Item Creation feats

[Rystil Arden]

Off topic but I saw it again on this thread. What the heck does RAW mean? I have been able to decipher other acroymns like (IMO: In my opinion, OMG: Oh My God), but I still don't have a clue what RAW stands for. The best I came up with is Regular Adventure World. I doubt I'm right but its driving me crazy.

Rules as Written

 

[darkelfo]

Rules as Written

Thanks, I've wanted to know what that means too.

 

[darkelfo]

Items that aren't in the DMG are fine. Items that infringe on another item type are illegitimate. It would be like crafting a Rod of Lordly Might without the prerequisite of having the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat. Unfortunately, the Ring item type is not well defined, so the only way to protect this high level feat is to take the reasonable ruling that you can't just make any ring effect into a Wondrous Item.

Too each his own campaign. I personally think its an unfortunate house rule. Ring of Invisibility 20,000 gp. Cloak of Invisibility 20,000 gp. What's the difference? Same effect, same cost. Heck, the cloak seems more believable than the ring. Same thing for the Chameleon Ring. Ring of Wishes, Brooch of Wishes, no problem. I can't think of any effect that should be tied to rings only, but there might be some that should be.

Twelve levels is a long time to wait before you can get a deflection bonus. There's nothing wrong with allowing Wonderous Items that have a deflection bonus, particularly if you require Craft Arms and Weapons as a prerequisite.

One reason why this flexibility does not usurp the Craft Ring Feat is that Wonderous Items are limited by the item slots and slot affinities. Wonderous Items that don't take up an item slot or that don't match the slot affinity are increased in cost. That limits how many of these Items a player can use and the functions of those uses. Craft Ring allows two additional slots.

But, as I said, it's your campaign. Everyone has their own playstyle and the point of the game is to have fun. How do your crafter's like the rule, Rystil?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Forge Ring is possibly the worst item creation feat under RAW. You can make a ring in another slot with Craft Wonderous Item starting at level 3, fill more slots, and do more than rings can do with the feat. CWI is better in every way but its 9 levels lower than Forge Ring. It's kind of sad.

I suggest using the Arcana Unearthed crating feats. They're based on how the item works instead of where the item goes. Much better, there are less feats, and well balanced.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Too each his own campaign. I personally think its an unfortunate house rule. Ring of Invisibility 20,000 gp. Cloak of Invisibility 20,000 gp. What's the difference? Same effect, same cost. Heck, the cloak seems more believable than the ring. Same thing for the Chameleon Ring. Ring of Wishes, Brooch of Wishes, no problem. I can't think of any effect that should be tied to rings only, but there might be some that should be.

Twelve levels is a long time to wait before you can get a deflection bonus. There's nothing wrong with allowing Wonderous Items that have a deflection bonus, particularly if you require Craft Arms and Weapons as a prerequisite.

One reason why this flexibility does not usurp the Craft Ring Feat is that Wonderous Items are limited by the item slots and slot affinities. Wonderous Items that don't take up an item slot or that don't match the slot affinity are increased in cost. That limits how many of these Items a player can use and the functions of those uses. Craft Ring allows two additional slots.

But, as I said, it's your campaign. Everyone has their own playstyle and the point of the game is to have fun. How do your crafter's like the rule, Rystil?

My crafters think that your house rule is ludicrous for exactly the same reason as pretty much everyone I know except you, if you want to know the truth, and each and every one would agree that calling my ruling that your house rule violates the spirit of the rules a house rule (as you did in the sentence "I personally think its an unfortunate house rule") is a joke.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Forge Ring is possibly the worst item creation feat under RAW. You can make a ring in another slot with Craft Wonderous Item starting at level 3, fill more slots, and do more than rings can do with the feat. CWI is better in every way but its 9 levels lower than Forge Ring. It's kind of sad.

I suggest using the Arcana Unearthed crating feats. They're based on how the item works instead of where the item goes. Much better, there are less feats, and well balanced.

Its a good idea, but for campaigns that use the basic feats, it is absolutely crucial to maintain the integrity of the powers that can only be found in a ring.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Its a good idea, but for campaigns that use the basic feats, it is absolutely crucial to maintain the integrity of the powers that can only be found in a ring.

Back off, RA.

Darkelf0 tosses out a brach, and you just call 'im names. That's pretty rude.

"The integrity of the ... ring"?

That's a pretty pompous statement, if you ask me (and you didn't, but I'll chime in anyway).

It is doubly pompous when you consider that, until 3rd Edition, Cloaks of Protection were as common as Rings of Protection.

 

[darkelfo]

My crafters think that your house rule is ludicrous for exactly the same reason as pretty much everyone I know except you, if you want to know the truth, and each and every one would agree that calling my ruling that your house rule violates the spirit of the rules a house rule (as you did in the sentence "I personally think its an unfortunate house rule") is a joke.

Your response strikes me as a bit defensive. I was trying to engage you in a debate. I gave you detailed reasons for my position and I also made it clear that it was my opinion and that what you chose to do in your campaign was your choice. Scroll back up and re-read my post. You might see that no one is attacking you.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Your response strikes me as a bit defensive. I was trying to engage you in a debate. I gave you detailed reasons for my position and I also made it clear that it was my opinion and that what you chose to do in your campaign was your choice. Scroll back up and re-read my post. You might see that no one is attacking you.

OK, I was trying to let you know that allowing the deflection bonus is a house rule but disallowing it is core. I didn't realise you wanted to debate this, since you basically seemed to be touting your game style as superior and assuming that any DM who adopts a different one must have unhappy players. But I was wrong about this, apparently, and so I apologise.

Moving on then: Basically, the "Wondrous can do anything" house rule is not a good choice unless you just cave in and let Craft Wondrous Item makes rings as well. And I think that doing that is totally legitimate. What's not a good idea is making a house rule that lets wondrous items do what rings do, and keeping rings separate. Its like giving Barbarians a bonus feat every 2 levels (but not at level 1). Who would play a Fighter?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Moving on then: Basically, the "Wondrous can do anything" house rule is not a good choice unless you just cave in and let Craft Wondrous Item makes rings as well. And I think that doing that is totally legitimate. What's not a good idea is making a house rule that lets wondrous items do what rings do, and keeping rings separate. Its like giving Barbarians a bonus feat every 2 levels (but not at level 1). Who would play a Fighter?

I disagree.

Wondrous items can do anything rings can do, yes. However, rings generally do it cheaper and more efficiently. Rings have no slot affinities - or, rather, they have an affinity for everything.

Also, they're easier to switch out and you can always wear and benefit from two of them (unlike, say, boots or cloaks).