Subtle Rule Changes

I would say that if you're really worried about a PC crafting... don't give them enough downtime to craft lots of items.

My concern would be more of the in-game "magic item-onomics". If it is "easier" to craft magic, such that no casters can do so, why is it also true that magic items (as I read the core book) are harder in general to purchase?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My concern would be more of the in-game "magic item-onomics". If it is "easier" to craft magic, such that no casters can do so, why is it also true that magic items (as I read the core book) are harder in general to purchase?

I believe Pathfinder assumes that characters with the requisite character level-- whether casters or Master Craftsmen-- are considerably rarer, and that the source of most magic items will either be the PCs themselves, or figures similar to the PCs from earlier generations.
 

Well, this is now off-topic, and we should probably move it to another thread, but...

The issue isn't wizard vs fighter. I guess the example progression I suggested was misleading. The point about the wizard crafters I've seen optimally played is that they don't just create items for themselves. The headband+2 at 3rd is punchy, but that alone would be suboptimal. No, the real crafter crafts matching dinky pairs of winged boots for the entire party. (Or stat boosters - even easier).

So in PF, the fighter can also be crafting wondrous, as can the gnomish rogue. You mention time constraints in your own game. You can see where I'm going with that. I'm guessing you're an experienced DM, but not every game-runner is going to know how to handle a party who takes shifts each evening making matching wondrous items, or who end up with excess wealth via creation (do you adjust treasure received in a published adventure? Of course you do, but how long before the new DM cottons on to that?), or who can render encounters redundant through group flight/levitation etc.

And really, is the example elven wiz above such a heavyweight creator even in time terms? He's crafting at 3rd, 7th and 10th levels...hardly turbo-charged, over a campaign. It depends on the levelling rate, but crafting can get a lot more busy than that.

There's nothing exceptional about this. Traditionally, the wizard has been set up to do this as a class. To craft is to play to the class strengths. In 3.5 the metamagic feats were mostly so-so, so where else were the wizard bonus feats going but on crafting?

The same goes in PF, and the new crafting rules don't alleviate the potential issues. In fact, crafting is a smoother ride without XP costs (which do add up, if you're crafting regularly), and the bonded item and new feat rules mean the wizard doesn't have to work alone.

If it's not a problem in your game, Bill, great - it probably isn't in most, because most players can't be bothered to craft. But it can be an issue. It's always been a fuzzy rules area, with lots of power to exploit, and PF doesn't address the potential exploitations; if anything it makes them more accessible.

As to downtime: yes, that's a good controlling factor. But the party can still create on the hoof, and if there's teaming up they can work pretty fast.

In short: I wish crafting was more difficult or risky. I would much prefer the DC to mean something. As it is it's pretty pointless. My hunch is that the creation DC was intended to balance out the loss of XP costs, but it doesn't do that (to my mind) because the chance of failure is so small.
 
Last edited:

Right now I think the main limiting factor is that players are likely to feel affronted by crafting cursed items, which will happen from time to time. Convsersely, some characters will have very high checks, but I think investing some traits into becoming an expert crafter is a balancing factor in itself.
 

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of adding +2 Hardness and +10hp per +1 enhancement bonus, now it simply states that you can't damage a weapon unless the weapon you are sundering with has an equal or higher enhancement bonus. A VERY good reason not to get a +1 weapon with 4 special abilities then rely on Magic Weapon spells to make up the difference.
 

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of adding +2 Hardness and +10hp per +1 enhancement bonus, now it simply states that you can't damage a weapon unless the weapon you are sundering with has an equal or higher enhancement bonus. A VERY good reason not to get a +1 weapon with 4 special abilities then rely on Magic Weapon spells to make up the difference.

Isn't the standard adventuring affar is cast Greater Magic Weapon? That makes the weapon higher than +1.
 

Using character ability scores plus size modifiers for shapechanging spells is the same as the idea I had a while back, so I therefore approve. As it was, melee druids only had three ability scores to worry about while clerics had six. Plus, I think it works well with the idea of shape changing; you get some strength and speed commensurate with your new size, but your nature isn't completely altered.
 

Isn't the standard adventuring affar is cast Greater Magic Weapon? That makes the weapon higher than +1.


Yeah, I meant Greater Magic Weapon.

But in any case, no one is dropping 315gp on an adamantine longsword and cleaving +4 weapons with it anymore. Especially giants with adamantine daggers and power attack.
 


I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but instead of adding +2 Hardness and +10hp per +1 enhancement bonus, now it simply states that you can't damage a weapon unless the weapon you are sundering with has an equal or higher enhancement bonus. A VERY good reason not to get a +1 weapon with 4 special abilities then rely on Magic Weapon spells to make up the difference.


Not sure where you got this from? On page 174 in the bottom left hand corner it still states that each +1 of enchantment bonus adds 2 to the hardness and +10 to the items hp's. I like the concept you mentioned, but just would like to know where it states this.

Thanks.
 

Remove ads

Top