| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kamenhero,
I have to agree with Ashiel here.
You changed the game and are suddenly arguing that Master Craftsman is a good feat...despite the fact that it would still be better if the Spellcaster took Item Creation feats.
The fact is that the Fighter has fewer class features then any other class out there (like 16), and the same number of general feats as any other character. He doesn't have feats to waste. His half-strength class features are there to try to balance out the superior class features of other classes, and his general feats are there to try to overcome his shortcomings vs the base chassis of the other melee classes.
The fact you're in a low gold campaign and Craft skills have been altered so suddenly a person can get 100 gp of work done in ONE DAY does not make Magical Artisan better, it makes the Craft skills better.
The fact you're in a low magic campaign and one of the players decided it would be a good thing to make magic items doesn't make Magical Artisan better. It means the other characters should be crafting, too, and if they are spellcasters, they'll be better at it. The combination of the two basically means the other characters are choosing to be poor and undergeared.
By the rules of your campaign, ALL CHARACTERS there should have a craft skill so they can earn money at accelerated rates, rather then go adventuring, and all characters should have item creation feats so they don't have to depend on the DM to drop the latest doo hickey, they just make it themselves. If so, they'll do it better and more cheaply then the fighter.
That doesn't make Magical Artisan better. It makes it a feat tax so the characters can be where they should be in terms of WBL and power.
So, your 'fighter example' is an example of optimizing and minmaxing to the campaign, the very thing you decried in the start of your write up. The fighter is doing exactly what he should be doing to powergame more aptly - generating more gold then the other characters, and making magic items they can't just buy. He's a minmaxer. OF COURSE HE LOOKS GREAT - he's OPTIMIZING, and the others are NOT.
==Aelryinth
@ Ashiel:
I admit my first post was more sarcastic than necessary. I probably shouldn't make arguments at 4 in the morning.
That's why Master Craftsman is awful.
Compare to a Ranger or Paladin who simply meet the CL requirements at 7th level automatically and have Spellcraft as a class skill. 100% of Rangers I make pick up Craft Wondrous & Craft Magic Arms and Armor, and even if I dumped Int to 7 during generation (a likely prospect) they will be very competent at crafting stuff because the DCs aren't so high. And they didn't have to vomit feats down the toilet to do it.
This is the part that offended me. You had a perfectly good argument until you said this. Automatically deciding that a feat is awful because you can do it better another way bothers me because it implies that the only way to do it is the best way, not the way that fits a character's concept. Your wording of 'vomit feats down the toilet' certainly isn't helping me be less bothered.
Talking like this makes me think optimizes and powergamers, which generally don't roleplay a lot. They also bug me, so it didn't help your case. If it was a misconception, I would advise being less aggressive in your posts so the last paragraph of your post doesn't sound like an angry powergamer.
After my first response, you replied directly to me and I responded in turn.
You changed the game and are suddenly arguing that Master Craftsman is a good feat...despite the fact that it would still be better if the Spellcaster took Item Creation feats.
Don't misquote me. I said that Master Craftsman can be thematic and in the right situation it's useful.
Perhaps this needs repeating. I understand that there are fighters that get no benefit from Master Craftsman and have no reason to take it. However, there are plenty of times when it fits a character concept and can be useful to the party for a fighter to have the ability to craft magic items.
Does that make my point of sometimes it fits a character theme and can still be useful more clear? Because I'm not saying all fighters should take it and its the most awesome thing ever. I'm saying that it's not that bad and that people have options outside of 'what makes me the best ever at combat?'.
Here, my exact opinion of Master Craftsman. It's not the best feat, ever, but it's not bad either. My original response was in reply to Ashiel saying it's irredeemably awful and making me upset, not because I think Master Craftsman is a great feat for everyone to take.
Also, I have never played a game without plenty of houserules, homebrew, and generally altered skills and features because balance in Pathfinder is a dream at best and all of the DMs in our group like to make changes that make character concepts that are more creative useful and fun to play. Like the Ironborn smith that I've been using as an example this entire time. Is it wrong to argue that everyone's character concepts can be fun and useful without having to pick every super optimal feat and letting them have things that fit their concept and still be good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is irredeemably awful though. You spend two feats to get a tiny fraction of the usefulness of one feat. How is that even remotely a good option?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's awful because it takes two general feats and a bunch of skill points for what a Spellcaster can do with one item creation feat.
That is indeed AWFUL. Basically x3 the cost of getting what a spellcaster does?
It would be great IF you could take the feat, and then simply make any magic item you put the skill points into. THAT would be thematic, that would be interesting, and it would be versatile. Armor smiths could make magic items and armor wondrous items by spending only one feat...but couldn't make weapons. Potion makers could actually make elixirs, too! Leatherworkers could make leather armor and a host of wondrous items. Weavers could make anything to do with magical cloth. A weapon smith could create magic rods and staves that worked as weapons. A jeweler could have made magic Rings and amulets!
It would have been fun, versatile, and thematic. A little more costly in terms of skill points, but being able to cross item creation classes would have been worth it.
Instead you had to spend yet another feat so as to RESTRICT WHAT YOU COULD MAKE EVEN MORE.
ugh.
Vomiting feats down the toilet is right. Non-casters just don't get good things.
This feat could have made an Expert with 4 different craft or profession skills a versatile item maker on a par with any caster. Instead, you get crap.
==Aelryinth
It is irredeemably awful though. You spend two feats to get a tiny fraction of the usefulness of one feat. How is that even remotely a good option?
House rules.
Let me clarify a bit for everyone:
- UNDER STANDARD PF RULES IT'S A TERRIBLE AND LIMITED FEAT
- WITH SUFFICIENT HOUSE RULES (notably, allowing Craft to function well, and ignoring WBL and magic item availability) IT IS AN ACCEPTABLY POTENT CHARACTER CHOICE (though the optimal is still casters doing it)
And that's what the two different conversations are trying to say past each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I have never played a game without plenty of houserules, homebrew, and generally altered skills and features because balance in Pathfinder is a dream at best and all of the DMs in our group like to make changes that make character concepts that are more creative useful and fun to play. Like the Ironborn smith that I've been using as an example this entire time. Is it wrong to argue that everyone's character concepts can be fun and useful without having to pick every super optimal feat and letting them have things that fit their concept and still be good?
I use very few house rules. I'm not a fan of them because there are already too many rules to keep track of. Trying to remember which ones I don't use and which ones I've changed plus the new ones I've added is very challenging. When discussing how something works for the core mechanics of the game, I can't assume that my house rule is the norm. I have to discuss it as it stands in the books and how it relates to the rules in those same books.
There is a way to discuss how an inferior option can be made better and it is by discussing house rules. The game you are in is an example of that. The game has been changed, and it sounds like for the better for your group). Discuss how the changes have improved the option and maybe others can think about how to include similar house rules in their games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the part that offended me. You had a perfectly good argument until you said this. Automatically deciding that a feat is awful because you can do it better another way bothers me because it implies that the only way to do it is the best way, not the way that fits a character's concept.
Because the commentary at the end of the post, after the major numbered reasons why the feat is bad and a trap was "automatically deciding the feat was aweful because", instead of y'know, the bulleted reasons above that which accounted for far more of the post's overall text. >_>
And the comparison wasn't comparing it to a good crafter. Merely the 2nd worst option. Neither rangers or paladins have Int as a positive stat, and they suffer a -3 penalty on their CL which stunts their ability to collect item creation feats. Yet they can still grab the feats they want at the same level as a Master Craftsman, invest less, and be leaps and bounds better at it (because only being able to craft magic weapons or magic armor or magic clothing or magic jewelry or magic elixirs suuuucks).
Your wording of 'vomit feats down the toilet' certainly isn't helping me be less bothered.
A shorthand for "expend limited resources for a bad option that is cripplingly limited and voids your 5th level feat for 2 levels". I'm still kind of uncertain as to why this offends you.
Talking like this makes me think optimizes and powergamers, which generally don't roleplay a lot.
Wow, bigoted much? Perhaps you should get out and expand your horizons. Most of the power-gamers I hang out with are among the better roleplayers I've met as well. I theorize that this is because they are more invested in their characters on multiple levels, or it might just be because they're smart, or because Stormwind Fallacy is real and roleplaying and/or optimizing are two different values rather than a gradient.
Which makes sense that if you find someone that sucks at optimizing they are probably going to still be major roleplayers, and someone that sucks at roleplaying will be major optimizers. Why? Because there are two major reasons to play this game. If you are bad at both, you probably are not playing this game. However, I have met players who are both very bad at roleplaying and very bad at optimization, so they do exist. You meet all kinds when you GM for a lot of different people from all over the world thanks to internet-tabletops like OpenRPG/Maptools/Roll20.
They also bug me,
For reasons, I'm sure.
so it didn't help your case.
Which case was that? Where I pointed out fighters were getting the shaft, or the case where I was pointing out that MC was the absolute worst way to go about crafting magic items?
If it was a misconception, I would advise being less aggressive in your posts so the last paragraph of your post doesn't sound like an angry powergamer.
I think your hatred of mythical creatures is leading you to conspiracy-theory territory.
As Aelryinth pointed out, perhaps you should look in the mirror. As I've come to learn, those who lash out at others for their perceived flaws are in truth lashing out at aspects of themselves they are uncomfortable with. You clearly were remarking about a Fighter that is heavily optimized for his environment by making use of the available rule modifications to best grant himself the most power that he could (in a game where magic items aren't something that can be reasonably attained, having magic items makes you the prince).
Here's a question... would anyone claim that a +2 bonus to one craft skill (of interest) coupled with a +4 bonus to a different craft skill is worth less than opening up the potential to craft even a limited number of magic items that are tied with a given craft? Either thematically or mechanically.
See the Prodigy feat from UM.
I posit that Master Craftsman is superior to that feat for many builds. But you don't see people complaining about it because it has nothing to do with intruding on what are typically strong class divides. Also, it is balanced with the preponderance of other feats that do pretty much the same thing (Acrobatics, for instance)
The reason Master Craftsman looks really cruddy is because it advertises that it allows anyone to gain magic item crafting, but then does it in a pretty meager fashion. That said, it still does what it says on the tin, makes you better at the craft than your were previously, and probably fits more thematically than the other stat-boosting feats
I see a lot of arguments saying that its a cruddy feat because casters can do it better. Yeah, we know... casters can do a lot of things better. But that is really an argument (read - in my opinion) that is separate from the concept of balancing this feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is irredeemably awful though. You spend two feats to get a tiny fraction of the usefulness of one feat. How is that even remotely a good option?House rules.
Let me clarify a bit for everyone:
- UNDER STANDARD PF RULES IT'S A TERRIBLE AND LIMITED FEAT
- WITH SUFFICIENT HOUSE RULES (notably, allowing Craft to function well, and ignoring WBL and magic item availability) IT IS AN ACCEPTABLY POTENT CHARACTER CHOICE (though the optimal is still casters doing it)
And that's what the two different conversations are trying to say past each other.
I'm down for homebrewing. In my previous post I linked this handout (here's another example of heavy optimization for those who cares). However, for the same game I was working on this little handout which has some early-stage mechanics for open-crafting, including allowing anyone with 1 rank of Spellcraft to make magic items and granting synergies for investing points into both spellcraft and the associated skills.
It also has an early version of using some skills to collect raw material components, and for using things like a dragon's fangs or a fire-elemental's ashes to create magic items. This was intended to be used as a plot point at some stage of the game (where a badguy was using unscrupulous methods to acquire components for their dark projects). It's unfinished, but it's an example of homebrewing on the subject.
It's an argument that says that the examples (Craft Magic Item Feats) that we are comparing the feat in question (Master Craftsman) with are not the be-all end-all for the sake of comparison for balance.
The general trend so far compares, metaphorically at least, to the following: at level 5, a fighter gets Weapon Training. Which is great, its weapon focus and half of specialization all rolled into one that will stack with the feats too. On the other hand, wizards get 3rd level spells. The latter are probably better than the former...
But they are different things and cant necessarily be directly compared without a deeper investigation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of arguments saying that its a cruddy feat because casters can do it better. Yeah, we know... casters can do a lot of things better. But that is really an argument (read - in my opinion) that is separate from the concept of balancing this feat.
Because it advertises a thing and then actively punishes you for pursuing it. It's like going to a buffet, where the buffet is the magic items you want to create. Except you watch everyone else skip the waiting line, you pay twice as much as everyone else, and you only get to get your food from 1/10th the selection that the other guys who paid less than you are getting.
Some people realize it's a load of crap and ignore it. Or in many cases have no reason to bother with it in the first place since there is nothing that you gain concept/roleplay-wise from a Fighter that you cannot get better as a different class that probably also does item creation better (such as Ranger). Even rogues can do item creation (screw whatever the FAQ thinks it is today).
Holy Strawman.
It is clearly the worst of options when compared with magic item crafting feats.
It is, in my opinion, one of the best of the skill enhancing feats (certainly better than the other craft related feat: Prodigy)
Would you ever pick up any of the skill enhancing feats?
---
Is Strawman in regard to the argument I proposed? Because, if so, I ask you to take a really good look at the magic item crafting feats, the skill enhancing feats, and master craftsman and tell me how it is not at least somewhat relevant to the question of balancing feats
Here, my exact opinion of Master Craftsman. It's not the best feat, ever, but it's not bad either. My original response was in reply to Ashiel saying it's irredeemably awful and making me upset, not because I think Master Craftsman is a great feat for everyone to take.
Also, I have never played a game without plenty of houserules, homebrew, and generally altered skills and features because balance in Pathfinder is a dream at best and all of the DMs in our group like to make changes that make character concepts that are more creative useful and fun to play.
That's what the complains here are aiming at. Showing it's unfair, Martials have to invest so much to do crafting, while casters can do it without having to invest anything. Even though a magic smith is quite a common trope, especially for dwarves.
The complains can show other GMs they might have to make some houserules to make it more fair for people wanting to play such concepts.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the comparisons being made are in the wrong context.
If we look at the base fighter, there are several things the fighter cannot do.
Even with the limited options from the crafting feat, being able to fly/improve all your saves is definitely worth two feats.
Compared to the wealth of options from the wizard, sure it's lackluster. Compared to what you had prior, it's gold.
Hell, you could even make a sash of the war champion and improve your own armor training effectively giving you more AC. Combine with stat items and Precession (tailor) is not that bad of am option compared to say, iron will.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
MM, that's a statement on just how bad the fighters options are, that this triple costing, nerfed feat is still better then most of them.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the comparisons being made are in the wrong context.
If we look at the base fighter, there are several things the fighter cannot do.Even with the limited options from the crafting feat, being able to fly/improve all your saves is definitely worth two feats.
Compared to the wealth of options from the wizard, sure it's lackluster. Compared to what you had prior, it's gold.
Hell, you could even make a sash of the war champion and improve your own armor training effectively giving you more AC. Combine with stat items and Precession (tailor) is not that bad of am option compared to say, iron will.
Three arguments.
One, you can't escape the comparison to what other classes can do. An NPC adept can get a pretty good collection of spells by the mid levels and be fairly useful. That doesn't mean the witch at the same level dropping a quickened ill omen followed by feeblemind isn't going to make the adept look bad in comparison.
You can give a class an ability, but if you then turn around and give another class a two or three times broader version of that ability at less than half the price in feats and skills, I wouldn't expect the first option to be drawing many oohs and aahs.
Comparison to what other classes can do, at much lesser cost, is relevant. Not just wizards either, your martial counterparts, rangers and paladins.
Two, it's not necessarily that golden even considering the ability only in isolation, removed from the better versions others get. You're still paying half your base skills/level and two feats for a very limited version of item crafting. And that's after it comes online. From levels 1-5, you paid half your base skills into a basically game-irrelevant skill just to meet a prerequisite later. Too bad, you gave up skills at some of the only levels the other fighter class skills like Climb or Swim might have been game relevant. From levels 5-6, you did that plus a dead feat. Half a PFS career right there of your trick having to be paid for without working yet.
And if you try to use retraining to get around the skill restrictions, as advised in this thread, you'll end up bleeding away a chunk of the gold you would have saved, and using up the downtime you would have been crafting in anyway.
(Don't get me wrong, UCam's retraining was a step forward for fighters, I just don't think it is a cure-all here)
Three, profession (tailor) is not the most iconic version of the feat, there ought to be better support for a blacksmith which is really iconic (but suffers from being broken up into multiple skills). If you have to be a g#*##~n tailor to get even half-mediocre mileage out of your crafting fighter, and the feat doesn't work as well for your iconic dwarven master smith, that's a problem. Maybe you don't see it used so often because not as many players are interested in being a tailor as would be in being a smith.
Just some thoughts from someone who really was ready to get excited about Master Craftsman back when he first read it in 2009, and who then took a second read. It was a step in the right direction, but the step was only from impossible to kind of lame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we look at the base fighter, there are several things the fighter cannot do.
Agreed.
Even with the limited options from the crafting feat, being able to fly/improve all your saves is definitely worth two feats.
Two feats and investment into skill ranks that are generally worthless in most any other context, on a class that is starving for skill points and gets no meaningful positives from having a good Intelligence.
Compared to the wealth of options from the wizard, sure it's lackluster.
To be fair, I was comparing it to the options that his rivals the Ranger and Paladin have.
Compared to what you had prior, it's gold.
That's right. You're trading 2 feats and your skill points into a bit of extra gold. How much gold varies since depending on which craft skill you choose you will be able to make less or greater use of your invested feats and/or ranks, which means you're going to need to optimize which craft skill you invest into, since Master Craftsman is fairly useless if you have something like Craft (Weaponsmithing) if your intent is to be able to fly and/or improve your saving throws, whereas Craft (Tailoring) might allow you to make things like your cloaks and shirts and robes, while Craft (alchemy) limits you to elixirs (you still can't make potions). So you're going to need to figure out which items you are going to need. You can only take Master Craftsman once, so there's no dipping into tailoring, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, jeweler, cobbler, etc. Your choice better count and it better count hard.
So even then, you're gaining a fraction of your overall wealth. Naturally you'll probably want to pick something like tailoring so you can do things like make sashes, cloaks, robes, and shirts, and belts might fall into that category which would save you some dosh, or you might want weaponsmithing so you can cut down on the expense of your weapons down or something.
The point remains however that you're investing a lot more for a lot less. How much less depends on how many items you can squeeze under the umbrella of your craft skill ("C'mon GM, weaponsmithing totally works for these boots of speed because I put a spike on them!"), but it means you'll get a -50% cost reduction on a small fraction of your items, while the Ranger is getting a -50% cost reduction on virtually every item that he'll want. >_>
Without item creation, your character can already afford the staples in your typical campaign by being an adventurer. Most of the go-to items are vastly below your WBL limits (six +4 stat items, a +4 cloak, four +2 weapons, a +3 armor, +3 shield, boots of speed, ring of protection +2, amulet of natural armor +2, and +1 ioun stone are roughly 170,500 gp, which means at 14th level you have enough for all of those and some frills, and by 15th level, you've still got almost half your WBL left unaccounted for).
Now the question is, how many of those can we squeeze into your Craft skill for a discount? Tailoring would theoretically include the +stat items and the cloak, so that's probably the best bet since it'd save you 56,000 gp (about 33%). If it's jeweler, you need to pick up both Wondrous and Forge Ring. If it's armorsmithing, it's only your armor and shield. If it's weaponsmithing, you're cutting the total cost by only 16,000 gp which is less than a 10% gain on your WBL. Ioun stones aren't even covered under an obvious craft (maybe jeweler since some of them could be gems) and would barely scratch your investment, and you'd need cobbling for your boots, and who's going to invest all of that just to save on your boots?
I guess it's super-awesome roleplaying fun to be Fighter-man, wandering tailor. :)
Hell, you could even make a sash of the war champion and improve your own armor training effectively giving you more AC. Combine with stat items and Precession (tailor) is not that bad of am option compared to say, iron will.
Iron Will has less investment overall and gives you something that you cannot get by simply buying a magic item, because the +2 stacks (it also opens up IIW if you're into that) with magic items. You're always going to be +10% better at making Will saves, it starts working immediately, and has no prerequisites and/or additional investments to make.
At the cost of a minimum of 5 skill points (but you'll want more or else your CL on your items are going to suck because you're going to be stacking a lot of +5s onto magic items to make them) and 2 feats, you can grab Craft Tailoring and make about 7 items worth of things cheaper, but you'll have at least 2 dead levels worth of adventuring to deal with, while just taking Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes gives a permanent +2/+2 to your saves for the same investment and both come online immediately and stack with the magic items you're going to buy anyway.
From an optimization standpoint, a Fighter would have better luck take Extra Traits (alluring + anything else) to grab a caster level and just take the feats normally. Suddenly the Fighter isn't grossly limited in what sorts of cool trinkets he can create and can invest into a skill that is more worthwhile (spellcraft).
But that would be dirty optimizing.
So, disregarding everything else for a second, I think everyone and their mother agrees that Master Craftsman isn't a great feat, and almost certainly won't be taken by an optimizer. Thus, I can't see arguments that only master tailors will be chosen as valid.
Additionally, I understand that people up-thread made remarks concerning how all nay-sayers are bad role players, and that spawned some hostility... It's not useful to deliberately phrase your message in a way that invites responses along those lines (even if it's in jest)
---
The way I see it, Master Craftsman is actually meant to be compared to skill enhancing feats, and happens to trade the secondary skill boost to open the door for future options. This makes the balance of the feat a lot easier to comprehend.
My question up thread was: is opening the door to crafting magic items worth 4 points in a skill you really care about? Or possibly 2 points in that skill, and 4 points in a slightly less critical skill?
I stated my opinion on that: for crafting skill, I will nearly invariably go for the potential of making magic items, if I'm bothering with the skill enhancing craft feats at all.
I am fine with the comparison, and admit that other people may have different opinions.
---
You can give a class an ability, but if you then turn around and give another class a two or three times broader version of that ability at less than half the price in feats and skills, I wouldn't expect the first option to be drawing many oohs and aahs.
Technically, the feat was the latecomer to the party that lets the non-caster access some minor bit of the ability that casters enjoy. It might seem nit-picky, but the order of how things happened is fundamental to the emotional argument that this sentence constructs. Still, I agree Master Craftsman isn't spectacular.
The feat is almost, but not quite, like Eldritch Heritage -- you have a feat tax to get it (skill focus), and you get a very limited subset of the class feature you are poaching.
I don't expect that comparison to go far because people actually like eldritch heritage... but by feat requirements it is similar.
-- Also, who on Earth wants to spend half of a PFS career building up Master Craftsman? I thought crafting was pretty restricted in that playstyle (don't wizards lose their scribe scroll because crafting is non-grata?)
-- Comparisons with other classes are inevitable. However, I believe it is insufficient for most arguments to hold up two features pertinent to different classes and directly compare them in a vacuum. A more nuanced investigation should at least be asked for, even if it is never generated.
I know that they were both published in the same book, "then turn around" is just a rhetorical conceit.
I'm not sure the argument falls apart if you replace "then turn around" with a sentence using "and turn around" or "while turning around," it seems to just become a slightly more awkward sentence, and not a completely different argument, so I guess I reject the contention that the order of operations is fundamental to the argument.
Hm.
You can give a class an ability, but if you do this while turning around and giving another class a two or three times broader version of that ability at less than half the price in feats and skills, I wouldn't expect the first option to be drawing many oohs and aahs.
Seems to be the same argument with minor cosmetic differences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, disregarding everything else for a second, I think everyone and their mother agrees that Master Craftsman isn't a great feat, and almost certainly won't be taken by an optimizer. Thus, I can't see arguments that only master tailors will be chosen as valid.
Further proving my point that it's a trap option that screws over casual players. It seems cool on paper until you actually go read how the rules work and compare it, then you see you're getting the shaft.
As noted previously, something like tailoring is probably the only mildly attractive option. If you tried something thematic like weaponsmithing or armorsmithing on your PC, you're going to make a handful of items at a discounted cost, which is barely going to scratch your overall wealth or power, but you're going to pay out the nose for it (in the form of ranks, feats, and personal dignity).
Additionally, I understand that people up-thread made remarks concerning how all nay-sayers are bad role players, and that spawned some hostility... It's not useful to deliberately phrase your message in a way that invites responses along those lines (even if it's in jest)
Noted. However beating them to the punch (as in calling ourselves dirty optimizers) with sarcasm has a pretty good track record for pre-emptively telling them to get off our lawns, we're not buying it. :P
Coriat, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the argument entirely, as clearly people feel strongly about it . However, in my eyes, it could have been phrased:
You can give a class an ability, but if you do this while turning around and giving another class a two or three times narrower version of that ability at double the price in feats and skills, I wouldn't expect the second option to be drawing many oohs and aahs.
It's a matter of the first case indicating that casters once more stole something of value from non-casters and then made it better, which has a history of rankling people on these threads, while the second version tells the message that this time it was casters who had a toy poached, even if it was only part of one and at great expense to the non-caster.
To me, the second case is still a good argument against taking master craftsman , but it evokes less of an emotional response. (i.e. Frustration with casters)
---
You're still basing arguments on the thought that only the things that reasonably raise a player's power ought to be chosen. If I was a caster with feats already invested in magic item crafting (say wondrous item and scrolls/rings/wands), then I might not want to invest more feats into crafting. Then, my buddy fighter might really want to get a magic weapon, and take master craftsman and craft weapon to make it happen. Or maybe armor. The iconic trades are actually the ones that non-casters make the most use of with the two feat expense. - almost complete with weapons (either melee or ranged), and actually complete with armor.
With this set up , you wouldn't have a deficiency in unavailable wondrous items, and you could probably craft the weapons (or armor, depending) that you want.
Ultimate Campaign has rules for WBL which influence this argument as well.
Honestly, the feat would be barely worth it if it just functioned as
"You can make magical items from your Craft skills, as though you possessed the proper creation feat. You treat your ranks in the appropriate craft skill as your caster level. You must have the skill in question to make a magical item."
There's a reason I have non-magical enhancement weapons in my game and have squashed the base item creation feats into a single entity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The feat is almost, but not quite, like Eldritch Heritage -- you have a feat tax to get it (skill focus), and you get a very limited subset of the class feature you are poaching.
I don't expect that comparison to go far because people actually like eldritch heritage... but by feat requirements it is similar.
I would say skill focus is a bit less painful as a feat tax, depending on the skill/bloodline.
The other big difference between Master Craftsman and Eldritch Heritage is that many of the EH benefits are actually more useful to a martial than they are to a sorcerer. Most casters wouldn't be all that excited by a +6 inherent strength boost or other bonuses for melee combat, or abilities that offer bonuses they can largely replicate through spells.
Few things. Master Craftsmen works only for a single craft skill. You can take it for Craft (weapons), for instance, but would not be able to enchant magic armor (or even bows/arrows) with it. Someone also mentioned using Spellcraft, which is not allowed for crafting under the Master Craftsman feat.
Master Craftsman is still neat - but it is nowhere near as ideal as simply paying your spellcasting buddy to do the work for you.
If you really want a martial character that can make his own magic gear, play a Soul Forger. Can make magic arms and armor FAR better than any wizard.
Aegi get master craftsman for free
2 |
3 |Quick Suit
4 |
5 |Rapid Augmentation
6 |
7 |Vital Strike
8 |
9 |Extra Customization
10|
11|Improved Vital Strike
12|
13|Extra Customization
14|
15|Extra Customization
16|
17|Greater Vital Strike
18|
19|Extra Customization
20|
Kain, while that would certainly make the feat stronger... It might be too strong. I'd look out for Int based casters who take the feat and use their obscene number of skill ranks to get rid of their need for the actual crafting feats. Also, multiple headbands of int+2 (craft skills) could be used for other classes.
---
The comparison with Eldritch Heritage establishes a precedent that a feat tax may be generally needed in order to access features from other classes. This is relevant to discussing a rebalancing of Master Craftsman.
While skill focus (+6) is better as a tax than master craftsman (+2), generally speaking the eldritch heritage skill is only loosely related to the actual bloodline ability. On the other hand, the +2 bonus directly couples with the execution of crafting via master craftsman/item creation. I wouldn't expect the same numerical bonus, but maybe +2 is low.
---
You're right that you can only select 1 associated skill. My argument was something along the lines of:
Sure, master craftsman can get you wondrous items... But you will be very much limited (many associated crafting skills). Instead, you can select armor or melee weapon or ranged weapon (I had misremembered crafting feats, separating magical weapons and armor into different feats), and get the better part of the function that you likely want.
It's not ideal, certainly, but I'm pretty sure nobody has claimed that Master Craftsman is ideal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with using Eldritch Heritage as a precedent is that crafting items isn't a class feature like a sorcerer bloodline. It's a set of feats that has been restricted to casters for largely thematic reasons that many people don't find compelling. And it's simply not exclusive enough to be a notable ability of any particular class; only about 1/3 of current classes don't get access to crafting normally, and that's including the alchemist.
Requiring non-casters to use Craft skills instead of Spellcraft, preventing them from making spell trigger and spell completion items, and letting them struggle with missing prerequisite spells is plenty to make them inferior crafters to casters, even without the feat tax and being limited to a single skill.
You're still basing arguments on the thought that only the things that reasonably raise a player's power ought to be chosen. If I was a caster with feats already invested in magic item crafting (say wondrous item and scrolls/rings/wands), then I might not want to invest more feats into crafting. Then, my buddy fighter might really want to get a magic weapon, and take master craftsman and craft weapon to make it happen. Or maybe armor.
Spreading out crafting feats is a great idea, but in my experience that usually means having 2-3 casters splitting different kinds of crafting, not having a non-caster take Master Craftsman.
The iconic trades are actually the ones that non-casters make the most use of with the two feat expense. - almost complete with weapons (either melee or ranged), and actually complete with armor.
Craft Weapons & Armour is one feat. A caster can take one feat to make melee and ranged weapons, and armour. A non-caster can make weapons or bows or armour.
If it's jeweler, you need to pick up both Wondrous and Forge Ring.
Nope. Master Craftsman doesn't allow you to take Forge Ring, just Craft Wondrous & Arms/Armour.
Didn't we agree upthread that that's distinctly not the intent of the feat?We are not a monolith
No, but we can come to a consensus. At least theoretically. >_>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're still basing arguments on the thought that only the things that reasonably raise a player's power ought to be chosen.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's somehow okay for a player to be expected to invest a resource in a thing and not gain an appreciable benefit for it?
Honestly, if it comes to homebrew I'd just change the caster level requirements on crafting feats into character level ones rather than try to fix master craftsman. With an obvious exception for wands, scrolls, and other spell trigger/completion items.
Requiring non-casters to use Craft skills instead of Spellcraft, preventing them from making spell trigger and spell completion items, and letting them struggle with missing prerequisite spells is plenty to make them inferior crafters to casters, even without the feat tax and being limited to a single skill.
I'd like to note that while Master Craftsman explicitly bars spell trigger/completion items, you also cannot craft potions unless you have a spellcaster on hand to provide you the spell due to the rules for making potions. Which means that unless you've got a spellcaster to help you, you can't even do anything with Master Craftsman if you have Craft (alchemy) except make elixir wondrous items (which are few I might add).
Spreading out crafting feats is a great idea, but in my experience that usually means having 2-3 casters splitting different kinds of crafting, not having a non-caster take Master Craftsman.
Ditto. It's rare that we have a group that doesn't have an abundance of item creation feats. Especially since they can split workloads and such. In my current campaign, we have a paladin, a multiclassed (but mostly psionic) archer, a wilder, a cryptic, and a class from Path of War, and literally everyone in the group sans the path of war guy has item creation feats.
The iconic trades are actually the ones that non-casters make the most use of with the two feat expense. - almost complete with weapons (either melee or ranged), and actually complete with armor.Craft Weapons & Armour is one feat. A caster can take one feat to make melee and ranged weapons, and armour. A non-caster can make weapons or bows or armour.
Not to mention that a massive chunk of Craft skills will give you no benefit at all. I mean, if you have Craft (structural), you're more or less limited to enhanced walls (see environment section) and maybe a secure fortress; if you have Craft (basket weaving)...good luck. If you have Craft (painting), instead of being cool like Realm from FF6 and painting magic items into existence, you're in fact making 0% of items in the core rulebooks except maybe marvelous pigments.
If it's jeweler, you need to pick up both Wondrous and Forge Ring.Nope. Master Craftsman doesn't allow you to take Forge Ring, just Craft Wondrous & Arms/Armour.
Oh geeze, it's worse than I was thinking. :|
Honestly, if it comes to homebrew I'd just change the caster level requirements on crafting feats into character level ones rather than try to fix master craftsman. With an obvious exception for wands, scrolls, and other spell trigger/completion items.
That actually takes care of itself since spell trigger, completion, and potion/oils explicitly require you to have access to the spell being copied, unlike other magic items that you can fake it with a +5 to the DC.
Honestly, if it comes to homebrew I'd just change the caster level requirements on crafting feats into character level ones rather than try to fix master craftsman. With an obvious exception for wands, scrolls, and other spell trigger/completion items.That actually takes care of itself since spell trigger, completion, and potion/oils explicitly require you to have access to the spell being copied, unlike other magic items that you can fake it with a +5 to the DC.
Ah, good point. Though if we're rewriting the crafting rules, I wouldn't mind allowing potions/oils with craft alchemy.
I am being completely serious. I see reasons why a player might want this feat above others that are totally separate from the question of power.
The following section went on to describe a reason that actually involved increasing his own powers. That was a little inconsistent of me, so I'll lay out a plainer argument.
It is not necessary for a player's feat/class choices to reflect the roles that they want to assume. However, some people prefer to match role play with feats when possible (sometimes to the detriment of power). If someone wants to be both a martial and a great crafter, they have several options. They can:
Claim it in role play with no/limited benefit
Take ranks in the skill, gaining mundane crafting ability (role play may supplement this, though with limited mechanical benefit)
Take ranks in the skill and supplement with master craftsman and crafting feat (you have become mechanically great at this one thing, at the expense of other abilities)
Take ranks in spellcraft, the crafting feat, and multiclass (opens up more options where caster level isn't a hard requirement)
Saying that you should never do something in this game because it does not significantly raise the strength of the party/character is a judgement based on the concept of optimization -- which I thought we were trying to avoid.
I would prefer to analyze master craftsman, compare it to a pool of available and similar feats, and make suggestions that better satisfy a concept of balance. I have raised a few concerns that I hope have made some people at least consider why Master Craftsman shouldn't be as mind-blowing as the crafting feats themselves.
---
Weirdo, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the developers consider all facets of the various classes and their interactions with skills/feats/abilities while designing new material. While access to crafting feats is prolific, it is a consequence of having a caster level, which is a class feature of those classes which have spell casting.
While it is not a perfect comparison, it still stands. A non-caster who takes master craftsman has gained the ability to qualify as a caster for a particular thing. That is taking a class feature from a different class - and should at least be considered when discussing balance.
I think the feat would be much better if it was a two feat investment that let a non-caster use all of the skills tied to the chosen crafting feat. That way the master blacksmith concept exists, and the master tinkerer can exist on the other side. That would be a feat tax (skill-enhancer) that opens the door for magic items, and allows you to poach the entirety of a crafting feat with enough skill investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, good point. Though if we're rewriting the crafting rules, I wouldn't mind allowing potions/oils with craft alchemy.Honestly, if it comes to homebrew I'd just change the caster level requirements on crafting feats into character level ones rather than try to fix master craftsman. With an obvious exception for wands, scrolls, and other spell trigger/completion items.That actually takes care of itself since spell trigger, completion, and potion/oils explicitly require you to have access to the spell being copied, unlike other magic items that you can fake it with a +5 to the DC.
Honestly, the fact that you can't just fake it with a +5 to the DC kinda bugged me a bit from the get-go. One of the best things about the PF crafting system vs the crafting system from 3.x is that you can explain the presence of magic items that should be commonplace without the need for a lot of high level spellcasters chillin' in the world.
I liked that you could just have some NPC adepts providing the lion's share of consumables and normal magic items. Fortunately this is still true for arms & wondrous items, though it'd be nice if it were true for things like potions.
I wouldn't even necessarily hate it for trigger/completion items, in all honesty. Since the spell-research system in core doesn't really work very well anyway, allowing you to make a scroll of a spell you don't know with a DC bump (say +10 to +20) wouldn't be a bad replacement for it and would make the game less swingy. It'd be a major buff for sorcerers & oracles though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am being completely serious. I see reasons why a player might want this feat above others that are totally separate from the question of power.
A player should not have to sacrifice for flavor. If they are expending resources they should get something that is a fair return. It's not fair that because they want to roleplay that they have to be gimped due to bad mechanics that punish them for doing so.
You'd be better of throwing Master Craftsman in the garbage bin and homebrewing a fair alternative. Something that is more reasonable. For example, Craft skills are already pretty awful, but if you made it so that you could just Craft specific magic items using the item creation rules and the appropriate Craft skill, you'd simultaneously make those skills more useful while also keeping the ball mostly in the court of the magical folk (since that appears to be what is intended).
For example, if merely by having 5 ranks in Craft (weaponsmithing) you were able to fake having Craft Magic Arms & Armor (maybe even set the base DC at 10 instead of 5 if you're concerned about it) and make magic weaponry, that wouldn't be unfair at all. You'd be getting a very limited subset of item creation but it would be flavorful and costs some skill ranks instead of feats and you get benefits for investment immediately.
It would also support how Aelryinth would like to see characters who could invest into different Craft skills to diversify. For example if you wanted a dwarven runecraftsman who actually wasn't magical at all but thanks to his skills with Craft (weaponsmithing), (armorsmithing), (tailoring), and (sculpting) he was able to forge impressive weapons, armors, trinkets, and constructs through his skills alone. Spellcasters still would have the benefit of their Craft feats because said feats tend to consolidate most of these into a single class skill (Spellcraft) which applies to all of them (possibly with a lower DC as well).
Kill two birds with one stone. Since you can only take MC in a campaign that isn't PFS, you can also homebrew in that campaign so that those that are interested in a particular flavor aren't screwed over/punished for roleplaying.
I would prefer to analyze master craftsman, compare it to a pool of available and similar feats, and make suggestions that better satisfy a concept of balance. I have raised a few concerns that I hope have made some people at least consider why Master Craftsman shouldn't be as mind-blowing as the crafting feats themselves.
It has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
If magic item crafting were as simple as only needing the appropriate skills, Int-based casters would still have the advantage: now, instead of putting their gross abundance of skill points in knowledge skills and maxing other skills that are little used, they can spread out a basis of skill points in all of the item crafting skills they want. That would save them two feats (assuming that this was limited to Arms/Armor and Wondrous). Suddenly, we're essentially back where we started -- at least when comparing non-casters and int-based casters(though Wis/Cha based casters aren't as fortunate, I suppose)
---
Roleplayers don't need to sacrifice, they have the option of not taking the feat (I listed several ways they could go about it, though you seem to have thought it so poorly thought out that you summarily ignored it)
I seldom try to base my arguments on what is fair an what is not fair, as people have differing opinions on what that means.
I offered my own suggestion for homebrew, what do you think?
---
It has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
Fancy one-liner. Maybe your next one can be even more needlessly dismissive.
Roleplayers don't need to sacrifice
Who are we talking about that is not a roleplayer?
I don't think I was accusatory with that, but I suppose not all things are clear in internet discussion. That was a response to
A player should not have to sacrifice for flavor. If they are expending resources they should get something that is a fair return. It's not fair that because they want to roleplay that they have to be gimped due to bad mechanics that punish them for doing so.
I condensed the idea of player (1st sentence) and the want to roleplay (3rd sentence) into a commonly used word. I meant nothing remotely offensive, if anyone draws that conclusion from what I wrote above
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int-based casters are always going to have the advantage, because they can take one feat to get access to a wide variety of options keying off of a single skill.
Opening magic item crafting up to people with ranks in Craft skills doesn't appreciably change that. They're still going to want to use feats, though they'll also have the option of dipping into a Craft skill if all they want is a subset of crafting options- the option to use Craft skills has no effect whatsoever on the top end of their effectiveness: having the feat. What it does do that is actually significant is give non-casters an option for crafting their cool magic swag that isn't insultingly weak and won't hinder their ability to stay level appropriate and perform in a party.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that feat sucks balls.