When to get Tome of Intellect +5

[Psyren]

Eschew Material Components is a thing, and if you happen to be higher level, Wish can give you the scroll you want, since you're creating it out of thin air.

Eschew only applies to casting spells, not scribing them onto scrolls. But you still haven't answered the question of why every villain isn't doing this if it's so easy, and if efreets are so willing to perform wish-swaps. You brought fluff into this by saying that efreets should be leaping at the chance to trade unperverted wishes for the chance to use wishes on their own behalf, and I do not believe this to be true. "Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile and mislead." Granting wishes at all is defined as servitude (per the Noble Djinn entry), so they hate doing it no matter what you sweeten the pot with. However much they might benefit from you using one of their wishes on their own behalf, they'd hate doing so and seek to screw you over.

[SinsI]

Except that since a Twin Repeat Wish would take a 16th level spell slot, that's technically an epic item as per "Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th." it would actually cost 540k. For magic item creation purposes the spell slot required is what the "spell level" is tied to.

Not everything epic automatically gets the x10 multiplier. This staff doesn't.

[Chronos]

The problem with the efreet wish-trade is that the efreet has no reason to trust you. You made sure you could trust it by making the trade contingent on it not screwing you over (as well you should, them being evil and all), but what about its side of the bargain? It's going to assume that you're going to try to take advantage of it the same way it would of you.

[ben-zayb]

As a wizard, you can nab it by level 7. Polymorph into a Shaedling (MM5), and use its Extraordinary Special Attack, Shadow Gossamer, to generate that wondrous item. You can also generate the other tomes this way.

[Taelas]

Where do you get the idea that Shadow Gossamer can create wondrous items?

[ben-zayb]

Where do you get the idea that Shadow Gossamer can create wondrous items?

From RAW. Where do you get the idea that it can't?

[Pippin]

As a wizard, you can nab it by level 7. Polymorph into a Shaedling (MM5), and use its Extraordinary Special Attack, Shadow Gossamer, to generate that wondrous item. You can also generate the other tomes this way.

Wow, this is... even more ridiculous than Zodars' supernatural Wish O_O

How do we justify that Shaedlings don't use their insane extraordinary ability to craft scrolls and rings of wishes over and over? Q_Q

[Taelas]

From RAW. Where do you get the idea that it can't?

From the actual RAW, rather than what you seem to be conjuring in your imagination. It says you can create an item. It does not say you can create a magic item.

[Psyren]

Oh lord, that is pretty badly worded isn't it? You'd think that by the time MM5 rolled around WotC would know better.

[ben-zayb]

From the actual RAW, rather than what you seem to be conjuring in your imagination. It says you can create an item. It does not say you can create a magic item.

Of course it won't state magic items only, otherwise they won't be able to create those mundane weapons in the description. Do me a favor, and search all instances of the keyword "item", try to substitute your made definition of items = "nonmagical item only", and inform us how many redundant, contradictory, or nonsensical sentences you'll find. That's just SRD, by the way. We're not even combing the entire 3.5 yet.

EDIT: I'll do you a solid and do the initial work.

Is it poorly worded? Yes. Is using it to generate magic items, golems, artifacts, and relics not Rule as Intended? Possibly. Is it RAW, though? Yes.

[Brova]

Of course it won't state magic items only, otherwise they won't be able to create those mundane weapons in the description. Do me a favor, and search all instances of the keyword "item", try to substitute your made definition of items = "nonmagical item only", and inform us how many redundant, contradictory, or nonsensical sentences you'll find. That's just SRD, by the way. We're not even combing the entire 3.5 yet.

EDIT: I'll do you a solid and do the initial work.

Is it poorly worded? Yes. Is using it to generate magic items, golems, artifacts, and relics not Rule as Intended? Possibly. Is it RAW, though? Yes.

No, it is not RAW. It's the Munchkin Fallacy. Just because the ability doesn't say you can't create magic items doesn't mean you can. It's too ambiguous to actually work by RAW, so it's not really a problem. If your DM gives you disproportionate power, you will have disproportionate power. Of course, there are other ways to do that, like Pun-Pun and Archivists, so I don't really care.

[Kamai]

To try to get at the heart of the question, it would be unreasonable to assume that you directly had the full tome before level 16 wealth, given the guideline of 50% of your wealth, which in your case would put it at level 14. If the DM is willing to agree to let you buy the tome, and apply it as if you got the lesser versions as soon as you could (either through Wish, or the DM not willing to nickel and dime your WBL by making you use a +1 tome, then a +2 tome, then...), then you'd have:

+1 int	9th level
+2 int	11th level
+3 int	12th level
+4 int	13th level
+5 int	14th level

This is using 25k gold as a rough guideline for a Wish, not the prices of an actual tome.

Edit: I messed up about Wish stacking inherent bonuses, not realizing that the wishes had to be cast in succession. The table above does not actually apply unless the DM is willing to not double charge you for not doing all of the progression at once, whether by removing the line that requires the wishes to be cast in succession, or (in play) if the DM would be willing to readjust to WBL as you found better tomes.

I do have to admit that I'm amused that the conversation went to how to get free wishes, though.

[Psyren]

No, it is not RAW. It's the Munchkin Fallacy. Just because the ability doesn't say you can't create magic items doesn't mean you can. It's too ambiguous to actually work by RAW, so it's not really a problem. If your DM gives you disproportionate power, you will have disproportionate power. Of course, there are other ways to do that, like Pun-Pun and Archivists, so I don't really care.

It's actually not ambiguous. Magic items are items. It's just pretty clearly No Sane DM territory.

[ben-zayb]

No, it is not RAW. It's the Munchkin Fallacy. Just because the ability doesn't say you can't create magic items doesn't mean you can. It's too ambiguous to actually work by RAW, so it's not really a problem. If your DM gives you disproportionate power, you will have disproportionate power. Of course, there are other ways to do that, like Pun-Pun and Archivists, so I don't really care.

Do you have an actual RAW backing you up that "magic item" isn't a subset of "item"? No, really, do what I suggested in my last post and see what you'll find.

And I'm a big fan of "IDGAF but I'll give enough effort to make a post anyway" posts. I can really smell the utter apathy from here.

[Pippin]

I do have to admit that I'm amused that the conversation went to how to get free wishes, though.

Well v3.5 is all about getting free wishes. Don't blame the players!

[Brova]

Do you have an actual RAW backing you up that "magic item" isn't a subset of "item"? No, really, do what I suggested in my last post and see what you'll find.

Do you have RAW that it is? It's an ambiguity. That means any resolution involves DM fiat. And if one of the things the DM can fiat is "ultimate power" and the other is "minor utility", there's not really any reason to worry that the ability in question grants ultimate power rather than minor utility.

[ben-zayb]

Do you have RAW that it is? It's an ambiguity. That means any resolution involves DM fiat. And if one of the things the DM can fiat is "ultimate power" and the other is "minor utility", there's not really any reason to worry that the ability in question grants ultimate power rather than minor utility.

Do I have to spoon-feed the exact references from the link that I've already made, some of which use the term "magic item" and "item" interchangeably, and some of which include "magic item" in the enumeration of possible "items"?

[Psyren]

My copy says:

Shadow Gossamer (Ex): As a swift action, a shaedling can generate a 15-pound or lighter item out of shadow gossamer, and it usually crafts a weapon just before attacking. A shaedling is proficient with any weapon it creates from shadow gossamer, and such weapons have a range increment 10 feet longer than usual. Shields constructed of this substance have their armor check penalty lessened by 1. Shadow gossamer implements dissipate to nothingness if they leave the hands of a shaedling for longer than 1 round.

I don't see anything there about the level of utility said item needs to have. Just that it has to be 15 pounds or lighter, that it dissipates if it leaves their possession, and that they get a bonus if they're weapons.

[Taelas]

Do I have to spoon-feed the exact references from the link that I've already made, some of which use the term "magic item" and "item" interchangeably, and some of which include "magic item" in the enumeration of possible "items"?

You cannot just extrapolate "magic" from nothing. Period. You can make "items". Non-magical substances.

The sheer amount of abuse possible with your "interpretation" (and I use that word loosely) are so staggeringly insane that no DM in their right mind would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever use it. So yeah. It doesn't happen.

Of course it won't state magic items only, otherwise they won't be able to create those mundane weapons in the description. Do me a favor, and search all instances of the keyword "item", try to substitute your made definition of items = "nonmagical item only", and inform us how many redundant, contradictory, or nonsensical sentences you'll find. That's just SRD, by the way. We're not even combing the entire 3.5 yet.

EDIT: I'll do you a solid and do the initial work.

Is it poorly worded? Yes. Is using it to generate magic items, golems, artifacts, and relics not Rule as Intended? Possibly. Is it RAW, though? Yes.

Do you know what "context" means? Look it up.

[Psyren]

No one's denying that no sane DM would read it that way. But there is no definition of "item" that excludes magic items, unless they are specifically excluded. It's cheese, not incorrect.

[Taelas]

No one's denying that no sane DM would read it that way. But there is no definition of "item" that excludes magic items, unless they are specifically excluded. It's cheese, not incorrect.

That doesn't matter. You do not have the ability to create magic items. You have the ability to create items.

Look up the Craft skill. By your argument, it lets you make magic items! It doesn't say it doesn't, and it uses "items" throughout.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the ability to create an item gives you the ability to create a magic item. I'm pretty damn sure that you're not going to find that anywhere.

[ben-zayb]

You cannot just extrapolate "magic" from nothing. Period. You can make "items". Non-magical substances.

The sheer amount of abuse possible with your "interpretation" (and I use that word loosely) are so staggeringly insane that no DM in their right mind would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever use it. So yeah. It doesn't happen.



Do you know what "context" means? Look it up.

Kinda read aloud the second header in the third table. (aka the Table of Major Wondrous Items).

[Brova]

That doesn't matter. You do not have the ability to create magic items. You have the ability to create items.

Look up the Craft skill. By your argument, it lets you make magic items! It doesn't say it doesn't, and it uses "items" throughout.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the ability to create an item gives you the ability to create a magic item. I'm pretty damn sure that you're not going to find that anywhere.

Kinda read aloud the second header in the third table. (aka the Table of Major Wondrous Items).

Yes, you have demonstrated that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Taelas is claiming that they are sometimes not. Why is shadow gossamer definitively using item in the "magic or non magic item" sense?

[Taelas]

Kinda read aloud the second header in the third table. (aka the Table of Major Wondrous Items).

Even if your argument held water, Shadow Gossamer doesn't waive the requirements to craft items. You still require the appropriate feats, spells, and XP and gold costs.

[Psyren]

That doesn't matter. You do not have the ability to create magic items. You have the ability to create items.

Look up the Craft skill. By your argument, it lets you make magic items! It doesn't say it doesn't, and it uses "items" throughout.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the ability to create an item gives you the ability to create a magic item. I'm pretty damn sure that you're not going to find that anywhere.

Then all they need is the prerequisites - XP, the right feat(s) and a wand or scroll for the spell requirement. The swift action means they can craft in combat. Less broken, but still pretty powerful.

EDIT: Ah never mind, I see you agree!

[Taelas]

Eh, not sure how powerful it is when the item vanishes immediately after it leaves their hands. It does remove downtime for stuff like the tomes, though.

[ben-zayb]

Yes, you have demonstrated that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Taelas is claiming that they are sometimes not. Why is shadow gossamer definitively using item in the "magic or non magic item" sense?

Because, item, without a qualifier for a particular subset of it, and without a qualifying term used interchangeably with, will default to all possible definitions of it. Consider why do some effects such as Shrink Item and Minor Creation need to qualify the description as pertaining to items that are nonmagical only? What would a lone term, Item, be described as, then?

Even if your argument held water, Shadow Gossamer doesn't waive the requirements to craft items. You still require the appropriate feats, spells, and XP and gold costs.

If you are using the same line of logic about Wish also requiring the same, then look up or post it on that proper thread, and get your understanding from there, as I'm not going to repeat what had been argued ad nauseam.



Really, the last two responses are strawgrasping at best.

EDIT: Wait..since the argument is Item being ambiguously defined (actually, zero definition in the glossary), then how about we open a larger can of worms by using RL definition, which is broad? (to put it lightly)

[Brova]

Honestly, I'm just deeply unimpressed. It's a cool utility ability (in that you don't have to carry rope around anymore), but I don't really know that saving time on item creation is a thing I care about when wish exists.

[Taelas]

If you are using the same line of logic about Wish also requiring the same, then look up or post it on that proper thread, and get your understanding from there, as I'm not going to repeat what had been argued ad nauseam.

What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with wish. You need to fulfill each item's requirements to craft it. Even if you can bypass the time -- it's reduced to a swift action -- you need to fulfill the rest.

You would need to show that it somehow bypasses the requirements to get around it, which it doesn't do. It's an Ex ability; they do not waive requirements the way Sp abilities do.

[ben-zayb]

Honestly, I'm just deeply unimpressed. It's a cool utility ability (in that you don't have to carry rope around anymore), but I don't really know that saving time on item creation is a thing I care about when wish exists.

Oh what would my life be without impressing you? What I'm unimpressed with is using a ninth-level spell to solve petty problems.