Cooperative Crafting - Completely Broken or just Misunderstood?

[mrguymiah]

I'm in a game that uses a Victorian Era London sort of setting. In this, the question was asked if there were magic item factories and, if so, how it was done. Simply put, after a discussion of the mechanics, it came down to a question over one feat; Cooperative Crafting (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/cooperative-crafting/).

It gives +2 to the DC and doubles the amount of crafting that can be done on magic items per day. The point of contention comes down to 2 things;
1. Circumstance Bonuses stack
2. unless they come "from essentially the same source"

Having tried to google it, I find literally no one suggesting what's been discussed in my group; that a factory owner could just hire a hundred guys, retrain them for this, and then have them buff a guy with Master Craftsman (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman/) to craft tens of thousands of gold a day with a bunch of missing prerequisites because you can meet the DC via infinite +2. The fact that there is nothing that prevents this, but no one talks about it, indicates that it shouldn't work that way or doesn't, but I'm missing the fundamental assumption that makes it that way.

[stack]

Cooperative crafting is the same source. Two different wizards casting the same spell doesn't make the bonuses from the spell different sources. Same with feats.

[ElFi]

Hey there! Your concerns about the potential exploitability of this are valid, but there's one major reason why this wouldn't work: Both you and the person you're assisting need to have the required Item Creation feat to make the item. Cooperative Crafting is actually a pretty mediocre feat as a result of that restriction, unless it's in the hands of a Valet Familiar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes/valet-familiar-archetype/), in which case it's a very handy tool for item crafters.

Remember that the average, non-plot-relevant NPC is expected to be 3rd level at the highest, not quite high enough to qualify for Master Craftsman. There are settings that assume large quantities of magic items produced in their own form of industry, for example Eberron - but that setting has two dedicated item-crafting classes (Artificer and Magewright) to explain why such a world could function in the first place.

As for the ability to infinitely chain the bonuses granted by this feat... it's theoretically possible, there's no RAW forbidding it and as far as I'm aware the devs never issued an errata on the feat forbidding that option. But that's diving deep into Tier 0 nonsense that would probably never see the light of day in an actual game with an actual DM overseeing the proceedings.

Hope this helps.

[mrguymiah]

Thank you both for responding.


Cooperative crafting is the same source. Two different wizards casting the same spell doesn't make the bonuses from the spell different sources. Same with feats.

Stack, I'm actually glad to see you in the discussion, as it's primarily with use of the Versatile Crafter feat of SoP that this is being considered.


Hey there! Your concerns about the potential exploitability of this are valid, but there's one major reason why this wouldn't work: Both you and the person you're assisting need to have the required Item Creation feat to make the item. Cooperative Crafting is actually a pretty mediocre feat as a result of that restriction, unless it's in the hands of a Valet Familiar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes/valet-familiar-archetype/), in which case it's a very handy tool for item crafters.

Remember that the average, non-plot-relevant NPC is expected to be 3rd level at the highest, not quite high enough to qualify for Master Craftsman. There are settings that assume large quantities of magic items produced in their own form of industry, for example Eberron - but that setting has two dedicated item-crafting classes (Artificer and Magewright) to explain why such a world could function in the first place.

As for the ability to infinitely chain the bonuses granted by this feat... it's theoretically possible, there's no RAW forbidding it and as far as I'm aware the devs never issued an errata on the feat forbidding that option. But that's diving deep into Tier 0 nonsense that would probably never see the light of day in an actual game with an actual DM overseeing the proceedings.

Hope this helps.

That is very setting specific information to discredit its functionality. For example; the world in the game this is coming up in has npc's around levels 4-7 with the players being heroic at levels 9-13. So, strictly mechanically speaking, you don't see a reason why it couldn't have multiple people using it (in contrast to Stack's input above).

[Jack_Simth]

Oh, they stack, but past a fairly short (usually) point, there's no gain in more crafters.

First, the level this could potentially happen at:
The listed Master Craftsman requires 5 ranks, so you're not getting it prior to 5th. Then you need an item creation feat, which generally means 7th (unless you're a Wizard or something, but then why are you getting Master Craftsman?). Cooperative Crafting requires an item creation feat, which means most noncasters that have it are at least 9th level. It's a little different if you have Leadership for Wizard followers (can have cooperative crafting at 1st, Craft Wondrous at 3rd), but for the OP's listed scenario, you require an arbitrarily large number of 9th level folks. This is campaign-dependent, but those aren't generally folks for which you will have an arbitrarily large number under your control.

Second: Compared to that 9th level minimal character needed to pull this off, the DC's aren't that high. A Human Commoner-9 crafter with a base Int/Wis of 10, the +2 into their crafting stat, their two level bonuses into their crafting stat, max ranks (class), a masterwork tool, and Skill Focus(the associated Craft or Profession) is rolling at 1d20+19. This is before magic items, or a Sorcerer with Crafter's Fortune nearby. Taking ten gets a 29. The DC is 5 + Caster Level + (5 * number of missing requirements), +5 (if working fast, note that there's no clause for stacking this one with itself). At normal speeds, that's a CL 14 item with three missing requirements. A CL 9 item with three missing requirements, working fast. Most of the time, you won't need a handful of +2 Aid Another's.

Third: Given that all characters involved require the appropriate feats, this does not impact total crafting time. Two people, each working on one item for a week can produce two 7,000 gp items (14,000 gp, if they're working quickly). Two people, both working on the same item via Cooperative Crafting can produce one 14,000 gp item in a week (28,000 gp, if they're working quickly). It's the same GP value/week. The only gain is the ability to make one big item a little faster. Three such gives you three instances of 7k (14k soaking the +5 hurry penalty) vs. one instance of 21k (42k in a hurry).

So: The trick's useful if you need one big item in a hurry, or if it's one really complicated item, but for the most part, it's not going to matter, and the feat's largely a waste.

[mrguymiah]

Oh, they stack, but past a fairly short (usually) point, there's no gain in more crafters.

First, the level this could potentially happen at:
The listed Master Craftsman requires 5 ranks, so you're not getting it prior to 5th. Then you need an item creation feat, which generally means 7th (unless you're a Wizard or something, but then why are you getting Master Craftsman?). Cooperative Crafting requires an item creation feat, which means most noncasters that have it are at least 9th level. It's a little different if you have Leadership for Wizard followers (can have cooperative crafting at 1st, Craft Wondrous at 3rd), but for the OP's listed scenario, you require an arbitrarily large number of 9th level folks. This is campaign-dependent, but those aren't generally folks for which you will have an arbitrarily large number under your control.

Second: Compared to that 9th level minimal character needed to pull this off, the DC's aren't that high. A Human Commoner-9 crafter with a base Int/Wis of 10, the +2 into their crafting stat, their two level bonuses into their crafting stat, max ranks (class), a masterwork tool, and Skill Focus(the associated Craft or Profession) is rolling at 1d20+19. This is before magic items, or a Sorcerer with Crafter's Fortune nearby. Taking ten gets a 29. The DC is 5 + Caster Level + (5 * number of missing requirements), +5 (if working fast, note that there's no clause for stacking this one with itself). At normal speeds, that's a CL 14 item with three missing requirements. A CL 9 item with three missing requirements, working fast. Most of the time, you won't need a handful of +2 Aid Another's.

Third: Given that all characters involved require the appropriate feats, this does not impact total crafting time. Two people, each working on one item for a week can produce two 7,000 gp items (14,000 gp, if they're working quickly). Two people, both working on the same item via Cooperative Crafting can produce one 14,000 gp item in a week (28,000 gp, if they're working quickly). It's the same GP value/week. The only gain is the ability to make one big item a little faster. Three such gives you three instances of 7k (14k soaking the +5 hurry penalty) vs. one instance of 21k (42k in a hurry).

So: The trick's useful if you need one big item in a hurry, or if it's one really complicated item, but for the most part, it's not going to matter, and the feat's largely a waste.

Well, I was trying to avoid the discussion of 3pp content and focus on the mechanics of the feat itself and their viability. In this specific scenario, the game uses Spheres of Power. With this magic system, many of the Item Creation Feats are available at lvl 1. This means that humans at lvl 1 can have 2 feats. So all it takes is one main crafter with Versatile Crafter (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/item-creation-feats#toc11) and then the rest have the crafting feat and the Cooperative crafting. A lvl 1, they can make checks for spells they don't have, etc. Which is why the feat has come to my attention. A hundred lvl 1 npc's can craft infinitely powerful Spheres items this way.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, I was trying to avoid the discussion of 3pp content and focus on the mechanics of the feat itself and their viability. In this specific scenario, the game uses Spheres of Power. With this magic system, many of the Item Creation Feats are available at lvl 1. This means that humans at lvl 1 can have 2 feats. So all it takes is one main crafter with Versatile Crafter (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/item-creation-feats#toc11) and then the rest have the crafting feat and the Cooperative crafting. A lvl 1, they can make checks for spells they don't have, etc. Which is why the feat has come to my attention. A hundred lvl 1 npc's can craft infinitely powerful Spheres items this way.
Without Spheres opening up all the item creation feats at level 1, that's not a meaningful problem.
Without Spheres adding the possibility of "infinitely powerful Spheres items", that's not a meaningful problem (standard game requires the spells for most things that duplicate spells directly - wands, scrolls, potions, staves, et cetera - can't skip spell requirements for spell trigger items, spell completion items, or potions; can't skip the caster level requirement for constructs). Sure, you can potentially have custom magic items in the base game, but that's always under DM purview.

Cooperative Crafting isn't really the problem component here.

Oh yes, and either way, you still need the cash, although it's not exactly hard to create wealth out of almost nothing.

Edit: Mind you, adding a helpers limit to Cooperative Crafting is the simplest way to solve the problem if Spheres has already been given blanket approval (note: You probably shouldn't do that as a DM - it's got some severe editing problems), but the problem doesn't really originate from Cooperative Crafting.

[mrguymiah]

Without Spheres opening up all the item creation feats at level 1, that's not a meaningful problem.
Without Spheres adding the possibility of "infinitely powerful Spheres items", that's not a meaningful problem (standard game requires the spells for most things that duplicate spells directly - wands, scrolls, potions, staves, et cetera - can't skip spell requirements for spell trigger items, spell completion items, or potions; can't skip the caster level requirement for constructs). Sure, you can potentially have custom magic items in the base game, but that's always under DM purview.

Cooperative Crafting isn't really the problem component here.

Oh yes, and either way, you still need the cash, although it's not exactly hard to create wealth out of almost nothing.

With all due politeness, I was not trying to say that Cooperative Casting was a problem. What I have been trying to ascertain is whether or not the feat stacks with itself. Stack believes it does not, yourself and ElFi believe it do. For me, the combination of factors are causing a realism problem that is as simple as ignoring the feat. That does not mean that the feat is inherently broken.

(I recognize the title is clickbaity, but I've had threads get entirely ignored and was trying to avoid that.)

[Jack_Simth]

With all due politeness, I was not trying to say that Cooperative Casting was a problem. What I have been trying to ascertain is whether or not the feat stacks with itself. Stack believes it does not, yourself and ElFi believe it do. For me, the combination of factors are causing a realism problem that is as simple as ignoring the feat. That does not mean that the feat is inherently broken.

(I recognize the title is clickbaity, but I've had threads get entirely ignored and was trying to avoid that.)

It may not be what you intended, but it's how you came off.
Your title set the tone for focus: Cooperative Crafting.
You mentioned nothing at all of the 3rd party material that's actually needed to make the trick in the OP function in the broken manner.

The "missing the fundamental assumption" you suggested in the OP is apparently "Third party material isn't generally in play". Spheres is relatively popular as far as 3rd party stuff goes, but it's still third party, which means it sees a lot less play than core material, and consequently, a lot less discussion. As most of the things that could make Cooperative Crafting useful to the point where someone might consider it broken aren't in first party material, it won't get discussed much. Without that third party material, the feat has a fairly straightforward use (most commonly with a valet familiar, but occasionally a party with multiple crafters will use it), and has very little about it which one might ask - which means it won't get discussed much. While Cooperative Crafting may be the point of contention for your group, it's not the keystone of the problem in question. Saying "It's the same circumstance, and so doesn't self-stack" or maybe "OK, so tell me how you're planning on getting thirty people working on the exact same one-foot length of wood for 8 hours each day?" will likely solve the point of contention (and be the most elegant solution to the unlimited power problem for your table). Regardless, though, the point of contention is not the actual problem.

[Azoth]

It may not be what you intended, but it's how you came off.
Your title set the tone for focus: Cooperative Crafting.
You mentioned nothing at all of the 3rd party material that's actually needed to make the trick in the OP function in the broken manner.

The "missing the fundamental assumption" you suggested in the OP is apparently "Third party material isn't generally in play". Spheres is relatively popular as far as 3rd party stuff goes, but it's still third party, which means it sees a lot less play than core material, and consequently, a lot less discussion. As most of the things that could make Cooperative Crafting useful to the point where someone might consider it broken aren't in first party material, it won't get discussed much. Without that third party material, the feat has a fairly straightforward use (most commonly with a valet familiar, but occasionally a party with multiple crafters will use it), and has very little about it which one might ask - which means it won't get discussed much. While Cooperative Crafting may be the point of contention for your group, it's not the keystone of the problem in question. Saying "It's the same circumstance, and so doesn't self-stack" or maybe "OK, so tell me how you're planning on getting thirty people working on the exact same one-foot length of wood for 8 hours each day?" will likely solve the point of contention (and be the most elegant solution to the unlimited power problem for your table). Regardless, though, the point of contention is not the actual problem.

If it does in fact stack with itself, you can break it over your knee in first party with a core spell. That spell being Simulacrum. Do not act as if the majority of ways to break it are third party. Because, as with the overwhelming number of "broken" mechanics in the game, core broke it first, easier, and better than later additions.

[stack]

People have asserted that multiple instances of the feat stack. In my reading, it doesn't stack based on the multiple applications of the same source principle. Has anyone made an arguement (rather than an assertation) that they should stack?

I freely admit that the wording is not completely obvious and am defaulting to a reading that I believe is both generally consistent with the rules and not broken.

[Jack_Simth]

If it does in fact stack with itself, you can break it over your knee in first party with a core spell. That spell being Simulacrum.
Not meaningfully more so than crafting simulacrums are anyway. The DC's for crafting aren't generally high enough for the stacking +2's to matter for the vast majority of items, and the increase in GP/day progress throughput matches up with the total throughput you'd get having them craft independently of each other.

I'm making my judgement of "not particularly broken" assuming you can get a really big bonus to spellcraft, and assuming that when you've got ten folks working on the same item you can make 10,000 gp in progress/day before you soak the +5 DC for working quickly (at which point, you can make 20,000 gp in progress/day). Until you get into custom items, the DCs aren't generally high enough to be out of reach of taking ten, you still need to pay for your crafting materials, and whether you've got ten folks working on ten items, or ten folks working on one item, you're still generating essentially the same total throughput of crafting. The most it lets you do is get your big ticket item in a day rather than most of a year, but then, several months of downtime between adventures is one of the default assumptions of the game: it usually won't matter.

Seriously: Try running the numbers for a few items you might want yourself. I posted one analysis a bit up thread: Make your own! Run some numbers for a printed Paizo item, run the numbers for a character that'd reasonably be trying to do the Simulacrum trick, then run them again assuming the base character took Skill Focus(Spellcraft) instead of Cooperative Crafting. The feat in question for the thread really is pretty lackluster in the general case.

Do not act as if the majority of ways to break it are third party. Because, as with the overwhelming number of "broken" mechanics in the game, core broke it first, easier, and better than later additions.
Sorry if I came off that way; wasn't intended. There's plenty of broken things in core. There's plenty of non-broken things in 3rd party. But where things were broken for a very specific scenario is what was under discussion, and in that scenario, it wasn't Paizo's / WotC's fault (for once). The big note of 3rd vs. 1st party was in explaining why you didn't get much in the way of hits on your search results.

Oh yes, and you're fairly obviously assuming Blood Money as well, which is broken mostly in and of itself, and was essentially a quest reward (it came from an adventure path, and was found in the BBEG's spellbook after you defeated him at the end) but we'll ignore that.

Edit:

People have asserted that multiple instances of the feat stack. In my reading, it doesn't stack based on the multiple applications of the same source principle. Has anyone made an arguement (rather than an assertation) that they should stack?

I freely admit that the wording is not completely obvious and am defaulting to a reading that I believe is both generally consistent with the rules and not broken.

It's a circumstance bonus, and those generally stack. Per the Glossary (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary/):

Bonus
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.(Bolding original, underlining added)

Basically, it comes down to "Are they the same circumstance, like a height advantage, or are they different circumstances, like aid another?" That's a DM judgement call, and your mileage will vary from one table to the next. Which makes it hard to discuss, as the discussion won't ever go anywhere.

[thethird]

EDIT: I apparently had the browser opened for longer than I expected before hitting reply.

TL:DR: Cooperative crafting isn't a bonus, so it stacks.
______________

On stacking bonuses


Bonus
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Note that while some feat effects are bonuses, weapon focus, in this particular scenario it is not a bonus.


Feat
A feat is an ability a creature has mastered. Feats often allow creatures to circumvent rules or restrictions. Creatures receive a number of feats based off their Hit Dice, but some classes and other abilities grant bonus feats.

There is no general rule of feats not stacking. Some feats have specific language about not stacking, or not being able to be taken more than once, such as again weapon focus. This is, again, not the case for Cooperative Crafting.


Cooperative Crafting
Your assistance makes item crafting far more efficient.

Prerequisites: 1 rank in any Craft skill, any item creation feat.

Benefit: You can assist another character in crafting mundane and magical items. You must both possess the relevant Craft skill or item creation feat, but either one of you can fulfill any other prerequisites for crafting the item. You provide a +2 circumstance bonus on any Craft or Spellcraft checks related to making an item, and your assistance doubles the gp value of items that can be crafted each day.

I would rule that the assisting time is equivalent to the crafting time, it is not specified on the feat proper. But other than that I would take the feat pretty much as is. If for the purpose of cooperative crafting you have a crafting feat you can spend time assisting someone to double the gp values of items that that someone can craft. The crafter is still limited by crafting time, because there is a limit to that, but assisting time is not limited (you can assist as many crafters as you want) nor does it consume crafting time (others can assist you).


Multiplying
When you are asked to apply more than one multiplier to a roll, the multipliers are not multiplied by one another. Instead, you combine them into a single multiplier, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. For example, if you are asked to apply a ×2 multiplier twice, the result would be ×3, not ×4.

Also, please note, that as RAW two assistants would increase the value of what can be crafted by 4, not by 3. As the value of what can be crafted is in no way determined by a roll.

[mrguymiah]

EDIT: I apparently had the browser opened for longer than I expected before hitting reply.

TL:DR: Cooperative crafting isn't a bonus, so it stacks.
______________

On stacking bonuses



Note that while some feat effects are bonuses, weapon focus, in this particular scenario it is not a bonus.



There is no general rule of feats not stacking. Some feats have specific language about not stacking, or not being able to be taken more than once, such as again weapon focus. This is, again, not the case for Cooperative Crafting.



I would rule that the assisting time is equivalent to the crafting time, it is not specified on the feat proper. But other than that I would take the feat pretty much as is. If for the purpose of cooperative crafting you have a crafting feat you can spend time assisting someone to double the gp values of items that that someone can craft. The crafter is still limited by crafting time, because there is a limit to that, but assisting time is not limited (you can assist as many crafters as you want) nor does it consume crafting time (others can assist you).



Also, please note, that as RAW two assistants would increase the value of what can be crafted by 4, not by 3. As the value of what can be crafted is in no way determined by a roll.

1. I believe that some sort of example involving Weapon Focus got deleted in your situation.
2. I would like to thank you for the examination of the mechanics. That's precisely what I was looking for. I'm not sure if I understand correctly, though. You state that things like this and Weapon Focus aren't bonuses, so they stack, but those feats explicitly call them out as "+2 circumstance bonus" for example. Unless you were exclusively applying that to the multiplier? I admit that a fair amount of information could've been lost with the example.

[thethird]

1. I believe that some sort of example involving Weapon Focus got deleted in your situation.

My bad, yes, I didn't go in detail into the WF analogy, look at 2 though.


2. I would like to thank you for the examination of the mechanics. That's precisely what I was looking for. I'm not sure if I understand correctly, though. You state that things like this and Weapon Focus aren't bonuses, so they stack, but those feats explicitly call them out as "+2 circumstance bonus" for example. Unless you were exclusively applying that to the multiplier? I admit that a fair amount of information could've been lost with the example.

I was specifically talking about the multiplier.

Rereading your question and looking at the feat now it makes more sense (to me why this is a question). Sorry for assuming the multiplier was the real issue.

By strict RAW:
You are the one providing the bonus, you are a unique being, there are not two of you. And as long as you are distinct, you are not one of a set of simulacrums for example, you aren't effectively the same source as anyone else.

What I would rule:
The feat calls for you providing assistance. I would equate that to being able to aid another. I.e. you can't assist if you can't aid.


Aid Another
You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you’re helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

Aid Another calls GM judgement to determine if you can aid another (at least beyond the first person).

So while several people using cooperative crafting should stack if they could all aid together I would rule that they cannot all aid together, but that is a ruling, not RAW proper so it will depend on table basis.