Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chrono Nexus 03-11-06, 12:21 PM	Rings are powerful, useful, and they often play central roles in stories- but why is the caster level requirement to gain Forge Ring 12? Most of the rings already have listed caster levels needed to create the ring, so isn't the caster level 12 an unecessary requirement? Many of the rings' prices were increased in 3.5 (and thier abilities were diminished)- why shouldn't the requirement for Forge Ring be lowered too? Should it be lower (10, 8, or even 6)? Explain why or why not, and back up your opinions.
risner 03-11-06, 12:38 PM	All the CL listed for each item is the caster level in the item. The CL listed is not required to make the item. If the level to take Forge Ring was 3rd level, and all rings had CL 12th, then a 3rd level player could make 12th level caster rings.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-06, 12:38 PM	Caster Level in a magic item isn't a prerequisite, so the requirement for the feat is not "unnecessary".
Mist of Shadows 03-11-06, 02:38 PM	Unless something else specifically counters this, and that would have to be errada cause this is from the dmg under the section of magical items. For other magical items, (not wands, potions or scrolls) the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequirements may effectively put a higher minimum on the caster level). So yeah you need a caster level as high as the caster level of the item. So Chrono Nexus's point stands. At what level would the forge ring be effective at? There are a few that are caster level 3. I say go with that.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-11-06, 02:51 PM	Unless something else specifically counters this, and that would have to be errada cause this is from the dmg under the section of magical items. And that's exactly where it's been countered, in the Errata. Otherwise, you need to wait until you're level 17 to make a 1st level Pearl of Power (to take an easy example), which is just plain dumb.
BW0222 03-11-06, 03:01 PM	First, the prerequisites for item creation feats exist for obvious play balance issues. Even minor rings are powerful magical items which lower level PCs (and NPCs) should not have access to. Allowing 3rd-level characters for forge rings of animal friendship, energy resistance, feather falling, etc. is unbalanced. Cost alone isn't enough of a balancing factor. Forge ring is appropriate for 12th-level, since this is about the level at which folks getting access to the rings of their choice isn't going to break a normal campaign. Allowing access to it at lower levels will. Second, the 12th-level limit puts a reasonable limit on the availablity of such items. If 3rd-level casters could makes such items, it would be hard to explain why rings are rare -- since a good-sized city would likely have dozens of wizards and clerics able to make such rings. At 12th, it explains why rings are so rare. Third, as for the CL being lower than 12, there is nothing wrong with this. CL determines the ability to dispell it, save vs. it, etc. You need to be a high level caster to learn to make any rings. Fine. However, if you decide to make a minor ring (say Animal Friendship) it just isn't infused with as much energy as a more powerful ring. Animals save vs. a lower DC than say someone hit by a ring of telekinesis. It is like needing to be a jet aircraft mechanic. That doesn't mean that one can't make model jets, nor does it mean that one who isn't a jet aircraft mechanic can make model jets.
Baptor 03-11-06, 03:52 PM	Ill have to disagree with the whole "rings are powerful" remark. You say low level characters should not be able to get rings right? Yet minor rings are certainly on the minor magic item chart, hence characters as low as around 4th level can get magic rings in treasure rewards. Additionally, a ring of jumping +5 is not terribly unbalanced, escpecially considering you could use the rules to create a wondrous item capable of doing ANYTHING the rings can do, and Craft Wondrous is only 3rd level. I could easily make a cloak of jumping +5, or a Helm of Animal Friendship using the same costs and such as the rings of the same name. The only difference between a ring and a wondrous item is what item slot it goes in. Basically, WotC is telling us making items that go on your finger as opposed to on your feet or head (or any of the other thousand places WI can go) is a feat accomplished only by the mightiest of magi. Low level characters with the Forge Ring feat are still limited by the spell requirements and the enormous gp and xp costs required to craft the items. The arguement that the level req is a balance issue is not supported by the rules at all. I personally have a serious problem with the rules as written on Item Creation Feats. The most powerful one (Craft Wondrous) has almost the lowest level requirement. Potions are a terrible feat, since anything they can do wands, scrolls and WI can do better, and they are very expensive. Now that we are in 3.5 and all the cool potions Brew Potion could make are now part of WI, its even worse. I'd love to part with some advice, but I myself am at a loss on what exactly to do on this matter.
Vanigo 03-11-06, 03:59 PM	First, the prerequisites for item creation feats exist for obvious play balance issues. Even minor rings are powerful magical items which lower level PCs (and NPCs) should not have access to. Allowing 3rd-level characters for forge rings of animal friendship, energy resistance, feather falling, etc. is unbalanced. Cost alone isn't enough of a balancing factor. And this is true for rings but not for other items because? Rings aren't rare, either. Edit: Bah, ninjaed.
Chrono Nexus 03-11-06, 04:32 PM	Thanks for your input folks.. What I am proposing is lowering the prerequisite of Forge Ring to 6 (or possibly 8 or 10), to allow access to ring creation, since Wondrous Items often can duplicate the same effect (at a lower cost) as a ring. Here is an even more abstract idea- Scrapping the existing creation feats and creating something that makes sense in their place. An "item creation tree", which keeps existing creation costs, but combines/cuts several of the creation feats (Forge Ring would go to WI, WI would only include clothes, wheareas Potions would include dusts and oils). Please do continue to express your thoughts about this...
BW0222 03-11-06, 04:44 PM	Vanigo, >And this is true for rings but not for other items because? Because the DMG says so. Even minor rings are only 2% of magical items found. This is logical as they are harder to craft than other items. >Rings aren't rare, either. In a standard campaign, using the DMG treasure guidelines and level distributions for NPCs... a) less than one in 500 people would be of a level to afford to own 2,500gp magical item and only about 2% would have a ring. Thus, something like one in 25,000 people should have even a minor magical ring. b) even the largest cities would only have about a 3-4 spellcasters of 12th level or greater. Maybe 1 in 5 would have the forge ring feat and they certainly wouldn't be making them in factory numbers. A cleric might make a few in his life time for his church, a wizard for other members of the guild, etc. Sorry, going by the standard DMG treature guidelines and level distributions, magical rings are rare. Baptor, >You say low level characters should not be able to get rings right? Yet >minor rings are certainly on the minor magic item chart, hence characters as >low as around 4th level can get magic rings in treasure rewards. Yes, based on the DMG, one in 50 adventurers at 4th-level should possess either a ring of protection+1 or a ring of feather falling. Everything else is outside his recommended treasure limits on a single item or a serious flaw in distribution percentages of magical items. Thus, given 10 campaigns with 5 PCs per campaign, RAW says that only one of them (on average) should have found a magical ring by 4th. Thus, in say twenty years of DMing, only once should you have given away a ring to any of your players at 4th-level. Even if you run a significantly higher magic campaign -- say double folks gold, and allow magic shops -- given a hundred minor random magical items, the chance of a 4th-level PC being able to find a magical ring they should be able to afford is about 1%. Sorry... that makes them rare and hence powerful.
Chrono Nexus 03-11-06, 04:58 PM	Because the DMG says so. Well, that just ends this thread, doesn't it? It must be true, it is in published material. :rofl: Sorry, going by the standard DMG treature guidelines and level distributions, magical rings are rare. All magic items are rare. I don't see your point, since spellcasters are also rare. RAW says... Sorry, going by the standard DMG... No, I am sorry. No competent DM follows the DMG to a line, and most parties have their share of irregularities (ie. wings, not humanoid, etc.). If you take a completly literal approach to DnD, how can you call yourself a DM? Being a DM requires creativity, and adhering to the rules so dogmatically only makes the game less interesting and fun. Sorry... that makes them rare and hence powerful. Black Jesus lawn decorations are also rare- I don't see them ressurecting the dead...
Baptor 03-11-06, 05:33 PM	BW0222, you still dont explain why Wondrous Items can easily duplicate, and for the same cost, anything a ring can do. True a diamond studded gold plated 9mm pistol is more rare than a nickel-plated 9mm pistol, but both can kill a man just as dead. Whether or not the PC has the pretty gun or the normal one, he is just as powerful. So whether or not he wears a cloak of featherfalling or a ring of featherfalling, the effect is exactly the same. I dont see at all why one feat should be so different than the other as far as level requirements. BTW wonderful post Chrono Nexus, I totally agree.
ArcTan 03-11-06, 06:09 PM	This is assuming that any effect a ring *has* should be duplicable by a wondrous item. I'm aware the DMG gives rules for applying any random magical effect to any item, but that doesn't mean that the world should actually contain, say, Swords of True Strike or Longbows of Resistance or Cloaks of Feather Falling or Hats of Storm Giant Strength. The stuff for how to make mis-slotted items or unslotted items is all there as a *guideline* for DMs who decide to allow such things in the first place, but no unlisted item should be allowed by default. The rule of thumb we've always used in our campaign is that we assume all items listed in the DMG are possible unless the DM explicitly excludes them, and all possible items *not* listed in the DMG are *not* possible unless the DM explicitly gives permission. There are a lot of pretty good, useful magical properties that were put on rings rather than wondrous items specifically to make rings more valuable and justify the higher prereqs for Forge Ring. (Although, even if you do assume every ring could have an equivalent magic item, rings are still unbound by body slot affinities, meaning you could be a lot more flexible with what kinds of rings you'd want to take, as opposed to wondrous items, where you have to worry about whether a random set of gauntlets fits the concept of destruction or a belt fits the concept of self-empowerment or a bracelet fits the idea of allies or whatever. IIRC unslotted items are quite a bit more expensive than rings with the same effect.)
Chrono Nexus 03-11-06, 06:13 PM	I thought rings only had two slots. Has that changed? Good point about some rings having unique benefits. A cloak of featherfalling sounds like a totally plausible idea (in its case the ring may be the false slot). Rings are good, but not so good that a caster level of twelve needs to be a prereq. to make any kind of ring.
jaelis 03-11-06, 08:31 PM	Having forge ring at 12th level gives mid-level mages something to shoot for. A key part of the game is the need to level up in order to get cool abilities... if you gave away all the item creation feats a low level, it would take away that aspect. I don't think rings specifically need to be at level 12, but I think if you moved them down, you should probably move something else good up.
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-11-06, 11:48 PM	personally, i think Forge ring should either be CL 9 or 12. either's good, but lower is probably a bad idea. why? well, i just feel that rings should be differnt from wondrous items; WI: various body slots, effect must match the body slot or cost 50% extra, unlsotted items are possible and cost 100% extra. R: ring slot (people have two), any effect matches the ring slot, unslotted isn't possible. as far as im' concerned, the only reason to make a wondrous item with a ring ability is bacuase you want an unslotted ring (+5 jump charm, +10 swim charm, feather falling charm, sustenance charm, water walking charm, etc). in general i'll allow other ring copying, but it better match the slot (and of course, i say what the slot is; counterspell, djinni calling, elemental command, force shield, shooting stars, spell storing, spell turning, and wizardry all have NO proper slot and therefor cost 50% more or 100% more for EVERY wondrous item. oh, and a sword of true strike is perfectly fine; 1/day- 360 Gp 2/day- 720 Gp 3/day- 1,080 Gp 4/day- 1,440 Gp 5/day- 1,800 Gp unlimited use (continuous)- 1,600,000 oops, it's epic, so 16,000,000 Gp. see tarkin on this matter.
Chrono Nexus 03-12-06, 12:23 AM	Patrick and Jaelis, you both make excellent points. No really, you do. No, I really have nothing bad to say. You both explained your opinions in a logical fashion. What I really like is that you both focus on the spirit of the game rather than just the rules themselves- neither of you cited the SRD to back your beliefs- which are grounded on game experience and not on rules. Please keep up the posts, the prereq. caster level for Forge Ring has probably rissen to 8 or 10.
Mist of Shadows 03-12-06, 05:08 AM	I think the forge ring feat needs to be balanced for each game. Some games it should stay where it is. Others it could move down a lot depending. As for parties not having a ring at 4th level shrugs, there are times when you take on a challenge a good deal above your level and win. Doesn't happen often but it does happen.
Baptor 03-12-06, 06:08 PM	I dont care what anyone does with the feat. My only point is any given magic ring from the DMG is no more or less powerful than a wondrous item that is the same price. If all magic rings were priced at 100,000 and up, then yeah I could see it. But they run the gambit of around 1k-200k just like WI. So why, why is WI 3rd and FR 12th?
risner 03-12-06, 10:27 PM	So why, why is WI 3rd and FR 12th? Because they all can't be level 3 and WI won the level 3 slot.
Krynus Ogrebane 03-13-06, 08:43 AM	My group and I agree with you Chrono Nexus. We've altered the item creation feats to be more suitable to the spirit of what they should accomplish. Craft Single-Use Item: replaces Brew Potion, and includes dusts, oils, and other forms that creative players might want to use, such as little glass beads that you might break at your feet, pills, magic gems, etc. Not that it's come up in our games, but we don't even limit the magic contained to 3rd-level spells. Craft Spell-Completion Item: replaces Scribe Scroll. Craft Wand: unchanged. Craft Staff: unchanged. Craft Lesser Wondrous Item: Prerequisite Spellcaster level 3rd+. Replaces Craft Wondrous Item, Forge Ring, Craft Rod, and Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Crafter can create permanent magic items of up to CL 9th, regardless of the item's shape or form (masterwork). For example, you could make a +3 magic weapon, Boots of Striding and Springing, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or a Ring of Feather Falling using this feat. Craft Greater Wondrous Item: Prerequisite Spellcaster level 10th+ and Craft Lesser Wondrous Item. Same as CLWI, except that the crafter can create permanent magic items of CL 10th and up. ~~~~ We like these a lot better and find them more balanced and flexible. You're welcome to use them if you like.
Chrono Nexus 03-13-06, 10:56 PM	Hey, nice job Krynus! These will certainly find a place in my campaigns! I think one-use items might need to keep their level restrictions... but otherwise, these are very good.
Chrono Nexus 03-13-06, 11:00 PM	Double Post
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-14-06, 01:38 PM	Krynus, that's a rather simple set up (meaning that i envy your ability to keep things simple). generally i like the over-complicated approach of a dozen feats with overlapping spheres of capability, but i have to admit sometime i'd like a little simplicity. example: Magical Armor (I), Magical Shields (I), Magical Weapons (I), Potions (II), Oils (II), Talismans (II), Scrolls, Wands, Staves, Magical Tattoos, Contingent spells, Rings, Rods, Magic Runes, Magic Gems, Wondrous Items (III), Wondrous Architecture (III), Wondrous Transportation (III) These ae the differnet magical items/objects in my campaign(s). if multiple types share a roman numeral, it's beacuse they are all created with the same feat. Of course Craft Wondrous Item can duplicate most other items, but in the appropriate slot and without a penalty for doing so? :rolleyes: of course i also use psionics; Armor (IV), Shields (IV), Weapons (IV), Infusions (V), Emulsions (V), Tiles (V), Power Stones, Djores, Psicrowns, Psionic Tattoos, Contingent Powers, Psionic Patterns, Cognizance Crystals, Psionic Sigils, Phenomenal* Items (VI), Phenomenal* Architecture (VI), Phenomenal* Transportation (VI) *because i don't like "universal" it sounds like an unaffiliated mystical effect (neither magical nor psionic). and occult gear (generic mystical); Occult Armor (VII), Occult Shields (VII), Occult Weapons (VII), Occult Items (VII), Occult Alchemy, Grafts, Constructs, Portals as i said, over-complicated.
ScipioX 03-14-06, 02:11 PM	It seems to me it would be much more sensical to simply have each feat tied to the value of the item to be created. Thus you'd have: Magic item crafting I: allows the PC to craft magic items up to X,000 gp. (I'd tie the gp value to the character value at 3rd level personally.) Magic item crafting II: etc etc. Thus a crafter would have to progress up the crafting tree to make better and better items. If you don't like all crafters to be able to make all items, then add in a prerequisite for a certain amount of a related skill. Thus to make arms and armor you might require 5 ranks in armor and weaponsmithing for item crafting I, and 10 ranks for item crafting II. This could be justified by saying that an enchanter needs to understand the intrinsic nature of the item before they can imbue it with power.
jaelis 03-14-06, 02:46 PM	As it is now, a wizard can take, say, the Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor feats, and use them pretty much through his whole career. If you make a gp-value based system like you're talking about, a wizard who wanted to do some crafting would be more or less locked in to taking the whole set of feats. I think that would tend to discourage PC crafting, on the whole.
Emeramber 03-14-06, 03:11 PM	For a time I was toying with a variation of the magic item creation rules to type things more thematically. It never caught on, in part because the person who plays the artificer likes things the way they are currently, but here's the vague gist of it. In each case, there would be level requirements to make the more powerful items, so it isn't as if one could simply take the feat and make the most puissant examples. 1) Arms and Armor - Pretty much as it stands, except that the weapon type rods would be in this category as well. 2) Potions, Elixirs, and Oils - Reclaiming all of the potion-like wondrous elements, as well as having some enhanced alchemy items. 3) Scrolls, Books and Symbols - anything written, or where the writing is the primary component. Schema would fall in here as well. 4) Wands and Staves - It really shouldn't take a second feat to make a stick with two different spells in it, after all. 5) Gems and Jewelry - Rings, amulets, diadems, pearls and periapts, any sort of item enchantable by its value as opposed to its purpose is here. 6) Magical Vestments - Cloaks, boots, belts, etc. 8) Constructs 7) Tools, tokens, and talismans - This is the category for the items that don't fall into one of the above categories (such as weapons or cloaks) whose purpose and power is predicated on their form or function. A Hammer that grants a bonus to armorsmithing, for example. I would tend to place Figurines here as well, although some might argue they belong in Gems or Constructs.