| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? The concept behind traits was that very principe and people ruined that too.
I'm confused. Virtually every trait I've seen has an appreciable benefit.
Saying Master Craftsman doesn't reasonably raise the fighter's power is a joke.
I'm not laughing. Barring very specific exceptions (like tailoring) it isn't even going to give him that much more effective money.
Before he could not hit incorporeal enemies. Now he has that ability. Before he could not deal with flying enemies, now he can.
It's called an oil of magic weapon. It's 50 gp. An average of 3 can be purchased in a thorpe. Also, do people really not use ranged weapons? Flying enemies tend to be obliterated by ranged weapons.
Even picking just one of these abilities would be worth it imo.
Or he could just spend the money he gets adventuring and then spend those feats & skill points on something more tangible to actually contributing to things, like putting more points into Acrobatics to get better dodge bonuses, and picking up feats like Iron Will->Lightning Reflexes, Endurance (so you can sleep in your armor)->Diehard, or even Toughness, Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Steps.
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.
Well, it might leave him with something to do two levels from when he takes it, maybe. Also, yes, without some serious house rules and/or game modding going on, Craft and Profession ARE worthless beyond maybe 1 rank or so if you want to represent your dayjob. If they aren't worthless then some serious house-ruling has been done, and if house ruling to that extent is on the table, you already have means of getting something better than Master Craftsman.
I didn't say a word about anyone's gamestyle, but I've sure been hearing a lot about my own. The title of this thread is "Why Don't Fighters Take Master Craftsman?" and the reason is that it's bad. It's a bad feat. It's always been a bad feat. Insulting me and making speculations about my playstyle don't change that, and it doesn't make me a jerk. It might make one of us a jerk, but I'm pretty sure it's not me in this case.
I could be wrong though. It probably does make me a jerk. I've concluded I'm a complete ass, and I murdered Gary Gygax with Dave Arnesson's fractured femur. Because it was the optimal thing to do, of course.
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?
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. If a caster would otherwise take crafting, but can save that feat by investing in some skills, then the caster has benefitted from the proposed crafting system (not a bad thing, necessarily... but if he does it enough, then he has potentially negated the proposed fix).
There's also the option of having several Headbands of Int+2 keyed to skills where you'll regularly want to overcome DCs -- that would be a GP investment though, and available to all players. Not sure if that would be a great feature of the changed game mechanic either.
What I'm trying to get at here is that you should look at all of the outcomes of your decisions, and see if the decision actually does precisely what you want it to do. Maybe you believe that a caster investing skills to avoid spending feats is working exactly as intended (though such a system favors Int-based classes significantly, maybe that's not a bad thing to you)
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".
I may be a purist too, but phrasing like this might be what master_marshmallow was referring to. I've tried pretty hard not to rise to baiting messages so far, and to be at least cordial.
---
For the fairness bit, Ill just reiterate a thing I said to Wierdo earlier
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.
---
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? :|
So, Ill put a semi-optimizer hat on for a second and try to make you see what I'm seeing here. You can take a level dip in any full caster class and gain 1 real CL (you lose your last level ability and a BAB, likely). You could have the Magical Knack trait (I assume everyone gets 2 to start) to count as +3 CL (up to 4). You could then join a magic crafting guild, and earn enough Fame (35) that you are eventually esoterically trained (Esoteric Training from Inner Sea Magic) which gets you another +3 effective CL bump (up to 8 CL)
You'd qualify for crafting feats with the exception of Rods and Staves with a 1 level dip and minimum additional expense. You'd also get some small pool of level 1 spells (and level 2 spells from esoteric training). (which may be good for overcoming the loss of BAB/end ability) You could focus only on spellcraft as your skill tied to crafting.
This is a thing that already exists in the rules, and I do not see it as too onerous if you want to be really great at crafting while being a character type that is usually subpar at crafting.
Because it exists in the rules, it should influence the debate on what is needed to balance the thing in question. Its certainly not ideal for all builds, but I never claimed that it was.
---
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.
Upthread, I compared the general situation concerning Master Craftsman with Eldritch Heritage. Essentially
Take Skill Enhancer (Master Craftsman or Skill Focus) -> open up the ability to adopt another class' feature
Take that ability (Craft Feat or Eldritch Heritage) -> gain a portion (not the entirety) of the class feature you were after.
I mentioned it as an indicator that sometimes the ability to nab a feature from another class is hidden behind a feat tax. Because Master Craftsman exists, I presume that developers have balanced the game at least in part around the concept that non-casters need a feat tax to access crafting (That it is not balanced is pretty given, but we've both been offering solutions to make it better)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wondrous Items are a whole 'nother story unfortunately. ...
And Master Craftsman only lets you do one of these or in the case of Craft Wondrous Item, only some of them.
Again, I think that's exactly backwards. If you pick your Profession right (and can get your GM to sign off on it, since it's squarely in a gray area), I think Craft Wondrous Item is the only one of the crafting feats you *can* get full value out of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that is exactly what I am doing. If a caster would otherwise take crafting, but can save that feat by investing in some skills, then the caster has benefitted from the proposed crafting system (not a bad thing, necessarily... but if he does it enough, then he has potentially negated the proposed fix).
I'm not really seeing how it would be negated. I said upthread that if the caster wanted to do it like the mundane guys he plays by the same rules. The "fix" comes in giving characters a means of actually using their Craft skills in a way that the skill stays somewhat useful and would allow non-casting classes like Fighter and Barbarian to make magic items by investing skill ranks without grossly overpaying in resources that these classes are short on.
If the caster wants to go about it the hard way, they can do that. It offers no great benefit for them to do so since they can go the traditional route and benefit more (especially true for any class that is a caster but isn't Int-based, which is most of them actually, and as a frequent wizard/psion player, I can say I'd skip it and go with the feats). The main thing is now there's an alternative with a reasonable tax.
There's also the option of having several Headbands of Int+2 keyed to skills where you'll regularly want to overcome DCs -- that would be a GP investment though, and available to all players. Not sure if that would be a great feature of the changed game mechanic either.
You could totally do that, but it complicates the creation process by requiring at least 24 hours before you can start crafting and will make crafting on the go very difficult (since it means you're going to eat your head slot for 48 hour increments) which means you need more stable, reliable, and just plain more downtime to work on stuff (especially if you have to work on stuff on the go).
For example, in my recent campaign the party had three days worth of travel to do on an airship and so they opted to do some crafting on the way. If they had to use a headband, they would have netted 1 day's worth of crafting because they'd have needed to done the band, wait 24 hours, then craft, then replace the band with their usual headgear, wait 24 hours, then adventure. It would be even more awkward to do so during an actual adventure.
What I'm trying to get at here is that you should look at all of the outcomes of your decisions, and see if the decision actually does precisely what you want it to do. Maybe you believe that a caster investing skills to avoid spending feats is working exactly as intended (though such a system favors Int-based classes significantly, maybe that's not a bad thing to you)
No I don't see it as a particularly bad thing because to me, the amount of investment needed to make up the difference of 1 feat is too much to be appealing, and the one Int-based caster that matters already gets those feats as bonus feats anyway and has better things to spend their skill points on.
And even if the caster does find it worthwhile to invest lots of skill points into being able to craft different kinds of items without paying 1 feat, it's still more balanced because those poor guys who couldn't before are now able to play the same game, rather than spend 2 feats and eat dirt. So the caster still has the option of "Take feat, be better" or the caster plays the same game as everyone else and everyone is happy.
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".I may be a purist too, but phrasing like this might be what master_marshmallow was referring to. I've tried pretty hard not to rise to baiting messages so far, and to be at least cordial.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Which part of what I said is drawing the ire of Mr.Mallow?
A: Designating a being of immense power that shapes reality as GOD.
B: Using a scaled analogy stemmed from the old "costs an arm and a leg".
C: Implying player is getting the thick-stick by being stuck with this horrible trap in the name of roleplaying, which is only attractive at all if you're dumping roleplay and instead picking the most wide-reaching Craft skill (like tailoring).
D: That I dislike something that Mr. Mallow likes and despite having not insulted anybody in this thread, having not said said anything negative about anyone's playstyle, and up until being verbally provoked didn't utter a sarcastic sentence, am the posterboy for BadWrongFun.
I'm personally leaning towards D, or maybe even an "E: All of the Above", which is a bit funny to me since all I did originally was offer an answer to the question and have actually advocated giving more freedom for roleplaying concepts, improving balance between the classes, and offered some alternatives so that people could have fun playing what they wanted. It's even more hilarious because hey, I'm the dirty optimizer, and trying to discredit anything I say with snide optimizer/powergamer/munchkin commentary is totally not implying badwrongfun.
If I sound bitter, I kind of am. This isn't the first time that crap has been pulled on me and it won't be the last. I'm smiling about it though, kind of laughing about it even, because every time this happens it's like I get to watch an episode of the Three Stooges reenacted through text as the naysayers fumble down the proverbial stairs rather than actually present any sort of challenging thoughts.
Again, I think that's exactly backwards. If you pick your Profession right (and can get your GM to sign off on it, since it's squarely in a gray area), I think Craft Wondrous Item is the only one of the crafting feats you *can* get full value out of.Wondrous Items are a whole 'nother story unfortunately. ...
And Master Craftsman only lets you do one of these or in the case of Craft Wondrous Item, only some of them.
I disagree but alas such is life. Since Wondrous Items range from elixirs to pieces of armor, you'd be hard pressed to find a Profession that can do em all sensibly.
|
|
I disagree but alas such is life. Since Wondrous Items range from elixirs to pieces of armor, you'd be hard pressed to find a Profession that can do em all sensibly.Again, I think that's exactly backwards. If you pick your Profession right (and can get your GM to sign off on it, since it's squarely in a gray area), I think Craft Wondrous Item is the only one of the crafting feats you *can* get full value out of.Wondrous Items are a whole 'nother story unfortunately. ...
And Master Craftsman only lets you do one of these or in the case of Craft Wondrous Item, only some of them.
Profession (magicrafter) was my suggestion. (I actually wanted to say "talismonger," but that's my Shadowrun history creeping in.)
And I ought to alter my position slightly. What I should have said was, "Craft Wondrous Item is the only one where the RAW even *potentially* allows Master Craftsman to work with an entire crafting feat, and you're still taking advantage of what amounts to tiny wiggle room in the Profession and CWI crafting rules."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Profession (magic item merchant)
BAM.
You are welcome.
|
|
If you're going to do that, you might as well go all the way. No reason you can't have a Profession(magesmith) that covers Arms & Armor. Sure, there are already Craft skills that cover those separately, but the same is true for most of the Wondrous items.
The problem with that is that the magic item crafting rules give specific lists for the usable alternative skills for each type.
Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft or Craft (armor).
Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons).
What makes Wondrous Item different is this:
Skill Used In Creation: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check.
It's the only one where the list of possible skills is left undefined, so it's the only one where RAW permits the possibility of a Craft or Profession that even could theoretically cover them all.
If I sound bitter, I kind of am. This isn't the first time that crap has been pulled on me and it won't be the last. I'm smiling about it though, kind of laughing about it even, because every time this happens it's like I get to watch an episode of the Three Stooges reenacted through text as the naysayers fumble down the proverbial stairs rather than actually present any sort of challenging thoughts.
This is the kind of thing he is talking about re: insults.
1) Crap has been pulled on me - it means you are taking this personally.
2) Naysayers -a label for everyone disagreeing with you
3) Three stooges - everyone who disagrees with you
4) fumble down the stairs instead of present any sort of challenging thoughts - you're calling them both clumsy and stupid.
And you continue to think you AREN'T insulting people.
You can do better. You are indeed taking this personally, insulting others, and you shouldn't.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Crap has been pulled on me - it means you are taking this personally.
It gets pulled on other people too. Doesn't make it any better though.
2) Naysayers -a label for everyone disagreeing with you
Actually it's a label for those who would rather make ad hominems in this case. There are many people I disagree with that I don't automatically assume have a habitual pessimism.
3) Three stooges - everyone who disagrees with you
Nope. Aratrok and I disagree regularly (especially on Skype) but the conversations there are a lot more entertaining and we do things like discuss them without calling each other bad roleplayers. For an example of stooge-like behavior, I'd probably direct you to 3.5 Loyalist's monk claims, or in this thread, being guilty of everything you claimed someone else did when they didn't.
4) fumble down the stairs instead of present any sort of challenging thoughts - you're calling them both clumsy and stupid.
We could add hypocritical to the list as well if you'd like, but I figured that wasn't really necessary since I expressed my feelings on the absurdity already and I'll have forgiven it by the time I wake up.
And you continue to think you AREN'T insulting people.
If you get angry at me for a thing I didn't do, I'm going to point out how utterly stupid that is. If you are also doing the very thing you're getting angry at me for, I'm going to point it out in spades.
You can do better. You are indeed taking this personally, insulting others, and you shouldn't.
Just curious but, why do you feel the need to point this out to me, instead of any of the other posts like this one? As I pointed out earlier, I didn't say a single mean thing to anyone. Right up until they started hammering the nail. >_>
Anyway, I've been awake for 24 hours and need to go pick my brother up from school, and probably crash when I get back. Have a good one Ael.
Profession (magic item merchant)
BAM.
You are welcome.
Actually. Looking at the feat, Profession ranks qualify. And there is no listed profession tied to magical items.
Therefore, you can make any item with any profession.
I will go will profession(Barrister) and bend the rules to craft magic items!
Profession (magic item merchant)
BAM.
You are welcome.
Actually. Looking at the feat, Profession ranks qualify. And there is no listed profession tied to magical items.
Therefore, you can make any item with any profession.
I will go will profession(Barrister) and bend the rules to craft magic items!
Creating Wondrous Items
To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the item. Wondrous item costs are difficult to determine. Refer to Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values and use the item prices in the item descriptions as a guideline. Creating an item costs half the market value listed.If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
Creating some items may entail other prerequisites beyond or other than spellcasting. See the individual descriptions for details.
Crafting a wondrous item requires 1 day for each 1,000 gp of the base price.
Item Creation Feat Required: Craft Wondrous Item.
Skill Used In Creation: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check.
Barrister is not an applicable craft or profession skill to craft a wondrous item, except maybe a very specific item related to this profession.
Ash. This isn't about you or what you feel or what you think you are saying.
It's about what other people see that you are saying, and what THEY think.
You're being extremely defensive about something you don't think is insulting, and yet you frequently get this exact same reaction from people who otherwise are fairly level-headed.
What you said was insulting, even if you didn't think it was. You implied you took it personally, you promptly labeled all the detractors and stereotyped them, and then lampooned them all as bungling and dumb.
That's an insult however you want to look at it. YOU may have thought it was just funny, and it might have been to you. But from the other end, it looks quite different...it looks like you are lashing out and spitting spite, and it detracts from every other thing you post.
You gotta tone it down.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barrister is not an applicable craft or profession skill to craft a wondrous item, except maybe a very specific item related to this profession.
*rolls profession(Barrister) check*
Well I guess it turns out that ALL items are applicable with my profession. And if you don't like it, you are not letting me play my character, thus are a wrongbadfun GM!
#jetfuelcantmeltsteelbeams
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barrister is not an applicable craft or profession skill to craft a wondrous item, except maybe a very specific item related to this profession.*rolls profession(Barrister) check*
Well I guess it turns out that ALL items are applicable with my profession. And if you don't like it, you are not letting me play my character, thus are a wrongbadfun GM!
#jetfuelcantmeltsteelbeams
According to RAW, no items are linked to Profession (barrister). If you don't like it, you are not letting me play my GM role, thus are a wrongbadfun player!
See ? It works that way too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barrister is not an applicable craft or profession skill to craft a wondrous item, except maybe a very specific item related to this profession.*rolls profession(Barrister) check*
Well I guess it turns out that ALL items are applicable with my profession. And if you don't like it, you are not letting me play my character, thus are a wrongbadfun GM!
#jetfuelcantmeltsteelbeams
According to RAW, no items are linked to Profession (barrister). If you don't like it, you are not letting me play my GM role, thus are a wrongbadfun player!
See ? It works that way too.
My check clearly outlined how my profession is applicable.
If you wish to ignore that well reasoned in-depth legal argument, then I will appeal to a higher court!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My check clearly outlined how my profession is applicable.
If you wish to ignore that well reasoned in-depth legal argument, then I will appeal to a higher court!
You didn't roll high enough, sorry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, sure is a lotta roll-play goin' on in this thread! >:(
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bloodlines are the sorcerer's main class feature aside from spellcasting itself - the only other thing they get is Eschew Materials. Thus it makes sense that other classes' ability to adopt that feature should be limited and costly. If a wizard could get a full-power bloodline with limited cost the sorcerer would look terrible by comparison.
Conversely, access to crafting feats is one of many things that casting classes get access to. In fact it is only a fraction of the things that casting itself gives you access to, along with the spells themselves, ability to use scrolls/wands/staves and access to other feats like Arcane Strike and Divine Interference. If that side benefit of casting "qualifies for crafting feats" is anywhere near as significant as the bloodline then casting is in general not balanced - or possibly crafting isn't. This is particularly clear if you look at the part-casters: rangers, paladins, and bloodragers. They have full BAB and other class features at least comparable to fighters, rogues, and barbarians before you consider crafting. And they can craft the full range of items without paying a feat tax, suffering at most a small delay that can be largely mitigated by a single trait (Magical Knack). If a barbarian could craft items as well as a bloodrager, the bloodrager class would still have a lot going for it.
Plus, in my experience crafters tend to make things for the whole party so the benefit of the feat is shared.
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.
If the GM follows that guideline it would actually make Master Craftsman better, relatively speaking, because at least you'd know your increased investment would get you the same WBL increase as the wizard.
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.
I can absolutely understand that reaction. I find it extremely frustrating that many people are more convinced by an empty emotional argument than a dry logical one. However emotional content doesn't weaken a rational argument, it simply fails to itself prove the point. I think that discomfort with adding emotional content to a logical argument is part of why academics have such a hard time talking to the general public. It's almost like a Stormwind Fallacy for scientists - you can either crunch numbers or you can create an emotionally compelling story but not both. Meanwhile Aristotle, a definite believer in the value of logic, still argued that emotion is also necessary for good rhetoric.
If you wish to ignore that well reasoned in-depth legal argument, then I will appeal to a higher court!
There is no higher court than the GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think crafting can't reasonably be considered the same thing as a rage power or a bloodline.
Meanwhile Aristotle, a definite believer in the value of logic, still argued that emotion is also necessary for good rhetoric.
Ashiel, in the quoted post
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".
Bolded the part that might have been offensive to master_marshmallow. It infantilizes the opponent's argument (in this case its also my argument, but that's neither here nor there). Its also one of the less insulting things you've posted in reply to my arguments, all of which I have done my utmost to ignore and respond to the actual matter at hand.
But, for your edification:
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.
Citing dictionaries implies that the opponent is not intelligent enough to understand simple English. This is actually a personal insult... not directed to my arguments, but to me. I disregarded it, because it makes no difference to me what you think of my intelligence.
---
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.
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.
Saying that something I noted was delusional was fine, as it was theoretical. Reiterating it when I said that it was included within the playstyle that I follow is an attack on the way I play the game . This is also more aggressive than necessary and could possibly be seen as insulting.
---
Except as usual it looks like you're ignoring the cost of investment
Saying that I am ignoring something is fine. Phrasing it this way is hostile, and brings nothing more to your argument than saying that I am generally ignorant. Possibly insulting.
---
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? :|
The question here uses the one personal fact I have revealed about myself on this thread to insinuate that I am not only bad at forming arguments but that I am bad at the thing I do in real life. That is personally insulting. I revealed that fact in the hopes that you would try to frame your arguments in a more convincing deductive or inductive sense. I was disappointed.
---
I let all those things go, because I couldn't care less what someone on the internet thinks of me or my arguments. I care about the content of arguments and counter-arguments. Bringing the (minor) issues up had no bearing on the argument at hand, so I was trying to just let them slide in the hopes that eventually whatever had upset you managed to work itself out. I pointed out at least twice that I was trying to be cordial despite some baiting posts, in the hopes that it might grant you the moment of circumspection necessary to stop being so blatantly hostile. Unfortunately, the matter culminated with master_marshmallow.
Looking back through this thread, there are a total of three people who have questioned your role-playing ability (at least, that you've responded to or had in your posts). The first was kamenhero25, who was lambasted hard and fast, and has not returned to the thread since (possibly why Aelryinth hasn't seen the need to bring up that issue) He also publically retracted the main thing that you had issues with, though it could have been more apologetic.
Another was master-marshmallow, who it appears stepped in on my behalf because I was blatantly ignoring all of the insults you had put my way, in order to point out that you probably ought to tone it down. He could have phrased things differently, admittedly, to make his commentary less escalatory.
The final and most prolific detractor of your roleplaying ability has been your own posting, done in sarcasm. This is one of the reasons I recommended that it stop early on in the thread, because it tends to make the argument seem more divisive than it actually is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bolded the part that might have been offensive to master_marshmallow. It infantilizes the opponent's argument (in this case its also my argument, but that's neither here nor there). Its also one of the less insulting things you've posted in reply to my arguments, all of which I have done my utmost to ignore and respond to the actual matter at hand.
Apologies. Having slept for a while, I'll probably be less prone to bite when irritated. This using "roleplaying" to bludgeon people is a pet peeve of mine that started on these boards.
I'm not sure if you're aware but, a few years ago I started a thread that was pretty well liked. It was a tutorial about how to use the mechanics of the game to represent your character as you envision them. Though I'd like to think the thread was helpful, there were a lot of trolls and anti-optimizers (ugh) insistent on derailing the thread, most of which were quite insistent that everything contained was dirty optimizing, bad-roleplaying, min/maxing, and wrong (yet ironically they were so obsessed with the rules as they thought they were they were following and claiming rules that didn't exist in the first place, and if someone is so obsessed with mechanics that don't even exist, how can they say someone else who's just paying attention to the mechanics that actually do is being too-crunchy?). It eventually got to the point that I just gave up on the thread.
Sometime later, I started a small project where I was putting together a guidebook for adventurers. It was a small collection of tips, tricks, and conveniences that I'd learned over the years and wanted to make available for other players. Some of those things included premade packages of things like cooking spices (because I like my PCs do carry some niceties and cook and such when they adventure) and some of the responses I got were commentary on how terrible optimization has become as not even cooking was safe.
I have a massive track record for actually putting up data on what I'm discussing only to have all of it promptly ignored, usually along with remarks about being a dirty optimizer and/or living in trippyvers, or being told I'm a jerk (because how dare I ask someone to give me a simple explanation of their claims that monks are great sweepers?).
These examples are by no means all-encompassing. After a while you get tired of it and patience for such wears thin. It bleeds through more readily when I'm also physically/mentally tired (and I've been working a lot lately and hadn't been to sleep in the past 24 hours when I was posting most of the responses) and in a way it feels really good to essentially tell people bugging the heck out of you to proverbally shove it.
The funny thing is, I think that in some ways we're on the same side. I didn't even realize that you were commenting on some value for roleplayers. Everything I had gleaned from your specific posts were some sort of steadfast insistence that there should be this awful feat with an awful feat tax because spellcaster superiority must be maintained (since you repeatedly likened item creation to class features, but Weirdo covered the problem I have with that I think).
See, I don't think that a player should be punished for roleplaying. I think the rules should encourage diversity in concepts, not stifle them. Punishing them is not in the best interest of roleplaying.
Citing dictionaries implies that the opponent is not intelligent enough to understand simple English. This is actually a personal insult... not directed to my arguments, but to me. I disregarded it, because it makes no difference to me what you think of my intelligence.
English is a complex beast. Words are casually misused constantly and misunderstood and/or take on entirely new meanings thanks to things like slang and personal inflections/innuendos. If I begin to post definitions of words it's going to be for one of two reasons.
1. There is contention vested in something being defined, such as when discussing rules.
2. I feel there is a breakdown in communication and I want to be absolutely clear on what I mean and what the other person means and to know we're both understanding the words being used in the context they are intended.
Dictionaries are useful. I frequently use them. When I find a word I'm not familiar with, I dictionary-it. I use them often in discussions, and will continue to do so, because it is an immensely helpful tool.
Saying that something I noted was delusional was fine, as it was theoretical. Reiterating it when I said that it was included within the playstyle that I follow is an attack on the way I play the game . This is also more aggressive than necessary and could possibly be seen as insulting.
I wasn't saying that you were delusional. I mean that it is actually factually delusional for the PC. "I'm a great weaponsmith that can craft magic items" is delusional if they cannot, or it means they are liars. Which is why I said "if your concept is to be delusional, good". As in here is a thing the PC believes they can do but literally cannot do, even when faced with proof. For example, if the PC believes they are immortal even when they die like everyone else, then the PC is delusional. It's not a matter of insult or debate, it's just the definition of delusion. ಠ_ಠ
It had and has 0% to do with anyone's playstyle.
The question here uses the one personal fact I have revealed about myself on this thread to insinuate that I am not only bad at forming arguments but that I am bad at the thing I do in real life. That is personally insulting. I revealed that fact in the hopes that you would try to frame your arguments in a more convincing deductive or inductive sense. I was disappointed.
I mistook your declaration of being an "academic" as something different than you apparently intended. A short while ago, another poster responded to a thread saying that "D&D economics don't work like that, I'm an economist IRL". A sort of appeal to authority.
It appeared to me that instead of actually looking at what was in front of you (being logically minded should actually aid in determining fairness, not hinder) and offering a reasoned counterpoint, that you instead declared yourself educated and wanted someone to revise the argument to your liking, even when such a simple test of fairness in this case should have been trivial for someone of education and higher reasoning faculty.
If I was wrong, my apologies. I don't actually think there is anything wrong with pointing out the problem with "fairness" between someone who is already disadvantaged having to be further disadvantaged when everyone could be playing by the same rules, anymore than I think it's wrong to point out that expecting people to play Soccer but one team gets two goalies and one team gets none would be unfair. IMHO, if someone isn't going to at least make the attempt to appraise the fairness of a game's mechanics they really shouldn't even be talking about their values in the first place.
You gotta tone it down.
Are you going to answer my question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cite dictionary definitions all the time too!
Mostly to prove a point that something is definitely within interpretation of a word.
You gotta tone it down.Are you going to answer my question?
What? About Kamenhero? He was shot down a dozen different ways without having to optimize, and his assertions came across as ill-informed and completely nonsensical. He wasn't even trying to insult anyone...it was more pathetic then anything, and EVERYBODY leapt on him for it.
He was arguing classic Stormwind, and he was wrong.
I'm not saying I agreed with him at all, Ash...I'm saying you were bluntly insulting, still are in many ways, where he was simply dumb. Half of your counter-arguments usually consist of belittling the other person, not counter-arguments.
It's annoying to read. You're a minmaxer and experienced optimizer and everyone who frequents the boards knows it. That doesn't mean you reduce the other person to something you scrape off your shoe when they don't agree with you.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get back to the discussion of the feat?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! It sucks.
As I indicated, I wasnt really all that offended, so it's all good on my end. I'm sure I've used some suboptimal phrasing here that was offensive somehow, so I'll offer an apology to anyone I offended.
(As an aside, there is a time and a place for citing definitions. For instance, when there is reasonable suspicion that there is genuine misunderstanding of the word, or you are trying to use a seldom used definition to show why a certain rule isn't clear enough in its plain English form. I suspect, at the time, you did not believe I was unaware of the usual definition of the words you cited -- though the possibility exists)
I think lack of sleep can excuse a lot of bite... In the future, I hope you remember this occurrence so that your low-sleep state doesn't detract from what are otherwise usually very good posts.
---
So, what do people think of the comparison with Nature Magic and the (Faerie/Winter/Grasping) Strike feats?
You could be a ranger/druid (caster) and automatically qualify for the strike feats (crafting feats) -- you'd need vital strike too, though that is more so that the feat applies to something.
It's a little closer to the idea - these are not class features, but are clearly associated with a subset of classes. In this case, it is a feat tax between the outside classes and full access to a particular thing.
This is another indicator of a feat tax requirement to bridge class divides.
On the other hand, you have divine protection, which allows a subset of divine based classes to poach a Paladin's class feature without a feat tax. It has some pretty class heavy fluff reasoning, and other classes would need to multiclass to gain access.
This is evidence against the idea of a feat tax, as the suggested corrections for Master Craftsman nearly universally require significant skill investment, and possibly the addition of feats. (Possibly as onerous an investment as a level multiclass, depending on build requirement)
---
I think that everyone should at least be constrained to taking the crafting feats, at a minimum. A really good houserule ought to be applicable across most games, and a system based only on craft skills is too easily abusable during downtime. Additionally, if the solution will (nearly) always help casters, but only helps non-casters if they plan to pursue a crafting character - it has a second drawback in widening the often discussed power gap between non casters and casters.
By making at least the craft feats necessary, casters can't use the system for a gain that wasn't previously accessible.
I would still be more comfortable with the feat tax, due to the various other feats I've mentioned. I believe the benefit of the tax could be reworded to at least make it useful.
I also believe that a meaningful rebalancing of non-casters and casters should not rely on non-casters gaining things that casters could do all along. I'd honestly prefer a wholly different approach, so that at the end of the process the casters don't get to look smugly down on the non-casters who needed their features just to be relevant.
But that is a very difficult subject, which may well be rendered moot with the upcoming Pathfinder Unchained.
---
-- Edit: Bob Bob Bob, your suggestion is essentially what I'm trying to convince Ashiel of at the moment as a slightly more robust houserule.
While I prefer the tax, I recognize many people won't like it at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Alright, fair enough. I'll calm down a bit. I'd like to go on record with something though, for future reference.
The first post I made with any sarcastic remarks (which is saying something because in Ashiel-verse, sarcasm makes the sun rise in the morning) was this one: link.
There are 248 words in that post. Of those 248 words, 34 were snarky remarks (about 14%), while the other 76% was just data.
In this post there were 1035 non-quoted words in the post. Of them, 144 words were involved in indirected sarcasm (that is, a mini-rant on the absurdity of attacking someone based on Roleplay vs Rollplay) intended to be humorous (and I think it was). Even with the mini-rant, 14% of all original content of the post was sarcastic in nature, while the other 76% was not.
In this post, there are 331 words, 0% of which are sarcasm and/or mockery.
In this post, there are 187 words, 10% of which were sarcastic mockery for the aggression.
In this post, there are 486 non-quoted words in there and I was threw beating around the bush at this point and just let 'im have it. 17 of those words were dismissive sarcasm and/or blatant ridicule bigoted stereotyping (less than .04%) while 59 of those words were light attention drawing sarcasm (in the "I think these giant trees are getting in the way of your forest search" way), which still only accounted for about 12.2%, which means the entire post was less than 13% sarcasm and less of it hostile in nature (though I'm beginning to notice a trend that when I get frisky, I become about 13-14% sarcastic).
In this post, 138 words, 0% sarcasm.
In this post, 140 words, 0% sarcasm.
In this post, 818 non-quoted words, in response to Mallow's "holy strawman" + "feat gives gold", wherein 18 words were used for sarcasm (if you count the "fighter-man the tailor" as hostile sarcasm rather than poking fun at the feat as an option) which is 0.023% of the post or less than 0.01% if you just count he "dirty optimizing".
In this post, 140 words, 0% is sarcasm or hostile.
In this post, 29 words, 0% is sarcasm or hostile.
In this post, 228 words, 0% is sarcastic or hostile.
In this post, 38 words, 0% is sarcastic or hostile.
In this post, 177 words, 0% sarcasm or hostility.
In this post, 354 words, 0% sarcasm or hostility, though the dismissal of the feat at the end was somehow offensive, so if we count that, 0.25% sarcasm or hostility.
In this post, I'm beginning to get frustrated by what appears to be semantic bickerings and we mine into a tiny fraction of the sarcasm motherload that resides within my unholy being. In 770 words, if you count where I was merely being blunt (such as noting that claiming to be able to do a thing you cannot do is delusional), this one rocked almost a full 18% worth of sarcastic rhetoric to what essentially seemed to be an individual trying to discuss the balance of game mechanics but being incapable of understanding basic fairness. Can we get a bonus round?
I guess not! In the very next post we get 74 words at 0% sarcastic rhetoric. Oh well, maybe next time. :(
In this post, 295 words, 38 of of which are sarcastic/silly rhetoric (which includes good-luck meme, god-wizard comment, and mockery of roleplay being a reason to gimp characters), or in other words, about 13%. Damn it, I lost a whole 5% since my last post with sarcasm. (T_T)
Having been irritated by what appeared to be hiding behind "I'm an academic" rather than putting up the goods, it stirs from its slumber, and...nevermind, false alarm. Out of the 333 non-thread-quoted words, only about 8% was sarcastic rhetoric (mostly mocking what I believed to be an attempt at smoke and mirrors with the academic comment) and if you also remove the dictionary quotes (which were actually part of clarification) it reaches 11% (still 7% below my thread record :\).
The M-Mallow gets into it and the next post, 332 words without quotes, where I'm irritated by his blatant lying about me. Unfortunately, even with a full paragraph of sarcasm tacked onto the end of the post to draw attention to the stupidity of lying about me, the post still only has a little less than 12% sarcastic rhetoric.
The next post, 748 words, 13.5% sarcastic rhetoric commenting on the goofy sub-arguments about roleplaying, badwrong fun, and lying, and my being tired of it and not putting up with it. Still can't seem to break 18% though, and it looks like my average is somewhere closer to 10%.
Almost to the end...this post, 266 words, 0% sarcasm/hostility. It's withering. :(
Crud. This post hurts my average sarcasm-per-word hard. 1169 words and not a single one sarcastic or prickly. What's the world coming to!? (*￣m￣)
Almost there! 7 words, 0% sarcasm.
THE END
This post has 875 non-thread quoted words in it and 5% sarcasm/humorous rhetoric in it! Total average sarcasm to word appears to rarely spike above 14% and seems to average at less than 10%. I conclude that perhaps "half of your posts" may be slightly optimistic.
Hopefully someone was entertained by this trip down memory lane.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am genuinely amazed.
You have managed to insult, belittle and be snarky at people, had them react, gotten some apologies from them reacting, had others explain why they reacted (and partly apologise for reacting) and you still manage to avoid accepting any personal responsibility and make a long winded post on why you weren't really that insulting and it was in fact everyone else's problem...Utterly amazed.
I'm genuinely amazed by how overly sensitive people can be. Utterly amazed.
Seriously, if anyone feels insulted by what Ashiel posted in this thread, they are far too sensitive to be on the internet... Or even to function in normal society! It's not like Ashiel insulted your mothers and made credible threats (or even non-credible ones, actually) of physical violence against you! As far as we've seen, at his worst, all he did was to (occasionally) give snarky replies to (often condescending) posts on a freaking internet forum!
Grow some thicker skin, people!
Hopefully someone was entertained by this trip down memory lane.
Utterly amazed.
Success! ＼(^o^)／
(Actually the post began when I was reflecting on what Aelryinth said when he said "Half of your counter-arguments usually consist of belittling the other person, not counter-arguments", so I wanted to find out for myself. I went and re-studied every post I made, and as it turns out they're generally benign, and in fact even the posts that were fairly snarky were pretty light on snark and heavy on other content, which I'm pretty okay with. What snark was ill directed, I apologized for, because I thought Adept_Woodwright was being malicious and responded as such, but he wasn't, and so I apologized for that. It was my bad. Beyond that, having actually went back and re-read/compiled/dissected all of my previous posts and their contents, I am A-OK with all of it beyond my misunderstanding Adept and won't apologize for things I didn't do.)
I'm genuinely amazed by how overly sensitive people can be.
Seriously, if anyone feels so insulted by what Ashiel posted in this thread, they are far too sensitive to be on the internet... Or even to function in normal society! It's not liek Ashield insulted your mothers and made physical threats against you! At worst, all he did was give snarky replies to (often condescending) posts on a freakin internet forum...
Grow some thicker skin, people!
The funny thing about it is barring lampooning what I believed was Adept making some sort of appeal to authority (which I was mistaken about), everything else I said in the entire thread was benign and/or against specific attitudes towards things (like with the Stormwind Fallacy thing), or was was making fun of people lying (because I sure as gravity didn't tell anyone how to play their game or tell them that how they were playing was wrong).
Clean conscience, save for Mr. (or Miss?) Adept, but that's why I apologized. If I do something bad, I'll admit it if it's true. I have no problem whatsoever calling BS on someone claiming I did something that I didn't.
*shrugs* Oh well. Gonna go to bed. Work tomorrow. Have fun Lemmy. :)
PS: Did you ever determine if you needed to use that shovel for...anythig? :P
"If you're offended get off the internet". Ah yes. That old chestnut.
I never told anyone to get off anything, mate. Everyone is free to stay and participate. Just don't expect others to care about your sensibilities.
And the other, still refusing to admit that anything they said could have been taken in any way other than how they meant it! After all, there's no possible way text based communication could be interpreted in any way other than how the author wrote it!
Anything anyone say can be taken in anyway the listener wants. It's the listener's choice. The speaker has no control or responsibility over how people will interpret his words.
The speaker can certainly try to speak as clearly as possible, and hopefully he'll make himself clear. And when he does, everyone is free to interpret and judge his message however they see fit. That's all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, upthread I already posted that I have an answer to the original question: "Why don't fighters take Master Craftsman?"
The answer is: "because the feat doesn't allow full access to the feat's potential and limits what you can actually make with it."
The bit about retaining coupled with some headbands/ioun stones for skill ranks not invested is sound advice for getting the most out of this concept. It almost makes it worth taking despite the obvious flaws.
As to the whole concept that investing in precession or craft is dumb, get out. There are plenty of uses for such things outside of RP uses.
(Soldier) is the skill used as the basis for mass combat, and (alchemy) is used by at least 3 different classes for the ability to even use class features. I think magic item crafting access is one of, if not the only, optimal reason to invest in such skills.
Let's not forget I am comparing a naked fighter with Master Craftsman with no friends to a naked fighter without it with no friends, and the one with Master Craftsman, despite the limitations, still has more options because of his potential abilities he can create for himself, both offensive and defensive, which are things you really can't do with two feats.
Just compare a home crafted +5 cloak of resistance at the cost of two feats vs Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude and not only do I have better saves, but I can still boost my own stats (and thus saves again so), improve my speed, my class abilities, and I have the potential to gain the ability to fly.
This is all at the cost of two feats. Aasimar require three feats to be able to fly and have to do it at 11th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on topic: Personally I think this feat sucks.
In addition it does not solve many of the problems that the fighter has, which IIRC, was a question presented in the opening thread. The fighter should not be limited to one specific profession or craft for this. He should also have the option of using spellcraft when crafting.
Back on topic: Personally I think this feat sucks.
In addition it does not solve many of the problems that the fighter has, which IIRC, was a question presented in the opening thread. The fighter should not be limited to one specific profession or craft for this. He should also have the option of using spellcraft when crafting.
Agreed, the self imposed limitations really kill the feat for me, especially when there are so many decent ways to get Spellcraft as a skill and make it effective.
House rules allowing Spellcraft to be used are ideal for the potential that started this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the whole concept that investing in precession or craft is dumb, get out. There are plenty of uses for such things outside of RP uses.
(Soldier) is the skill used as the basis for mass combat, and (alchemy) is used by at least 3 different classes for the ability to even use class features. I think magic item crafting access is one of, if not the only, optimal reason to invest in such skills.
Mass Combat rules are pretty rare to see in use in my experience, but you are right, should a campaign be using them then Profession can be more than RP fodder. But I think that is the only example of such that I have ever seen. That would seem to make it the exception to the rule, which doesn't really help the case for their being plenty of ways for Profession to be useful beyond RP.
As far as Craft Alchemy being required for some classes to use class features, not really. It's not needed to make Extracts. Brew Potion can still be used with Spellcraft. That completely obsoletes Craft Alchemy except for crafting actual alchemical items, and those tend to either stop being useful once you leave very early levels and/or are cheap to buy anyway. Being able to craft them yourself is of dubious usefulness, putting it back into RP territory really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the whole concept that investing in precession or craft is dumb, get out. There are plenty of uses for such things outside of RP uses.
(Soldier) is the skill used as the basis for mass combat, and (alchemy) is used by at least 3 different classes for the ability to even use class features. I think magic item crafting access is one of, if not the only, optimal reason to invest in such skills.Mass Combat rules are pretty rare to see in use in my experience, but you are right, should a campaign be using them then Profession can be more than RP fodder. But I think that is the only example of such that I have ever seen. That would seem to make it the exception to the rule, which doesn't really help the case for their being plenty of ways for Profession to be useful beyond RP.
As far as Craft Alchemy being required for some classes to use class features, not really. It's not needed to make Extracts. Brew Potion can still be used with Spellcraft. That completely obsoletes Craft Alchemy except for crafting actual alchemical items, and those tend to either stop being useful once you leave very early levels and/or are cheap to buy anyway. Being able to craft them yourself is of dubious usefulness, putting it back into RP territory really.
Swift alchemy is a thing, and poison users need it so they can make more potent poisons.
Plus gunslingers save a lot of money by creating their own cartridges.
Alright, fair enough. I'll calm down a bit. I'd like to go on record with something though, for future reference. ....
And in THIS post, 100% is snark.
Like I said, quit taking it personally. I mean, seriously, just look at all the time and effort you made with a snarky post trying to prove you aren't being snarky!
Just one snarky reply changes the tenor of the entire post, because all words play off other words. Saying 'these seven words are snark' ignores the fact that they now change the attitude of all the words around them to snark.
They really, really need a sarcasm emoticon.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, upthread I already posted that I have an answer to the original question: "Why don't fighters take Master Craftsman?"
The answer is: "because the feat doesn't allow full access to the feat's potential and limits what you can actually make with it."
The bit about retaining coupled with some headbands/ioun stones for skill ranks not invested is sound advice for getting the most out of this concept. It almost makes it worth taking despite the obvious flaws.As to the whole concept that investing in precession or craft is dumb, get out. There are plenty of uses for such things outside of RP uses.
(Soldier) is the skill used as the basis for mass combat, and (alchemy) is used by at least 3 different classes for the ability to even use class features. I think magic item crafting access is one of, if not the only, optimal reason to invest in such skills.Let's not forget I am comparing a naked fighter with Master Craftsman with no friends to a naked fighter without it with no friends, and the one with Master Craftsman, despite the limitations, still has more options because of his potential abilities he can create for himself, both offensive and defensive, which are things you really can't do with two feats.
Just compare a home crafted +5 cloak of resistance at the cost of two feats vs Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude and not only do I have better saves, but I can still boost my own stats (and thus saves again so), improve my speed, my class abilities, and I have the potential to gain the ability to fly.
This is all at the cost of two feats. Aasimar require three feats to be able to fly and have to do it at 11th level.
The counter argument is the fighter with the 3 save feats also has a +3 Cloak of Protection, meaning you have the exact same saves, except he's got 3500 gp left over, and eventually he's going to have a +5 cloak and be one up on you.
And you are basically restricted to making clothing items, so I'm not sure where craft arms and armor was a good choice. You'd have been better off with armorsmith ranks and making helms, gauntlets, greaves, armored boots, gorgets, bracers, pauldrons, armor and shields to max your money advantage.
So the only way this feat is actually good is later game (9+) where you can leverage a money advantage (if you have the time to use the feat), or where gold and magic items are restricted via house rules in a campaign.
neither is standard play.
==Aelryinth
Yep, definitely sucks.
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.
Here was my attempt at a rebuild, it's basically just Craft Magic Arms and Armor/Craft Wondrous with the caster level replaced by ranks in Craft or Profession. It's still worse than the the normal feats because you can't replace everything with Spellcraft but it's a simple way to let mundanes make magic items through skills.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 would personally use:
Master Artisan
Req: 3 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill
Benefit: You may create a magical item using the underlying (masterwork, if appropriate) item you have created. Use the Craft or Profession skill involved in making the source item instead of Spellcraft for your Spellcraft check. You are treated as if you had the Magic Item Creation feat for that magic item.
If you attempt to make a magical item out of an item created by someone else, the DC is raised by 5.
this effectively uses one feat and a lot of skill ranks to replace one skill and several feats. It also caters VERY well to the Expert class, which gets 8 skill points/level and gets to choose their class skills. You'd have a master craftsman who can turn anything he makes magical...but can't make magical anything he can't make (totally unlike a wizard). And while some skills will cross feats, the fact is you will never have enough skill ranks to satisfy everything a wizard can do with just Create Wondrous Item.
==Aelryinth
So yeah, upthread I already posted that I have an answer to the original question: "Why don't fighters take Master Craftsman?"
The answer is: "because the feat doesn't allow full access to the feat's potential and limits what you can actually make with it."
The bit about retaining coupled with some headbands/ioun stones for skill ranks not invested is sound advice for getting the most out of this concept. It almost makes it worth taking despite the obvious flaws.As to the whole concept that investing in precession or craft is dumb, get out. There are plenty of uses for such things outside of RP uses.
(Soldier) is the skill used as the basis for mass combat, and (alchemy) is used by at least 3 different classes for the ability to even use class features. I think magic item crafting access is one of, if not the only, optimal reason to invest in such skills.Let's not forget I am comparing a naked fighter with Master Craftsman with no friends to a naked fighter without it with no friends, and the one with Master Craftsman, despite the limitations, still has more options because of his potential abilities he can create for himself, both offensive and defensive, which are things you really can't do with two feats.
Just compare a home crafted +5 cloak of resistance at the cost of two feats vs Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude and not only do I have better saves, but I can still boost my own stats (and thus saves again so), improve my speed, my class abilities, and I have the potential to gain the ability to fly.
This is all at the cost of two feats. Aasimar require three feats to be able to fly and have to do it at 11th level.The counter argument is the fighter with the 3 save feats also has a +3 Cloak of Protection, meaning you have the exact same saves, except he's got 3500 gp left over, and eventually he's going to have a +5 cloak and be one up on you.
And you are basically restricted to making clothing items, so I'm not sure where craft...
Armor is the probably the best choice, I'll agree with that. Upthread I mentioned the Celestial Plate and Shield. Such armors are cheap and grant all day flight.
Celestial armor grants 1 use/day of flight, with a caster level of 5, for 5 minutes. Definitely not all day. You buy celestial armor for the dex max boost, not the flight.
For flight, armored winged boots.
--Aelryinth