Question on Spells in Construction Requirements

[Rose Stack]

So in thinking about what spells I would include in the construction requirements of my item ideas, I took a look at some past top 32 items as well as some things from the actual books. I noticed that there seems to be some discrepancy between what published Paizo items tend to have and what some comments on Top 32 items seem to want. Basically, there seem to be two ways of determining what spells should be required: one based on spell effect, and one based on metaphor.

First, there is the spell effect approach. For example, the flaming weapon property requires fireball, flame blade, or flame strike. This is a very simple sort of translation of spells that do fire damage to giving a weapon some extra fire damage. No complaints here, makes sense.

Secondly, though, there are more metaphorical or "clever" requirements. The wondrous item Sovereign Glue, for instance, has only the spell Make Whole as its spell requirement. Make Whole is a spell that repairs items and has nothing to do with sticking two things together with magical super glue. But the name of the spell hints at the item's use by way of wordplay.

So my question (finally) is whether we should be aiming to include requirements based on spell effects or wordplay, or whether people prefer one or the other. It seems that people have received criticism in the past for not going the spell-effect route. Monica Marlowe's item in the last contest was criticized by judges (or at least one judge) for using the plane shift spell in the requirements because the spell effect didn't really match what the item did. However, it was a ghost touch weapon; can you guess what the spell requirement for adding the ghost touch weapon property is? Plane shift! It just seems like a strange oversight, or that the spell effect is more appropriate than wordplay for this contest (or at least it was for some items in one iteration of the contest) even though the published material seems to value spell names more than spell effects.

I'm not necessarily criticizing the way the contest had been judged in the past. Certainly it's a lot more intuitive to go by the spell effects, especially if you haven't been poking around the PRD looking at this particular element like I have! I'm just trying to get an idea of what other people are thinking about this as they brainstorm ideas or put the finishing touches on their entries.

[Scott LaBarge]

I would just point out that the judges are fallible human beings too, and sometimes they overlook stuff (like the plane shift connection with ghost touch weapons.) My own feeling is that, so long as the spells you assign for crafting are defensible, it's not likely to be the sort of thing that keeps your item from making top 32, and if you can do something clever with the spell selection -- and I'd personally say the make whole spell choice counts as clever for sovereign glue -- that can help you. The only other thing I'd add is that, to my mind, lower level spells are better when you can make a plausible case for them, simply because they will reduce the item's cost. The lower the item's cost, the more likely it would see use in play, and that's a benefit.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Research to find the best spell that matches the intent of the item. Many items from the Core Rulebook may not have had spells that did what the items effect was, so they used something close/clever. Mostly, they used what the 3.5 spell was.

My rules for picking spells:
1) If you are making an effect that is similar to a 5th level spell, don't use a 3rd level spell.
2) If you are using a feat for the item's basis, use that feat or choose a spell near the same level as when the feat is gained by the average PC.
3) If you are duplicating a monster ability, choose a spell near the same level the PC would have access equal to the monster CR.
4) Spell effect is always better than clever. Not everyone is clever enough to get it.

Make Whole:

When you are joining two items into a new item, you have decided to a make a whole new item... (for those that didn't get the hint from above)

[Joseph Kellogg]

Looking at my Ironmorph Dust from a couple of years ago, a couple of people in the comments didn't like that I used a spell that was thematically appropriate, despite functioning completely different mechanically (and you were one of them, Thomas!). Overall, it seemed to be a minor issue, though.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Looking at my Ironmorph Dust from a couple of years ago, a couple of people in the comments didn't like that I used a spell that was thematically appropriate, despite functioning completely different mechanically (and you were one of them, Thomas!). Overall, it seemed to be a minor issue, though.

Uhh, dude. Reading comprehension fail or rules fu fail?

I wrote:

4) I thought it was strange, using the spell you selected, to alter the ACP, but not the weight of the clothing.

I was referring to the fact that ACP is related to weight according to the rules, not the form of construction. Like mithral armors.

PRD wrote:

Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dexterity- and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.

I did not say I disliked the spell used, I thought you didn't understand how ACP worked by the rules. I also would not say it functioned completely differently, you just tweaked what you could target and followed a logical extension.

[Joseph Kellogg]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Looking at my Ironmorph Dust from a couple of years ago, a couple of people in the comments didn't like that I used a spell that was thematically appropriate, despite functioning completely different mechanically (and you were one of them, Thomas!). Overall, it seemed to be a minor issue, though.

Uhh, dude. Reading comprehension fail or rules fu fail?

I wrote:

4) I thought it was strange, using the spell you selected, to alter the ACP, but not the weight of the clothing.

I was referring to the fact that ACP is related to weight according to the rules, not the form of construction. Like mithral armors.

PRD wrote:

Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character's ability to use Dexterity- and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. A character's encumbrance may also incur an armor check penalty.

I did not say I disliked the spell used, I thought you didn't understand how ACP worked by the rules. I also would not say it functioned completely differently, you just tweaked what you could target and followed a logical extension.

Because you specified "using the spell you selected," I interpreted your critique to mean that you thought the item should have functioned differently because of what spell I used in the Construction Requirements. I guess I was wrong, though.

Still, Neil Spicer thought that I should have picked a spell that more closely mimicked the mechanics, but it was a minor issue for him.

[Dieben]

So just as a point for clarification: You do not need to include the spell requirements for base enchantments in your item's entry. Am I interpreting this correctly?

e.g.: Labyrinthine Bulwark (not an actual entry)

This +1 light fortification heavy shield can create a wall of stone three times per day. Once per day, all walls created by the shield in the past 12 hours may be animated with a command word to change their positioning. Their dimensions may be rearranged freely over the course of 10 minutes provided that the total length of the walls does not exceed 150' per spell so animated.

Requirements: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, maze, stone shape, wall of stone

----
Is it alright that the construction requirements lack those for the fortification property (limited wish or miracle)?

[pH unbalanced]

Dieben wrote:

So just as a point for clarification: You do not need to include the spell requirements for base enchantments in your item's entry. Am I interpreting this correctly?

e.g.: Labyrinthine Bulwark (not an actual entry)

This +1 light fortification heavy shield can create a wall of stone three times per day. Once per day, all walls created by the shield in the past 12 hours may be animated with a command word to change their positioning. Their dimensions may be rearranged freely over the course of 10 minutes provided that the total length of the walls does not exceed 150' per spell so animated.

Requirements: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, maze, stone shape, wall of stone

----
Is it alright that the construction requirements lack those for the fortification property (limited wish or miracle)?

Personally, I would include the requirements for all enchantments.

[Wren Brown]

I believe you are supposed to include requirements for the armor and weapon special abilities. I admit I am not 100% sure on that though...

[Thomas LeBlanc]

As examples for weapons, the dwarven thrower and rapier of puncturing in the Core Rulebook don't list the special ability spells. From Ultimate Equipment, some items list the special ability spells, whilst some don't. And I am too lazy too look at all the weapons and armor to make a detailed list.

I personally think they should be listed, as not including the spells could throw off the CL and potentially the price for those who lack design fu.

[Matt Morris]

I would certainly include them. From an in-game perspective, you would need those spells to create the item. From a contest perspective, it shows you did you homework on the special ability.

[Scott LaBarge]

What Matthew said. When I made my Keyhole Stiletto last year, for instance, it started as a +1 ghost touch adamantine dagger, so I made sure that all the crafting requirements for a ghost touch weapon were listed, and then built out from there. I think that's the safe play.

[The black raven]

From a voter's perspective, including the requirements at worst will make me wonder why they are there, check up the "base" item or ability and realize that this is where they come from. It actually happened yesterday with an item I was reviewing.

Omitting the requirements presents the very real risks described above.

To be safe, include all requirements ;-)

[Template Fu]

But above all , make sure you list the spells in alphabetical order in that part of the template. Make sure they are listed in lower case and in italics (but not the commas between them)

And if the spell name includes a comma...

e.g. template issues, mass

then write the name in full order removing the comma,

e.g. mass template issues

so these spells

price wrong
no emdash, mass

would be entered as

mass no emdash, price wrong

[Rose Stack]

And what about when spell requirements are X or Y? There are a couple of weapon qualities that give the "or" option.

[enderxenocide0]

mechaPoet wrote:

And what about when spell requirements are X or Y? There are a couple of weapon qualities that give the "or" option.

I was wondering that, as well. Flame Tongue is one such weapon that lists the spells as "scorching ray and fireball, flame blade, or flame strike". To me, that would suggest putting the "X or Y" spell requirements at the end, even though it is no longer in alphabetical order (although the X or Y spells, themselves, are in alphabetical order).

[Anthony Adam]

I think you sort them "within the or" and then within the list

e.g. if your spells were this... (very unlikely :P)

hum drum effect
technically written or creatively written
all spells sorted

....
well the or gets sorted

creatively written or technically written

Then you sort that within the other two spells...

all spells sorted
creatively written or technically written
hum drum effect

resulting in... note dont italicise the or in addition to not italicising the commas...

all spells sorted, creatively written or technically written, hum drum effect

I think that's correct, but my weapons template fu isn't as strong as my wondrous item template fu. So do double check against existing items that use or.