Craft Wondrous + Master Craftsman


Rules Questions

201 to 215 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

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.

becasue your not forging you are enchanting at that point. the Item has to already beforged and master work qaulity before you can use craft magic item feats. At least for weapons and armor, all other items can be normal items that are already crafted through mudane crafting. Forging happens during the mundane proccess, not the magic item proccess.


KainPen wrote:
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.

becasue your not forging you are enchanting at that point. the Item has to already beforged and master work qaulity before you can use craft magic item feats. At least for weapons and armor, all other items can be normal items that are already crafted through mudane crafting. Forging happens during the mundane proccess, not the magic item proccess.

I believe the concept behind the Master Craftsman feat, though, is that even though you don't have a grasp on controlling the arcane magicks at work to create a magic weapon, you are so competent at the craft of forging and improving a weapon, that you can make it recieve magic through the grace of your workmanship. That, really, is the only explanation that would allow a non spellcaster to enchant anything, and with that explanation in mind, it explains pretty much every part of the feat.

It explains why it is limited to enchanted mundane objects, and not overt spell trigger or spell completion items.
It explains the requirement to use your craft check to complete the work, as you are not manipulating the magic directly via your mastership of the arcane forces (spellcraft), but instead are working your craft in such a way that the item receives the arcane energies somewhat naturally.
It also explains why you are limited to only doing this with your chosen craft, and items associated with that craft, as, being able to craft a sword in such a fine degree that it takes on magical properties does not mean you could do the same with a cloak.

Now, with this explanation of the feat, I do also feel that you should be able to take multiple iterations of it, and tie it in with another skill. I see no reason why, if you HAVE the skills for it, you wouldn't be able to have the same impact on armor. In all honesty, I'm not sure in my home game I'd even require a separate taking of the feat, I'd just expand it so that any skill that has sufficient ranks would qualify for its use.

From a game design perspective, I really don't see why they even created the Item Creation feats, other than just as a feat tax, and a way to limit it to spellcasters except in this extreme case. I feel it should, instead, have always been handled via the associated skills involved. The way to limit it primarily to spellcasters at that point, would be to alter the DC calculation to be based not just on +5 for not having the CL required, but to be a modifier based on how far below the DC you are (+2 per caster level missing would be my proposal). Doing it based on the skill alone would be far more acceptable in my mind. There are already other feats that could be used to optimize the crafting process, but not be necessarily required.


Given that the rationale for opposing the SLA-for-prestige-class ruling is "SLAs aren't spells", I think it is quite possible that all the related SLA-for-spell-requirement rulings are under consideration as well. You are welcome to disagree, but disagreeing with my analysis doesn't change the fact that the claim I was making was true -- the ruling that SLAs qualify as prerequisites is being considered. Maybe it'll be kept, maybe it'll be wholly reverted, maybe it'll be partially reverted. We don't know. But it's being revisited, and the FAQ said it might be.

Treating the various specific instances of "SLA as prerequisite for a thing that requires spells" as if they were completely unrelated is disingenuous at best.


seebs wrote:

Given that the rationale for opposing the SLA-for-prestige-class ruling is "SLAs aren't spells", I think it is quite possible that all the related SLA-for-spell-requirement rulings are under consideration as well. You are welcome to disagree, but disagreeing with my analysis doesn't change the fact that the claim I was making was true -- the ruling that SLAs qualify as prerequisites is being considered. Maybe it'll be kept, maybe it'll be wholly reverted, maybe it'll be partially reverted. We don't know. But it's being revisited, and the FAQ said it might be.

Treating the various specific instances of "SLA as prerequisite for a thing that requires spells" as if they were completely unrelated is disingenuous at best.

That's the thing though. MIC doesn't require you cast spells to qualify like a prestige class does and the FAQ makes reference to. Only that you have a caster level. SLAs have a caster level regardless of them being spells.

The FAQ that I mentioned and you contested has no reference to being revisited. You're confusing your FAQs. The reference says they "may" revisit it if there's evidence of too powerful characters. A full year has passed of play testing and nothing has changed.


CraziFuzzy wrote:


I believe the concept behind the Master Craftsman feat, though, is that even though you don't have a grasp on controlling the arcane magicks at work to create a magic weapon, you are so competent at the craft of forging and improving a weapon, that you can make it recieve magic through the grace of your workmanship. That, really, is the only explanation that would allow a non spellcaster to enchant anything, and with that explanation in mind, it explains pretty much every part of the feat.
It explains why it is limited to enchanted mundane objects, and not overt spell trigger or spell completion items.
It explains the requirement to use your craft check to complete the work, as you are not manipulating the magic directly via your mastership of the arcane forces (spellcraft), but instead are working your craft in such a way that the item receives the arcane energies...

Thank you; you just justified the use of the skill working for all magic items in your own statement. It is the skill of improving the item that taps in to magical energy’s making the item magical. Does not have the be limited to the weapon craft only for swords, as I stated earlier in my examples or others have stated for using basket weaver making a magical dagger or a cheese merchant that slices cheese with a sword every day. The crafting of the basket and placing dagger in to said basket praying to the gods. Enchanted the bladed because of his skill it impresses the god to enchant it as gift. Or maybe the swords pommel or hilt is made entirely of basket weave. Instead of tang being wraped in leather or cloth or a metal with jewel placed in it. look I just justfied why a jeweler should be able to make a magical sword. It is up to you to come up with the fluff to justify this crazy illogical roll. logic should not be applied to a world where any person can be come 7ft tall, can shoot fireballs from eyes and bolts of lighting out his rear end.


Okay, so, couple of questions:

1. Do you think that spellcasters should also be allowed to use any craft, not just the listed or applicable crafts, when making magic items?
2. If you think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why do you think the rules even mention the crafts that "can" be used, if absolutely any craft can be used for absolutely any item?
3. If you don't think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why would you let anyone else do it without explicit wording saying the rules for item crafting were being changed?


KainPen wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:


I believe the concept behind the Master Craftsman feat, though, is that even though you don't have a grasp on controlling the arcane magicks at work to create a magic weapon, you are so competent at the craft of forging and improving a weapon, that you can make it recieve magic through the grace of your workmanship. That, really, is the only explanation that would allow a non spellcaster to enchant anything, and with that explanation in mind, it explains pretty much every part of the feat.
It explains why it is limited to enchanted mundane objects, and not overt spell trigger or spell completion items.
It explains the requirement to use your craft check to complete the work, as you are not manipulating the magic directly via your mastership of the arcane forces (spellcraft), but instead are working your craft in such a way that the item receives the arcane energies...
Thank you; you just justified the use of the skill working for all magic items in your own statement. It is the skill of improving the item that taps in to magical energy’s making the item magical. Does not have the be limited to the weapon craft only for swords, as I stated earlier in my examples or others have stated for using basket weaver making a magical dagger or a cheese merchant that slices cheese with a sword every day. The crafting of the basket and placing dagger in to said basket praying to the gods. Enchanted the bladed because of his skill it impresses the god to enchant it as gift. Or maybe the swords pommel or hilt is made entirely of basket weave. Instead of tang being wraped in leather or cloth or a metal with jewel placed in it. look I just justfied why a jeweler should be able to make a magical sword. It is up to you to come up with the fluff to justify this crazy illogical roll. logic should not be applied to a world where any person can be come 7ft tall, can shoot fireballs from eyes and bolts of lighting out his rear end.

You've convinced me, you're completely beyond logic on this matter. If you agree that the magic is getting in there by the great skill of the person able to improve the items, then how in the WORLD do you equate that to high skill in on craft being able to improve a completely unrelated item? The fantastical logical leaps you make are insane, and should disqualify you from any sort of discussion in a rules forum.

"I'm really good at making swords. I can make them perfectly balanced, I can align the metal just right so that it accepts magical energies from the ether around me... therefore I can do the same to the fibers in a cloak..." This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

I could almost understand some of the others here who were saying they could use any skill to enhance an item when they were basing it on poor grammar comprehension, thereby making it just the result of an unfortunate RAW peculiarity. But to actually try to justify it like you are is just asinine. Your GM must love having you at the table.


You can sort of make a case for some kind of crazy "you're so good at sharp metal things that the scissors you made to cut the cloth with make the cloth magical" kind of thing, but I don't think you can make a case for it that would explain it working with this feat but not with the way ordinary spellcasters would do crafting.


seebs wrote:

Okay, so, couple of questions:

1. Do you think that spellcasters should also be allowed to use any craft, not just the listed or applicable crafts, when making magic items?
2. If you think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why do you think the rules even mention the crafts that "can" be used, if absolutely any craft can be used for absolutely any item?
3. If you don't think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why would you let anyone else do it without explicit wording saying the rules for item crafting were being changed?

1. They don't need to they have spell craft for that. Spell craft preforms that exact same function. a general craft any magic item you want skill. odd are a spell caster is going to have more ranks in spell craft then a craft skill. As it is used for more things then just crafting, id magic items, id spell so you can counter spell ect. ect.

2. because it another option that a spell caster can use by actual using craft skill in case for some reason it has bonus that is higher. Casters have a options master craftsmen do not.

3. If I have a caster that wants to make a magical grip for a sword, I see no reason why jeweler or wood worker skill could not be used make the grip. The grip could be what makes the whole weapon it magic, that the whole you can use appropriate skill for the check comes in. what deem appropriate dm based on the fluff the player gives him.

There a is a sword that you can get in way of the wicked AP that actual gain power by adding a grip and pommel to it. I am not sure if there are more example of this in other AP. As I have not read or GM them all, but I know it is in that one.


KainPen wrote:
seebs wrote:

Okay, so, couple of questions:

1. Do you think that spellcasters should also be allowed to use any craft, not just the listed or applicable crafts, when making magic items?
2. If you think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why do you think the rules even mention the crafts that "can" be used, if absolutely any craft can be used for absolutely any item?
3. If you don't think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why would you let anyone else do it without explicit wording saying the rules for item crafting were being changed?

1. They don't need to they have spell craft for that. Spell craft preforms that exact same function. a general craft any magic item you want skill. odd are a spell caster is going to have more ranks in spell craft then a craft skill. As it is used for more things then just crafting, id magic items, id spell so you can counter spell ect. ect.

That does not answer the question I asked.

Yes or no: Do you think a spellcaster can use any craft skill to craft any item, without regard to the listed craft or profession skills in the magic item creation rules?

(Also, there's good reasons to use craft skills instead of spellcraft in at least some cases; most noticably, you can get a +5 with crafter's fortune.)

Quote:
2. because it another option that a spell caster can use by actual using craft skill in case for some reason it has bonus that is higher. Casters have a options master craftsmen do not.

This is unrelated to the question I asked.

My question is, if it doesn't matter what craft skills you use, why does the book list specific crafts or professions for specific item types?

Quote:

3. If I have a caster that wants to make a magical grip for a sword, I see no reason why jeweler or wood worker skill could not be used make the grip. The grip could be what makes the whole weapon it magic, that the whole you can use appropriate skill for the check comes in. what deem appropriate dm based on the fluff the player gives him.

There a is a sword that you can get in way of the wicked AP that actual gain power by adding a grip and pommel to it. I am not sure if there are more example of this in other AP. As I have not read or GM them all, but I know it is in that one.

This is completely unrelated to the question I asked. I asked specifically why you would allow only non-casters to use arbitrary craft skills without regard to the item type, if indeed you would rule that way.

So, basically, I was looking for a yes or no to question 1, and if yes, then answer question 2, and if no, then answer question 3.

I don't think a coherent interpretation exists which answers those questions in a consistent way.


CraziFuzzy wrote:


You've convinced me, you're completely beyond logic on this matter. If you agree that the magic is getting in there by the great skill of the person able to improve the items, then how in the WORLD do you equate that to high skill in on craft being able to improve a completely unrelated item? The fantastical logical leaps you make are insane, and should disqualify you from any sort of discussion in a rules forum.

"I'm really good at making swords. I can make them perfectly balanced, I can align the metal just right so that it accepts magical energies from the ether around me... therefore I can do the same to the fibers in a cloak..." This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

I could almost understand some of the others here who were saying they could use any skill to enhance an item when they were basing it on poor grammar comprehension, thereby making it just the result of an unfortunate RAW peculiarity. But to actually try to justify it like you are is just asinine. Your GM must love having you at the table.

Considering I am the GM at the table I would think he is loved at the table. I know the Players love the GM as they constantly buy APs for me to run. They also have fun and come up with creative things.

why does it make no sense that a weapon smith could not make a magical cloak, as part of the process of magic a magic sword it to polish it correct? Maybe the way the weapon smith polish all the magic swords he makes or comes into his shop for repairs. align the energy on that that peace of cloth in return the cloth gain that magical energy also.

The ability to align the energy in the cloth is represented by having craft wondrous item feat. What skill was used is based off master craftsmen meaning the item was used some where in that crafting process. or as i stated before crafting magic item does not necessarily mean you physical making something, that is what mundane crafting does.

It could also be represent in a divine way by pray to your god constant every time you preform your craft or profession and while you work, It is actual the divine being that make the magical energy enter said item.

is it crazy to think a divine being may not take notice of your work and reward you for it. half price magic item is a hell of a reward.

as I said before you are playing again with GODS, MAGIC, Fire breathing flying reptilians, demons, devil ,and even Godzilla now is it really far fetch to think that some guy polish a bunch of swords every day won't make a cloth magical if he knows how to align magical energy. logic goes out the window in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:


You've convinced me, you're completely beyond logic on this matter. If you agree that the magic is getting in there by the great skill of the person able to improve the items, then how in the WORLD do you equate that to high skill in on craft being able to improve a completely unrelated item? The fantastical logical leaps you make are insane, and should disqualify you from any sort of discussion in a rules forum.

"I'm really good at making swords. I can make them perfectly balanced, I can align the metal just right so that it accepts magical energies from the ether around me... therefore I can do the same to the fibers in a cloak..." This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

I could almost understand some of the others here who were saying they could use any skill to enhance an item when they were basing it on poor grammar comprehension, thereby making it just the result of an unfortunate RAW peculiarity. But to actually try to justify it like you are is just asinine. Your GM must love having you at the table.

Considering I am the GM at the table I would think he is loved at the table. I know the Players love the GM as they constantly buy APs for me to run. They also have fun and come up with creative things.

why does it make no sense that a weapon smith could not make a magical cloak, as part of the process of magic a magic sword it to polish it correct? Maybe the way the weapon smith polish all the magic swords he makes or comes into his shop for repairs. align the energy on that that peace of cloth in return the cloth gain that magical energy also.

The ability to align the energy in the cloth is represented by having craft wondrous item feat. What skill was used is based off master craftsmen meaning the item was used some where in that crafting process. or as i stated before crafting magic item does not necessarily mean you physical making something, that is what mundane crafting does.

It could also be represent in a divine way by pray to your god...

If it's all the same, regardless of what magic we're using, where the magic is coming from, or what item it's going into, then why does it even matter if there are feats and skills involved? What makes one character different than another, and why do we bother even having skills, feats, traits, and classes?

For the game-time involved, there is virtually no other activity that is as gold economic as enchanting a magical item. Before any abilities that increase crafting speed, or acceleration via increased DC, it, in essence, creates 500GP of wealth per day. By comparison, any other per day activity aside from adventuring generates on the order of 5-15gp per day. The trade off is that it is really only feasible by a percentage of the characters in a campaign, and there are limits to the number, in most cases, of items that can be used at a given time. That use limitation, compared with an extensive skill and feat tax is what keeps things balanced.
The feat we're discussing is 'master craftsman', not 'guy who got lucky enchanting a sword and the gods like what he does, so he ended up with enchanted cloth too'. You're of course, as the GM, able to fiat what you describe all you want, but it certainly doesn't belong in a discussion about the written rules, and how they should be interpreted. (Even though it's clear to me, in this case, that there is little to no interpretation required, as it is all quite clear, and explained so by me already in this thread). The feat works as designed, if you simply follow the words used to make it up properly. It is not overpowered, it does not create a situation where non spellcasters are overpowering casters in their magic creating capabilities (as Khrysaor is trying to rule it as). yes, it is obvious there are those who don't understand rule-speak, and unfortunately, the same parties have created enough threads of the last 3-4 years that their wrong interpretation has created a sort of bias towards it in the community, but that doesn't make that interpretation correct. It would be nice to have the devs clarify it, but if they have to step in and clarify one rule that is clearly written and misunderstood, they'd have to do so with a LOT more in this game. The FAQ pages would grow to be longer than the core rulebook, as the level of grammatical misunderstanding knows no bounds.

And to get upset at me stating this is a grammatical competence issue is pointless. This whole misunderstanding comes down to how a single word in interpreted in the feat. The word MUST, in any context where discussing choice or rules, is restrictive in it's core nature. This is opposed by the word CAN, which is permissive in its nature.


People taking offense at another person putting them down and you have the audacity to tell them not to get upset at your insults? Perhaps spend more time reading the forum rules with all your mighty grammar skills. No where in them does it condone the use of personal attacks. Focus on the rules or don't post.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

So I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to throw my opinion out there since magic crafting is something near and dear to my heart. I can see the stance of either position, but my stance is that it should let you pick any craft or profession skill and that it will work for any magic item you create. There are two major reasons behind my stance:

First, I think that the feat is otherwise mechanically extremely weak. A +2 to a craft or profession skill and the ability to take a feat that you won't even be able to fully utilize after taking it? That's pretty bad. Letting any craft or profession to essentially work as Spellcraft for a non-caster for these two feats, after they are selected later, sounds much more in line with the power of a feat. Without access to spells, the feat is restrictive enough as it is.

Second, I just think it's much for flavorful that way. There was a thread about this feat a while ago in which someone wrote an example of how someone with Profession (Hairdresser) and Master Craftsman could make magical armor.

Diego Rossi wrote:
I would like to see someone cook a magic carpet. The result wouldn't be nice.

I actually see Profession (Cook) as one of the easiest skills to rationalize for Master Craftsman. You cook up a set of amazing magical stews, stirring the item within it, layer upon layer, until the magic takes. A cloth wondrous item would be especially easy to make with this process.

seebs wrote:

Okay, so, couple of questions:

1. Do you think that spellcasters should also be allowed to use any craft, not just the listed or applicable crafts, when making magic items?

Naturally? No. They already have Spellcraft for that. If they take the Master Craftsman feat, though, yes, they can.

seebs wrote:
3. If you don't think spellcasters should also be allowed to do that, why would you let anyone else do it without explicit wording saying the rules for item crafting were being changed?

I would let anyone do it (including spellcasters if they really want to) because they took a feat and it's a total crap feat if the one selected skill cannot be used for any magic item crafting.

But hey, this is just my opinion in the end. And I think the lack of FAQ, errata, or any other explicit official ruling from the developers is evidence that they want this to stay in the realm of GM ruling (besides, you typically have to work with your GM if you plan to do magic item crafting in a campaign). Since magic crafting feats aren't allowed in PFS, an official ruling probably isn't a high priority anyway.


See, once you're willing to offer a rationalization for letting anyone use arbitrary crafts for arbitrary items, I think it's a very bad ruling to let only some people do it. Either that rationale works or it doesn't work. So from a strict rules-interpretation standpoint, I think that's wrong.

That said, you have a good metagame reason: If you don't, this feat is pretty weak.

But honestly, I don't think it's weak enough to justify massively changing it to make it useful, but the text itself isn't particularly ambiguous; it just calls out for some kind of attempt to fix it because it's so weak.

That said: Think about a fighter with weapon specialization and craft (weapons), who takes this feat. He doesn't care about creating random wondrous items, he cares about making his sword half-price. He's actually getting a pretty decent deal.

Basically, though, it sounds to me like this is an agreement that the feat as-written does not allow you to apply the craft to arbitrary magic items, and an argument that it should be houseruled to do so because otherwise it's too weak. Which I am sympathetic to.

201 to 215 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Craft Wondrous + Master Craftsman All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.