| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
No.
This strikes me as simply "made up." Where is the rule that supports this notion?
Insofar as I can tell, you either have a caster level or you don't.
If you have any of the following, then you have a caster level:
- The ability to cast spells
- The ability to use/cast spell-like abilities
- An ability that expressly states you possess a caster level
If you don't have any of those, then you don't have a caster level.
It's really that simple. Feats and abilities like Brew Potion and Craft Wondrous Item often ask that you have a caster level AT ALL before you are permitted to take them. None ask if you have a caster level for casting spells that aren't spell-like abilities.
What the FAQ is proposing is less a clarification, but a change to the game, one that obfuscates rather than clarifies the rules what's more.
Here on the boards, if you asset that the game works a certain way, the burden of proof falls to you. I am challenging the game designers to do the same. How did you come to this conclusion? What rules support your belief that this is the way it works?
Or do you acknowledge you are, in fact, changing the way the game works, and if so, why? Why not errata the item creation feat prerequisites to note "spellcasting caster levels" instead of just "caster level," rather than releasing a FAQ with no apparent basis in the established written rules?
Alchemists, Investigators, and Kineticists only have a Caster Level sometimes as well.
Sometimes? Where are the rules that state that you can possess a caster level only sometimes? That seems unnecessarily perplexing! Insofar as I can tell, you either have one or you don't.
If the intent is for those classes to NOT have access to item creation, wouldn't it have been easier and less confusing to have those classes specifically state they cannot benefit from item crafting feats?
I personally cannot think of a reason why a kineticist shouldn't have access to item creation. They possess a caster level and clearly have magical powers.
...this fixes a few awkward corner cases to me, where someone can get into a prestige class early by way of SLA...
The FAQ entry being discussed only address item crafting. Using spell-like abilities to meet prerequisites for other things, such as prestige classes is off-topic here. If there isn't one already, they would need a separate FAQ entry for that.
I think it's that if you look at SLA like in the gnome it says "The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome's level." Which reads similar to the flurry of blows, treat your BAB as your level for this attack. So for SLA maybe you don't have a caster level, but you're able to pretend to have one when you use a SLA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation.
It seems to me like a clarification of the original intent that was clouded by appearance of things that might not be planned when the 3rd edition was initially written: that the creation of magic items is done by "spellcasters" - classes that cast actual spells, not monsters that use spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities do not seem to be originally meant to be accessible to normal characters, instead being intended as monstrous abilities. And here comes the legacy issue and reusing the old feat description instead of writing a new one and adding extra definitions and terms to discern between spellcaster caster level and not-really-a-spellcaster caster level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is likely a large part of it.
Otherwise an 11th Level Ifrit Fighter (for example) with maxed out Spellcraft could take Forge Ring, or other high Caster Level requirement feats.
Why is an ifrit being able to forge magic rings unbalanced?
|
Why is an ifrit being able to forge magic rings unbalanced?Balance is likely a large part of it.
Otherwise an 11th Level Ifrit Fighter (for example) with maxed out Spellcraft could take Forge Ring, or other high Caster Level requirement feats.
A number of reasons that I can think of.
1) Thematics. Why is that Greatsword-wielding Fighter crafting a Magical Staff for the Wizard?
2) As it is, Wizards have to select which role they want to provide. They could be crafting-focused, or something-else-focused. Having the Fighter take the crafting feats removes that need to choose from the Wizard.
3) Lessens the need for pure spellcasters. Why bother having a Wizard to craft your Wondrous Items when the Fighter can do it?
4) Fighters have a plethora of feats available to them, whereas Wizards do not. It's little sweat off the Fighter's back to take one feat outside of their build than it is for the Wizard.
5) Item Creation feats are incredibly unbalancing as it is. Most home games (and PFS) simply eschew them all together. Opening their access up to (virtually) all classes is extremely unbalancing.
6) The other feats that could be opened up, such as Arcane Strike, by allowing Item Creation feats to use SLAs as prerequisites.
7) Makes you lean towards choosing a race that has access to SLAs over one that doesn't, purely for the mechanical benefit that they provide.
Any one of these might not be reason enough on its own to claim an unbalancing effect, but together they cause us some pause.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster level has always implied to me a level in a casting class. I never thought it to be anything else by the very nature of the name of the gaming concept.
With SLA's and such I've always interpreted the CL to be the effective CL since the designers didn't want to have to write out every SLA effect for every creature that has one when they could simply tie it to spells used by casters with class levels and then give an effective CL to determine the specifics of the SLA. Or quite simple, the CL convention for SLA's was a way to save a ton of word space and still make precise determinations of what a creature with innate magic could do.
With that being my view it seems pretty obvious TO ME that all this CL for SLA's does is tell you what the SLA does and doesn't have any extension beyond that. Again, purely my view from my reading of how/why SLA's are setup the way they are.
Honestly, I don't want to see a bunch of verbiage in the Core to explain this as word count translates to cost which translates to what I gotta pay and you can only spell out things so much. That's why RPG's are so difficult to make and interpret. I suppose if companies wanted to just make a list of rules it'd be shorter, but I think most people would balk at such a dead, lifeless, and dense creation and I think the folks at Paizo would balk at being in a business creating such a item.
Just my 2 coppers on the deal.
Here's a couple of ways of gaining item creation feats without spell casting that don't consider caster levels or the necessary skill needed to roll, leading to debate whether they would use Spellcraft or a crafting skill like Master Craftsman
Sorcerer Bloodline - Impossible via Eldritch Heritage
Archmage Path Ability - Crafting Mastery
There may be more but those are the only two at the moment I know of.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is an ifrit being able to forge magic rings unbalanced?Balance is likely a large part of it.
Otherwise an 11th Level Ifrit Fighter (for example) with maxed out Spellcraft could take Forge Ring, or other high Caster Level requirement feats.
A number of reasons that I can think of.
1) Thematics. Why is that Greatsword-wielding Fighter crafting a Magical Staff for the Wizard?2) As it is, Wizards have to select which role they want to provide. They could be crafting-focused, or something-else-focused. Having the Fighter take the crafting feats removes that need to choose from the Wizard.
3) Lessens the need for pure spellcasters. Why bother having a Wizard to craft your Wondrous Items when the Fighter can do it?
4) Fighters have a plethora of feats available to them, whereas Wizards do not. It's little sweat off the Fighter's back to take one feat outside of their build than it is for the Wizard.
5) Item Creation feats are incredibly unbalancing as it is. Most home games (and PFS) simply eschew them all together. Opening their access up to (virtually) all classes is extremely unbalancing.
6) The other feats that could be opened up, such as Arcane Strike, by allowing Item Creation feats to use SLAs as prerequisites.7) Makes you lean towards choosing a race that has access to SLAs over one that doesn't, purely for the mechanical benefit that they provide.
Any one of these might not be reason enough on its own to claim an unbalancing effect, but together they cause us some pause.
I removed the ones that don't have any legitimate bearings behind them as reasons for causing a problem to the game.
I am trying to think of an example that would show how it would be broken or abusive if an item creation feat were purchased by a creature (PC, NPC, monster, whatever) that lacks a spellcasting class feature but has a spell-like ability and a caster level.
I can't think of one.
The Doppleganger is a CR3 4 HD creature with a caster level of 18, that could be a problem maybe?
It's irrelevant whether there is another source for the rule. The FAQ provides the rule.
Besides, they got rid of the FAQ that said SLA abilities qualified you for prestige classes, etc. This seems to just be an extension of that decision.
SLA abilities don't count for having a caster level except for that SLA.
Nefreet:
1: Thematics. Why isn't the dwarven blacksmith slapping runes on things to make them magical?
2: Railroading is a good thing?
3: How? Partial casters do just fine as they have actual spells. A ranger with magic knack is only -1 CL.
4: wizards get free feats too JUST for metamagic, item creation, or Spell Mastery.
5: This is no reason to exclude a class but to exclude the feats.
6: Don't see this as a bad thing.
bookrat:
7: That happens with racial abilities as is. Who's pick 1/2 orc for the luck bonuses? human for the free feat? Elf for the FCB? And with every core race being able to take Fey Magic, it doesn't seem a real issue to me.
Fair point, graystone.
Ah, but we had to many gnomes running around using arcane strike, that just can't be. No Gnomish Fighters!
|
|
I knew that would be the response. I'm not sure why I tried, except that maybe because I thought the last sentence in that post would help keep everything together.
Question: can you enumerate a list of problems with X?
Answer: enumerates a list of problems with X.
Reply: crosses off list one by one. Now there's no problem!
|
5) Item Creation feats are incredibly unbalancing as it is. Most home games (and PFS) simply eschew them all together. Opening their access up to (virtually) all classes is extremely unbalancing.
You are presenting your opinion as empirical fact. You do not have any evidence that most home games ban these feats.
These feats are not unbalancing. There are plenty of ways to manage them.
Restated for emphasis:
I think bookrat's point is that they consider only one item on that list an actual problem. Therefore, there is no "together" effect.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half the reasons amounted to "it shifts the game balance in favor of Fighters and against Wizards". Most of the people on these boards would consider that to be a good thing. The arguments did not combine to give us some pause; they cancelled each other out.
I knew that would be the response. I'm not sure why I tried, except that maybe because I thought the last sentence in that post would help keep everything together.
Question: can you enumerate a list of problems with X?
Answer: enumerates a list of problems with X.
Reply: crosses off list one by one. Now there's no problem!
I found little merit in the individual points so the combined whole really didn't add up to much IMO. At best it looks like a POV issue not to like it instead of reasons it's unbalanced.
While I don't find the crafting feats to be unbalancing for my games, I understand that others may, so that point is one that I consider legitimate. A lot of people don't like handing out magic items or having magic-marts, and being able to craft your own just removed the GM's ability to control magic items. It's an opinion I've argued against many times, but I respect that it's a legitimate complaint that some have.
Having said that, magic items are *the* only way for many martial classes to be able to hold their own at high level, so giving the ability for martial classes to craft their own items actually boosts their versatility. On top of that, the fighter's weakest aspect is its inability to meaningfully contribute to the game outside of combat. If a fighter was able to craft magic items, this effectively removes that weakness and makes the fighter a much more valuable member of the team. For my own opinion, this is such a valuable addition to martial classes that I even designed my own house rules for allowing martial players to effectively create their own magic items.
So for me, almost all of the reasons listed are actually good things - they help diminish the disparity between martials and casters.
Ok, let's go through these.
1) Thematics. Why is that Greatsword-wielding Fighter crafting a Magical Staff for the Wizard?
This is a personal opinion and not a balance issue. As it is, I can envision plenty of reasons for a fighter to be able to craft magic items, starting with the quintessential theme of fighters being master crafters of weapons and armors - in a world of such high prevalence magic they wouldn't be restricted to non-magical gear.
2) As it is, Wizards have to select which role they want to provide. They could be crafting-focused, or something-else-focused. Having the Fighter take the crafting feats removes that need to choose from the Wizard.
Wizards do not specialize. Sure, they have a "specialization," but this only makes them more powerful and does not restrict them in any way. Wizards are not required to pick up prerequisites for any spell, and pretty much all of their feats are not attached to feat chains, so they lack hindrance there, too. Claiming that wizards have to choose between crafting or something else is a bit of a non-sequitur in my opinion. They can already effectively craft AND have all-powerful abilities.
3) Lessens the need for pure spellcasters. Why bother having a Wizard to craft your Wondrous Items when the Fighter can do it?
Pure spell casters are so powerful that anything lessening the *need* for them is great. We just finished a thread about completely removing 9th level casters anyways. Fewer all-mighty classes is a good thing when we want to balance them with the martial classes.
4) Fighters have a plethora of feats available to them, whereas Wizards do not. It's little sweat off the Fighter's back to take one feat outside of their build than it is for the Wizard.
More of a reason to let fighters craft! Isn't every who disputes the martial-caster disparity already using the large amount of fighter feats as a reason it doesn't exist? The claim is that fighters have so many feats that they can expand their combat specialty into other realms. Letting fighters craft magic equipment would be a perfect fit into that argument!
5) Item Creation feats are incredibly unbalancing as it is. Most home games (and PFS) simply eschew them all together. Opening their access up to (virtually) all classes is extremely unbalancing.
See my previous post.
6) The other feats that could be opened up, such as Arcane Strike, by allowing Item Creation feats to use SLAs as prerequisites.
This has the same answer of diminishing martial-caster disparity.
7) Makes you lean towards choosing a race that has access to SLAs over one that doesn't, purely for the mechanical benefit that they provide.
I think Graystone answered this one. People *aready* pick races for mechanical reasons. The human is always the top choice in every optimization and class guide because of their floating bonus and free feat. How is that not choosing a race (which doesn't even get an SLA) for mechanics reasons?
-----------------
In conclusion, most of these points help improve the game and make the game more balanced, which is completely opposite to the claim that these are reasons of unbalance.
Also, the whole notion of fighters making spell trigger or spell completion items is patently ridiculous. The rules are quite clear that, unlike other magical items, you absolutely must provide the spell prerequisites for those.
To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item's creation.It seems to me like a clarification of the original intent that was clouded by appearance of things that might not be planned when the 3rd edition was initially written: that the creation of magic items is done by "spellcasters" - classes that cast actual spells, not monsters that use spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities do not seem to be originally meant to be accessible to normal characters, instead being intended as monstrous abilities. And here comes the legacy issue and reusing the old feat description instead of writing a new one and adding extra definitions and terms to discern between spellcaster caster level and not-really-a-spellcaster caster level.
What is the source location that you are quoting? It seems like a strong argument, but without the source, people don't really know if you're just making stuff up or not.
Also, the whole notion of fighters making spell trigger or spell completion items is patently ridiculous. The rules are quite clear that, unlike other magical items, you absolutely must provide the spell prerequisites for those.
Rediculous? Maybe. Patentable? Not quite. :)
Cooperative Crafting
If you need another character to supply one of an item's requirements (such as if you're a wizard creating an item with a divine spell), both you and the other character must be present for the entire duration of the crafting process. If the GM is using the downtime system, both you and the other character must use downtime at the same time for this purpose. Only you make the skill check to complete the item—or, if there is a chance of creating a cursed item, the GM makes the check in secret.If the second character is providing a spell effect, that character's spell is expended for the day, just as if you were using one of your own spells for a requirement. If the second character is a hired NPC, you must pay for the NPC's spellcasting service for each day of the item creation.
Additionally, there are rules for if you don't have all the prerequisites necessary (including not having the spell for a spell completion or trigger item).
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 their spell prerequisites.
I take that last line to mean whoever is providing the spell must be able to provide the proper components for the spell, along with any time requirements, etc..
Also, I believe there is some other Feat that allows "Fighters" to Craft Magic Gear WITHOUT having ANY SLA.
If having an SLA is another means to do so (without said Feat, but with normal Craft Feats), not the end of the world.
Although I do wonder about narrative consistency, beyond game mechanical arguments.
HOW is your SLA helping you make a magic item, that somebody without an SLA could not do?
IMHO, the SLA should at least be plausibly related to the magic item being crafted.
Specific spell reqs are obviously covered by the rules, but items without specific spells aren't just "generic".
Magic Weapons have Evocation auras, right? So shouldn't you have qualifying Caster Level with Evocation spell/SLA?
And so on for other item types/auras/spell schools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I believe there is some other Feat that allows "Fighters" to Craft Magic Gear WITHOUT having ANY SLA.
If having an SLA is another means to do so (without said Feat, but with normal Craft Feats), not the end of the world.
Although I do wonder about narrative consistency, beyond game mechanical arguments.
HOW is your SLA helping you make a magic item, that somebody without an SLA could not do?
IMHO, the SLA should at least be plausibly related to the magic item being crafted.
Specific spell reqs are obviously covered by the rules, but items without specific spells aren't just "generic".
Magic Weapons have Evocation auras, right? So shouldn't you have qualifying Caster Level with Evocation spell/SLA?
And so on for other item types/auras/spell schools.
Spell Knowledge allows an alchemist to use their full CL for feats to create items and you could pick a cantrip. Light one per day is all it takes. An SLA makes as much sense as that...
What's even better is they could also take Material Mastery to substitute extracts for spell requirements too...
|
To reply to the original question, here it is:
Caster Level: A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purposes of casting a particular spell. The word “level” in the short spell descriptions that follow always refers to caster level.
That definition of Caster Level is in Ultimate combat.
Another two:
From the APG
Caster Level: Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class. Some prestige classes add caster levels to an existing class.
And from the CRB
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
They are weaker than the first one as they say "generally" and "most" but I think the trend is clear.
What matter for the chaster level of a character is his level in a spellcasting class, not the CL of a SLA.
"For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature's caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature's Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a spell-like ability is 10 + the level of the spell the ability resembles or duplicates + the creature's Charisma modifier."
PRD[universal monster rules]
OK, but aside from RAW-legalism/mechanics, what is the narrative explanation?
Why should a Sorceror who knows ZERO Evocations spells be able to make Evocation-aura Magic Weapons?
(or I even believe there is an ultra-Specialized Wizard Archetype that outright bans spells of opposed schools)
What exactly is a Wizard/Cleric/etc Crafter supposed to be doing that uses their CL when making magic items?
How is that incompatable with somebody who has an SLA, i.e. less spells than real caster, but still as spell?
I thought of Cantrips/etc, i.e. that can be used at-will continuously, but Rangers/Paladins don't have them but can Craft with their CL.
Let's say we have a Caster class that only knows one spell, and has 3 slots/day to use it with.
How is that different than having an SLA for purposes of magic crafting?
Obviously, real casters will have advantages: they can fulfill spell reqs more easily, they can have spells of all appropriate schools (if such an association were made to the item's school/aura), they will more often have CL-boosting effects, they may get bonus Crafting Feats, etc.
To reply to the original question, here it is:
Caster Level: A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purposes of casting a particular spell. The word “level” in the short spell descriptions that follow always refers to caster level.
(Italics added) Which doesn't seem to say much on this topic, since SLAs have effective class level for purposes of that specific spell as well. /shrug
To reply to the original question, here it is:
Caster Level: A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purposes of casting a particular spell. The word “level” in the short spell descriptions that follow always refers to caster level.That definition of Caster Level is in Ultimate combat.
Another two:
From the APG
Caster Level: Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class. Some prestige classes add caster levels to an existing class.And from the CRB
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.They are weaker than the first one as they say "generally" and "most" but I think the trend is clear.
What matter for the chaster level of a character is his level in a spellcasting class, not the CL of a SLA.
Thanks Diego. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Quandary does make a good point though. Those qualifiers are important as they limit the context of your quotes.
What the FAQ is proposing is less a clarification, but a change to the game, one that obfuscates rather than clarifies the rules what's more.
Here on the boards, if you asset that the game works a certain way, the burden of proof falls to you. I am challenging the game designers to do the same. How did you come to this conclusion? What rules support your belief that this is the way it works?
Or do you acknowledge you are, in fact, changing the way the game works, and if so, why? Why not errata the item creation feat prerequisites to note "spellcasting caster levels" instead of just "caster level," rather than releasing a FAQ with no apparent basis in the established written rules?
FYI, plenty of other FAQs do exactly that. Should be Errata, certainly (even if pre-announced in FAQ until ready). But that is seemingly accepted practice at Paizo.
And really, there isn't that big a gulf in FAQ policy between that, and cases where RAW is inconclusive,i.e. 2 valid interpretations, with the FAQ stating which one is official... THe FAQ in that case going beyond pure implications of RAW.
Spell Knowledge allows an alchemist to use their full CL for feats to create items and you could pick a cantrip. Light one per day is all it takes. An SLA makes as much sense as that...
What's even better is they could also take Material Mastery to substitute extracts for spell requirements too...
Thanks for mentioning Material Mastery. I hadn't seen that before.
Thanks for mentioning Material Mastery. I hadn't seen that before.Spell Knowledge allows an alchemist to use their full CL for feats to create items and you could pick a cantrip. Light one per day is all it takes. An SLA makes as much sense as that...
What's even better is they could also take Material Mastery to substitute extracts for spell requirements too...
Your welcome! :)
Dropping the -5 for not having the spell to -2 for having a similar extract really makes an alchemist item creator viable.
Cohorts and Companions [Spell Knowledge & Material Mastery] along with Occult Adventures [Promethean Disciple] really lets the alchemist fill in the creator role that a lot of people always wanted to play. One of these days I'm going to have to try out the Construct Rider or Promethean Alchemist archetype.
This strikes me as simply "made up." Where is the rule that supports this notion?Item Creation Feats: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?
No.
Just wanted to comment on this (we all have are arguments and opinions about the SLA thing itself)
Why does that make the designers' decision any less legitimate?
This isn't a legal system where the lawmakers and judges are seperate (thus bringing up the problem where the judges start making rulings that flaunt the intentions of lawmakers)- the judges are the same people who make the rules here. They generally know their own intentions on how the base game should be played.
Whether you play that way with your own home games is a different matter, of course...but the very purpose fo a rules forum and faq system is to establish a baseline of how the system is intended to work as made by the designers, with the general purpose of clarifying their intent (and you can then alter it from there for your own purposes).
I am not calling the designers perfect by any stretch...but this decision is no ACG here- it was made after tentatively allowing slas to count for a while to examine what it does to the game, and then they decided it was problematic. Actual consideration was used here.
Not all the rules were made by THESE designers though. They were made by people who came before, in earlier editions. If a rule is worded the same as older editions, but is not intended to work as before, it should be errata'd to have different wording, so as to be absolutely clear. FAQ, for reasons many have already stated in this thread and elsewhere on these forums, should not be used for changing the rules, but to offer clarifications.
In any case, Diego has shown a general trend within the existing rules that supports the designers current views, so as far as this thread is concerned, I am satisfied.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah paizo has been making rules changes trough faqs a lot , they really should rename those changes, its extremely confusing.
As i see it faqs are suppouse to be more "clarifications" than purposeful rebalance. The most famous offender is probably the crane feat line 4 changes, yeah im not buying "this is the way this feat is suppoused to work".
Nerfs should be called nerfs, buffs should be called buffs, For worst or better
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
FAQ should not be used for changing the rules, but to offer clarifications.
The one thing about 3.5 I hated, was the "FAQ are not binding" stuff.
I personally don't see FAQ as changing rules in Pathfinder and I love that they are binding.
Where you see rules changes, I see "you are reading those lines incorrectly, here is the meaning you should get".
Well, unless you are referring to the FAQ that say "this will be reflected in future errata."
|
|
Also, I believe there is some other Feat that allows "Fighters" to Craft Magic Gear WITHOUT having ANY SLA.
If having an SLA is another means to do so (without said Feat, but with normal Craft Feats), not the end of the world.
Although I do wonder about narrative consistency, beyond game mechanical arguments.
HOW is your SLA helping you make a magic item, that somebody without an SLA could not do?
IMHO, the SLA should at least be plausibly related to the magic item being crafted.
Specific spell reqs are obviously covered by the rules, but items without specific spells aren't just "generic".
Magic Weapons have Evocation auras, right? So shouldn't you have qualifying Caster Level with Evocation spell/SLA?
And so on for other item types/auras/spell schools.
You're thinking of the Master Craftsman feat, which if not used to get CWI is being deeply underutilized.
Every other point that bookrat made was equally as flimsy and mostly based on opinion, so it's not worth rehashing.
I'm not particularly sure why this FAQ was made since it doesn't really help anything, although I've never been a fan of the SLA style rulings as of the past year or so.
Having magic in the blood should work for crafting things, at least it should for me, but it doesn't seem that's the way the devs want to do things, which causes me to sigh slightly since I'm not much of an item crafter myself.
Also, I believe there is some other Feat that allows "Fighters" to Craft Magic Gear WITHOUT having ANY SLA.
If having an SLA is another means to do so (without said Feat, but with normal Craft Feats), not the end of the world.
Although I do wonder about narrative consistency, beyond game mechanical arguments.
HOW is your SLA helping you make a magic item, that somebody without an SLA could not do?
IMHO, the SLA should at least be plausibly related to the magic item being crafted.
Specific spell reqs are obviously covered by the rules, but items without specific spells aren't just "generic".
Magic Weapons have Evocation auras, right? So shouldn't you have qualifying Caster Level with Evocation spell/SLA?
And so on for other item types/auras/spell schools.You're thinking of the Master Craftsman feat, which if not used to get CWI is being deeply underutilized.
I'm not particularly sure why this FAQ was made since it doesn't really help anything, although I've never been a fan of the SLA style rulings as of the past year or so.
Having magic in the blood should work for crafting things, at least it should for me, but it doesn't seem that's the way the devs want to do things, which causes me to sigh slightly since I'm not much of an item crafter myself.
The fun part is that - per the rules - having a natural inborn magic works as a prerequisite for crafting for *some* people and doesn't work for others. Sorcerers have a natural in-born magical ability that qualifies, while someone with a SLA has a natural in-born ability that does not.
Howver, you can use SLA's to provide the spell required in crafting! So for some mystical reason, having an SLA doesn't give you the knowledge to craft an item (nor does having ranks in Know arcana or spellcraft) - you just have to actually be able to cast at a certain caster level.
Presumably, the caster leve is supposed to represent some knowledge in magic to be able to create a magical item - though what knowledge it provides over ranks in know (arcana) and spellcraft, I do not know. Maybe it's because I can't cast spells! I guess you just have to have lived through that situation to understand it.
Every other point that bookrat made was equally as flimsy and mostly based on opinion, so it's not worth rehashing.
This is absolutely true. :)
And all our my quibble goes away with the purchase of one additional feat: master craftsman.
And since we can use SLA's to provide the spell requirements, all you have to do is purchase ranks in a craft skill and pick up one additional feat, and you can craft all by yourself using your SLA.
Which also nicely removes all the roleplaying reasons why a non-caster would be able to craft, mentioned above.