellcaster and taking it cripples your already limited number of feats and potential skill points. You're suggesting that feat starved classes that can inherently take the MIC feats should take this god awful feat under your interpretation and then invest further with more feats.
I did not say (in the part you quoted) that a spellcaster should take this feat, I said there were reasons for a spellcrafter to CHOOSE to use the craft skill instead of spellcraft (which they can do with or without this feat). It was this misconception, that magic item creation must be done with spellcraft checks, that I was referring to as the cause of a lot of the disparity in the thread.
Khrysaor wrote: You might want to check the FAQs on SLAs qualifying you for MICs. Which, I believe, one of the Paizo people has recently said may be getting reconsidered. But yes, right now, a spell-like ability can qualify you for item creation feats. Which, I note, makes this feat even less useful than it would be otherwise, because there's lots of things that will give you a caster level equal to your hit dice.
CraziFuzzy wrote: Khrysaor wrote: CraziFuzzy wrote: A note on the skill choices: The reason a legitimate spell caster might choose to use a craft or profession check over a spellcraft check to enchant the item is that there are FAR more feats, traits, racial and class abilities that improve a craft and/or profession check than there are that improve a spellcraft check. Masterwork tools will improve the appropriate craft or profession check (there are no masterwork spellcraft tools). As an example, I have a 5th level Soul Forger Magus. He has 5 ranks in Craft (weapons), and 5 ranks in Spellcraft. His modifier for Craft (weapons) is +19, his modifier for Spellcraft is +12. Never is there a reason for a caster to invest in this feat. There is no benefit to the feat for a Spellcaster and taking it cripples your already limited number of feats and potential skill points. You're suggesting that feat starved classes that can inherently take the MIC feats should take this god awful feat under your interpretation and then invest further with more feats.
I did not say (in the part you quoted) that a spellcaster should take this feat, I said there were reasons for a spellcrafter to CHOOSE to use the craft skill instead of spellcraft (which they can do with or without this feat). It was this misconception, that magic item creation must be done with spellcraft checks, that I was referring to as the cause of a lot of the disparity in the thread. Never is there a reason for spell casters to waste skill points in craft feats when Spellcraft does it and is more useful elsewhere.
I also gave all the applicable math to show you how easy it is and wasting valuable resources like more feats to increase a craft skill is not a valuable choice. Nor does it provide any reason.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: You might want to check the FAQs on SLAs qualifying you for MICs. Which, I believe, one of the Paizo people has recently said may be getting reconsidered. But yes, right now, a spell-like ability can qualify you for item creation feats. Which, I note, makes this feat even less useful than it would be otherwise, because there's lots of things that will give you a caster level equal to your hit dice. Lack of proof is nothing but opinion. Using phrases like "I believe one of the paizo people" without any quotation from any paizo staff doesn't make valid arguments and is only an attempt to swing your opinion.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: seebs wrote:
Furthermore, that's not at all what people have been arguing. They've been arguing that this particular feat overrides the usual requirements. They've not been arguing that any spellcaster could always have used craft (calligraphy) to enchant any item.
You may want to read what I've actually posted because I haven't said this. Please stop inferring words into my argument. Did you notice the plural word "people"?
I was talking about what multiple participants had been arguing prior to your arrival in the thread. Which was that you could use any craft skill, no matter what it was to make any magic item, no matter what it was with this feat.
Quote:
Quote:
That's the thing I'm opposing. I'm arguing that you can't use craft (weapons) to make magic carpets or portable holes.
As I've said there's two schools of thought on this. One side says you can use your chosen skill to make items magical vs. the other side saying you must use the skills listed in the magic item creation tables. Where's this excluded middle fallacy. The rules are either one or he other. Can't make concessions to some skills, but not others. That's just fiat.
Uh. The rules specifically use the term "applicable" with crafts for wondrous items, strongly suggesting that they believe that you might approve some and not others.
The excluded middle is that you're dismissing any thought of positions other than:
1. No matter what your craft is, whether or not there is any conceivable way it could be used in conjunction with or relation to the item, you can use the craft because the feat lets you substitute your craft check for "the spellcraft check".
2. You must use exactly and only the craft skills listed in the book, there can be no exceptions.
But I've already illustrated a plausible third position:
3. If it is reasonably clear that you would be allowed to make a given item using a given craft, then that craft... The rules specifically state a spell caster must use Spellcraft or an applicable craft. Let's not omit the key words that are written before to emphasize a point. A master craftsman isn't a spell caster and the text in the feat says you must use your chosen skill.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
