First, let's look at an example of the actual odds of enhancing an item. For convenience, we're assuming that after the GM exceptional roll, the beginning resists are 8 for the property that will be enhanced. The truth is that they will often be higher, so the chances of success will be correspondingly lower. The odds of success for the luck property alone are 20%, and the chances of success for each resist that is enhanced are 100 - (20 + resist before enhancing). The chance of success for lower requirements is 100 - (20 + %lower requirements/4); in this case, it's 100-27.5 = 72.5% The odds of enhancing an item with spined leather if it has 100 luck and 10 physical resist are: .20 x .72 = 14.4% at GM, and you get a +1% bonus per 10 points over GM, which means that, if you're a legendary tailor, you have a 16.4% chance of succeeding at enhancing 100 luck armor. The odds of enhancing a metal item with gold ingots if it has 100 luck are: .20 x .72 x .72 x .72 x .72 x .725 = 3.9% HOWEVER, if you use a +60 ASH you get a 6% bonus to your enhancing success rate, so the odds are actually 9.9% at GM, 11.9% at legendary. That's nowhere near the success chance for leather, but it's still acceptable. On the other hand, the odds of enhancing a wooden item with oak wood if it has 100 luck are just: .20 x .70 x .70 x .70 x.70 = 5.3% and there is no way to increase our success chance at all, since we don't have any way of raising our skill above GM for that 2% legendary bonus. Doesn't this seem a little unfair that us carpenter crafters only manage to successfully enhance an item less than 1/2 as often as blacksmiths and 1/3 as often as tailors? *Hanse was the dev who released the enhancing odds to Tower of Roses a few years ago. They appear to still be accurate in real game situations; I had 143 failures for 6 successes when making a set of 140 luck wood armor. By the way, I was forced to change my crafter to a gargoyle for the unraveling bonus; aren't gargoyles supposed to have an added bonus to enhancing, too? If they do, it must be so small that I haven't noticed it.