| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By all means, tell a GM you are transferring magical runes, each unique and distinct from one another, infused with magical eldritch energy, between magical weapons, and that your everyday town Blacksmith can do it with no exceptional training, experience, or skills to do so, just a day's worth of downtime and 10% of the rule's value.Ridicule is well deserved in this case...Nuh-uh!
...and it's by no means a strawman.Is too!
;P
Fine then! I will! :P
Unicore, our party intends to transfer magical runes, each unique and distinct from one another, infused with magical eldritch energy, between magical weapons; with no exceptional training, experience, or skills to do so! Just a day's worth of downtime and 10% of the rule's value.
What say you to that oh enlightened GM of ours?
Yeah, it seems silly that any town or village's craftsfolk, and most apprentices for that matter, could swap magical runes around easy-peasy.
This does seem in the "that one specialist" arena. (a.k.a. the town's token Dwarf).
I'm a bit hesitant to think the formula's required though, and that leads back to perhaps the root of the problem: What are these runes such that they can be transferred? We have no real-world examples of etchings that can be moved without taking a chunk of the original object and nesting that chunk in the target object. (And these don't seem to work in-game like Diablo gems or such even if mechanically similar.)
What are the physics & metaphysics of runes such that we can understand them well enough to ground our conjectures?
I imagine the runes as immaterial constructs, much like webs of essence, which is meaningless to apply our real-world sensibilities to. Yet they could be like stickers, peel and re-apply. Or maybe cages which hold power and the bars need to be redrawn on the new object, though the bulk of the power remains so it's a cheaper process.
The first example seems like it wouldn't need formula, yet might need some ability to manipulate magic. (Magical Crafting)
The second seems like it wouldn't need either, just a delicate touch.
The third seems like it'd need both a formula and Magical Crafting since you'd be redoing a portion (say 10%...).
Again, I lean toward the first interpretation and see the material costs as touching up, kind of like repairing. (I don't know if repairing requires the formula, though if it does, I'd change my view.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want my game to run smoothly and for the party to be able to have fun with the treasures that they find rather than feel pressured into selling everything, or even worse, traveling for another month and a half through the jungle with all this interesting loot stuck in a bag of holding because they don't have the tools and the time to basically recraft the items they find into new things.
In my game, the magical crafting feat is necessary for making something new. Moving a rune from one item to another doesn't need to qualify and I don't think my game is going to break by reading the rules this way. You still have to make a craft check, based upon the level of the rune, so your average blacksmith that spends all day crafting level 0 horse shoes might still struggle to transfer a greater striking rune, but not because it requires a special feat to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By all means, tell a GM you are transferring magical runes, each unique and distinct from one another, infused with magical eldritch energy, between magical weapons, and that your everyday town Blacksmith can do it with no exceptional training, experience, or skills to do so, just a day's worth of downtime and 10% of the rule's value.Ridicule is well deserved in this case...Nuh-uh!
...and it's by no means a strawman.Is too!
;P
Fine then! I will! :P
Unicore, our party intends to transfer magical runes, each unique and distinct from one another, infused with magical eldritch energy, between magical weapons; with no exceptional training, experience, or skills to do so! Just a day's worth of downtime and 10% of the rule's value.
What say you to that oh enlightened GM of ours?
I want my game to run smoothly and for the party to be able to have fun with the treasures that they find rather than feel pressured into selling everything, or even worse, traveling for another month and a half through the jungle with all this interesting loot stuck in a bag of holding because they don't have the tools and the time to basically recraft the items they find into new things.
In my game, the magical crafting feat is necessary for making something new. Moving a rune from one item to another doesn't need to qualify and I don't think my game is going to break by reading the runes. You still have to make a craft check, based upon the level of the rune, so your average blacksmith that spends all day crafting level 0 horse shoes might still struggle to transfer a greater striking rune, but not because it requires a special feat to do so.
Well, I guess that settles it then. My GM must just be better than yours, Darksol the Painbringer!
So,
.
.
.
X'D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with requiring magical crafting is that the feat requires Expert in Crafting, something almost no one in your party outside of a Rogue or Alchemist will probably take. That means that at best you have to wait till level 4 to be able to transfer runes.
Practically speaking though, even if a PC is going to take Expert in Crafting, it's not their level 3 increase, that goes to their primary class stat like Arcana or Stealth. Maybe level 5, but most PCs will have a secondary skill that is more important. Not level 7 since that's your first Master skill. So now you are looking at level 9 or 11 before it is practical for a PC to waste a skill increase on a skill they don't really use so the next level they can take a feat they don't really want so they can transfer runes. Oh, except by then you have to be a Master so you can transfer level 9 or higher runes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I don't know if repairing requires the formula, though if it does, I'd change my view.)
It doesn't.
As a matter of fact Repair can be done Untrained, all you need is a repair kit and a "suitable surface" to place your item on.
I want my game to run smoothly and for the party to be able to have fun with the treasures that they find rather than feel pressured into selling everything, or even worse, traveling for another month and a half through the jungle with all this interesting loot stuck in a bag of holding because they don't have the tools and the time to basically recraft the items they find into new things.
In my game, the magical crafting feat is necessary for making something new. Moving a rune from one item to another doesn't need to qualify and I don't think my game is going to break by reading the runes. You still have to make a craft check, based upon the level of the rune, so your average blacksmith that spends all day crafting level 0 horse shoes might still struggle to transfer a greater striking rune, but not because it requires a special feat to do so.
I'm just baffled that you need a feat to create magical items, but not change, transfer, or even upgrade existing items like we are suggesting.
Does Magical Crafting even do anything practical, then? Because this tells me that all of the crafting feats are basically traps.
|
I'm just baffled that you need a feat to create magical items, but not change, transfer, or even upgrade existing items like we are suggesting.
Does Magical Crafting even do anything practical, then? Because this tells me that all of the crafting feats are basically traps.
If it helps put things into context the primary proponents of the whole "don't need jack for requirements" crowd has already decided they dislike the Crafting system at large and have been quite outspoken in these forums about how they don't care for or use the RAW at all as they house-ruled it many, many moons ago.
Maybe that's where the big disconnect is, they're coming from an angle that has already thrown the RAW in the rubbish heap but now they want to chime in like they're an authority on how it works... a bit odd if you ask me.
The problem with requiring magical crafting is that the feat requires Expert in Crafting, something almost no one in your party outside of a Rogue or Alchemist will probably take. That means that at best you have to wait till level 4 to be able to transfer runes.
Practically speaking though, even if a PC is going to take Expert in Crafting, it's not their level 3 increase, that goes to their primary class stat like Arcana or Stealth. Maybe level 5, but most PCs will have a secondary skill that is more important. Not level 7 since that's your first Master skill. So now you are looking at level 9 or 11 before it is practical for a PC to waste a skill increase on a skill they don't really use so the next level they can take a feat they don't really want so they can transfer runes. Oh, except by then you have to be a Master so you can transfer level 9 or higher runes.
As a Wizard, I had Magical Crafting by 8th level and Master Crafting by 9th. It's possible and not as outlandish as implied. Even then, the point isn't that "it's practical for a PC to do it," the point is that PCs don't get to ignore requirements, such as dealing with magical items, blatantly, or easily, just because it makes running the game easier. This is RAW we are talking about here. GM preferences aren't really RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not only would most GMs double-take at this, they would also doubt the legitimacy of claims, based in RAW or otherwise, that this is feasible.
I'd LOVE to see your survey of all the GM's to back up the supposition that 'most GMs' would do this. From my experience, NONE of the DM's have any issue: in fact I've never seen one require Magical Crafting feat or mention it in relation to runes.
Not only would most GMs double-take at this, they would also doubt the legitimacy of claims, based in RAW or otherwise, that this is feasible.I'd LOVE to see your survey of all the GM's to back up the supposition that 'most GMs' would do this. From my experience, NONE of the DM's have any issue: in fact I've never seen one require Magical Crafting feat or mention it in relation to runes.
Because surveys are the only credible source of information. Yeah, sure.
PFS doesn't have an issue because it's essentially hand-waived by the PFS structure. So of course you won't see PFS GMs scoff at anything, all of the work has already been done for them. Home GMs don't care because they can do whatever they want anyway. They could literally have PCs urinate gold for all I know.
But neither is a target audience for asking how this stuff is meant to work, because neither use or appropriate the RAW for this situation.
|
|
I'd LOVE to see your survey of all the GM's to back up the supposition that 'most GMs' would do this. From my experience, NONE of the DM's have any issue: in fact I've never seen one require Magical Crafting feat or mention it in relation to runes.
Yeah well, my mommy used to let me eat ICE CREAM in BED! :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Magical Crafting even do anything practical, then? Because this tells me that all of the crafting feats are basically traps.
I've met quite a few roleplayers who would agree with you on that point.
Because surveys are the only credible source of information. Yeah, sure.
Well, it would be empirical evidence, so yeah, sure. Without that, we just have anecdotal evidence which isn't worth spit as I can easily tell that your experiences don't match mine in this. So I don't see claims of 'most' having any value at all.
But neither is a target audience for asking how this stuff is meant to work, because neither use or appropriate the RAW for this situation.
True... Now if we could agree on what it says. :P
Does Magical Crafting even do anything practical, then? Because this tells me that all of the crafting feats are basically traps.
Depends on your type of game. In your average game? No, it's not really useful. If you're in a game where you have very limited access to places to buy items you can get mileage out of it. But, yeah, it's kind of like craft normal items itself: how useful it is is purely based on your table. I mean, why take days to make an item when you can spend the exact same gp in less time by walking into a shop and buying it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the craft skill generally, we have a rogue who is into crafting in our party, as he currently is into making alchemical items and other consumables and probably will continue to be into doing so as the party keeps leveling up. The party has spent almost 4 levels wandering in the wilderness with very little access to manufactured goods, but lots of access to materials. They will be getting to Kibwe soon, which is a larger city, ripe for trade, and perhaps some other troubles as well. Luckily we have no humans in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magical Crafting allows you to make items that you can't buy. For instance, my first campaign was in Plaguestone, which has only mundane items no higher than level 1. If a player had wanted a new sword or armor or consumable they would have to craft it.
There are plenty of campaigns where the PCs are in a small town and don't have access to a magic shop, or on a caravan or a ship. Etc.
All of these instances Magical Crafting can be useful.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magical Crafting allows you to make items that you can't buy. For instance, my first campaign was in Plaguestone, which has only mundane items no higher than level 1. If a player had wanted a new sword or armor or consumable they would have to craft it.
There are plenty of campaigns where the PCs are in a small town and don't have access to a magic shop, or on a caravan or a ship. Etc.
All of these instances Magical Crafting can be useful.
The major issue is that you need a formula to create an item, and magic item formulas are typically just as hard to get as the actual item itself. As such, you end up in a bit of a catch-22 situation: If you actually have access to the necessary formula, you probably have access to the magic item itself...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do feel the need to point out that certain builds are highly restricted on the weapons they use. For instance, my thief is basically limited to the following common melee weapons:The problem with requiring magical crafting is that the feat requires Expert in Crafting, something almost no one in your party outside of a Rogue or Alchemist will probably take. That means that at best you have to wait till level 4 to be able to transfer runes.
Practically speaking though, even if a PC is going to take Expert in Crafting, it's not their level 3 increase, that goes to their primary class stat like Arcana or Stealth. Maybe level 5, but most PCs will have a secondary skill that is more important. Not level 7 since that's your first Master skill. So now you are looking at level 9 or 11 before it is practical for a PC to waste a skill increase on a skill they don't really use so the next level they can take a feat they don't really want so they can transfer runes. Oh, except by then you have to be a Master so you can transfer level 9 or higher runes.
As an admittedly new GM, and given my own reading of intentions, this seems to be purposeful. Either you make crafting important in your build (and you plan to get to Master and such to craft rarer items in the higher levels) and the GM responds in kind with recipes and such in your loot, or you’re traveling back to town a lot for a hireling or bringing one with you. And adventurers can always take the risk in reverse-engineering a rune formula, right? Assurance can help with this.
In my own campaign, I’m doing a combination. By making it somewhat difficult and painful to transfer runes, I get people to try other weapons (extra important for me with new players to get to try other parts of the system, and makes it easier to introduce creatures with different resistances and weaknesses), but in a few in-game days they can still reach someone who can help transfer runes for them. In the future if they don’t want to invest in doing it themselves they will have options to recruit the NPC if they wish. And if they go on a longer quest they may need to.
And I’d assume that any Magical Crafting NPC in a town would...
- Dagger
- Light Mace
- Sickle
- Rapier
- Shortsword
and it's by no means a strawman.Just to be clear, this isn't an attempt at glibness.
The previous exchange fits the literal definition of a straw man. RD stated a position and you intentionally misrepresented that position for the sake of appearing to discredit it. I am unsure if you're being dismissive or willfully ignorant, but it deserves emphasis, that is quite literally what a straw man is.
You also more or less called them a liar and accused them of arguing in bad faith, baselessly as far as I can tell.
Awfully intense reaction for a quibble over a minor footnote in the rules of a tabletop RPG.
Telling someone, who has expressly stated a feat for crafting magical items isn't required for altering existing magic items is indeed arguing in both bad faith and skirting relatively clear intentions, is not a strawman.
For it to be a strawman, that has to be what wasn't said. In fact, that is precisely what was said:
You don't need the Magical Crafting feat, a specific character level, a specific Craft level of training, or the formula to transfer runes.
So, how about you actually follow the conversation instead of making ridiculous claims in the form of trigger words that you clearly don't understand the definition of?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Annoyed motherly voice*
Kids these days! Always arguing about ARGUING!
You'd think they'd have something better to do with their time.
*Annoyed motherly voice*
Kids these days! Always arguing about ARGUING!
You'd think they'd have something better to do with their time.
It's why I only respond during break time at work, as otherwise I actually do have something better to do.
I can say that while I understand the technical position your side comes from, I still disagree with it because crafting magical items deals with more than just creation, but upgrading items as well, and thus by relation, rune transferring.
As an example, if I create a Cloak of Elvenkind or a Greater version from scratch, I need the feat, right? No problems there. But if I find a lesser one as loot and want to upgrade it to a Greater, wouldn't I also still need the feat?
By your interpretation, I don't need the feat because I'm not creating an item, I'm upgrading an existing one to a higher quality. Upgrades isn't creating stuff, so no feat required. But if I made it from scratch, I do need the feat, even though I am paying an equivalent amount of downtime, gold value, and effort (via craft DC)? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Yes, GMs can handwave it by having town merchants or artisans be skilled enough and possess the relevant expertise to do this stuff. PCs can't, though.
*Annoyed motherly voice*
Kids these days! Always arguing about ARGUING!
You'd think they'd have something better to do with their time.
I can say that while I understand the technical position your side comes from, I still disagree with it because crafting magical items deals with more than just creation, but upgrading items as well, and thus by relation, rune transferring.
As an example, if I create a Cloak of Elvenkind or a Greater version from scratch, I need the feat, right? No problems there. But if I find a lesser one as loot and want to upgrade it to a Greater, wouldn't I also still need the feat?
By your interpretation, I don't need the feat because I'm not creating an item, I'm upgrading an existing one to a higher quality. Upgrades isn't creating stuff, so no feat required. But if I made it from scratch, I do need the feat, even though I am paying an equivalent amount of downtime, gold value, and effort (via craft DC)? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Yes, GMs can handwave it by having town merchants or artisans be skilled enough and possess the relevant expertise to do this stuff. PCs can't, though.
That sounds logical.
A couple things to keep in mind during these discussions. One, remember that not having up to date runes (at least fundamental) can really mess with balance. Two, think of new players. A new gm running an AP might have a hard time giving out the right equipment at the right time, and is likely to just give the players what the AP tells the gm to give the players. New players aren't very likely to make sure someone on the party is going to increase their crafting proficiencies and take the right feats, or have the foresight to see this problem coming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What almost everyone is listing is true because the Crafting rules have so many holes in them that you could drive a semi-truck through them. There is no rule system that needs more work than the PF2 Crafting system. It is terrible, incomplete, barely worth using, and creates so many issues trying to figure out what was intended that it can cause a DM to rip their hair out.
I hope at some point all the concerns with Crafting, item destruction, special material ammunition cost, and the like are given another pass at some point with all questions made clear and the entire Crafting system simplified.
Terrible job on the Crafting system. So many rules written for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain the same benefit.
Terrible job on the Crafting system. So many rules written for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain similar benefit.
It isn't quite the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What almost everyone is listing is true because the Crafting rules have so many holes in them that you could drive a semi-truck through them. There is no rule system that needs more work than the PF2 Crafting system. It is terrible, incomplete, barely worth using, and creates so many issues trying to figure out what was intended that it can cause a DM to rip their hair out.
I hope at some point all the concerns with Crafting, item destruction, special material ammunition cost, and the like are given another pass at some point with all questions made clear and the entire Crafting system simplified.
Terrible job on the Crafting system. So many rules written for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain the same benefit.
It is entirely possible, if one of the new playtest classes is going to be technologically oriented, that the new book is going to be an equipment book that will include additional rules for crafting.
Another way to really weave crafting into the fiber of your game as a GM is to turn crafting into a victory point system from the GMG.
Awesome idea :-D
Another way to really weave crafting into the fiber of your game as a GM is to turn crafting into a victory point system from the GMG.
It is one of the things I like best about PF2 from a GMs perspective. I get to pick the subsystems that are really going to be important to my game or my characters' concepts and pretty easily adapt them to be more or less important based upon the game we all want to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain the same benefit.
Isn't that the whole point though? Crafting not being this super easy path to free wealth like it was in PF1 is a feature, not a bug, imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain the same benefit.Isn't that the whole point though? Crafting not being this super easy path to free wealth like it was in PF1 is a feature, not a bug, imo.
It should be exactly equal then. Why wait four days to make something if someone else can buy the exact same thing or more in 4 days of Earn Income? Free wealth is free wealth regardless of the skill. If someone invests in crafting, they should get some kind of benefit for doing so considering they have to invest in the skill and requisite feats to craft level appropriate items. Might as well not take any crafting feats and just get Diplomacy to use Earn Income with. Far more useful skill.
As it is right now no one can take crafting and you wouldn't even notice. In fact, given how convoluted the crafting rules are with the numerous holes, it's better that no one take it as it is unnecessary and cumbersome. Which means someone wasted their time writing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As it is right now no one can take crafting and you wouldn't even notice. In fact, given how convoluted the crafting rules are with the numerous holes, it's better that no one take it as it is unnecessary and cumbersome. Which means someone wasted their time writing them.
And if I might add to that, apparently the in-combat uses (Recalling Knowledge on certain monsters or hazards or things like repairing your shield on the fly) are far more useful than the out of combat uses, which also strikes me as quite strange for a largely downtime related activity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for a system that is barely worth using when you can use Earn Income to gain the same benefit.Isn't that the whole point though? Crafting not being this super easy path to free wealth like it was in PF1 is a feature, not a bug, imo.It should be exactly equal then. Why wait four days to make something if someone else can buy the exact same thing or more in 4 days of Earn Income? Free wealth is free wealth regardless of the skill. If someone invests in crafting, they should get some kind of benefit for doing so considering they have to invest in the skill and requisite feats to craft level appropriate items. Might as well not take any crafting feats and just get Diplomacy to use Earn Income with. Far more useful skill.
As it is right now no one can take crafting and you wouldn't even notice. In fact, given how convoluted the crafting rules are with the numerous holes, it's better that no one take it as it is unnecessary and cumbersome. Which means someone wasted their time writing them.
Crafting is a useful skill, but as others are saying, it's useful in a way that it might not have been intended. Using Craft to identify Constructs, wear-and-tear on structures, identifying structure functions, poor craftsmanship, identifying (magic) items, etc. is still useful. But craft's big draw was initially "You can make your own items now and the game won't break!"
Except, it's a farce. The game still breaks, but now it breaks in favor of the GM/balance factor, instead of against it. Which I guess is better, since balance was the #1 reason Crafting was banned to begin with. You want to make Uncommon or Rare items? Too bad that in order to make them, you need access to the relevant materials, which you probably can't get if the area doesn't have access to them anyway, and if they do, why not just buy the item you want and save yourself 4 days of downtime to earn income? Furthermore, you also can't realistically find or buy a lot of those unless your GM wants you to. But, surely, it'll be good in a no-settlement campaign where you don't have access to a settlement, any settlement at all? Too bad you then won't have the capability to get the materials you need to make the items in the first place, meaning you can't even perform the Craft activity to make items, as you lack the requisite materials needed. It's not like there are rules for the game to let you convert gold into materials without access to a settlement or similar supplier. Even if there was, it breaks immersion so bad that Magic looks tame in comparison.
At best for its intended usage, you can still earn on-level income when in an otherwise lower level settlement. That's it. It's not a very great draw when viewed in that light. It's basically a bait-and-switch. You come for the draw, realize it was a trap, but then also realize that hey, this skill has use for in-combat and out-of-combat things besides making stuff, it's not so bad after all! And so you stick with it because of its other, fairly unintended uses. At least, that's how it is in my current group.
As it is right now no one can take crafting and you wouldn't even notice.
That, again, seems like a good thing. Not feeling bad because your party doesn't have a dedicated crafter is great.
At least, that's how it is in my current group.
You might want to talk to your GM then, it seems like they're incredibly hostile to crafting, which... is a table issue, not ag ame issue. A GM could be hostile to crafting and crater its usefulness in PF1 where it had the potential to break the game, too after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least, that's how it is in my current group.You might want to talk to your GM then, it seems like they're incredibly hostile to crafting, which... is a table issue, not ag ame issue. A GM could be hostile to crafting and crater its usefulness in PF1 where it had the potential to break the game, too after all.
It's not a table issue. That's literally how it works, RAW.
You must supply raw materials worth at least half the item's Price.
If you don't have the required materials present, you can't craft the item, simple as that. If a seller has the materials you need, they will want X gold in exchange for those materials, which the book simplifies by saying you just need to spend X gold to make it. But RAW, you still need materials.
And no, just because the item costs X gold's worth of materials to craft doesn't mean you can just perform some Full Metal Alchemist shenanigans and transmute your gold into the material required. That's not how it works.
Not only that, they agree with my interpretation, that crafting items is just plain dumb. I mean, I guess it's a table issue, in that it requires excessive handwaving to make it not such a bad system. But it's not an issue in the way you seem to think it is.
they agree with my interpretation, that crafting items is just plain dumb.
I mean that's fair, if everyone thinks it's dumb and doesn't want it at the table, then... feels like the problem solves itself.