Craft rules make no sense at all

[swrushing]

And you are supposed to multiply the result of the DC for how much value is produced each week towards the total value.
Explain how if you make it by 12 (the first example) takes a longer time than making by 2 (the second example)?

First, your DC is not a number you just select. it represents how hard it is to make, the quality of the item. it is not a separate thing from the items price. A DC 28 to craft dagger will be a much nicer thing than a DC 18 dagger. It will cost more, and thus not be a quicker make. The error you are fabricating is assuming you can raise the DC without also raising the price.

Second, if your Gm wants to allow you to go against higher DCs, to possibly represent working harder or using more sophisticated techniques but still only trying to make a normal item, thats also logical and makes sense. The guy using the easy, old, reliable methods which require less skill takes longer than the better craftsman who uses more refined techniques and produces the dagger in shorter time. better craftsman, quicker result.

I just do not see any logical error here.

 

[Diirk]

You can raise the DC.. in the craft skill description it states (near the bottom, I believe) that you can voluntarily raise the DC by 10 in order to craft it quicker if you'd like to. 10 is the only number you can raise the DC by tho, and just the once.

 

[Conaill]

Yup, voluntarily raising the DC by 10 is in the new 3.5 rules. Dunno why exactly 10 and only 10. But it's been a common houserule in many groups that you can raise the DC by any number (a variant houserule is that you can no longer "take 10" if you do so, because you're rushing...)

Second, since AeroDm mentions houserules anyway... crafting times are simply *way* too long for any sort of adventuring, crafting PC. Just try make a PC alchemist within the core rules and see what happens: it'll take you half a week to craft a single flask of alchemist's fire. Meanwhile the sorceror in the party can fire off fireballs as many as he wants. SO... for adventuring crafters, it's advisable to speed up crafting by at least a factor of 7 to 10. I.e. calculate progress in sp/day or gp/week, instead of sp/week. With some feats, PrC's or magical items you may even want to up it to gp/day. sp/day or gp/week is definitely NOT overpowered compared to what magic can achieve, and gp/day is only starting to come close (remember, magical crafting goes at a rate of 1000 gp/day!!)

 

[Tzarevitch]

Yup, that's the way I would interpret it. Except that you'll also have to count in time for the Masterwork component of Mithral of course.

With a modicum of common sense, the Craft rules work fine as is. I would have loved to see these issues cleared up in 3.5, but with one of the 3.5 designers explicitly stating that they're not really interested in Craft because it's just a "flavor" skill, what can you expect?

Actually, the craft rules make no sense. They were stupid in 3.0 and they remain stupid in 3.5. They directly correlate value of an item with the time and difficulty to make that item and that is an inaccurate and oversimplistic correlation. The rules totally ignore the fact that some items can have a very high intrinsic value and yet are easy and fast to craft. The problem is that it is not really worth correcting the lousy craft rules for something that the PCs will not do very often.

To Mistwell -
Believe me, unless the campaign is heavily dependent on crafting things for some reason you are better off just stomaching the lousy rules. Over several 3e campaigns I have run I have tried to create better rules for crafting things but they all end up being more combersome than they are worth, especially when the PCs rarely bother to craft things themselves. WoTC has indicated just how much it cares about accuracy on this issue so I wouldn't loose any sleep over it either if I were you.

Tzarevitch

 

[Conaill]

Actually, the craft rules make no sense. They were stupid in 3.0 and they remain stupid in 3.5. They directly correlate value of an item with the time and difficulty to make that item and that is an inaccurate and oversimplistic correlation. The rules totally ignore the fact that some items can have a very high intrinsic value and yet are easy and fast to craft.

Which is easily solved by the common-sense interpretation that special materials add to the price of the item, but their cost has no impact on crafting time. What other sort of "intrinsic value" did you have in mind?

The problem is that it is not really worth correcting the lousy craft rules for something that the PCs will not do very often.

Believe me, unless the campaign is heavily dependent on crafting things for some reason you are better off just stomaching the lousy rules.

Unfortunately, "just stomach it" only works if the players aren't really interested in crafting anyway. Those that are reading this thread presumably *do* care.

For those people (myself included - I've been playing an alchemist/tinkerer gnome for the past two years), I would state from experience that the craft rules DO make sense, and work reasonably well for an adventuring PC provided you increase the "progress" rate to sp/day or gp/week.

Inaccurate? Oversimplistic? Sure... but after all, this is a *game* we're talking about. There's worse oversimplifications than that in the system.

 

[jgsugden]

I stand by the view that craft is too broad of a skill for any one rule to cover how long it should take to make an item. I suggest setting a time period on a per item basis. A little research can help you figure out how long it really took an armourer to make plate mail.

In the end, you can say anything. In a world of magic, a craftsman could take far less time than he would in the real world ("I used this can trip to help me bend the metal into shape") or he could take far longer ("I won't work the metal too hot, so it takes longer. Last time I got the metal too hot, a little fire elemental jumped out of the forge and burned down my entire workroom!"). In the end, decide on something reasonable and stick with it. Perfection is not necessary.

 

[BSF]

Which is easily solved by the common-sense interpretation that special materials add to the price of the item, but their cost has no impact on crafting time. What other sort of "intrinsic value" did you have in mind?

Unfortunately, "just stomach it" only works if the players aren't really interested in crafting anyway. Those that are reading this thread presumably *do* care.

For those people (myself included - I've been playing an alchemist/tinkerer gnome for the past two years), I would state from experience that the craft rules DO make sense, and work reasonably well for an adventuring PC provided you increase the "progress" rate to sp/day or gp/week.

Inaccurate? Oversimplistic? Sure... but after all, this is a *game* we're talking about. There's worse oversimplifications than that in the system.

Heh, my bard character can craft musical instruments. He also has Craft Wondrous Item so he can eventually make magical musical instruments. The thing that is hilarious for me is that all musical instruments cost the same by the core rules. I would love to see a well-done 3rd party product that coudl handle a variety of craft skills in a little more detail.

 

[Janos Audron]

The absolute worst thing about the craft rules is Fabricate.

Just imagine some dwarven smith god-knows-where who has spent his life in some hot forge making an Adamantine armor.

Along comes a lousy human wizard with a scroll and a lot of Adamantine. *Cast cast* *poof* Adamantine armor in six seconds.

Dwarf works for years, human six seconds and the quality is the same!

For wizards, it is usually cheaper to buy a scroll of Fabricate / to learn it and then 'craft' stuff than to buy a complete set of armor somewhere...

 

[Conaill]

The absolute worst thing about the craft rules is Fabricate.

Hear, hear!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't have a copy of the rules any more, but I believe the revised d20Star Wars book had a different variant for using the craft skill checks which didn't depend upon the DC when calculating time - but it is a long while since I saw those books so I can't be certain.