| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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)
Except as usual it looks like you're ignoring the cost of investment. A real caster, especially an Int caster (because the only Int casters we have right now use Spellcraft to learn their spells) are going to have a good Spellcraft. Being able to drop a feat to get the equivalent of a ton of different Craft skills, with lower DCs, keyed to their key stat means that most Int casters won't bother with Craft in the first place and use the traditional method.
Int-based Crafters are also already better at mundane Craft checks than almost anyone else because they never have to put ranks into them. A wizard can simply use their +10 Int modifier, +5 from a buff spell, +2 from a masterwork tool, take 10, and cast fabricate to produce anything that you can with the Craft skill as anything else.
However with the suggested homebrew, actually investing RANKS into the skill is important. Unless the wizard (the premier Int-King) wants to suddenly start investing a lot more ranks into Craft skills for something that he could get easier, then he won't. If he wants to save his feats, he could, but that means he plays by the same rules as everyone else and isn't getting any advantages he didn't already have (because he could already craft 100% of the items he wanted and still have all those skills kept up; and by saving on the feats he's requiring himself to keep up on Craft skills since he has to use those craft skills to make the magic items, which means sacrificing a lot of skill points that would be better placed elsewhere).
But for the classes that can't do it without master Craftsman, or only want to do the "warrior armsmith" thing, it's a godsend. Here you're basically only asked to invest the ranks you were presumably going to be investing anyway (you have to keep pushing your Craft skill with Master Craftsman) but you save on two feats, and you have the option to invest in additional skills if you want to diversify which means that you have an option that was just strait up denied to you previously (being able to make weapons AND armor).
It also is good for NPCs like experts who might just make a living being artisans of magical trinkets by dumping lots of ranks into Craft skills. It also represents that by naturally exceeding mundane levels of skill in your craft you can begin making them something special.
If you can Craft in the traditional sense, you're rewarded more heavily for actually taking the feat (but have the option to just go with Craft skills if you want to, or feel you can't spare the feat), but if you can't, you're not getting railed like you are with Master Craftsman and what you get it out of it is proportional to what you invest into it (you need at least 3-5 ranks in a Craft skill to begin attempting to make magic items with the associated skill).
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 was ignoring it because I was trying to be nice, but since you insisted...
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
So be delusional.
Take ranks in the skill, gaining mundane crafting ability (role play may supplement this, though with limited mechanical benefit)
Again, delusional.
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)
You become mechanically poor at this one thing, though it's of slight benefit because you couldn't do it at all before.
Take ranks in spellcraft, the crafting feat, and multiclass (opens up more options where caster level isn't a hard requirement)
This is insulting. This isn't an option. If your "option" to be a class that doesn't cast spells who wants to craft worthwhile items is "devote 3-5 levels to a class that very likely is the antithesis to your concept and/or build and/or role" it's not an option at all. It's just showing how absurd it is.
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.
If you're not at least attempting then there's not any point in discussing it, and I surely wouldn't want your input on anything remotely related to the benefits of anything in the game since by that line of reasoning there's no appreciable difference between Weapon Focus and a feat that gives Shapechange as an SLA at will.
I offered my own suggestion for homebrew, what do you think?
I think your suggestion still has most of the major problems with Master Craftsman (extra feat expenditure, wasted levels, requiring additional ranks in a skill even after the feats), reduces the uselessness factor of the item creation feat gained (which is good), but also creates silliness where you're using Craft Weaponsmithing to create elixirs of love and flying carpets.
Make of that what you will.
It has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.Fancy one-liner. Maybe your next one can be even more needlessly dismissive.
It's hard to deliver the truth in any more direct a way. Maybe if I can develop mind to mind communication so that I can just project the raw unverbalized concept of "suck" that transcends language barriers, we'd be making some progress.
Aratrok, the point was that an Int-based caster could use that houserule even more effectively than the non-caster for whom it was meant for.
If the idea behind a rule-change is to save the non-caster 1-2 (2 in this case) feats in order to bring them more in line with the abilities of casters, we should not accept a fix that gives a subset of casters the ability to save 1-2 (2 in this case) feats... as you'll wind up with nearly the same imbalance as before.
I think I would be fully satisfied if Master Craftsman were phrased thusly
Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks. Add 2 to the effective number of ranks in that skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, using your ranks in an appropriate skill as your total caster level. You must use that skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.
Thoughts? Note the phrasing in the first two lines -- which means that this crafter could craft a higher bonus sword or armor (the things that you cant actually ignore caster level on) 2 levels earlier than normal.
Master Craftsman is an excellent choice for any non-spell casting class to take...if they take the Cosmopolitan Trait. This allows a fighter, for instance, to take the Spellcraft skill, which he could then tie his Master Craftsman feat to and craft both weapons/armor AND wondrous items. (Yes, the Fighter still has to take both feats separately, but there isn't any rule that prohibits him from doing so if he has the prerequisites)
The only possible objection to this idea is that, "Spellcraft isn't a crafting skill.", which is only valid if there is some errata or FAQ that specifically changes the wording of the Spellcraft skill description in the Core Rulebook.
"you are skilled in the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS....."
The skill description specifically states that it is used for crafting something, there is therefore no logical or intellectually defensible basis (absent the aforementioned errata or FAQ) for stating that Spellcraft ISN'T a craft skill...as it clearly is...and NOT limited to "spell casters only".
(Interesting to note here: Spellcraft is a "Trained Only" skill, meaning that any character class could, as far as RAW is concerned, take this skill WITHOUT taking the Cosmopolitan trait...they just wouldn't get to call it a "class skill" and get the attendant +3 Skill Bonus. That's it. No other penalty, and absolutely nothing in the RAW that prevents this
False. Spellcraft is not a Craft skill, even if it can be used to craft things. Master Craftsman explicitly requires you to use the associated CRAFT skill. Even if you put ranks into Spellcraft (which you don't need a trait to do at all), you still have to use a Craft skill to do it. The fact that Spellcraft also allows you to craft magic items under specific conditions does nothing to help that.
Elbe-el, Spellcraft =/= Craft (whatever). Your suggestion is not based in the rules, nothing more to say there.
It's still insultingly weak. And I don't think you understand how magic item crafting works, because the specific CL requirements on things like enhancement bonus weapons can be eschewed just like any other requirement.
You set the bar so incredibly low for how good non-casters are allowed to be at something, it makes me wonder if this conversation is even worth having with you at all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In theory - and I'm not actually submitting this as anything other than a thought experiment - couldn't you take Profession (magicrafter) and use that with Craft Wondrous Item to get the full use out of that particular feat? The Profession skill is explicitly not limited to only a particular list, and neither is CWI (unlike all the other crafting feats).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm rarely offended, but if there is something I find insulting in these boards, it is the notion that an obviously cripplingly underpowered option is acceptable design just because it's flavorful... And it's even more insulting when people imply that anyone who disagrees with that notion is some sort of dirty minmaxer that doesn't care for the roleplaying aspects of the game.
If you have to take underpowered options to be flavorful, then the game is actively punishing players for focusing on flavor rather than mechanics.
Taking flavorful choices should be rewarded, not punished! A player who grabs a feat or spell because he thinks it fits his character concept should get something cool for his investment, not an awful option that is all but a waste of resources!
Flavor does not justify poor design!
It's ironic that those who supposedly don't care much about optimization are often the least creative roleplayers! They are always the oens saying the Rogue is fine because it's flavorful, but refuse to accept the idea that you can roleplay a rogue-like character without using the Rogue class... Or they are the grognards who are always ready to exclamim something like "Back in my day, we were true roleplayers! Not like these dirty munchkins kids who think Pathfinder is WoW!" ... And they conveniently forget how little of a role character concept actually played in Gygaxian games... Where everyone named their characters stuff like Fighter McFighty The Third because the games were so unfairly deadly that players had no incentive to actually connect to their characters...
It's particularly annoying and insulting to me when members of Paizo's say mention things like "The focus on optimization probably comes form the people who played MMORPGs!"
G&*&#%n Nostalgia Goggles and condescending attitude...
Argh!
/rant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Craft and Profession are capitalized and are specific skills, dude. Calm down.
ALL objections to this idea fail until somebody...ANYBODY...can explain how Spellcraft isn't a craft skill without specific errata from the devs (which has yet to be forthcoming, so far as I have been made aware of).
Note the capitalization used by the feat. You are wrong to say you need a craft skill, what you need is a Craft skill. Proper noun.
Much like crafting a wondrous item can refer to making something awesome, but Craft Wondrous Item is a specific named feat, a crafting skill can refer to any skill used to make something, but Craft refers to the Craft skill.
Basic English grammar. There is absolutely no need for a FAQ to explain grammar.
Right, which should indicate to you that it is, in fact, a (different) proper noun.
...unless you mean to say that the word "Craft" is the word that MUST be capitalized, in which case (assuming the Devs support your homebrew interpretation) I will now declare Pathfinder an exercise in failure and move on to DnD5e.
(Really...any game that relies on THAT level of semantic interpretation to work properly is obviously a failure to anyone who isn't playing the game to win prize money.)
Or... You're just not willing to accept the rules as they are... And condescendingly implying that anyone who disagrees with your stance is "playing the game to win prize money".
Pathfinder is a great game, but it is not perfect. Some rules are poorly designed. The devs are not infallible gods. Sometimes they make mistakes/poor choices.
Master Craftsman is an awful feat. Deal with it.
Except as usual it looks like you're ignoring the cost of investment. A real caster, especially an Int caster (because the only Int casters we have right now use Spellcraft to learn their spells) are going to have a good Spellcraft. Being able to drop a feat to get the equivalent of a ton of different Craft skills, with lower DCs, keyed to their key stat means that most Int casters won't bother with Craft in the first place and use the traditional method.
I haven't done the math before, so lets go ahead. Int based casters are probably getting 2+Int = ballpark 12-15 ranks per level at the end of their career, but lets really lowball with 8 for their midlevel range.
They could have Spellcraft, Know Arcana, Diplomacy, Bluff, Fly and Perception Maxed (you might not even want to max all of these), with 2 sets of ranks left over to distribute among craft skills and knowledge skills. They wouldn't need to max those, however, just bring them to whatever minimum amount was needed to get a thing going (weapons and armor might need to go higher, because caster levels cant be ignored) As you get higher levels, this gets easier and easier for the int-caster, as they have more sets of skill ranks to distribute among skills that do not need to be maxed.
Sure, they might be able to save a lot of skills by taking feats, but the int-caster has so many skill points it is absurd to assume that they wont try to save their feats if that is a good move in their build. You end up potentially negating the benefit you were trying to bestow on non-casters - because of this, I don't see it as the best fix. This is not a personal issue with you.
---
I think I should make something clear: I am an academic. I personally cant accept conclusions that end up being based on emotional concepts like fairness. I didn't say you were wrong to use it for your discussion, just that it wont go very far in convincing me.
---
Go ahead and call the suggestions delusional. Some people just might have fun pretending to be something that they aren't. As long as they get next to no mechanical benefit from it, I have very few concerns about whatever fluff people want to claim.
---
You become mechanically poor at this one thing, though it's of slight benefit because you couldn't do it at all before.
So youre claiming that a character who took Master Craftsman (craft weapons), Craft Arms/Armor, and invested heavily in the craft weapons skill isn't mechanically great at crafting magic weapons? That probably isn't what you mean, but that is what I read there.
---
This is insulting. This isn't an option. If your "option" to be a class that doesn't cast spells who wants to craft worthwhile items is "devote 3-5 levels to a class that very likely is the antithesis to your concept and/or build and/or role" it's not an option at all. It's just showing how absurd it is.
Its an option that exists and may fit some build concepts better than the idea of Master Craftsman, especially if you find the feat distasteful.
---
I think your suggestion still has most of the major problems with Master Craftsman (extra feat expenditure, wasted levels, requiring additional ranks in a skill even after the feats), reduces the uselessness factor of the item creation feat gained (which is good), but also creates silliness where you're using Craft Weaponsmithing to create elixirs of love and flying carpets.
I think you'll find that I suggested having to take all the relevant skills too, though you'd probably have problems with that as well.
I think the feat tax isn't a bad thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Options so bad that they basically punish you for taking them are not real options in any way other than semantics.
They are false options.... Like "Sure Grasp" and "Water Skinned". They are there for you to take, but they are so awful that they might as well not exist.
Again: Flavor is not an excuse for poor design!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...unless you mean to say that the word "Craft" is the word that MUST be capitalized, in which case (assuming the Devs support your homebrew interpretation) I will now declare Pathfinder an exercise in failure and move on to DnD5e.
(Really...any game that relies on THAT level of semantic interpretation to work properly is obviously a failure to anyone who isn't playing the game to win prize money.)
Proper nouns are not an invention of the Pathfinder rules, they are a simple, basic feature of the English language that a competent speaker should understand automatically. If you are a native speaker, you should have learned this in childhood. If you are not a native speaker, I already provided a link explaining this.
A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence.
Thus, we can see from the capitalization that Craft is a proper noun, and since specificity is a feature of proper nouns and we are competent English speakers, we understand (and this is not complex or arcane semantics) that the word refers to the specific Craft skill.
Options so bad that they basically punish you for taking them are not real options in any way other than semantics
Rogue levels
As bad as it is, I would consider the class an existent option.
Options so bad that they basically punish you for taking them are not real options in any way other than semanticsRogue levels
As bad as it is, I would consider the class an existent option.
At this point, I consider Rogues a false option... And a trap. The class currently does nothing but harm the game.
Contributor
|
Options so bad that they basically punish you for taking them are not real options in any way other than semantics.
They are false options.... Like "Sure Grasp" and "Water Skinned". They are there for you to take, but they are so awful that they might as well not exist.
Again: Flavor is not an excuse for poor design!
Isn't Sure Grasp the Roll Twice feat? I'm not going to defend it as a Good Feat, but there are way worse feats out there. Elephant Stomp comes to mind. The Ifrit's burning weapon-feat chain looked pretty sad too. At least Sure Grasp does a very narrow and specific thing competently.
So, I thought the way a dialogue works is that a group proposes something, the idea gets hashed out a bit, then a second party proposes something new or a modification to the first idea. Then that idea is hashed out, and the process continues until a sufficient number of parties is satisfied. I am more than willing to be swayed to your side if you can provide compelling arguments against the points I make that are not either emotionally based or attacks on my character.
I've given my arguments why I think Ashiel's homebrew is not the perfect fix, and have offered my own. Ashiel gave a brief summary (slightly erroneous, but that's fine), and that's really it as far as counter to mine.
I think the idea that non-casters should be given free reign over something historically reserved for casters is not something to be done hastily. YMMV
Isn't Sure Grasp the Roll Twice feat? I'm not going to defend it as a Good Feat, but there are way worse feats out there. Elephant Stomp comes to mind. The Ifrit's burning weapon-feat chain looked pretty sad too. At least Sure Grasp does a very narrow and specific thing competently.
Oh, yeah... I'm not saying it's the worst feat ever... There are feats that are completely useless, and others that actively nerf you for taking them!
But still... Falling isn't exactly a major threat in Pathfinder... Sure Grasp is so situational that it's useless 95% of the time. That's enough to qualify as a false option in my book.
Isn't Sure Grasp the Roll Twice feat? I'm not going to defend it as a Good Feat, but there are way worse feats out there. Elephant Stomp comes to mind. The Ifrit's burning weapon-feat chain looked pretty sad too. At least Sure Grasp does a very narrow and specific thing competently.
Honestly, I tend to view feats like Elephant Stomp as editing mistakes and not design decisions. It was published due to someone forgetting how the rules worked at some point in the process. A few of those are forgivable, the rules have grown too big for me too.
I dislike feats more if they seem both badly underpowered and working as intended, like Master Craftsman or Improved Stonecunning.
So, I thought the way a dialogue works is that a group proposes something, the idea gets hashed out a bit, then a second party proposes something new or a modification to the first idea. Then that idea is hashed out, and the process continues until a sufficient number of parties is satisfied. I am more than willing to be swayed to your side if you can provide compelling arguments against the points I make that are not either emotionally based or attacks on my character.
I don't like your solution because it strikes me as a basic failure of flavor if a dwarven master smith can't craft magic arms and armor and has to choose just one, while a wizard who has never actually forged a weapon or a suit of armor in his life can enchant them both to his heart's content.
What "rules as they are" are you referring to? "Rules" are written down and clearly delineated, otherwise, they aren't "rules", they are...at best..."suggestions", and the rules regarding what constitutes a craft skill are not clearly delineated anywhere.
It is interesting to me that this community is absolutely obsessed with RAW...until the community sees something that it doesn't like and can't account for...THEN it becomes and argument about "RAI" or (in this case) "grammar" (An argument, which is to me fantastically hilarious given that the context of this discussion is based upon a game of fantasy).
You are absolutely correct on two points: 1) The devs are OBVIOUSLY not perfect (I was assuming that they are human beings...), and 2) This feat is something that needs to be fixed with errata or in a FAQ of one kind or another. (No, you didn't ACTUALLY say that last thing, but I am trying to be magnanimous here.)
*sigh*
I can already tell that this discussion would be tiresome, boring and pointless...
Have fun having it with someone else.
Coriat. They wouldn't need to just choose one. They would have a +2 on their skill of choice, but then it would be free pickings from there.
---
Aratrok, its at least open for debate whether the 3xEnhancement CL is a mandatory requirement, as a very basic search brought up a few threads that questioned it. Was there a FAQ that I missed?
Is my bar really insultingly low? If the idea is to maintain the flavor of tying crafting to skills, and a second desire is to maintain the need for a feat tax to access what is otherwise another set of classes' abilities, then it seems pretty good to me.
I suppose another option if you really hate the feat tax is to just let all players use craft skills to qualify for crafting feats. That get's Ashiel's main point and gets rid of my concern to boot. I just think the feat tax is actually a good thing
Ah, that is somewhat better than I first thought. I appear to have mis-skimmed the third sentence in the benefit section, I apologize.
I've actually been known to mildly favor requiring an appropriate Craft skill to craft a magic item using any means. Your Wizard doesn't have any training in forging swords? No crafting vorpal swords for him!
I admit I haven't thought it through, though, and it goes beyond the scope of this thread.
It's not open for debate. Not even a little bit. Here are all the rules you need to see that for yourself:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a 1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
Yes, I think it is insultingly low. Because you're putting a strict qualifier on what non-caster characters are allowed to do, purely because of tradition. Which is, frankly, ludicrous, because it's imposing an additional weakness on an already weak and maligned subset of characters.
And 'feat taxes' are almost never a good thing. They are usually just barriers to characters being allowed to do the things they want to be able to do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's fair. I think in this case the disadvantage to noncasters is unbalanced. Crafting feats are worth by defnition a feat; non-casters spend more than twice that for less than half the benefit.
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.
That sounds fine; I even suggested it upthread. I might suggest however increasing the skill bonus to +4 at 10 ranks (this is more consistent with existing rules than "treat your effective ranks in that skill as two higher" and grants a similar benefit).
Coriat. They wouldn't need to just choose one. They would have a +2 on their skill of choice, but then it would be free pickings from there.
That change is easy to miss in the relevant post. In the future consider adding changes in bold, that way it'll be easier to see where “using the chosen craft skill” becomes “using an appropriate craft skill.”
Sure, they might be able to save a lot of skills by taking feats, but the int-caster has so many skill points it is absurd to assume that they wont try to save their feats if that is a good move in their build. You end up potentially negating the benefit you were trying to bestow on non-casters - because of this, I don't see it as the best fix. This is not a personal issue with you.
In this case the caster gets to choose which cost they prefer – feats or skill ranks – while the noncaster does not get a choice and must invest skill ranks. That sounds like a decent advantage to the caster to me. Especially since they caster can use both in combination eg take Craft Wondrous Item so as not to worry about all the fiddly craft skills, but then take a few ranks in Craft (Alchemy) in order to make potions.
I think I should make something clear: I am an academic. I personally cant accept conclusions that end up being based on emotional concepts like fairness. I didn't say you were wrong to use it for your discussion, just that it wont go very far in convincing me.
But you're Ok with “balance”? What do you see as the difference between fairness and class balance?
Note: I'm also an academic and I see no problem with Ashiel's argument. While it's emotionally argued, it's based on a rational assessment of the relative worth of the crafting options for the two groups compared to the desired relative worth (ie “similar.”)It is interesting to me that this community is absolutely obsessed with RAW...until the community sees something that it doesn't like and can't account for...THEN it becomes and argument about "RAI" or (in this case) "grammar" (An argument, which is to me fantastically hilarious given that the context of this discussion is based upon a game of fantasy).
o_0 Are you trolling? Language, and therefore writing, and therefore RAW cannot exist without grammar.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a 1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
So, just semantically, the pre-requisite that you listed is not inside an item description and thus does not automatically qualify for the blanket exception policy without some sort of debate. Should it? Maybe so.
The next bit tells us that this thing is a special prerequisite, which could indicate (at least, could be debated - as it has been in the past) that it is a special exception to things that usually apply to pre-requisites.
Finally, there is the phrase 'must be met', which is pretty specific. Usually things that are specific override general rules -- again, something that could be debated because this might be a misuse of plain English in a rules context.
|
Contributor
|
Isn't Sure Grasp the Roll Twice feat? I'm not going to defend it as a Good Feat, but there are way worse feats out there. Elephant Stomp comes to mind. The Ifrit's burning weapon-feat chain looked pretty sad too. At least Sure Grasp does a very narrow and specific thing competently.Honestly, I tend to view feats like Elephant Stomp as editing mistakes and not design decisions. It was published due to someone forgetting how the rules worked at some point in the process. A few of those are forgivable, the rules have grown too big for me too.
I dislike feats more if they seem both badly underpowered and working as intended, like Master Craftsman or Improved Stonecunning.
I didn't forgive Elephant Stomp, but I left Monkey Lunge out for exactly that reason. It really is the Bad Decision ("Ecology of the Adventurer", Dragon Magazine) of Pathfinder. Sargava is easy pickings, though.
Improved Stonecunning isn't as bad as Improved Keen Senses. I consider that one particularly egregious, since it is just so obviously and specifically worse than at least two Core feats (Alertness and Skill Focus).
I forget the name, but what's the feat from Dungeoneer's Handbook? You had to take the feat... and wear jewelry worth a certain percentage of your WBL... which took up magic item slots... in exchange for a +1 to each of four social skills. That one was really crushing. At least you can get a magic kusari-gama out of Master Craftsman. :/
|
Contributor
|
Ah, that is somewhat better than I first thought. I appear to have mis-skimmed the third sentence in the benefit section, I apologize.
I've actually been known to mildly favor requiring an appropriate Craft skill to craft a magic item using any means. Your Wizard doesn't have any training in forging swords? No crafting vorpal swords for him!
I admit I haven't thought it through, though, and it goes beyond the scope of this thread.
I kind of like this, although they'll probably just take jewelry and tailoring, leaving the martial-types high and dry.
I'd like to cut the big crafting feats up. Weapons/armor separately, and wondrous items by slot, packaging some together (so headband comes with some less-used slots, belt comes with some, neck with some, etc.) and slotless by itself. Again, though, haven't thought it through.
I long since houseruled Master Craftsman, in any case. :)
But you're Ok with “balance”? What do you see as the difference between fairness and class balance?Note: I'm also an academic and I see no problem with Ashiel's argument. While it's emotionally argued, it's based on a rational assessment of the relative worth of the crafting options for the two groups compared to the desired relative worth (ie “similar.”)
Usually, balance to me is determined by whether or not an ability is so great that its a no-brainer choice or if it is bad enough that there's no good condition for taking it.
In the context here, I assume that classes have been balanced already with the caster/non-caster divide (regardless of the wizard supremacy at high level while martials eke out a living), and would prefer not getting rid of it without at least some meaningful debate.
Having deliberately made a build with Master Craftsman in the past (albeit using Mythic, so power wasn't an issue really), I was walking into this question with less hostility toward the conceit of the feat than most other posters here.
Admittedly, I could have phrased my point against 'fairness' better: I cringe whenever the word 'fair' is used in a debate, because it doesn't really mean anything until you back it up, and all it does is evoke emotional responses from the audience. An argument (read - in my opinion) ought to be strong enough without going for that sort of tactic. Ashiel later made some good points, which I think I have been pretty cordial about responding to.
|
Contributor
|
If a player is actively choosing only "flavorful" options for their character that do not help them or the party or actively hinder other characters then they get kicked out of the party (in-character). That's how it should work. A party is not required to adventure with their fellow party members, they do so by choice. If one of the party members is "the load", then they get dumped and the party finds a new person to take their place (from the same player).
** spoiler omitted **
I see your same @#$%^& version of Master Craftsman and propose:
Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: You may create magic weapons and armor using Crafting or Profession skills. For any magic weapon or armor you create with a Craft or Profession skill you have at least 5 ranks in you are treated as having Create Magic Arms and Armor with a caster level equal to your ranks in the Craft or Profession skill you use to create it.
Prerequisites: 3 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: You may create wondrous items using Crafting or Profession skills. For any wondrous items you create with a Craft or Profession skill you have at least 3 ranks in you are treated as having Create Wondrous Item with a caster level equal to your ranks in the Craft or Profession skill you use to create it.
I agree with you on things that actively hinder the party. Been there. How many "bad" options is a character allowed, though? Is it performance-based? Like, "I wouldn't have taken that feat, but we're still winning, so w/e"?
I have a player who's gotten very up in arms about this lately. It's been a bit disruptive... :(
I have been thinking about this for a small bit, and have some thoughts on it.
This is just a quickly thrown together idea so please feel free to address any glaring issues.
With that said, what do you think of changing the master craftsman feat to as follows?
Prerequisites: Must not possess a caster level granted by a class.
Benefits: When you select this feat select one Craft(XXX) skill you have either Skill focus or 5 ranks invested in, you gain the ability to craft magical items associated with that skill. Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of crafting items with said skill. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items).
You may select another Craft(XXX) skill in which you have skill focus or 5 ranks for every 3 levels beyond third you attain and you gain the ability to craft magical items associated with that skill.
You may craft any spell-trigger or spell completion item without the spell prerequisite however your DC increases by 10 for every spell prerequisite skipped for a spell trigger or spell completion item instead of by 5.
The associated skills for crafting are as follows:
- Craft(Armor): Magic Armor of any type.
- Craft(Weapons): All Weapons and rods except Bows.
- Craft(Bows): Magic bows, arrows, and quivers.
- Craft(Jewelry): Magic rings, necklaces, Ioun stones, and trinkets such as pearls of power and beads of karma.
- Craft(Staff): Staves and wands.
- Craft(Alchemy): Elixirs, potions, and alchemical items such as marvelous pigments.
- Craft(Clothing): Magic cloaks, tabards and clothing.
- Craft(Books): Magic books, scrolls, and writing.
- Craft(Firearms): Magic guns and firearm ammo.
- Craft (Cloth): Magic containers and items composed almost entirely of cloth that are not clothing.
Normal: You may not craft magic items without a caster level.
Edit: Forgot Prerequisites in edit, sorry.
Covent, I am not a fan, as it is better (at 18th level + - when you get 6) than the combination of all crafting feats with the exception of weapons/armor:
Craft(Jewelry): Magic rings, necklaces, Ioun stones, and trinkets such as pearls of power and beads of karma.
Craft(Staff): Staves and wands.
Craft(Alchemy): Elixirs, potions, and alchemical items such as marvelous pigments.
Craft(Clothing): Magic cloaks, tabards and clothing.
Craft(Books): Magic books, scrolls, and writing.
Craft (Cloth): Magic containers and items composed almost entirely of cloth that are not clothing.
Id like it better if you changed it to count for one crafting feat and allowed it to count for more if you take it multiple times... or somehow limited it so that one feat wouldn't eventually become better than several other feats (even if there is some minimal skill investment to pass DCs).
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a 1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.So, just semantically, the pre-requisite that you listed is not inside an item description and thus does not automatically qualify for the blanket exception policy without some sort of debate. Should it? Maybe so.
The next bit tells us that this thing is a special prerequisite, which could indicate (at least, could be debated - as it has been in the past) that it is a special exception to things that usually apply to pre-requisites.
Finally, there is the phrase 'must be met', which is pretty specific. Usually things that are specific override general rules -- again, something that could be debated because this might be a misuse of plain English in a rules context.
There is a FAQ about it : you can bypass everything, except :
- Crafting feat (for example : Craft magic weapons and armor for a magic weapon)- Spells for scrolls, potions, wands and staves.
Here is the FAQ :
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.
To craft an item, you have either to be able to cast spells OR use Master craftsman. Most classes can : out of the 19 base classes inside CRB, APG, UC and UM, only 6 cannot cast spells (Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Monk, Gunslinger, and Cavalier). So, if you're any other base classes, you can take the crafting feat with no limitations.
Now, if you're one of the non-casting class, you can use Master craftsman, sure, but its very limited :
- You have to wait a LOT longer (level 7 minimum, while casters can select Craft wondrous at 3, craft weapons at 5, ...)
- You are limited in the feat selection : you can't craft rings, rods, and you can't select consumables crafting feats.
- You can craft only a limited array of what the crafting feat allow you to craft.
- You have to spend 2 feats instead of 1.
- You have to spend skill points in a skill that has pretty much no use in game (opposed to spellcraft, that has a lot of uses ingame).
The only use I can see for this feat is for NPCs : you can have a local blacksmith that is able to craft magic weapons without being a wizard of some sort (for example a expert 7).
Covent, I am not a fan, as it is better (at 18th level + - when you get 6) than the combination of all crafting feats with the exception of weapons/armor:
Craft(Jewelry): Magic rings, necklaces, Ioun stones, and trinkets such as pearls of power and beads of karma.
Craft(Staff): Staves and wands.
Craft(Alchemy): Elixirs, potions, and alchemical items such as marvelous pigments.
Craft(Clothing): Magic cloaks, tabards and clothing.
Craft(Books): Magic books, scrolls, and writing.
Craft (Cloth): Magic containers and items composed almost entirely of cloth that are not clothing.Id like it better if you changed it to count for one crafting feat and allowed it to count for more if you take it multiple times... or somehow limited it so that one feat wouldn't eventually become better than several other feats (even if there is some minimal skill investment to pass DCs).
I would argue that the investment of at least 30 skill points or 6 feats is a limiter on this, however I can see your point.
A rogue at 18 would have say a 20 (10 base + 4 book + 6 Headband) int with three maxed skills due to int headband.
This means the rogue could have three maxed skills from headband, and a total of 12*18 = 216 skill points assuming human and maxed favored class or 180 if not human and no favored class.
If he spent enough points to max his three other skills he would have somewhere from 126 to 162 skill points left basically from 7-9 skills.
Now a level 18 character will want say Perception and Fly definitely leaving 5-7 skills.
Assuming normal rogue expenditures such as stealth, disable device, bluff, sense motive and UMD, the rogue will have between 0-2 skills or 0-36 skill points remaining.
This will let the rogue pick up some knowledge's and some supplemental skills such as a few points in climb, ride, swim, appraise, or others.
This is all of course from a base 10 Int rogue with no leveling points spent in Int.
All other classes will be worse but I can see your concern. Now even this rogue cannot get everything but he did only have to spend skills and 1 feat minimum.
Thank you for the feedback.
Ah, thank you Avh! So there was a FAQ.
Then the ranks vs points distinction is meaningless. I think Wierdo's suggested bump up to +4 on the bonus would work fine instead.
|
|
Wouldn't you still need access to any kind of spells in order to make a wondrous item or add a property to a weapon or armor?
Like, I may be playing the Baron Badass Von Whompass, LORD of the Sword, who knows everything about swording and shoving swords through people and is an expert blacksmith who make swords, and Master Craftsman lets him emulate caster level to make a sword a +5 sword, but he'd still need Jim the Enchanter to grace him with a Call Lightning so he can make that +5 shocking burst sword.
Wouldn't you still need access to any kind of spells in order to make a wondrous item or add a property to a weapon or armor?
Like, I may be playing the Baron Badass Von Whompass, LORD of the Sword, who knows everything about swording and shoving swords through people and is an expert blacksmith who make swords, and Master Craftsman lets him emulate caster level to make a sword a +5 sword, but he'd still need Jim the Enchanter to grace him with a Call Lightning so he can make that +5 shocking burst sword.
Nope, Baron Badass Von Whompass will only increase the difficulty of the crafting DC by +5 in order to bypass Call lightning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't done the math before, so lets go ahead. Int based casters are probably getting 2+Int = ballpark 12-15 ranks per level at the end of their career, but lets really lowball with 8 for their midlevel range.
They could have Spellcraft, Know Arcana, Diplomacy, Bluff, Fly and Perception Maxed (you might not even want to max all of these), with 2 sets of ranks left over to distribute among craft skills and knowledge skills. They wouldn't need to max those, however, just bring them to whatever minimum amount was needed to get a thing going (weapons and armor might need to go higher, because caster levels cant be ignored) As you get higher levels, this gets easier and easier for the int-caster, as they have more sets of skill ranks to distribute among skills that do not need to be maxed.
Let's get this strait. You're trying to sell me on the idea that I, an Int-based caster (who is probably a wizard w/ bonus feats to boot), who is already maxing Spellcraft, will avoid taking a single feat (Craft Wondrous Items) which would allow me access to 100% of wondrous items using a skill I've already maxed out, and instead invest the minimum ranks in lots of different skills to try to go without it? Wherein I have to actually use those skills to create the magic items I want, instead of my maxed Spellcraft that I can use to rev up the caster levels and ignore tons of prerequisites with?
This is what you're trying to argue? Well...
Sure, they might be able to save a lot of skills by taking feats, but the int-caster has so many skill points it is absurd to assume that they wont try to save their feats if that is a good move in their build. You end up potentially negating the benefit you were trying to bestow on non-casters - because of this, I don't see it as the best fix. This is not a personal issue with you.
Generally speaking I've got better uses for those skill points that is more than chasing the rainbow when it starts in my backyard. Remember, you're forced to use the Craft skill to create the items in question, which means that the skill needs to remain at least pretty relevant. Dumping 3-5 ranks into the skill and forgetting about it is going to cut you off at the knees when it comes to making any magic items that are worthwhile (and as a wizard you're still going to want to steamroll a loooot of requisites on items).
I'd be better of maxing every knowledge skill, dipping Sense Motive, Stealth, and Disable Device, grabbing some linguistics, throwing a few ranks into a number of trained-only skills just so I could use them, throwing some ranks into Craft (Alchemy) so I can ID poisons with detect poison, etc.
BUT...
For those that aren't GOD. They'd at least have their Craft skill. And they wouldn't be paying both testicles, an arm, three legs, and their favorite mule for "teh rolepway".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I should make something clear: I am an academic.
And I'm a skeptic. "Fairness" is something that while not an exact science in all cases (in some cases it is) but is something that people can identify and it's not undefined. It's generally accepted that making someone who is already handicapped expend twice the resources for a tiny fraction of the reward is just simply unfair by the definition of fairness.
noun
1. the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness:
I have to admit, in all fairness, that she would only be paid for part of the work.
Go ahead and call the suggestions delusional. Some people just might have fun pretending to be something that they aren't. As long as they get next to no mechanical benefit from it, I have very few concerns about whatever fluff people want to claim.
Well Mr. Academic...
adjective
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.
Perhaps I stuttered. Let me try again. If your concept is "Have a character that's delusional" rather than have a character that actually does something, then good for you.
So youre claiming that a character who took Master Craftsman (craft weapons), Craft Arms/Armor, and invested heavily in the craft weapons skill isn't mechanically great at crafting magic weapons? That probably isn't what you mean, but that is what I read there.
Damn skippy that's what I'm saying. They aren't great. They're not even average. They're passable. From the get-go, they are promised a +5 or more increase on virtually any magic weapon that isn't a flat enhancement bonus of a value equal to their ranks in craft divided by 3. So no, they still aren't as good as the crafters who can actually meet those prerequisites.
Its an option that exists and may fit some build concepts better than the idea of Master Craftsman, especially if you find the feat distasteful.
Because sacrificing entire character levels for something that sucks is so much better. How does one be an academic if one is not capable of parsing observed stimulus? :|
I think you'll find that I suggested having to take all the relevant skills too, though you'd probably have problems with that as well.
I think the feat tax isn't a bad thing.
Yeah, because it would still suck, which means nothing is fixed and it still gets pushed aside by anyone who bothers to count.
As for feat tax, it's irrelevant to me whether or not you think it's a bad thing or not, especially without an explanation as to why that is.
That sad sad moment when people desperately defend a feat that allows a martial a meager portion of what a Caster gets.
Even sadder is when you realize that Item Creation feats only net you 25% more wealth and that crafting for your friends takes from that allotment of extra wealth.
So Master Craftsman literally nets you only a 25% WBL boost in a particular subset of items of which you have the craft skill for.
Craft(Weapons) gets you your weapons, but not Bows since Craft(Bows) is a separate skill as dictated in the Core Rulebook.
Craft(Armor) gets you your armor and maybe a shield if that's your build.
Wondrous Items are a whole 'nother story unfortunately. Rings can't even be made through Master Craftsman.
And Master Craftsman only lets you do one of these or in the case of Craft Wondrous Item, only some of them. Not even all of them.
This is why Martials don't get much nice things. Folks get stockholm syndromed into loving the really awful options in comparison to what others get.
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?
Why not? The concept behind traits was that very principe and people ruined that too.
Saying Master Craftsman doesn't reasonably raise the fighter's power is a joke.Before he could not hit incorporeal enemies. Now he has that ability. Before he could not deal with flying enemies, now he can.
Even picking just one of these abilities would be worth it imo.
Do I wish the limitation wasn't there? Sure I do, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a core feat that leaves the fighter with something he can do. And claiming that craft or profession checks are not worth investing is completely game dependent. Don't disrespect someone else's game style because you like to power game.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you are really coming off as a jerk who is sounding the horn of badwrongfun.