6
\$\begingroup\$

The Amulet of Mighty Fists's requirements are as follows:

Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet's bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities

I take the last line there to mean that the requirements of any of the weapon abilities you opt to add are essentially added to the list of requirements for the amulet (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If so, suppose I add the Frost property to the amulet. Frosts requirements are :

Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chill metal or ice storm

This is where I get a little confused. In Pathfinder you can ignore requirements for making non-spell trigger/completion magic items by jacking up your spellcraft DC, with one exception:

The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.

My question is, can I ignore Craft Magic Arms and Armor, the "requisite" feat for Frost, because I'm just making an amulet (which already has its own corresponding requisite feat)? Or are these considered separate, with both requiring a mandatory feat?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ One of the most common houserules or setting-items I see is a "fistwrap" that can be enchanted as a weapon. Allowing them (and just treating them as weapons that do the character's unarmed strike damage) removes 95% of the desire to make the Amulet. The other 5% want the amulet to boost their "monk-cheese-can-make-unarmed-attacks-with-my-hands-full" builds that grind out 12+ attacks per turn, and I have no problem requiring them to have every feat and spell under the sun :D \$\endgroup\$
    – gatherer818
    Jul 9, 2014 at 20:47

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, the property’s requirements include the feat requirement, which is included in the statement that you need “any requirements” that the Special Property has.

Doesn’t seem appropriate to me, but that is what it says.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What makes the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat requirement different to all of the other requirements? Why can't that requirement be ignored with an increase to the Spellcraft DC? \$\endgroup\$
    – YogoZuno
    Feb 28, 2014 at 11:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jason_c_o It’s inappropriate because the item doesn’t deserve to be so much more difficult and costly than other items to craft. I wouldn’t care if the amulet required Craft Magic Arms & Armor instead of Craft Wondrous Item, but requiring both for that item is inappropriate. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Feb 28, 2014 at 12:46
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @YogoZuno It’s different cuz it is a feat requirement, ya know, the one thing explicitly called out as an exception? \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Feb 28, 2014 at 12:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan A feat requirement, not THE feat requirement... \$\endgroup\$
    – YogoZuno
    Mar 1, 2014 at 7:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @YogoZuno And you find me a citation defining what the feat requirement would be, and you have a point. Until that time, however, your decision that it is Craft Wondrous Item and not Craft Magic Arms & Armor is pure houserule without any backing in the rules. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Mar 1, 2014 at 15:25
3
\$\begingroup\$

You have quoted the relevant parts of the rules yourself - the text for ignoring prerequisites says 'the only exception to this is THE requisite item creation feat'. In other words, the only prerequisite you can't do without is the first Item Creation feat required for an enchanted item.

In almost all cases, only a single Item Creation feat is required. This is likely about the only case that needs two. I would rules that in this case, you can overcome no Craft Magic Arms and Armour by increasing the DC.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I actually think the feat should remain mandatory. Frost is a magic weapon special ability, and the feat mechanically reflects the characters knowledge about such properties. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Feb 28, 2014 at 11:31
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ An amulet of mighty fists, frost requires two feats, in contradiction of the quoted line that implies that there is only one. If you want to read that line as absolute, then this case breaks the rule because it is not addressed. The rule definitely does not say “with the exception of one requisite item creation feat,” nor does any rule suggest that Craft Wondrous Item is the feat as opposed to Craft Magic Arms and Armor which is... not the feat? This ruling is explicitly unsupported by the rules, and reads way too much into a lack of “or feats” in that sentence. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Feb 28, 2014 at 12:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually coming back and re-reading this question.. I have to cede that "the" would simply mean the Craft Wondrous Items feat, and Arms and Armour would not be required. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jason_c_o
    Mar 4, 2014 at 11:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .