| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Apparently under Pathfinder (as opposed to 3.5) it's easy and trivial to make any and all kinds of magic items by bypassing prerequisites and taking 10 on Spellcraft checks. Also with no body affinity rules, I have players dumping all kinds of standard items into other kinds of gear. I guess I don't really have too much of a problem with it, but I wondered what other DM's out there think.
For instance, I have a player that wants to craft a ring of revelation into his PC's sword (okay, it's not underwear). I can't find any reason why this can't be done but then I have to ask if the designers meant for the powers of certain items (like rings) to be limited, since normally you could only have two rings. However, with the crafting rules you could craft the effects of a dozen rings into one or more other items.
This also brings up the issue of why have any other feat than Craft Wondrous Item. If a PC doesn't have Forge Ring, then just make a belt of invisibility or whatever.
Finally, I had a player bring up the logic from the crafting rules that if his PC crafted the effects of an item that doesn't take up a body slot (say an ioun stone) and puts it into an item that does take up a body slot it should only cost half as much as constructing an actual ioun stone. Now, clearly I know (and enforced) the fact to judge items by their use and not blindly following the "formula", but there are just so many problems with the magic item creation rules (some of which I know where inherited) that I think that Pathfinder aggravated the issue as opposed to making it better.
He would need Craft Magic Arms and Armor AND Forge Ring in order to do what you propose.
I say this due to the existing precedent of weaponized staves and rods requiring two item creation feats to make.
He would need Craft Magic Arms and Armor AND Forge Ring in order to do what you propose.
I say this due to the existing precedent of weaponized staves and rods requiring two item creation feats to make.
Thanks for your response.
Yes, I know that for the case of putting the effect into the sword he couldn't bypass the need for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor, but I'm not sure I'm convinced the rules call for the need for Forge Ring. Now mind you I want that to be the case, but it just doesn't seem to be.
For instance, it seems pretty easy to move the effects of a ring of invisibility into some other item, like say a belt using Craft Wondrous Item. Would you still hold that Forge Ring would be required to do that?
He would need Craft Magic Arms and Armor AND Forge Ring in order to do what you propose.
I say this due to the existing precedent of weaponized staves and rods requiring two item creation feats to make.
Thanks for your response.
Yes, I know that for the case of putting the effect into the sword he couldn't bypass the need for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor, but I'm not sure I'm convinced the rules call for the need for Forge Ring. Now mind you I want that to be the case, but it just doesn't seem to be.
For instance, it seems pretty easy to move the effects of a ring of invisibility into some other item, like say a belt using Craft Wondrous Item. Would you still hold that Forge Ring would be required to do that?
Absolutely yes. After all, it's what the game developers did.
|
He would need Craft Magic Arms and Armor AND Forge Ring in order to do what you propose.
I say this due to the existing precedent of weaponized staves and rods requiring two item creation feats to make.
Thanks for your response.
Yes, I know that for the case of putting the effect into the sword he couldn't bypass the need for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor, but I'm not sure I'm convinced the rules call for the need for Forge Ring. Now mind you I want that to be the case, but it just doesn't seem to be.
For instance, it seems pretty easy to move the effects of a ring of invisibility into some other item, like say a belt using Craft Wondrous Item. Would you still hold that Forge Ring would be required to do that?
Absolutely yes. After all, it's what the game developers did.
Where in the rules does it say that Forge Ring is required in order to Craft a Weapon? The only requirements that would be needed should be the spells required and since it is a weapon and not a ring there is no reason at all that Forge Ring is required.
Also if it can be found somewhere in the rules, just add
You need proof? It's in the Magic Item Creation section where it says to compare new items to those that exist. In other words, follow the precedent.
In the Core alone you have the Rod of Flailing, Rod of Lordly Might, Rod of the Python, Rod of Thunder and Lighting, Rod of the Viper, and Rod of Withering, all of which require Craft Rod and Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
The Staff of Power and Staff of the Woodlands each require Craft Staff and Craft Magic Arms and Armor as well.
Not even wondrous items, in all their variety, are immune: Bracers of Archery (lesser and greater), Mattock of the Titans, Maul of the Titans requires Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
There are plenty more examples of this precedent in supplemental books as well.
I think 'dork might be right... cause his examples are other items that are also weapons, and what you've got there is a weapon that is also another item.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I suggest that if the bonus or ability exists already, then that is the item that must be made to get that effect.
For example, my player wants to make a dagger of charisma +2. I look in the book, see that a charisma item exists as a headband, and tell him he can make it as a headband, not as a dagger, unless he wants to pay a significant price increase.
Then he brings up the magical item crafting section and claims he should be able to make whatever he wants, and the formulas say it should cost the same.
Then I bring up the line "The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth."
Then I point out that changing the slot location of a wondrous item increases its worth significantly since it allows you to stack, oh, natural armor bonuses and an amulet of adaptation. And since the worth of the item is now greater, so is the cost.
Now, in most of my games, I just tell my players not to take crafting feats and arrange for them to have access to an npc crafter to do their crafting work. And I restrict items to existing ones, taking out the custom item element entirely. But for a player who was insistent on being able to craft custom items themselves, I would make it clear that the cost would be based on the worth of the item, and that switching slots, or stacking useful abilities together, would factor into the cost and make the item more expensive than the strict formulas would suggest.
Generally speaking, I've found in my games that the only players taking advantage of custom crafting are the same players who are trying to game the system to the point where they are unbeatable by anything. Basically, folks looking for loopholes to exploit and take advantage of.
For a player that I knew well enough to expect he wouldn't try to game it to death, I would be more lenient if he expressed interest in crafting his own custom items.
|
Ravingdork is right about the need to have multiple item creations feats, at least weapon and armor and another feat related to other items with permanent powers (ring as it is the "common" form of the item).
Then you should apply the x2 cost multiplier to the power as it will not use a slot while the ring normally use a slot.
I would apply an increase in DC as the item is not using a slot appropriate to the power (it is an houserule) .
Customized items are a good thing is they are flavourful, reasonably priced and you keep a sharp eye out to catch problematic items, terrible if they are simply a way to bypass current slots limitations and the GM accept the player proposal without screening them.
Apparently under Pathfinder (as opposed to 3.5) it's easy and trivial to make any and all kinds of magic items by bypassing prerequisites and taking 10 on Spellcraft checks. Also with no body affinity rules, I have players dumping all kinds of standard items into other kinds of gear. I guess I don't really have too much of a problem with it, but I wondered what other DM's out there think.
One error that seems to be made fairly often is that the penalty is +5 to the DC per prerequisite missing and not a one time penalty of only +5.
For instance, I have a player that wants to craft a ring of revelation into his PC's sword (okay, it's not underwear). I can't find any reason why this can't be done but then I have to ask if the designers meant for the powers of certain items (like rings) to be limited, since normally you could only have two rings. However, with the crafting rules you could craft the effects of a dozen rings into one or more other items.
I would allow them to do so, but they would not only need the crafting feats, but they would have to pay an additional 50% cost to enchant the ring properties into the sword - this is in line with stacking slot required magical items (in the same manner as enchanting a Ring of Protection and a Ring of Revelations).
Finally, I had a player bring up the logic from the crafting rules that if his PC crafted the effects of an item that doesn't take up a body slot (say an ioun stone) and puts it into an item that does take up a body slot it should only cost half as much as constructing an actual ioun stone.
I would not accept that argument, as an Ioun Stone is vulnerable to all kinds of things, so it is not guaranteed to be there when you need it. It can be sundered or stolen in combat. It is obvious and likely attracts attention. My first inclination would be to also charge the extra 50% of the item cost.
Complicating my analysis of this question is the soothsayer's raiment.
This +1 chaimail essentially has the same effect as a ring of revelation --actually the armor is much better, but of the crafting feats, it only requires the Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
On a side note, I think the soothsayer's rainment is poorly written/designed since it is much better than a lesser ring of revelation and costs the same price. In my game I would say the listed raiment acts like a lesser ring of revelation and I would create greater and superior versions of the armor.
I would have the price of the revelation effect both doubled (made into a slotless item) AND increase by 50% (adding to an existing magic item). I would add that sum to the base cost of the original magic sword to determine its total worth. From there I would compare it to existing items and adjust the price up or down to better suit.