Khrysaor wrote: 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. Okay, see. I believe in what we call the "correspondence" theory of truth, where a statement is true or false based only on whether it correctly describes the world, not whether or not a given person has been presented with the evidence. I don't actually care at all either way about that ruling right now, since I'm not running PFS and any home games I'm in will have a clear ruling one way or the other that won't be affected by it. So I didn't bother to go researching it.
But I think that it might be relevant to people who do care, and then hey, wouldn't it be neat if they had the information that there was something to go look up?
Khrysaor wrote: 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. I have no idea at all what it is that you think I was "omitting" to "emphasize a point".
There are still at least three schools of thought:
1. This feat allows you to make only items which the books say are crafted with the specific craft skill you selected. There are no judgment calls or GM rulings to make. In particular, this means no wondrous items ever, since the book never identifies any specific skill.
2. This feat allows you only to make items which the GM agrees can be crafted with the specific skill you selected, putting you on an even footing with a hypothetical spellcaster who has for some reason a strong preference for using that craft skill instead of spellcraft for item creation.
3. This feat allows you to make absolutely any item with absolutely any skill, with no tests for relevance or applicability whatsoever; you could use profession (cheese merchant) to enchant swords, for instance.
That's three distinct positions, and all three have at least some apparent support in the thread.
I don't think this is the post I was thinking of, but:
James Jacobs sez:
Quote: What it means is that I disagree with the FAQ that spell-like abilities should qualify for spell requirements, since they're not spells. They're spell-like. The "philosophical" element is that I've always felt prestige classes should be, well, prestigious. They should be things you work your way into, and, for example, using an aasimar's daylight spell-like ability to qualify for a class at 1st level or whatever feels like cheating to me, and diminishes the prestige of the class. I think the specific comment about revisiting the ruling was in reference to one of the recent new prestige classes, maybe evangelist, but here at least is a strong indication that one of Paizo's developers does not like the current state of that rule.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: 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. Okay, see. I believe in what we call the "correspondence" theory of truth, where a statement is true or false based only on whether it correctly describes the world, not whether or not a given person has been presented with the evidence. I don't actually care at all either way about that ruling right now, since I'm not running PFS and any home games I'm in will have a clear ruling one way or the other that won't be affected by it. So I didn't bother to go researching it.
But I think that it might be relevant to people who do care, and then hey, wouldn't it be neat if they had the information that there was something to go look up? Paizo staff recanting on their previous FAQ that's existed for over a year now is not a statement that correctly describes the world. You're pushing an opinion that has no validation and using the term "paizo staff" to make it believable.
The entire point of this is for the rules. This is a rules forum. In PFS there is no item creation. At your table you can freely do what you want, but some people try to play true to the rules. This is why this question exists.
seebs wrote: I don't think this is the post I was thinking of, but:
James Jacobs sez:
Quote: What it means is that I disagree with the FAQ that spell-like abilities should qualify for spell requirements, since they're not spells. They're spell-like. The "philosophical" element is that I've always felt prestige classes should be, well, prestigious. They should be things you work your way into, and, for example, using an aasimar's daylight spell-like ability to qualify for a class at 1st level or whatever feels like cheating to me, and diminishes the prestige of the class. I think the specific comment about revisiting the ruling was in reference to one of the recent new prestige classes, maybe evangelist, but here at least is a strong indication that one of Paizo's developers does not like the current state of that rule.
So no quote on revisiting a ruling or anything pertaining to magic item creation.
I think you have mistaken me for someone very much unlike me.
I'm passing on that I remember seeing a thing linked recently which I found rather surprising. I don't have a link handy.
Tell you what. If I search the forums, and I do find it, will you apologize? Because I am totally willing to spend half an hour reading threads I've browsed recently if you'll actually act on the information if I find it. :)
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: 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. I have no idea at all what it is that you think I was "omitting" to "emphasize a point".
There are still at least three schools of thought:
1. This feat allows you to make only items which the books say are crafted with the specific craft skill you selected. There are no judgment calls or GM rulings to make. In particular, this means no wondrous items ever, since the book never identifies any specific skill.
2. This feat allows you only to make items which the GM agrees can be crafted with the specific skill you selected, putting you on an even footing with a hypothetical spellcaster who has for some reason a strong preference for using that craft skill instead of spellcraft for item creation.
3. This feat allows you to make absolutely any item with absolutely any skill, with no tests for relevance or applicability whatsoever; you could use profession (cheese merchant) to enchant swords, for instance.
That's three distinct positions, and all three have at least some apparent support in the thread. This is a rules forum. No one is arguing Number 2. GM fiat has no place In a rules discussion.
Khrysaor wrote:
So no quote on revisiting a ruling or anything pertaining to magic item creation.
None whatsoever, that's right. I mean, there's the FAQ itself saying they may revisit the ruling, although I don't think anyone places much weight on that.
But then, I didn't claim that this was the total vindication of everything I have ever said. I saw a comment on a topic where I'd recently seen something I found surprising, and I thought I'd mention it even though I didn't have the link handy. I guess I can go looking if it means that much to you.
seebs wrote: I think you have mistaken me for someone very much unlike me.
I'm passing on that I remember seeing a thing linked recently which I found rather surprising. I don't have a link handy.
Tell you what. If I search the forums, and I do find it, will you apologize? Because I am totally willing to spend half an hour reading threads I've browsed recently if you'll actually act on the information if I find it. :)
Apologize for what exactly? I've made no assertions to offend only that you can't make assertions claiming the intentions of others without actually providing a quote of something they've said or done.
I'll accept that eventually they may change that FAQ to not allow it to cover spell prerequisites provided someone said it amongst paizo staff rules team.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote:
So no quote on revisiting a ruling or anything pertaining to magic item creation.
None whatsoever, that's right. I mean, there's the FAQ itself saying they may revisit the ruling, although I don't think anyone places much weight on that.
But then, I didn't claim that this was the total vindication of everything I have ever said. I saw a comment on a topic where I'd recently seen something I found surprising, and I thought I'd mention it even though I didn't have the link handy. I guess I can go looking if it means that much to you. Where does the FAQ say they may revisit the ruling?
Okay, first things first:
James Jacobs says:
James Jacobs wrote: The ability to cast 3rd level spells in this case does NOT mean spell-like abilities.
That's an unfortunate side effect of a FAQ entry, and frankly, we should re-evaluate that FAQ entry since spellcasting is NOT the same as spell-like abilities.
"We should re-evaluate that FAQ entry" is pretty unambiguous.
The FAQ already said that they might revisit this ruling:
FAQ wrote: Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements. "The design team may revisit..."
As to what to apologize for:
Some Guy wrote: Paizo staff recanting on their previous FAQ that's existed for over a year now is not a statement that correctly describes the world. You're pushing an opinion that has no validation and using the term "paizo staff" to make it believable. Well, now you have a link to James Jacobs explicitly asserting that spell-like abilities are not spells, and that the FAQ asserting that they qualify as prerequisites should be re-evaluated. You asserted that I was merely using the term "paizo staff" to "make it believable". Which is to say, you asserted that I was not in fact reporting accurately on a post, by an actual Paizo team member, which I had seen but did not have a link to handy.
That would be accusing me of lying and acting in bad faith. Which, given that you did so with absolutely no basis and in contradiction to the now fully-established facts, is sort of a rude thing to do, no?
Don't go around accusing people of making things up to "make it believable", it'll just come around and bite you sooner or later.
Who to say a cheese merchant could not enchant a sword, maybe the masterwork sword used to slice his cheese so perfectly day after day after day, that sword it self gets tiny bits of that cheese embed in the microscopic pits in the sword, much like cast iron pot seasons it self over time and use hold heat better and added flavor to foods cooked in it. over time enchanting it magic seeps into in to the blade. is it from the cheese, is it from a divine source who loves this cheese merchants work so much or the happiness it brings others that the divine being allow the small amounts of magic to flow into the weapon over time. Maybe it something like a monk, where this cheese makers inner mystical chi flower through him and force the weapon to be come magical. Or is it just that all the heart soul and will power words spoken and strange hand moment enchant the blade. isn't that what casting a magic spell is A focus, material, verbal, somatic components. the ritual it self is the enchantment process.
you are talking about a world were a guy can take pinch of dust and toads eye and and turn solid stone into mud after all. All roll represents in a simpler shorted version of that ritual. to speed up game play.
I see Khrysaor point why it says you must use that skill and I can find a fluff explanation way of making it work no matter how strange it is or seems. That the whole point of a world of fantasy and magic world is use your imagination to come up with unreasonable reason to why something like this works. you can come up tons of stuff with as much fluff as you want to justify why this strange RAW wording work this way.
another example with the basket weaving person mention earlier in the thread. The basket weaver making a magical suit of armor, maybe the basket weaver. weaves as basket so perfect he decided to fill it with fruit and a dagger and offer it to his god, he prays to his god 8 hours a day in front of his offering (this is the daily roll of progress) due to his basket weavers devotion and fine workmanship the gods notice and as rewarding him by imbuing the dagger with magic, and send him a message that he may keep the dagger as the basket and prayers is fair exchange in their eyes.
Well, at that point, why do we even need the "you must use this craft skill" line? If you can use any craft for any item, then go ahead and do it. All the feat has to do is give you a caster level.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Blake Duffey wrote: 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.
Flavorful, yeah, but does it make sense that someone who has no magic, can do no magic, can suddenly make magic items? To me it does not.
so you have something to roll other then spell craft check. It also something you already have 5 ranks invested in that also giving you a +2 to also so you did not waste your time.
seebs wrote: Okay, first things first:
James Jacobs says:
James Jacobs wrote: The ability to cast 3rd level spells in this case does NOT mean spell-like abilities.
That's an unfortunate side effect of a FAQ entry, and frankly, we should re-evaluate that FAQ entry since spellcasting is NOT the same as spell-like abilities.
"We should re-evaluate that FAQ entry" is pretty unambiguous.
The FAQ already said that they might revisit this ruling:
FAQ wrote: Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements. "The design team may revisit..."
As to what to apologize for:
Some Guy wrote: Paizo staff recanting on their previous FAQ that's existed for over a year now is not a statement that correctly describes the world. You're pushing an opinion that has no validation and using the term "paizo staff" to make it believable. Well, now you have a link to James Jacobs explicitly asserting that spell-like abilities are not spells, and that the FAQ asserting that they qualify as prerequisites should be re-evaluated. You asserted that I was merely using the term "paizo staff" to "make it believable". Which is to say, you asserted that I was not in fact reporting accurately on a post, by an actual Paizo team member, which I had seen but did not have a link to handy.
That would be accusing me of lying and acting in bad faith. Which, given that you did so with...
Ability to cast X level spells is not the same as having a caster level. SLAs inherently give a caster level. James is bringing the spell requirement into question in regards to qualifying for prestige classes.
Cast X level spells =/= caster level. Prestige class doesn't care if you have caster level 20 if you can't cast the spell level required.
KainPen wrote: so you have something to roll other then spell craft check. It also something you already have 5 ranks invested in that also giving you a +2 to also so you did not waste your time. ...
Did you somehow miss the several pages of reiteration of this?
YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED TO MAKE A SPELLCRAFT CHECK TO CREATE MAGIC ITEMS IN D&D OR PATHFINDER.
Never. Not once. Not at any time. You have always had the option of rolling an appropriate craft skill.
If you reach the conclusion that any craft skill can be appropriate for any item, there's no need for that sentence, because since you could always use craft skills to create items if they were appropriate, nothing is changed by it.
Ed Reppert wrote: Blake Duffey wrote: 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.
Flavorful, yeah, but does it make sense that someone who has no magic, can do no magic, can suddenly make magic items? To me it does not. why not, any one can multi class at any time and become a caster, that give you impression that latent magic ability is hidden in every creature in existence in the pathfinder world. Some times it just comes out differently, maybe it the only for this person to access those hidden magical abilities. There are tons of magic background traits to support this also.
Khrysaor wrote: Ability to cast X level spells is not the same as having a caster level. SLAs inherently give a caster level. James is bringing the spell requirement into question in regards to qualifying for prestige classes. James is bringing the FAQ entry into question, though, and it is not obvious how they will resolve it. There have been a number of concerns raised about the implications of that FAQ, and some things that looked really good. An alternative way of making dimensional agility work for morlocks and monks might be the solution.
seebs wrote: Well, at that point, why do we even need the "you must use this craft skill" line? If you can use any craft for any item, then go ahead and do it. All the feat has to do is give you a caster level. This goes back to the fundamental argument again. Is the must use chosen craft or profession skill restrictive or permissive.
It doesn't matter which way they rule, but having a finite rule eliminates future argument. I've seen this same thread for 6 years now with no resolution and the exact same arguments made on all sides.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Ability to cast X level spells is not the same as having a caster level. SLAs inherently give a caster level. James is bringing the spell requirement into question in regards to qualifying for prestige classes. James is bringing the FAQ entry into question, though, and it is not obvious how they will resolve it. There have been a number of concerns raised about the implications of that FAQ, and some things that looked really good. An alternative way of making dimensional agility work for morlocks and monks might be the solution.
He's not commenting on the same thing though.
Cast x spell level =/= caster level
MICs don't require you be able to cast spells. Only that you have a caster level.
Much like "we should revisit=/= we will revisit".
seebs wrote: KainPen wrote: so you have something to roll other then spell craft check. It also something you already have 5 ranks invested in that also giving you a +2 to also so you did not waste your time. ...
Did you somehow miss the several pages of reiteration of this?
YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED TO MAKE A SPELLCRAFT CHECK TO CREATE MAGIC ITEMS IN D&D OR PATHFINDER.
Never. Not once. Not at any time. You have always had the option of rolling an appropriate craft skill.
If you reach the conclusion that any craft skill can be appropriate for any item, there's no need for that sentence, because since you could always use craft skills to create items if they were appropriate, nothing is changed by it. So why wouldn't there be a clause to tell you that you must choose a skill applicable to crafting some item and not just choose one craft or profession skill? Easier to state the restriction in the part where you get to choose than stating now that you've chosen you can only make what that craft/profession can make. There's bound to be a craft or profession that won't have an item applicable to it under the listed items.
Khrysaor wrote: 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. Then spend your options to get a SLA that has a CL equal o your character level and you will have no problem. After that you will only need 1 to 20 skill points and 1 feat like a spellcaster.
seebs 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? 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. PRD wrote: Craft
(Int)
You are skilled in the creation of a specific group of items, such as armor or weapons. Like Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks. The most common Craft skills are alchemy, armor, baskets, books, bows, calligraphy, carpentry, cloth, clothing, glass, jewelry, leather, locks, paintings, pottery, sculptures, ships, shoes, stonemasonry, traps, and weapons.
A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something. If nothing is created by the endeavor, it probably falls under the heading of a Profession skill.
Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)
You are skilled at a specific job. Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks. 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. The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.
The rules don't allow the existence of the "profession (blacksmith)" skill.
Khrysaor wrote: 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.
What are doing your master calligrapher or master cook with the item?
Drawing runes in ink on a sword or cooking it with wondrous spices? Both are superficial effects that will be disrupted after a couple of hits.
Someone has mentioned engraving the runes on the sword. To do that you don't need a master calligrapher, you need a weapon smith that know a bit about calligraphy or that will copy the runes draw by a calligrapher on piece of paper.
I love people that use the fluff argument and how they change what is fluff depending on what advantage they want to get.
"A Bag of holding can be made of metal links, it being made of cloth is fluff". Ever read this line in the bag description? "If a bag of holding is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag immediately ruptures and is ruined, and all contents are lost forever."
Making it of metal links change how easily is to pierce it. And its hardness and hit point. If being made of clot isn't fluff, it has a precise game effect.
Change it to other materials and you have a different item.
Khrysaor wrote: seebs wrote: Well, at that point, why do we even need the "you must use this craft skill" line? If you can use any craft for any item, then go ahead and do it. All the feat has to do is give you a caster level. This goes back to the fundamental argument again. Is the must use chosen craft or profession skill restrictive or permissive.
It doesn't matter which way they rule, but having a finite rule eliminates future argument. I've seen this same thread for 6 years now with no resolution and the exact same arguments made on all sides.
Gosh, that's so very hard.
Is "must" a restriction or a permission? Maybe the fact that it is exclusively used restrictively throughout the entire body of the rules, and that permissive rules say "can" or "may", might factor into a discussion of this?
Gosh!
It's almost as though the entire body of modern thought on how to write restrictions and permissions clearly has been pretty much entirely consistent on what "must" means, and the only exceptions are people on this rules forum.
Khrysaor wrote: So why wouldn't there be a clause to tell you that you must choose a skill applicable to crafting some item and not just choose one craft or profession skill? Probably for the same reason they don't specifically state that gaseous creatures can't be grappled?
Quote: Easier to state the restriction in the part where you get to choose than stating now that you've chosen you can only make what that craft/profession can make. There's bound to be a craft or profession that won't have an item applicable to it under the listed items. Wondrous items are open-ended; whatever you craft, you can invent a magic one.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: seebs wrote: Well, at that point, why do we even need the "you must use this craft skill" line? If you can use any craft for any item, then go ahead and do it. All the feat has to do is give you a caster level. This goes back to the fundamental argument again. Is the must use chosen craft or profession skill restrictive or permissive.
It doesn't matter which way they rule, but having a finite rule eliminates future argument. I've seen this same thread for 6 years now with no resolution and the exact same arguments made on all sides.
Gosh, that's so very hard.
Is "must" a restriction or a permission? Maybe the fact that it is exclusively used restrictively throughout the entire body of the rules, and that permissive rules say "can" or "may", might factor into a discussion of this?
Gosh!
It's almost as though the entire body of modern thought on how to write restrictions and permissions clearly has been pretty much entirely consistent on what "must" means, and the only exceptions are people on this rules forum. And then there is the "little" thing that the craft skill that you have selected set your Caster Level. If you didn't use that skill you don't have a CL.
Diego Rossi wrote: wall o text PRD wrote: The most common professions are... There's no weaponsmiths or armorers either. Looks like there's no weapons or armor in Golarion. Nor horseshoes, nails, locks, and a million other items from a million different professions that aren't listed under the most common professions.
In a world of magic you're going to argue that magical script you apply with calligraphy will rub off. Do you not see the absurdity of these statements.
Nothing says what it takes for a weapon to pierce a bag of holding. Nor has this ever happened in any game ever. I haven't seen a single thread on these boards posting the negatives like this of any listed item. This stuff is fluff.
What I love is people that throw around physics in a world that breaks every law of physics we know.
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.
Living in a land where that kind of items were made, no, a common blacksmith didn't make weapons or armor. At most he was capable to take a common scythe blade and affix it to the end of a pole to make a makeshift polearm. He could make a eating knife and several working instruments that could be used as weapons but weren't classed as such.
Making a sword, a mace sturdy enough that it wouldn't be sundered easily, a suit of armor that was balanced and so on were specialized crafts. Those kind of items, when made by metal, require different kinds of quenching and hardening. you didn't go to your local blacksmith to have a sword forged, you did go to a specialized weapon smith.
Diego Rossi wrote: 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.
Living in a land where that kind of items were made, no, a common blacksmith didn't make weapons or armor. At most he was capable to take a common scythe blade and affix it to the end of a pole to make a makeshift polearm. He could make a eating knife and several working instruments that could be used as weapons but weren't classed as such.
Making a sword, a mace sturdy enough that it wouldn't be sundered easily, a suit of armor that was balanced and so on were specialized crafts. Those kind of items, when made by metal, require different kinds of quenching and hardening. you didn't go to your local blacksmith to have a sword forged, you did go to a specialized weapon smith.
Please take the time to do the necessary research. Look up the history of black smithing. Blacksmiths made weapons, armor, locks, tools, many were practiced surgeons, engineers, and a whole lot more. There's a lot of writing on the topic.
Khrysaor wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: wall o text PRD wrote: The most common professions are... There's no weaponsmiths or armorers either. Looks like there's no weapons or armor in Golarion. Nor horseshoes, nails, locks, and a million other items from a million different professions that aren't listed under the most common professions.
In a world of magic you're going to argue that magical script you apply with calligraphy will rub off. Do you not see the absurdity of these statements.
Nothing says what it takes for a weapon to pierce a bag of holding. Nor has this ever happened in any game ever. I haven't seen a single thread on these boards posting the negatives like this of any listed item. This stuff is fluff.
What I love is people that throw around physics in a world that breaks every law of physics we know. LOL. You have missed the part about crafts in that "wall of text"?
And now your master calligrapher is a spellcaster that use magic to write: But then he has no need for master craftsman.
Your statement are absurd.
And maybe you never had a sharp object pierce a bag of holding. In the campaigns I have played it happened several times, sometime intentionally, the first time as an error (a guy dumping carelessly several spear in a bag of holding). That you don't use a rule because you don't like it don't make it less of a rule.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: seebs wrote: Well, at that point, why do we even need the "you must use this craft skill" line? If you can use any craft for any item, then go ahead and do it. All the feat has to do is give you a caster level. This goes back to the fundamental argument again. Is the must use chosen craft or profession skill restrictive or permissive.
It doesn't matter which way they rule, but having a finite rule eliminates future argument. I've seen this same thread for 6 years now with no resolution and the exact same arguments made on all sides.
Gosh, that's so very hard.
Is "must" a restriction or a permission? Maybe the fact that it is exclusively used restrictively throughout the entire body of the rules, and that permissive rules say "can" or "may", might factor into a discussion of this?
Gosh!
It's almost as though the entire body of modern thought on how to write restrictions and permissions clearly has been pretty much entirely consistent on what "must" means, and the only exceptions are people on this rules forum. Yet 6 years go by and the same argument persists. Maybe try hitting the FAQ button and be useful.
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? Rule forum, not PFS forum.
Diego Rossi wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: wall o text PRD wrote: The most common professions are... There's no weaponsmiths or armorers either. Looks like there's no weapons or armor in Golarion. Nor horseshoes, nails, locks, and a million other items from a million different professions that aren't listed under the most common professions.
In a world of magic you're going to argue that magical script you apply with calligraphy will rub off. Do you not see the absurdity of these statements.
Nothing says what it takes for a weapon to pierce a bag of holding. Nor has this ever happened in any game ever. I haven't seen a single thread on these boards posting the negatives like this of any listed item. This stuff is fluff.
What I love is people that throw around physics in a world that breaks every law of physics we know. LOL. You have missed the part about crafts in that "wall of text"?
And now your master calligrapher is a spellcaster that use magic to write: But then he has no need for master craftsman.
Your statement are absurd.
And maybe you never had a sharp object pierce a bag of holding. In the campaigns I have played it happened several times, sometime intentionally, the first time as an error (a guy dumping carelessly several spear in a bag of holding). That you don't use a rule because you don't like it don't make it less of a rule. Didn't miss anything. Just replied to the relevant bits.
How is the calligrapher not magical at this point? They have a feat that gave them a caster level, something restricted to casters. They can create magic items, another thing restricted to caster unless you grab the master craftsman feat that again, gives you a caster level.
I'm not getting your argument.
Please stop with your inference. You know nothing of my home games. I'm merely citing what I've seen from the hundreds of posters on these boards.
If you can't converse without attacking people you should probably find something better for your time than posting to forums. Thanks for ignoring the relevant rebuttal though.
You missed something. The reason there's no profession (weaponsmith) is that that skill is called craft (weapon). There is a distinction made between profession skills and craft skills. So, yes, there's weaponsmiths, but they don't have profession (weaponsmith). On the other hand, the rules simply don't contain "blacksmith" as a profession skill. A "blacksmith" would likely have some combination of ranks in a couple of craft skills. In general, "profession" is used when the labor is itself the product (say, working as a lawyer), and "craft" is used when the product is a thing you make.
CraziFuzzy wrote: 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...
You are missing a passage:
PRD wrote:
Creating Magic Weapons
To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value. Additional magic supplies costs for the materials are subsumed in the cost for creating the magic weapon—half the base price of the item based upon the item's total effective bonus.
The tools and heat source are required even if you use spellcraft and already have the weapon.
It work the same way (with different equipment) for all other kinds of magic items.
Specifically for wondrous items:
Creating Wondrous Items
PRD wrote:
To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the item. Wondrous item costs are difficult to determine. Refer to Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values and use the item prices in the item descriptions as a guideline. Creating an item costs half the market value listed.
I would like to see someone cook a magic carpet. The result wouldn't be nice.
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.
A shop, helpers, the appropriate buildings from Ultimate Campaign. Piling bonus for the craft skill is easy, as you rightly say.
Khrysaor wrote: Yet 6 years go by and the same argument persists. Maybe try hitting the FAQ button and be useful. Wow, you are really mad about accusing me of making up a quote and then finding out that, no, actually, I was referring to a concrete and specific post from a Paizo dev. You might want to consider, you know, not starting out by asserting that the things people say aren't true before you do your research? Will save embarassment later.
You seem to be assuming I haven't hit the FAQ button on this or related threads, and also that the Paizo team aren't aware of the issue yet. I don't think either assumption is justified; I just don't think this one's going to justify much of a response, since their choice of language follows well-established patterns throughout the entire text. "Must" is restrictive, not permissive. Therefore, this feat does not let you use a craft skill to make an item unless a spellcaster could use that craft skill to make that item, and the rules are already reasonably clear on when you can do that.
seebs wrote: You missed something. The reason there's no profession (weaponsmith) is that that skill is called craft (weapon). There is a distinction made between profession skills and craft skills. So, yes, there's weaponsmiths, but they don't have profession (weaponsmith). On the other hand, the rules simply don't contain "blacksmith" as a profession skill. A "blacksmith" would likely have some combination of ranks in a couple of craft skills. In general, "profession" is used when the labor is itself the product (say, working as a lawyer), and "craft" is used when the product is a thing you make. You do realize the clause "the most common professions" means that there are uncommon professions or professions not quite as common, right?
Nor did I miss anything. There is literally no market for weapons and armor in Golarion under your interpretation. Weapon shops don't exist as there's no profession weapon smith. There's no armor shop as there's no profession armor smith.
Please cite the rule that says professionals are all book keepers.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Yet 6 years go by and the same argument persists. Maybe try hitting the FAQ button and be useful. Wow, you are really mad about accusing me of making up a quote and then finding out that, no, actually, I was referring to a concrete and specific post from a Paizo dev. You might want to consider, you know, not starting out by asserting that the things people say aren't true before you do your research? Will save embarassment later.
You seem to be assuming I haven't hit the FAQ button on this or related threads, and also that the Paizo team aren't aware of the issue yet. I don't think either assumption is justified; I just don't think this one's going to justify much of a response, since their choice of language follows well-established patterns throughout the entire text. "Must" is restrictive, not permissive. Therefore, this feat does not let you use a craft skill to make an item unless a spellcaster could use that craft skill to make that item, and the rules are already reasonably clear on when you can do that. You're still pushing James comments about SLAs qualifying as spells as having anything to do with a caster level. Good one.
Diego Rossi wrote: I would like to see someone cook a magic carpet. The result wouldn't be nice. I would like to see someone cast spells. The result wouldn't be nice. Please stop confusing reality with a fantasy game.
Khrysaor wrote: You're still pushing James comments about SLAs qualifying as spells as having anything to do with a caster level. Good one. The question of whether the implications of revisiting that FAQ would or wouldn't affect this is irrelevant to your assertions.
Your assertions were:
1. There was no developer post suggesting that they might revisit or change that FAQ ruling.
2. There was nothing in the FAQ itself suggesting that it might be revisited.
I posted a link to the developer post, and quoted the FAQ. That you don't feel the possible changes to that ruling are likely to affect this particular case (and I think they're moderately unlikely to as well, but I never know what to expect from FAQ updates) doesn't have any impact on this. You asserted specifically that there had been no developer post suggesting considering a reversal of the FAQ ruling, but there is at least one such post. You suggested strongly that you did not believe that the FAQ stated they might revisit the question, but it does.
Quote: You do realize the clause "the most common professions" means that there are uncommon professions or professions not quite as common, right? Yes.
Quote: Nor did I miss anything. There is literally no market for weapons and armor in Golarion under your interpretation. Weapon shops don't exist as there's no profession weapon smith. There's no armor shop as there's no profession armor smith. That doesn't follow at all.
Quote: Please cite the rule that says professionals are all book keepers. That's not what I said, though.
Let's actually quote the relevant bits:
PRD, Profession wrote: You are skilled at a specific job. Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks. 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. The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.
Check: You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher.
PRD, Craft wrote: You are skilled in the creation of a specific group of items, such as armor or weapons. Like Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks. The most common Craft skills are alchemy, armor, baskets, books, bows, calligraphy, carpentry, cloth, clothing, glass, jewelry, leather, locks, paintings, pottery, sculptures, ships, shoes, stonemasonry, traps, and weapons.
A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something. If nothing is created by the endeavor, it probably falls under the heading of a Profession skill.
Now, look closely at the second paragraph of Craft. Note how they divide this. Note, in particular, the heading "merchant" under Profession.
The person running a weapon shop is skilled in profession (merchant), not necessarily craft (weapon). He might employ crafters. He might be a crafter himself. But the skill that you use to run the store is profession (merchant), not profession (blacksmith).
Profession skills are for things that are fundamentally labor rather than the production of items, such as working as a lawyer (you did see barrister in that list, right?), or running a store (merchant). Skills focused on the production of items are generally craft, not profession.
This distinction is pretty clear in most of the rules, and honestly I have no idea why they included professions in the item creation rules, and less still why profession (woodcutter) is listed as an applicable skill for staves. "Woodcutter" is the guy who turns trees into firewood. It's not usually associated with artisan-quality crafting of staves, magical or otherwise.
But the fact is, the distinction between crafts and professions is clearly present, it is absolutely explicitly called out in the rules, and it directly addresses the question of why "profession (blacksmith)" is the wrong way to expect someone to acquire the skill of actually making weapons and armor.
Youre making reference to a comment about a FAQ that isnt relevant to this conversation. Not sure why youre still arguing here.
this is the FAQ you keep referencing.
this is the FAQ that's applicable.
Two completely different FAQs and the crafting one has not been mentioned to be repealed.
Khrysaor wrote: Youre making reference to a comment about a FAQ that isnt relevant to this conversation. Not sure why youre still arguing here.
this is the FAQ you keep referencing.
this is the FAQ that's applicable.
Two completely different FAQs and the crafting one has not been mentioned to be repealed.
I, personally, don't usually care about FAQ rulings, I don't play PFS, and In my games, we play out of the books, interpreted using the English language in which the rules were written. I have looked for clarifications online for rulings that I find inconsistent between different rules, or mechanics that sort of don't work (like the cost system for mithril weapons being so disparate from that of adamantine weapons, for instance). This issue, though, seems pretty cut and dry in the core rules, and I have honestly never encountered any confusion to it aside from this thread.
At my table, the only way I'd ever allow an SLA to allow enchanting a weapon, is if the enchantment being done requires the spell that the SLA is mimicking.
I certainly don't think you'll ever see any FAQ ruling on this, or any soft of developer clarification, because:
1. They likely feel it is pretty clear in the rules.
2. It is regarding crafting, which the devs, being primarily PFS focused, have no interest in. The entire mundane crafting system is best houseruled, because as written, it is just horrible.
Because of this, you've likely already gotten as much clarification as you're likely to get from the community. I tried to be as helpful as possible, spending quite a lot of time to explain it plainly and clearly - quite a bit more readable than the copy and paste job Paizo did with it. That's more than you're going to get from the devs, and likely more than you deserve from the community, based on your attitude on the matter thus far.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Master Craftsman specifically calls out that you must choose a specific profession or craft, substituting your ranks in that craft for your caster level and using its check in place of spellcraft. It does not require that you actually have a craft chosen that would normally be associated with the item you want to build. It goes back to applying common sense to the rules.
Why would you think you could apply Craft: basketweaving to forging a sword? Are you also going to argue the Dead condition does not stop a character from acting normally? There are a lot of things not explicitly included in the rules, and any attempt to include everything would result in a book too large to carry.
Artanthos wrote: Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Master Craftsman specifically calls out that you must choose a specific profession or craft, substituting your ranks in that craft for your caster level and using its check in place of spellcraft. It does not require that you actually have a craft chosen that would normally be associated with the item you want to build. It goes back to applying common sense to the rules.
Why would you think you could apply Craft: basketweaving to forging a sword? Are you also going to argue the Dead condition does not stop a character from acting normally? There are a lot of things not explicitly included in the rules, and any attempt to include everything would result in a book too large to carry. Beyond common sense, the Master Craftsman feat is a modification to the core Magic Item Creation rules, not a replacement for them - you cannot examine the feat text in a vacuum. The MUST use clause is restricting something that is usually a choice in the core rules. It is their way of saying that the ONLY reason you are able to craft magic items at all, is that you are so good at this particular craft - so it follows that the only items you would be able to create would be those associated with that craft.
The way situations like this is handled on other feat texts, is that to aid in interpreting WHAT the feat modifies, it lists the 'normally:' explanation. It is unfortunate that this feat is missing that part. It should read:
What it should include wrote: Normally:
- Only spellcasters of the appropriate caster level can take magic item creation feats.
- The crafter uses his casting level to satisfy the level prerequisite for the item he is crafting.
- The crafter is able to utilize spellcraft or an applicable craft/profession skill to check completion of the item.
I actually FAQed this just because the lack of Common Sense application is in overdrive here.
If the player can justify it, then the character can do it.
It's not fluff, it's crunch. That's how fringe skills work. Always have. Slavish devotion to the letter of the law is silly in RPGs.
But this may not get answered just because ITEM CREATION is a BAD subset of the rules. Everyone knows it yet it doesn't matter because most people don't actually do it very often.
Master Craftsmen was a weak feat when it was introduced, it's still a weak feat. It doesn't matter and this thread has turned into the same argument rerun. X can be twisted to do Y because it doesn't say I can't. Or X can't do Y because ENGLISH IS ENGLISH.
Lololol.
Crazifuzzy wrote: I, personally, don't usually care about FAQ rulings, This is a rules forum where people discuss the rules. Statements like this have no place here. Do what you want in your home games. No one is saying not to. In the official rules sense those FAQs matter despite your opinion.
Crazifuzzy wrote: It is unfortunate that this feat is missing that part. And this is the cause of the ambiguity and the propagation of this argument for 6 years. I've already said I don't care what the official response is as long as there's an official response to remove any false interpretation. If there's room for argument in the rules then there needs to be clarification especially when this is a constant theme in the rules forums.
Khrysaor wrote: Youre making reference to a comment about a FAQ that isnt relevant to this conversation. Not sure why youre still arguing here. Probably because some guy decided to be all internet tough guy and insist that I was making stuff up rather than admitting the remote possibility that the post I said I saw actually existed even though it hadn't been linked already right there when I mentioned it in passing?
I'm aware that there's multiple "FAQs", but I am also aware that FAQs on closely-related topics, like "does a spell-like ability make you a spell caster", are often related to each other.
Again, it's a really minor point, the only part that's interesting is your absolute assertion that there was nothing in the FAQ saying that the current rulings on SLAs might be revisited, and your absolute assertion that there was no developer post suggesting that the dev team weren't happy with the current state of rulings on SLAs qualifying for things.
You could, at any point, just admit that maybe you were a little hasty to insist that there was no such post or comment anywhere on any topic pertaining to SLAs, and just go with your entirely defensible position that you think they're unlikely to change the entire ruling, just the specific part of it pertaining to multiclass characters. That's fine, but it would unfortunately still leave you obliged to admit that your accusations of bad faith were themselves baseless and offered in bad faith...
Khrysaor wrote:
Crazifuzzy wrote: It is unfortunate that this feat is missing that part. And this is the cause of the ambiguity and the propagation of this argument for 6 years. I've already said I don't care what the official response is as long as there's an official response to remove any false interpretation. If there's room for argument in the rules then there needs to be clarification especially when this is a constant theme in the rules forums.
Well, here I think we basically agree. There is a general principle of rules evaluation:
If a lot of people agree that the rule is clear, but disagree completely on what it clearly says, then actually they're wrong, and the rule is not clear.
seebs wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Youre making reference to a comment about a FAQ that isnt relevant to this conversation. Not sure why youre still arguing here. Probably because some guy decided to be all internet tough guy and insist that I was making stuff up rather than admitting the remote possibility that the post I said I saw actually existed even though it hadn't been linked already right there when I mentioned it in passing?
I'm aware that there's multiple "FAQs", but I am also aware that FAQs on closely-related topics, like "does a spell-like ability make you a spell caster", are often related to each other.
Again, it's a really minor point, the only part that's interesting is your absolute assertion that there was nothing in the FAQ saying that the current rulings on SLAs might be revisited, and your absolute assertion that there was no developer post suggesting that the dev team weren't happy with the current state of rulings on SLAs qualifying for things.
You could, at any point, just admit that maybe you were a little hasty to insist that there was no such post or comment anywhere on any topic pertaining to SLAs, and just go with your entirely defensible position that you think they're unlikely to change the entire ruling, just the specific part of it pertaining to multiclass characters. That's fine, but it would unfortunately still leave you obliged to admit that your accusations of bad faith were themselves baseless and offered in bad faith... Nope. I try to validate anything I claim others have said to back up my argument. This is how scientific evaluation is completed. Either peoples theories are corroborated by others or they're claims to sensationalize an idea.
You said they were going to revisit the FAQ in regards to SLAs qualifying for MICs. I wanted evidence of that. Your evidence is a dev saying SLAs shouldn't qualify for spells in regards to entering a prestige class. This is a different FAQ altogether. So the point you claimed was in regards to MICs was actually in regards to prestige classes and had no bearing on the former.
|
