[3.5] Siberys Mark of Making- worthless?

[Benedict42]

Ok, after the errata, posted below, is there ANY reason to take the Mark of Making at level 2 of Heir of Siberys (ECL p80)? As far as I can tell, the errata nerfs the True Creation ability to be basically worthless. Even Fabricate is orders of magnitude more powerful, if you have the time to buy materials. Is True Creation's only benefit merely the ability to call forth matter on demand (disregarding the fact that there are many, many lower level spells that do this, and that's arguable one of the major benefits of spellcasting)? A 1:1 gp to xp ratio is ridiculous, when even at the most conservative estimates, a single xp point is the equivalent of at least 25gp.
In any case, here's the errata text:

Page 81: Heir of Siberys Prestige Class
The Siberys Mark of Making grants the
spell-like ability of true creation once
per day. Add the following sentence to
the Mark of Making paragraph: The heir
of Siberys must pay the normal XP cost
of the true creation spell (see page 117)
each time he uses this ability.

Effectively, this means that one must pay the market price of anything created in xp, correct? So again, is there any reason to do this, or is this possibly the most underpowered feature in the entire game?

[Chronos]

A 1:1 gp to xp ratio is ridiculous, when even at the most conservative estimates, a single xp point is the equivalent of at least 25gp.Actually, the standard ratio seems to be 5 GP to 1 XP. Though either way, you're right that 1:1 is absurd.

[Godskook]

You don't get a Siberys mark cause you want to powergame the mechanics, you get it cause you want to powergame the roleplay with a mark that'd make Harry Potter cry(that's right, this is where Rowling stole the idea*). That, or you're trying to use it as a pre-req to some of the few decent Siberys-related options out there(like a powergame'd DFA).

*No actual theft was involved to my knowledge

[Teron]

Except a Syberis mark you never want to use is pretty dumb from a role-playing perspective, too.

[Ingus]

Yes, you're right, the errata pretty much killed the Syberis Mark of Making.

I mean, in a roleplaying perspective, the reason why the Dragonmarked Houses are so powerful is because they can kill the price of their services because they don't pay components.
Why the most powerful mark of the most iconic house does not grant this major advantage is way beyond me.

And yes, the 1:1 ratio is too much. It's even worst than the wish rate, which is pretty severe

[Heliomance]

Uh... that just says that you have to pay XP normally, as if you were casting TC as a spell. All it does it mean you don't get it for free because it's an SLA.

Unless the original spell has a 1:1 XP-GP ratio, in which case the problem is not with the Mark, it's with the spell.

[Alleran]

Couldn't you use the Supernatural Transformation feat to ensure that it no longer has components anyway?

[Need_A_Life]

I'd take that rules change as a polite suggestion. And I don't do polite.

Syberis Mark of Making should mean that my Heir of Siberys looks upon the waters, spreads his hands out and closes his eyes in concentration...
at which point a pristine, fully functional galleon appears in the water.
Furniture, food and crew sold separately.

People should be cursing both in-setting and out-of-game that they don't have the Siberys Mark of Making, because it's just that awesome. It needs to be a "pick this OR a Aperture Science Portal Gun" and people have to hesitate.

Want to make it less powerful? Make it cost an action point.

[Timeless]

Uh... that just says that you have to pay XP normally, as if you were casting TC as a spell. All it does it mean you don't get it for free because it's an SLA.

Unless the original spell has a 1:1 XP-GP ratio, in which case the problem is not with the Mark, it's with the spell.

True creation does have a 1:1 ratio and created whatever you wanted up to 25k. Pre errata the mark was lisence to print money, post errata the prc is just 3 pointless levels. If you want to make any real use of it you are going to need to talk to your dm about it to find an acceptable solution.

[Benedict42]

Thanks everyone for your replies. Glad that my analysis of it was fairly on-target. I'm talking to my DM about coming up with a balance between the broken (but awesome) original definition, and the nerfing-until-useless changes the errata brought. (Though, really, it's the spell itself that is at fault, as several of you pointed out. The True Creation spell is tantamount to trading xp for 1/5th the equivalent in gold <insert "you mad, bro?" trollface/ :smallannoyed: here>. (Thank you Chronos for pointing out the correct ratio.))
Even if a house-rule balance cannot be achieved, all of you have saved me wasting two levels on a useless PrC, so you have my thanks. :smallsmile: