|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, they removed the XP tax because it was absolutely hated and so people would actually use item creation feats. The Artificer from 3.5 was a very liked class specifically becasue it got bonus creation feats and got around the XP cost.
Other than remove the XP cost I don't think they actually did anything else to the creation rules, so I'm not sure where "find ways to balance your new ability to create items without XP" is coming from.
Pathfinder encourages casters to take Creation Feats, so I don't know why you think they removed the wrong thing or why you'd want to do the opposite.
As to what you've presented... I actually don't understand it, would you need to "buy" the feat every time you wanted to make an item?
XP costs are a bad idea. Pathfinder did away with all of them for a reason.
In 3.5, if you fell behind a level you got more XP from any given encounter than your higher level friends. This isn't true in Pathfinder - in Pathfinder, if you fall behind in XP, you will always be behind in XP (unless you go on a solo adventure).
Other than remove the XP cost I don't think they actually did anything else to the creation rules, so I'm not sure where "find ways to balance your new ability to create items without XP" is coming from.
They also made it a skill check to create an item, as well as being able to bypass various requirements. In 3.5, no check was necessary, and you had to meet all prerequisites.
|
|
They also made it a skill check to create an item, as well as being able to bypass various requirements. In 3.5, no check was necessary, and you had to meet all prerequisites.
Other than remove the XP cost I don't think they actually did anything else to the creation rules, so I'm not sure where "find ways to balance your new ability to create items without XP" is coming from.
AH, okies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People say that casters are OP. There shouldn't be a problem with them falling a level or two behind, especially if they now have a magical item.
No.
Hell no.
Hilariously no.
What do you mean by "encourages"? Any item creation feat taken means that you can't use that feat slot for other feats.
... and?
You take the feat that I presented, then purchase (permanently) the other item creation feats with XP. You may have to alter how much XP will be required for each feat and not follow my table because Pathfinder greatly increased the amount of experience gain, and that table is balance for 3.5e.
They also increased how much it takes to level up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
XP costs are a bad idea. Pathfinder did away with all of them for a reason.
In 3.5, if you fell behind a level you got more XP from any given encounter than your higher level friends. This isn't true in Pathfinder - in Pathfinder, if you fall behind in XP, you will always be behind in XP (unless you go on a solo adventure).
Would it be THAT bad for a caster to fall a level behind? I don't think so. In any case, think over the implications of the changes that I am suggesting. The caster now only uses a single precious feat for item creation, which leaves rooms for other feats such as metamagic. Don't you think that such a caster could afford to be slightly behind the other PCs?
They also made it a skill check to create an item, as well as being able to bypass various requirements. In 3.5, no check was necessary, and you had to meet all prerequisites.Something which is incredibly boring! Effectively they had to find annoying ways to prevent you from crafting (and this is AFTER you paid a feat tax!) instead of offering you the simple choice of an opportunity cost vs item creation.
You DO NOT penalize a player simply for picking a class. Neither a castor nor item crafter deserve to penalized just because they exist.
By using the skill check and allowing you to skip prerequisites that's the opposite of boring, and the opposite of preventive.
If you lose experience you never get it back in PF.
In 3.5 lower level characters would gain more XP, therefore somehow making it up for creating items if you ever went behind a level.
PF always give the same XP to everyone, so there's no catch up mechanic.
Also, yes, casters are OP, but being a teamplayer shouldn't be a burden for them alone.
All of this without considering the fact that higher level items take way too much time. Sometimes going around 20 days without an item it's just not worth it.
This introduces some serious problems, I'm afraid.
Removing exp costs was a significant part of the effort to simplify exp. It's part of the reason why the exp reward for defeating a monster can be static now. If leveling slower didn't result in gaining a bit more experience, every scroll you made would be a permanent hit to your character.
You're effectively charging full vendor price for items, but half that price is paid in a different currency, costing you levels instead of an equivalent amount of other magic items. That probably isn't worth paying a feat for, let alone the extra exp costs for virtual item creation feats.
Something you might be missing is that without exp costs, item creation feats are more worthwhile. I've heard them dismissed as a way to sell feat slots, but that doesn't do them justice. You get a slow but unlimited return on your investment, halving the prices of a particular kind of item forever so long as you have sufficient downtime. A budget increase that scales with your income is probably worth some feats. It allows you to convert found items into anything you can craft without loss, which is huge in many campaigns. I've seen item creation feats in forum power builds that don't even have parties to cater to.
A better approach might be change "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". With the exception of that one, that every creation feat lets the creator make something useful to them personally, even if they're a squishy wizard. Maybe you could turn "Craft Rod" into "Craft Weapons and Rods" and "Arms and Armor" into "Craft Magic Clothes and Armor", for example. That way you'd never have to take a feat that doesn't directly benefit you. You'd have to change the levels at which the affected feats and items types become available, but that doesn't sound like a big problem.
|
|
You DO NOT penalize a player simply for picking a class. Neither a castor nor item crafter deserve to penalized just because they exist.No one is penalized. Instead they are given a choice of what they want to do. The terrible choice in 3.5e was having to choose between item creation feats and cripple their casting PC, or having no crafting at all.
In Pathfinder, sure, you can make whatever you like but instead of using XP to create items (which is inherently balancing, obviously so), they throw other obstacles in your way.
Making crafters lose levels because you believe they can "afford" to be levels behind non-crafters is penalizing.
In 3.5 no casters I played with took the item creation feats because of the XP cost. Now they do and it opens up a lot of options for them.
Making skill checks is definitely not an obstacle to crafters. And in fact let's them craft more if they get their skill high enough.
Loosing XP is in no way inherently balancing.
|
|
Also, yes, casters are OP, but being a teamplayer shouldn't be a burden for them alone.They don't have to craft for the rest of the party, and probably won't in a big way.
All of this without considering the fact that higher level items take way too much time. Sometimes going around 20 days without an item it's just not worth it.I don't really understand this. Are you talking about the excessive amount of time it takes to create items in Pathfinder? That is one of the rules they threw in there to thwart item creation because they have nothing like XP that is inherently balancing. GP is a poor substitute because it can easily be transferred between characters.
Paizo didn't "throw it in", the time required is the same in 3.5.
And again, XP costs are NOT inherently balancing, not in the slightest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah. I got distracted while typing my previous post, so there were only two posts in the thread when I started it. Looks like this is turning into a caster balance argument, when it really doesn't have to.
Redking, regardless of what casters can afford to pay or not, you've switched from presenting this rule as a way to help casters get the most out of their precious feats rather than requiring them to use them for the benefit of the party, to a caster nerf in which they become expected to give up their actual levels to serve the party. Regardless of how powerful casters are or what they need, levels are bigger and more valuable than feats. You need to go back to the drawing board and start again by figuring out what your goals are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GP is a poor substitute because it can easily be transferred between characters.
That's the entire point. Rather than paying your experience to make the fighter a sword, the fighter pays for his own sword. It's a partial solution to the very problem you were trying to solve up in the original post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inevitably, if this became a rule (again!), someone would demand a spell or feat that lets you siphon the XP off of someone else. It happened in 3.0. And inevitably, PCs would be harvesting peasants for their life force to make trinkets of tschotchking.
Making your own magic items already has cost associated with it. In game: time and money. Metagame: feats and skill points. If a GM can't say "Well, you could stop for six months to craft a vorpal sword, or you could go fight that risen megalich today..." and somehow manage to rein in a craft-happy player, then that's on the party.
How is it fun for one player to wind up several levels behind other players for the crime of making each of them a cloak of resistance +2?
Feh.
It was a generally good idea to do away with XP costs for item creation and spellcasting because it led to more problems than it fixed. I suspect the reason for including them was an effort to make certain things truly costly to do - assuming players would actually resist spending XPs willy nilly. But it doesn't seem to have worked out that way, particularly with magic item creation. 1/25 the market value of the item just wasn't all that high and was never as limiting a factor as cash or time.
Moreover, you could get to situations where a PC could be able to cast a spell one day, level up to be more powerful, but until they built up enough XPs again to pay for the spell, be less capable than before (at least with the spells that cost XPs). And that's just silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it fun for one player to wind up several levels behind other players for the crime of making each of them a cloak of resistance +2?Why would someone do that? In any case, assuming that that there is a total of 4 members in the group, the total XP cost for that would be 640 XP for 4 cloaks of resistance. As the caster level for that (in 3.5) must be at least CL 6th, that means that the PC is at least 6th level and has a minimum of 15,000 XP, with 7th level being 21,000 XP.
So your disaster scenario has been averted, and actually it is quite a reasonable XP cost.
If you find it entertaining, go for it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, you could get to situations where a PC could be able to cast a spell one day, level up to be more powerful, but until they built up enough XPs again to pay for the spell, be less capable than before (at least with the spells that cost XPs). And that's just silly.If a caster spends 5000 XP on a wish spell to get a +1 inherent bonus to a stat, he is not less capable, he is differently capable. He has traded XP for power of a different sort.
That is in no way, shape, or form true.
Moreover, you could get to situations where a PC could be able to cast a spell one day, level up to be more powerful, but until they built up enough XPs again to pay for the spell, be less capable than before (at least with the spells that cost XPs). And that's just silly.If a caster spends 5000 XP on a wish spell to get a +1 inherent bonus to a stat, he is not less capable, he is differently capable. He has traded XP for power of a different sort.
As opposed to trading a feat (and time and GP) for a power of a different sort, which is what the current crafting model does... which you call "broken."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, fighters just got the ability to make magic armor in-class, and now you want to take it away?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also--just have to throw this out there. Using the word "fix" implies that something is broken. It's not really necessary to disparage the way that the system works (which plenty of people enjoy) to propose an alternative to that system.
I'll throw this out there. With the intent of making powerful and permanent magic items more rare,
(not the Op's intent I realize, but as an example of how Xp costs aren't automatically a bad way of doing things)
In my home brew world permanent magic items cost XP.
You still need to take the required feats
And the rules for item creation are such:
Crafting Permanent Magic Items in Te'Lar requires the caster to imbue the item with a life force or the power of an exotic material component.
As such magic items have an Xp cost equal to the crafting Gp cost.
This applies to any magic item except:
Potions
Scrolls and Scroll like items (Runes, Tattoos, etc)
Wands
The Xp cost incurred while crafting a magic item may be payed in one of three ways:
Direct Drain: The caster pays the cost by personal xp loss
Siphon Essence: The caster drains the xp from a willing or unwilling victim
Draining xp forces a Will Save each hour upon the victim. Dc= 10+Caster's Level+The caster's casting stat modifier
Upon a failed save the victim is drained of 50 xp points.
If a creature is drained to 0 Xp and then drained again it will provide 100 xp but be aged 1/5th of it's max age.
A creature killed in this manner is treated as if it died of old age and cannot be raised without powerful magic.
Research: The caster can spend time researching an exotic component that can pay the xp cost in part or in total if used in the crafting
Exotic Components to be researched have a Research Score(Rs) = The Base XP cost divided by 20.
Ex.) A +1 long sword costs 2,000 xp to craft. The research score [2,000 ÷ 20] = 100
Research points are accumulated for every 4 hours of research with an appropriate knowledge check [typically knowledge Arcana; but Nature, Religion, History or another may be used at the DM's discretion ]
Ex.) Merklin the Mystical is researching an item that has a (Rs) of 100. He spends 4 hours in a library pouring over old tomes and makes a Knowledge Arcana roll. He gets a 16. He then spends another 4 hours at some time and makes another roll scoring an 18. He had now accumulated 34 points towards the 100 needed.
Once an item has been researched the DM reveals what the ingredient is. The Caster can then try to acquire the item. The item is used up in the crafting but once researched the same type of ingredient can be used in crafting additional identical items without further research.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it fun for one player to wind up several levels behind other players for the crime of making each of them a cloak of resistance +2?Why would someone do that? In any case, assuming that that there is a total of 4 members in the group, the total XP cost for that would be 640 XP for 4 cloaks of resistance. As the caster level for that (in 3.5) must be at least CL 6th, that means that the PC is at least 6th level and has a minimum of 15,000 XP, with 7th level being 21,000 XP.
So your disaster scenario has been averted, and actually it is quite a reasonable XP cost.
Also, they have to take a feat and pay 100 XP to get another feat. Currently, to craft four cloaks of resistance +2 they have to take one feat and not pay any XP. Where is the incentive? And what balance issue is addressed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to trading a feat (and time and GP) for a power of a different sort, which is what the current crafting model does... which you call "broken."I didn't call it broken, and didn't use that word. What I did offer is a fix for the problem of paying feat costs and XP costs, of which the feat costs are terrible. For example, how many players that play in a convention or one off game will have item creation feats? The answer is none.
You're trying to fix a problem that isn't there, unintentionally making an actual problem.
There isn't a "terrible" feat cost, your solution introduces a terrible level cost however.
No one showing up to convention play with Item Creation feat has nothing to do with their costs and everything to do with the fact that you don't usually have downtime in convention play.
I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.
Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.
When you have a module that spans 4 levels, the power level of what the party can face changes rapidly throughout the module. So it becomes more important that the party be X level by page such and such.If, or in, a setting where leveling is slower (so that a module only spans 1 or 2 levels) you find that mandatory party leveling isn't needed.
I'm not saying one is better then the other just pointing out one of the reasons why DM leveling fiat has become popular, at least here on the boards.
|
|
I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.
Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.
When you have a module that spans 4 levels, the power level of what the party can face changes rapidly throughout the module. So it becomes more important that the party be X level by page such and such.If, or in, a setting where leveling is slower (so that a module only spans 1 or 2 levels) you find that mandatory party leveling isn't needed.
I'm not saying one is better then the other just pointing out one of the reasons why DM leveling fiat has become popular, at least here on the boards.
Even back in 3.5 my group just leveled when the GMs decided it, which I do too. That being said we appreciate the framework that the XP system provides.
As opposed to trading a feat (and time and GP) for a power of a different sort, which is what the current crafting model does... which you call "broken."I didn't call it broken, and didn't use that word. What I did offer is a fix for the problem of paying feat costs and XP costs, of which the feat costs are terrible. For example, how many players that play in a convention or one off game will have item creation feats? The answer is none.
You offer a fix. That implies a breakage.
Also, your question is a non sequitur. I fail to see how the assertion (unproven) has any bearing on the system as a whole. And even if we accept your assertion that no players at conventions or one-off games have item creation feats, the burden of proof still remains to show that (a) that is a problem systemically, (b) that the cause of that situation is because people don't want to take feats, and (c) your solution will incentivize players to have item creation feats.
And speaking of taking feats... As noted above, a player still has to take a feat to, say, scribe a scroll. Only now they have to take a feat and then pay 100 XP and then pay the XP cost of scribing the scroll. So instead of the current situation, you offer a situation where if a caster wants to create magic items, they still have to take at least one feat and also pay XP. The only scenario in which your house rule gives a player something new is if they take more than one item creation feat--which, incidentally, wizards can do at intervals as a class feature.
But again, I reiterate--if you think it'll be fun, go for it.
Even back in 3.5 my group just leveled when the GMs decided it, which I do too. That being said we appreciate the framework that the XP system provides.I run several adventure paths, and I am in several others. We have done away with XP, we use the suggested leveling points in the adventure path to determine when we level up. Sort of makes this whole XP cost thing not possible. I also know of other groups that do the same for XP.
Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.
When you have a module that spans 4 levels, the power level of what the party can face changes rapidly throughout the module. So it becomes more important that the party be X level by page such and such.If, or in, a setting where leveling is slower (so that a module only spans 1 or 2 levels) you find that mandatory party leveling isn't needed.
I'm not saying one is better then the other just pointing out one of the reasons why DM leveling fiat has become popular, at least here on the boards.
Oh the ideas been around for even longer then that. Even in 2nd Ed. it popped up now and then.
I just feel paizo's ap structure, coupled with the more rapid leveling that 3.0 introduced is what gave the idea legs and led to it's popularity.
Yes that whole method of play has been driven by Paizo's adventure paths and the level spreads they contain.
I don't know, I figure a lot of people were like me and they figured "tabulating XP for everything is a ridiculous amount of bookkeeping for very little return" decades ago, particularly since hardly other games have as ridiculous a system.
APs likely have spread the idea, but I was tuning XP to be a system where you would need 5 points to get to the next level, not 10,000 back in the 90s. I'm bot saying XP is intrinsically a bad idea, but it's got at least two too many significant digits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be succinct, I think this is a bad idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I take creation feats I always incidentally end crafting items for everybody but me. It goes like that:
I don't have much time left to do the crafting nor infinite resources.
I can cast Fly for myself.
I think the melees on my party could benefit a lot from being able to fly.
I make flight boots for all of them.
We are out of time/resources.
Ok, there's no need for me to get new equipment. It's fine. I'd rather benefit from my friends' flight.
It wouldn't be nice that I'd had to pay with my own levels for something I'm not even using. I'm getting some benefits by helping my party as we act as a whole but charging me for something someone else is using sounds unfair anyway.
No one showing up to convention play with Item Creation feat has nothing to do with their costs and everything to do with the fact that you don't usually have downtime in convention play.
It is a near-certainty that if showing up to conventions with Item Creation feats became a common habit, there would always be at least one person trying to pull some "ring of true strike for 1000 gp self-crafted" whack shenanigans. Every. Single. Time.
|
|
No one showing up to convention play with Item Creation feat has nothing to do with their costs and everything to do with the fact that you don't usually have downtime in convention play.It is a near-certainty that if showing up to conventions with Item Creation feats became a common habit, there would always be at least one person trying to pull some "ring of true strike for 1000 gp self-crafted" whack shenanigans. Every. Single. Time.
That too.
Moreover, you could get to situations where a PC could be able to cast a spell one day, level up to be more powerful, but until they built up enough XPs again to pay for the spell, be less capable than before (at least with the spells that cost XPs). And that's just silly.If a caster spends 5000 XP on a wish spell to get a +1 inherent bonus to a stat, he is not less capable, he is differently capable. He has traded XP for power of a different sort.
...which has nothing to do with what I posted that you're replying to.