Recent Posts
So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?Because in D&D there is a set amount of time that it takes to level up? A 6th level PC could have started his adventuring career 60 years ago or 6 days ago. During his 3 years of on and off questing he took a small slice of time to use his accumulated wealth to craft himself something nice. I find your situation to be very un-realistic, not perfectly realistic, and it seems like just another angle to use to screw a player out of his feat usage. Put a maximum gp value per item cap on his items or something but telling him that because he wants to craft something he get to be weaker either by not getting to use his skill or by taking an XP hit is just a dick DM move.
And it is a little contrary to what we have been talking about.
Two guys show up a game. They are 6th level. Their stuff is worth X.
One guy made his stuff the other didn't. Both have the same *value* in stuff. Both are the same level. Moving forward all other arguments can be made about skill and time and money and feat and smurfs and cake and whatever.
Time of game. Level 6. Value of items is X
X = whatever wealth is supposed to be at 6.
Edit: *YES* I am a smurf now...I love it.
Wealth is an accumulated total of value. When a craftsman takes 550gp worth of raw materials and creates a suit of masterwork full plate, the end product is valued at 1650gp. That value includes the time and expertise which went into crafting the suit.
Yes, market value of the suit is 1650g, but market value is irrelevant when you're not getting it through the market. Yet you're only spending 550g. It only costs 550g of your wealth, while to someone getting it through the market it would cost 1650g. The 1650g ultimately has no meaning to the crafter, only the 550g.
Now, here's the argument. One of the main reasons labor has value is opportunity cost. While you're making a suit of armor, you aren't doing anything else. Skilled labor has additional value because the time spent learning the skill also has opportunity cost. What else could you have been doing at the time? Oh, let's say: storming dungeons and stealing treasure, which is a safe assumption for what the non-crafters were doing during that same time period.
Time spent learning is already represented and more in the form of requisite skill points and feats, and is a very serious expense. Every skill point in crafting is a skill point not spent in stealth or diplomacy or thievery. Every feat spent on crafting is one not spent on combat. It's a major cost already represented and inherent to the system.
What's more, crafting is a downtime activity. Downtime is largely meaningless in-game, particularly compared to the investments of skills and feats already being made. That the downtime is being shunted into backstory where it doesn't inconvenience the entire group rather than up front where the time's going to be skipped anyways is a non-issue.
So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?
Absolutely not. The cost has already been paid in full with skill points and feats. that's like charging for use of the forge separate from crafting expenses, or charging me for a Snickers and then demanding I pay for the peanuts separately; you're charging for the exact same thing twice.
Besides, a human can hit epic level before hitting eighteen. An elf adventuring with the four-encounter day every day from hitting adulthood to hitting middle age will be nearing level seven thousand. An adventurer doing the four-encounter day every day for one year is level 113 by the end of it. Time doesn't mean much with regards to level in D&D, and to link the two is silly, arbitrary, and completely unreasonable.
One guy made his stuff the other didn't. Both have the same *value* in stuff. Both are the same level. Moving forward all other arguments can be made about skill and time and money and feat and $murfs and cake and whatever.
Time of game. Level 6. Value of items is X
False. Acquiring power is X. That an item of market value N can be acquired by PC Z for N/2 is just an acquiring advantage for PC Z. To force PC Z to wait for the game to begin and inconvenience everyone just to get their rightful N/2 discount is the DM doing the entire table a disservice by actively seeking to deny the player the discount they paid for fair and square.
Market value of goods is irrelevant. The market is merely the default acquisitions engine, not the limiter on goods available. Anyone who invests in an alternate acquisitions engine deserves to be allowed to use it just as much as that good-aligned Cleric deserves to be able to spontaneously cast Cure spells.
False. Acquiring power is X. That an item of market value N can be acquired by PC Z for N/2 is just an acquiring advantage for PC Z. To force PC Z to wait for the game to begin and inconvenience everyone just to get their rightful N/2 discount is the DM doing the entire table a disservice by actively seeking to deny the player the discount they paid for fair and square.
Hmm I was with you for quite some time but now I am not sure I appreciate some of your comments.
Since, obviously, there is little RAW clarity about all of this market action, craft feat hulaballoo we are obviously in the territory of what I like to refer to as the "PC/DM Community Covenant" (TM) portion of our show.
So, since I hold the belief that this is neither clear nor explained effectively by the rules, as clearly demonstrated by the length of this thread and the distinct lack of official commentary, I offer the following:
If I hold my players to a standard and they agree with me, I am engaged in no disservice. Where my players to make some compelling explanations about many of the interesting topics that have populated this thread we would find a common ground and resolve our differences. Again. I enter into no disservice.
What I find to be a disservice is someone telling me that I engage in a disservice when attempting to resolve certain table activities that are lacking in the above stated clarity because things are open to more than one "interpretation".
In my mind this entire thread is in the territory of "what works for a game and the people in it" but some of us seem to feel it necessary to keep hammering at this.
I respect your economic viability of crafting classes in meta-theoretical fantasy settings thesis but don't go saying that people are doing something wrong because they don't agree. That is just plain not nice.
Edit: Heck I said I would allow this way back on page one, I just was thinking that most things in the book are expressed in value.
Q. "Now, let us say her first act in-game is to spend 660g to create her masterwork axe and masterwork armor. How is that problematic or against the rules, either as written or intended?"
A. If the DM allows it, and the character has access to the needed tools and workspace for the time, that is totally fine.
Q. "Further, how would it be problematic to shunt that creation process into character creation?"
A. Because it allows certain characters to cut in front of others in the timeline. And TIME HAS VALUE! Crafting takes Materials, often Equipment, and TIME. Crafting is one use of a characters time, but there are many other important uses for time.
Q. "How does that change the end result in the least?"
A. It allows/disallows every other character from having X amount of time that they could have used for game reasons. I'm sorry, but that can be huge, depending on the adventure.
Finally, a question to ask yourself:
Would you show up to a tournament (that allowed item creation feats) and expected to be allowed to have over what the book lists as your "Starting Wealth"
Whats it take to get a brainy smurf around here?
Q. "Further, how would it be problematic to shunt that creation process into character creation?"
A. Because it allows certain characters to cut in front of others in the timeline. And TIME HAS VALUE! Crafting takes Materials, Often equipment, and TIME. Crafting is one use of a characters time, but there are many other important uses for time.
Except... time really doesn't have a whole lot of value in-game, and everyone already has AH backstory time. It's just that starting gold is a defined parameter, so you can't use that AH backstory time to scum Profession for a decade.
Crafting is a downtime activity. Downtime gets handwaved more often than not. That you have the handwave time performed up front and in whatever manner is most sensible is irrelevant.
Q. "How does that change the end result in the least?"
A. It allows/disallows every other character from having X amount of time that they could have used for game reasons. I'm sorry, but that can be huge, depending on the adventure.
Everyone has access to backstory time. Odds are if you're above level 2, the Wizard's starting off with a stack of extra spells paid for and pre-learned.
Again, downtime is handwaved. The DM forcing the handwave somewhere big and flashy and conspicuous and breaks the flow of the game merely serves to detract from the game. Further, everyone has access to that crafting/learning/animal raising time. They just aren't allowed to use it to acquire additional gold, because starting gold is set.
You want to start your game with the action, not, "Three of us have to spend the next 7-42 days doing this, that, and the other basic preparatory acts that we weren't allowed to do in character creation." To force that downtime into the game detracts from the game. To allow that backstory downtime to actually be used is in no way unfair, so long as starting wealth is adhered to. Acquiring items at a discount is not a violation of starting wealth.
Further, it's completely irrational to require Boris to choose between throwing away all his crafting abilities or inconvenience the entire group by stopping for a month to make it in Podunk.
Finally, a question to ask yourself:
Would you show up to a tournament (that allowed item creation feats) and expected to be allowed to have over what the book lists as your "Starting Wealth"Whats it take to get a brainy $murf around here?
Again, this doesn't allow anyone to surpass starting wealth any more than my half-off Ben & Jerry's coupon turns my ten dollar bill into a twenty.
Starting wealth doesn't have anything to do with market value. The market is merely the only acquisitions engine available to most characters. For most characters, they're acquiring all their goods at market. However, for everyone else,
Q. "Further, how would it be problematic to shunt that creation process into character creation?"
A. Because it allows certain characters to cut in front of others in the timeline. And TIME HAS VALUE! Crafting takes Materials, Often equipment, and TIME. Crafting is one use of a characters time, but there are many other important uses for time.Except... time really doesn't have a whole lot of value in-game, and everyone already has AH backstory time. It's just that starting gold is a defined parameter, so you can't use that AH backstory time to scum Profession for a decade.
Crafting is a downtime activity. Downtime gets handwaved more often than not. That you have the handwave time performed up front and in whatever manner is most sensible is irrelevant.
The problem is that you're giving the crafter value for his background and not giving any other character value for his background.
And, again, it is not starting gold. That you intentionally continue to mislabel the concept after being corrected multiple times by multiple people doesn't show good things.
Again, this doesn't allow anyone to surpass starting wealth any more than my half-off Ben & Jerry's coupon turns my ten dollar bill into a twenty.
Uh, yes, actually, it does. If you buy a house valued at $50,000 for $5,000, guess how much your property tax (which is based on the VALUE of the house) is? If you buy a bunch of jewelry at half off sales and then die, guess how much that jewelry is worth in your estate?
Discounts don't change value.
Q. "Further, how would it be problematic to shunt that creation process into character creation?"
A. Because it allows certain characters to cut in front of others in the timeline. And TIME HAS VALUE! Crafting takes Materials, Often equipment, and TIME. Crafting is one use of a characters time, but there are many other important uses for time.Except... time really doesn't have a whole lot of value in-game, and everyone already has AH backstory time. It's just that starting gold is a defined parameter, so you can't use that AH backstory time to scum Profession for a decade.
Crafting is a downtime activity. Downtime gets handwaved more often than not. That you have the handwave time performed up front and in whatever manner is most sensible is irrelevant.
The problem is that you're giving the crafter value for his background and not giving any other character value for his background.
And, again, it is not starting gold. That you intentionally continue to mislabel the concept after being corrected multiple times by multiple people doesn't show good things.
Again, this doesn't allow anyone to surpass starting wealth any more than my half-off Ben & Jerry's coupon turns my ten dollar bill into a twenty.Uh, yes, actually, it does. If you buy a house valued at $50,000 for $5,000, guess how much your property tax (which is based on the VALUE of the house) is? If you buy a bunch of jewelry at half off sales and then die, guess how much that jewelry is worth in your estate?
Discounts don't change value.
Right.
But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.
Edit: And it seems to me that this logic is motivated by a belief that while other skills and abilities "pay for themselves" or have value moving forward in time that the craft feats are somehow particularly hindered or not equal in power if interpreted through the "value" point of view.
I am not mad at Villeta, but it seems to me there is something circular in the logic that favors crafting in this equation. I am not sure a this point the position can be changed.
"Again, downtime is handwaved. "
I would REALLY say that is not a standard in all games. Sure, you don't play out every hour, or even every day, but in many campaigns, crafting is only one of many things that could be accomplished between encounters.
Especially at lower levels, downtime can be well utilized. Gathering info, research, travel, meetings, etc. Even shopping itself can take a fair amount of time. Granted, there needs to be weeks or even months set aside to craft at high levels, but by then land politics and dependents are often part of the game that require a characters time and attention.
Again, I think anyone is welcome to play it any way they want in their own campaigns. I think the one smurf we can all agree on is that it is debatable and up to a DM's interpretation. Many don't agree with the idea that a crafting feat allows you to have more then the book suggests you are allowed, thus I err on the side of caution when interpreting this.
smurfynessIf you don't get it after I explained it this much, you are never going to. It's like tutoring logic functions all over again. I quite clearly stated my reasons for opposing pre-game crafting. I even checked to make sure someone with no knowledhe of the context could understand.
You do not agree that wealth = assets. That's fine, but you are simply wrong. It is definitional, RAW and RAI, and entirelly a priori. You might as well argue that gravity is intelligent falling or that stars are really holes in the crystal shell letting in the light of the philogiston. The enormity of your wrongness rivals that of Kanye West, the determination you show in defending such wrongness shames Ahab, and continuing this conversation is like pushing against the Moon and expecting it to move. You have won this argument through sheer attrition, and I capitulate.
Ooooh, I like this.
Marvelously pedantic. Bravo.
Odd, however, that you totally dismiss everyone's opinion unless it matches your own. Everyone must be wrong but you. Nobody's opinion is valid unless it is identical to your own.
We're not arguing RAW here. We're not trying to interpret a rule. This discussion is about opinions. Should we or should we not advocate that game balance is or is not part of character wealth. Opinions.
IMHO, everyone else's opinion is just as valid as yours, despite the enormity of everyone else's wrongness.
As for me, I liken this question to the question I get asked when I take a new job. My prospective employer discusses my salary in terms of "total compensation package". They like to throw in things like health benefits, PTO, annual performance bonuses, one week per year of any training of my choice, a certain budget to purchase industry magazines and books that I get to keep in my personal library, etc.
None of that stuff pays the bills, but it all gets considered part of my compensation, and I negotiate for all of it with my employer.
The starting wealth for characters is like that. A new character starting at some level other than 1st has a total compensation package. They have HP, skills, feats, class abilities, prestige classes, normal gear, companions, cohorts, spells, and magic items. Some of this is stipulated by the RAW, some of it is negotiated at character creation.
One negotiation is trading a feat for a little bit of extra magic. The character could have a feat that is immediately useful, or he could have a feat that has no immediate use whatsoever. Chosing the later lessens his total compensation package, but increasing some other aspect, such as giving hime *some* extra magic, not x2, balances that total compensation package.
Now, that's my opinion. I won't belittle anyone on this thread by dismissing their opinions as being equally insipid as believing stars are holes in the crystal shell of night...
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.
Interesting.
Is the objection (from various posters) not so much that VV wants to allow the crafters to benefit from their skills and feats, but that such a ruling is unfair to others with potentially money-making abilities?I.e., as long as the Appraisers, Performers, Professionals (and whoever else can justify a wage) are allowed to get a piece of the action, there'd be no objection?
Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.
To do otherwise is to tell your players 'Don't bother ever taking these skills. They will never come into play. These skills may as well not exist'.
Then you have to look over character sheet, after character sheet, after character sheet, with the same old, same old, same old cookie-cutter choices, until you cry out in pain 'Whyohwhyowhy do my players make such boring PCs? Why do none of them ever put aside any skill ranks for interesting hobbies?'.
And the answer will be 'Because you stopped them'.
But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.Interesting.
Is the objection (from various posters) not so much that VV wants to allow the crafters to benefit from their skills and feats, but that such a ruling is unfair to others with potentially money-making abilities?I.e., as long as the Appraisers, Performers, Professionals (and whoever else can justify a wage) are allowed to get a piece of the action, there'd be no objection?
Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.
To do otherwise is to tell your players 'Don't bother ever taking these skills. They will never come into play. These skills may as well not exist'.
Then you have to look over character sheet, after character sheet, after character sheet, with the same old, same old, same old cookie-cutter choices, until you cry out in pain 'Whyohwhyowhy do my players make such boring PCs? Why do none of them ever put aside any skill ranks for interesting hobbies?'.
And the answer will be 'Because you stopped them'.
I can't speak for anyone else but my issue is what I perceive as an inconsistency in the logic of time, value, worth, and cost. That part of the argument favors a cost based accounting with no time and another part of the argument favors a value based accounting with time.
Crafters can craft in null time based on cost.
Noncrafters cannot make money because there is a cap on what they have in value in conjunction with "time before game".
I am willing to let crafters craft but I cannot reconcile that in a world where no one else gets to do anything before game. I am also willing to not let crafters craft and I reconcile that by making everyone do nothing before game.
And, again, it is not starting gold. That you intentionally continue to mislabel the concept after being corrected multiple times by multiple people doesn't show good things.
Wealth is measured in gold and then spent. The crafter spends 110g in wealth to get that axe. Whether that wealth is in gold coins or oxen or generic abstracted wealth points doesn't matter. Creating a masterwork dwarven waraxe is a 110g expense.
Requiring the crafter to expend three times as much as they should have to just because of a number in a market they're not using is what's unfair.
Uh, yes, actually, it does. If you buy a house valued at $50,000 for $5,000, guess how much your property tax (which is based on the VALUE of the house) is? If you buy a bunch of jewelry at half off sales and then die, guess how much that jewelry is worth in your estate?
The ten dollar bill in my purse is still a ten dollar bill, even if I manage to buy the Mona Lisa with it. That I get a good deal on something doesn't mean I had more money when I walked into the store.
And U.S. tax codes are not a part of D&D/PF rules. However, if I only have $10,000 to buy a house and I find that $50,000 house on the market for $5,000, guess what? I can afford it.
Discounts don't change value.
Market value doesn't change actual expense.
But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.
Actually, there are other skills and abilities besides crafting that can be used in that manner. Just not many. Some have even been mentioned.
A Wizard can use the time to cast spells alongside Permanency (or paying someone to do the same), or to scribe spells into their books. Someone with a high Handle Animal skill can use it to raise a griffon from an egg, at the price of the egg rather than a young griffon. Meanwhile, someone else formed meaningful relationships with three major NPCs in their background, and someone else ticked off King Rotgut the Drunkard, and someone else managed to get arrested for having an affair with the king's wife and daughter at the same time while performing a guitar solo on top of the corpse of Pelor.
These are not overriding the wealth by level chart. They are stretching what wealth you do have to start farther than others could for the same goods.
I am coming to your game with a maxed out Craft Coins skill. As I am an expert in all things coinmaking, let me just purchase some raw ore and presto 3x starting wealth all nicely stacked. Thank you, come again.
Find for me the craft DC on a coin and we'll talk. More likely, I'll jam a book where the sun don't shine, but that's still a form of communication, non?
Yeah craft coins is a bit much. But, its been mentioned before but craft is not a trained skill. So um, yeah, I crafted my backpack, 200 feet of rope, the grappling hook, my nobles outfit, a few alchemists fire, the queen's jewels, a 3 masted galleon, heck an entire castle complete with built in dungeon. All 2/3s off while you weren't looking. (This must be how those dungeon got made so quickly with no one noticing.)
Again, if you don't have the skills to craft something by taking 10, it will cost you. A DC20 check that costs you half the raw materials every time you fail by 5 or more is pretty tough untrained.
And do note that most of that stuff doesn't have an associated Craft DC, meaning that you can't make it without a houserule passed.
Meanwhile, the castle, the jewels, and the galleon are vast expenses, well beyond what you're likely to be able to afford, even with the Craft discount.
And a galleon would be Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), rather than Craft (Boatbuilding). That is, if you're allowing the only source on the matter (Stormwrack). I think the castle would be the same way from Stronghold Builder.
You can't just ignore time. And your ignoring a lot of it. Your 42 days doesn't even finish the Masterwork part of your Dwarven Waraxe much less that full plate. The rest of the people at the table were not just sitting around your forge enthralled by your blacksmithing. At they very least they have being spending the months waiting for you making profession begger checks.
And that's precisely why the obnoxious downtime should be pushed back into character creation. So that folks don't have to wait around like that. Or worse, break the party.
Allowing the backstory to be used and provide benefit is certainly not a bad thing. Allowing backstory X to provide benefits, while backstory Y and Z get nothing is a bad thing. And more to the point, making X's benefit so good its going to make Y and Z change their backstory to also get the benefit.
This ain't backstory providing benefits. It's allowing the person who paid for Ability X to actually use Ability X in a way that doesn't disrupt the game.
In short, "GP" is the same as "points" in this case -- it's like buying a 3,000 point army in a wargame, or whatever. It's NOT a real gold value. It's an abstract, shorthand way of making roughly balanced characters at a certain level.
And if in your wargame, you use a commander who has the bonus of getting infantry for 2 points instead of 3 points? Then, your 100 infantry cost you 200 points instead of 300 points, letting you get in another 20 infantry plus a 40-point tank in your 3,000 point army, while your opponent may have a smaller army, or at least one less infantry-centric, but her commander has artillery that deals 5 damage instead of 4.
I can't speak for anyone else but my issue is what I perceive as an inconsistency in the logic of time, value, worth, and cost. That part of the argument favors a cost based accounting with no time and another part of the argument favors a value based accounting with time.
Crafters can craft in null time based on cost.
Noncrafters cannot make money because there is a cap on what they have in value in conjunction with "time before game".I am willing to let crafters craft but I cannot reconcile that in a world where no one else gets to do anything before game. I am also willing to not let crafters craft and I reconcile that by making everyone do nothing before game.
Exactly this. I have nothing against the concept of letting crafters craft pre-game. My problem is, that then logically requires me to allow every other character the same amount of time of pre-game preparations in order to be fair and consistent, and suddenly I'm DMing three sessions of downtime because the Fighters (rightfully) want to excersize their skills in the 3 years the crafter is taking to craft everything.
It's simpler, easier, and much more fair to go with what the rules state, that all characters are supposed to start the game with roughly the same value in items. This prevents any "pre-game" headaches and is fair to all players; it's not like the crafter won't get value out of his feat after the game starts.
And, again, it is not starting gold. That you intentionally continue to mislabel the concept after being corrected multiple times by multiple people doesn't show good things.Wealth is measured in gold and then spent. The crafter spends 110g in wealth to get that axe. Whether that wealth is in gold coins or oxen or generic abstracted wealth points doesn't matter. Creating a masterwork dwarven waraxe is a 110g expense.
Yes, it's a 110g expense.
Fortunately, it's not expense that matters. It's value. The value of the waraxe is 330g, and that's how much it counts against your starting wealth, regardless of whether you craft it or find it for free.
Compare if you take the feat and play through versus what is being suggested:
If you took craft wondrous item at 3rd level you would have a reasonable amount of items from prior to when you took the feat, these items would not be discounted. Further, a significant percentage of items received as treasure (typically 60-80%) would have come in the form of items which have to be resold at 50% value. So using the 50% example the typical crafter would get a 'discount' on only 20-40% of the items they purchase between levels 3 and 5. So the total benefit would be perhaps a max of 20-30%
If you take that same 5th level character and let him craft 100% of his items at 50% then they are getting vastly more from the feat than they would had they played through.
I don't usually take craft feats because our campaigns don't generally offer a lot of time to craft and because our treasure tends to be in items rather than liquid resources. (You only realize the 50% benefit if you get paid cash). Given the chance to double my items at creation I would take the craft feats every time.
Similarly Handle Animal is pretty weak but if it gave me the chance to have a bunch of trained animals to bring to the table I would likely take it as well.
To me the fact that these uses bring so much more value to a new characters versus existing characters is lopsided and out of balance which is why I don't allow them.
Next time I have characters starting at a higher level I will likely draw up a list of items for the players to choose from along with a % of gold they could use to buy specific items. If someone wants to craft their items they can sell their items and craft from the cash raised that way which would be similar to the way they would benefit in game.
Does the exchange of combat feats for crafting feats represent opportunity cost? In short, is the lack of other feats a representation of having less experience?
Read up a ways in the thread - there crafting feats are very valuable. It's just that the method many GMs use to assign starting equipment above 1st level undermines that value.
Compare if you take the feat and play through versus what is being suggested:
If you took craft wondrous item at 3rd level you would have a reasonable amount of items from prior to when you took the feat, these items would not be discounted.
This is an argument I keep meaning to make and forgetting about. Thank you.
Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.
And then your character misses a climb check by 1 point and falls to his death. 'giving them a little something' doesn't really compensate for that. There's a reason a cliche skillset exists, and that reason is the adventures the DM sends the characters on.
It's the DMs fault, but from the other direction. You can't have it both ways.
So, until you start running adventures where the characters aren't placed in situations of peril that will kill them if they are not effective, players will TEND TO maximise where they see most gain: 'alive but 1-dimensional' beats 'fascinating but dead' for a great part of the role-playing public, I'd imagine...
Not that this has much to do with the ongoing debate except tangentially, though.
:-)
EDIT: clarity
But the whole issue is that Villeta wants to assess everything from a cost perspective in null time....but keeps using words like "downtime" to describe the obvious passage of time (and actions) and then claims that based on the cost in null time comparison that regardless of the passage of time, only those who can derive cost benefit from the market in the form of crafting feats can have more and or better stuff than anyone else. Because the feats override the wealth by level chart but no other skill or modified action do.Actually, there are other skills and abilities besides crafting that can be used in that manner. Just not many. Some have even been mentioned.
A Wizard can use the time to cast spells alongside Permanency (or paying someone to do the same), or to scribe spells into their books. Someone with a high Handle Animal skill can use it to raise a griffon from an egg, at the price of the egg rather than a young griffon. Meanwhile, someone else formed meaningful relationships with three major NPCs in their background, and someone else ticked off King Rotgut the Drunkard, and someone else managed to get arrested for having an affair with the king's wife and daughter at the same time while performing a guitar solo on top of the corpse of Pelor.
These are not overriding the wealth by level chart. They are stretching what wealth you do have to start farther than others could for the same goods.
First of all I play guitar solos on the corpse of Pelor constantly. I still don't have anything more because of it in physical items that are worth gp.
If a wizard does all of that don't they have less stuff because hey had to pay for the permanency (or that other person casting it?) I am a little lost on that example but I will move on for now.
Now.
When that handle animal player starts they will have a griffon valued at however many gp, even though they only paid the egg price. The same is true of the crafting player. Cost versus value. I think we are both clear on this.
When they are looked at, when they are assessed by the only comparative price structure for purposes of *value*, which is market price (because this is the only value field we have to compare against), these players have *more* than a sneaky thief or a stabby fighter of the same level in the same game. If sneaky thief or stabby fighter are not also allowed to use the passage of time to use their abilities (for our purposes profession:soldier and profession: street performer)to derive some sort of benefit in gp they are being denied an opportunity to increase their *value* in common with the handle animal guy and our crafter.
By your logic I could say that I met someone who was a crafter and I used diplomacy in my character history to improve their position towards me and sell me things at half price. Because I am not engaged in a market action to derive my benefit but I am allowed to use non-market actions to derive *value*. I don't have more money, I have a discount. I talked him into it. I knew your character for years. He made my stuff too.
I don't care if players get to do things before a game. I care that only *certain* players get to do something before a game.
But I am going to take this one step further.
Per the SRD:
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased
Emphasis mine.
Now I submit the following chain of thought:
Worth is assessed in comparison to market value as the only common instrument of valuation. All things derive their relative cost from the market value. Crafting uses market value to determine cost of components.
The SRD and book describes market action before assessing current wealth. Things have been traded for better stuff. Money has been spent. Wealth has been expended.
All skills, feats and interactions, with economy are a part of these market actions.
Starting wealth indicates what the character is left with at that level when the game begins. How is that assessed? Through an evaluation of worth.
How is that worth determined? Through market value. There is no other reference. To claim that a specific character gets a specific set of criteria for valuation because they said so isn't fair.
Now I am willing to admit and endorse to the following thoughts:
1. All character are allowed to take market actions during pre-game as determined by a mutually beneficial passage of time.
or.
2. Crafting character spends appropriate contextual wealth for what they need to craft.They craft at game start.
But wait, why let that happen?
So that the other players are allowed to engage in market actions and accrue relative wealth while the crafter makes his stuff.
1. and 2. are the same, both are different relationships to *time* but account for the passage of *time* relative to potential market action. It allows the rules of economy to affect everyone equally.
The rules suggest the different characters would be starting with different stuff in different percentages. (25% of wealth in weapons, etc.)All of that text is meant to be a starting block for evaluating how wealth was distributed in relation to net worth.
The claim that certain people get to do certain things creates a assumption of net worth. Long term access to discounts changes someones wealth. I spent less. I have more.
By the same token a character's wealth could be affected by skill or ability. I am better than others, I get paid more, I have more.
Why does one guy get to pay less but another one not get to make more? Both have invested in a set of rule based abilities (feats or skills) that allow them to do so. By allowing only one person or type of person or proportion of people to use that benefit you are not allowing someone to get maximum bang fo their buck for taking certain abilities, you are creating inequity for not taking certain types of abilities.
That is about all I can do to be clear.
This is an argument I keep meaning to make and forgetting about. Thank you.
Compare if you take the feat and play through versus what is being suggested:
If you took craft wondrous item at 3rd level you would have a reasonable amount of items from prior to when you took the feat, these items would not be discounted.
Right there are a lot of problems and it is because there is this notion of fixed economy and the attempt to truncate irregular market action with a "make it easy" formula (ie. starting wealth). A guy who haggled well or dances great would have more money too if he took the time.
Time is the critical piece missing in the formula.
Funny - I always thought that the craft item feats were there to enable 1-1 exchange from 'items you don't want' to 'items you do want', either for just you or for the whole party, and if its for the whole party you can expect to make a bit of money out of it too during the transaction. If it's just for you then you'll make a bit of money out of it then as well, but probably not much more than the 'whole party' scenario because of egalitarian issues, or that you can't craft everything you need.
Creating characters above 1st level messes with this a bit, because the whole party can choose what items they have at the start of the game, therefore removing the 1-1 exchange reason for crafting.
Mind you, creating characters above 1st messes with a lot of stuff, so perhaps this isn't the big issue some people are saying it is.
About skills that you have at 1st level: A lot of the arguments here seem to be based on fluff, which you can invent to try to justify all sorts of stuff... and I'm not going to diss someone's fluff - that's for the DM to decide.
Yes, it's a 110g expense.
Fortunately, it's not expense that matters. It's value. The value of the waraxe is 330g, and that's how much it counts against your starting wealth, regardless of whether you craft it or find it for free.
If you turn to page 399&400, where it discusses wealth-by-level, it measures wealth-by-level in terms of gold pieces and refers to it as a budget of gold that you spend, not a market value of objects you possess.
And if you invest in the ability to let you spend 110g to get that waraxe? You get to spend 110g on that waraxe.
And crafting has a higher opportunity cost than just the feats and skills, and that is the time it takes to craft. Pre-game crafting does not account for this opportunity cost in any way, which is why it unfairly benefits and enriches the crafter. Even if it is within the scope of the game, and even if it would be allowed by your interpretation of the rules, it still unjustly enriches the crafter because not all of the opportunity cost is accounted for.
Except there isn't an opportunity cost to worry about, especially not in character creation.
Y'see, crafting's only usable during large chunks of downtime. That pretty much means before and after adventures. Adventures that could well be four or five levels long. Crafting isn't always usable. You could have a campaign from levels 3 to 10 with plentiful downtime at level 4, almost none until level 7, that limited to a week, and not much more again until near the very end of the campaign.
By denying crafting in character creation, you could well either be putting it as the first thing that gets done in-game, making it a meaningless measure that accomplishes nothing beyond annoying the entire table, or robbing the crafter of what could well be the only large chunk of downtime they get for ten levels. Starting wealth (defined as a budget of gold to be spent) is not being changed. It's being used.
It is in no way unfair to the crafter. They aren't guaranteed many chances to use their crafting, while the guy with Weapon Focus is guaranteed to be able to use it on nearly every attack roll he ever makes. That crafting pays off from the beginning is no different from Weapon Focus applying to AB from the beginning. It's just that the crafting bonus will continually shrink until the party manages to get the downtime, and if they don't find the downtime for three levels, the crafting bonus will not even exist for extended periods of time.
To deny the crafter that initial downtime and then immediately throw them into a time-sensitive mission that you don't get back from for three levels is on par with denying the guy with Weapon Focus: Longsword access to any weapons but axes for those same three levels.
It does enrich the crafter. However, that enrichment is not unjust.
And this is not hand-waved or part of backstory or anything like that. If you had 2 characters, one a crafter and one not, both identical in every other way, one would have had the benefit of activity with no time spent while the other would not. One has been unjustly enriched over the other.
If the other has any activity to perform that does not violate their defined available wealth to spend, then they're free to do so, whether it's paying for some mage to cast Explosive Runes on a sealed letter or raising a griffon or casting a Permanency'd Greater Magic Fang on their fists. They're just not allowed to increase their starting gold.
And if they don't take advantage of the opportunity, that's their choice. That the Wizard chose to be a Wizard while you chose Fighter doesn't make it unfair that you can't cast magic next Tuesday. The Fighter chose crafting and gets to craft at appropriate crafting costs. The Barbarian chose Handle Animal and gets to raise a griffon at appropriate costs for raising that griffon. The Wizard gets to cast those permanent spells at appropriate costs for casting permanent spells (so long as it doesn't involve infinite loops like the book of a thousand explosive runes). And if one character chooses not to take any abilities like that, instead taking Cleave and Weapon Focus it's their choice, and they'll get to put their abilities to their advantage as soon as the first fight begins. Meanwhile, the Barbarian may hardly make another significant Handle Animal check again for the rest of her career, and the Fighter may not get another chance to make a sword worth having until she has 3-6 months to make an adamantine one.
Similarly Handle Animal is pretty weak but if it gave me the chance to have a bunch of trained animals to bring to the table I would likely take it as well.
A bunch of trained animals still isn't very useful. You can only control 1-3 in a round. One through Ride and up to two through Handle Animal, at the cost of actions. Even then, you're falling into the wild kingdom issue where legal actions are tossed out on the grounds that managing fifty trained war dogs strangles the game.
Handle Animal for a trained and powerful mount is useful. But for much more than that? Not so useful.
If a wizard does all of that don't they have less stuff because hey had to pay for the permanency (or that other person casting it?) I am a little lost on that example but I will move on for now.
Yes. The Wizard casts Permanency and pays for the casting in character creation, then has the permanent spell available to her when the game begins. Just as The Master Smith pays to craft that axe at the reduced price and has it available to her when the game begins. And the Barbarian pays for that griffon egg and raises it in character creation if her Handle Animal skill is high enough.
When they are looked at, when they are assessed by the only comparative price structure for purposes of *value*, which is market price (because this is the only value field we have to compare against), these players have *more* than a sneaky thief or a stabby fighter of the same level in the same game. If sneaky thief or stabby fighter are not also allowed to use the passage of time to use their abilities (for our purposes profession:soldier and profession: street performer)to derive some sort of benefit in gp they are being denied an opportunity to increase their *value* in common with the handle animal guy and our crafter.
False. No ability is allowed to increase starting wealth. Which is a budget of gold to be spent, not a value of objects to be owned. That one group has a set of abilities that can be used for the acquisition of a larger number of gold coins is irrelevant when the number of gold coins is locked.
However, that another character has abilities that diminish expenses is completely different, and perfectly applicable. It does not have any impact on the budget of coins you get to spend, only how far you can push it. This is not unfair. This is a defined aspect of the starting gold. You only have a budget of X gold to spend. You cannot get more, but that is in no way a prohibition against spending better.
You keep saying value, but WBL is not defined by value. In fact, there is an entire series of abilities designed to allow you greater value for the same coin, that are supposed to give you more value than WBL would get at market alone. How much more is secondary to the fact that it's what the abilities are supposed to do.
By your logic I could say that I met someone who was a crafter and I used diplomacy in my character history to improve their position towards me and sell me things at half price. Because I am not engaged in a market action to derive my benefit but I am allowed to use non-market actions to derive *value*. I don't have more money, I have a discount. I talked him into it.
False.
Diplomacy is an involved character interaction directly subject to DM discretion as to what the NPC would or would not do. There are no direct rules for getting discounts through diplomacy and haggling, and therefore neither is valid as a part of character creation. There are rules for crafting for a discount, which are abundantly clear. 1/3 or 1/2 market price, make your checks, get an item.
I knew your character for years. He made my stuff too.
That, however, is valid and sensible. If you're traveling with The Master Smith, why would you buy a sword?
I don't care if players get to do things before a game. I care that only *certain* players get to do something before a game.
Everyone gets the option of making pre-game actions so long as those actions are valid. If someone's only actions are buying stuff at market price, then that's all they do. It's their choice.
Starting wealth indicates what the character is left with at that level when the game begins. How is that assessed? Through an evaluation of worth.
How is that worth determined? Through market value. There is no other reference. To claim that a specific character gets a specific set of criteria for valuation because they said so isn't fair.
Except under that interpretation you still have that one character starting with 27.5 tons of wheat to fund the weapon/armor creation precisely because their budget to be spent is better spent by doing it themselves. And that X-month creation process would still do the table more good shunted back into character creation.
Why does one guy get to pay less but another one not get to make more? Both have invested in a set of rule based abilities (feats or skills) that allow them to do so. By allowing only one person or type of person or proportion of people to use that benefit you are not allowing someone to get maximum bang fo their buck for taking certain abilities, you are creating inequity for not taking certain types of abilities.
They both get the same. They both get 1000g. They both get to spend it as they see fit. One invests in the "stab good" school. The other invests in the "acquire cheap" school. The "stab good" guy gets to stab gooder. The "acquire cheap" guy doesn't stab as good, but gets to acquire more, better stuff. They each made their respective choices and acquired their respective advantages from the same starting supplies and options. The crafter isn't strictly better off. She is trading one advantage for another, and it's only fair that she actually get the advantage she payed for.
Yeah that's in the same ballpark my reaction would be it when you showed up with 3x the value of gear as the starting amount assigned.
I can point you right to that DC for the masterwork full plate and the masterwork waraxe. And again, if I'm getting 3x value, that means I'm using extremely constrained gear consisting of only the things I'm actually able to make through mundane crafting, which is going to become obsolete in short order. All those things I can't make myself are off limits.
Coming in equipped only with those weapons and armor is a [i]huge[i] sacrifice, even if they're very nice weapons and armor.
So you don't target the DC20. You can make simple items at DC5. Typical items at DC10. And high-quality items at DC15. You can craft a fair amount of stuff with no skill, take 10, and an infinite supply of time. And for the harder stuff, well if you succeed on a 15+ you'll still save some money on the average. Just be prepared to rolls a lot of checks. But time is infinite so who cares how long it took.
Crafting pre-game and rolling pre-game are two entirely different stories. However, even if you do all this, there's still the matter of whether or not it makes sense for you to make everything yourself. After all, The Master Smith making his own weapons and armor makes complete sense. The griffon rider raising her own griffon makes complete sense. The haughty noble making his own rope does not, and it amounts to quibbling over pocket change. A backpack only costs, what, a couple gold? It doesn't matter. Sure, you could make a large amount of stuff, but it's ultimately just crap.
They weren't waiting around. Assuming you used the full 1000gp as raw materials, they made 76 profession checks earning them 5.5 gold per check (assuming 10 wisdom, and no skill). Granted 5.5 gold looks pretty bad compared to the 26.67 (half that if you sell your creation) gold your crafter is increasing his wealth by a week. Still after these 76 weeks, they increased their wealth by 418gp. While its not the 2000gp the crafter made at least it some compensation.
And you think it's a better start to the campaign to roll two hundred and twenty five Profession checks than just shunt over the item creation to the place it makes most sense?
Show me that rule in a book. If you can spend dozens of weeks sitting behind a forge increasing your net worth. Saying the next person at the table could not have spent those week plying their profession to increase their net worth with some good old fashion income.
Page 399-400. You start with a X gp budget that you spend to purchase whatever. That is not market value of objects you possess. It makes no mention of your net worth, but it does set the budget. Acquiring additional gold goes above the budget. Acquiring goods at lower prices does not.
PirateDevon wrote:
If a wizard does all of that don't they have less stuff because hey had to pay for the permanency (or that other person casting it?) I am a little lost on that example but I will move on for now.
Yes. The Wizard casts Permanency and pays for the casting in character creation, then has the permanent spell available to her when the game begins. Just as The Master Smith pays to craft that axe at the reduced price and has it available to her when the game begins. And the Barbarian pays for that griffon egg and raises it in character creation if her Handle Animal skill is high enough.
If the DM allows it. Nowhere. Not a single place does it say or imply in the rules that someone can do *anything* before the game starts.
PirateDevon wrote:When they are looked at, when they are assessed by the only comparative price structure for purposes of *value*, which is market price (because this is the only value field we have to compare against), these players have *more* than a sneaky thief or a stabby fighter of the same level in the same game. If sneaky thief or stabby fighter are not also allowed to use the passage of time to use their abilities (for our purposes profession:soldier and profession: street performer)to derive some sort of benefit in gp they are being denied an opportunity to increase their *value* in common with the handle animal guy and our crafter.
False. No ability is allowed to increase starting wealth. Which is a budget of gold to be spent, not a value of objects to be owned. That one group has a set of abilities that can be used for the acquisition of a larger number of gold coins is irrelevant when the number of gold coins is locked.
However, that another character has abilities that diminish expenses is completely different, and perfectly applicable. It does not have any impact on the budget of coins you get to spend, only how far you can push it. This is not unfair. This is a defined aspect of the starting gold. You only have a budget of X gold to spend. You cannot get more, but that is in no way a prohibition against spending better.
You keep saying value, but WBL is not defined by value. In fact, there is an entire series of abilities designed to allow you greater value for the same coin, that are supposed to give you more value than WBL would get at market alone. How much more is secondary to the fact that it's what the abilities are supposed to do.
The definition of wealth
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
Which means that wealth is assessed through *value* not cost. Hell it is used in the definition! That you spend your money better, when it leads to you having more means that you HAVE MORE WEALTH. When game time starts you have exceeded the wealth of other characters by having more in assets to liquidate over anyone else.
But look here is the deal and this is the crux of the issue.
You say you get the amount of gold to spend. A lot of us think that you get that amount of gold worth of stuff. You say wealth is fixed in coin. We say wealth is your net worth. Standard definitions seem to support the net worth interpretation of wealth.
PirateDevon wrote:By your logic I could say that I met someone who was a crafter and I used diplomacy in my character history to improve their position towards me and sell me things at half price. Because I am not engaged in a market action to derive my benefit but I am allowed to use non-market actions to derive *value*. I don't have more money, I have a discount. I talked him into it.
False.
Diplomacy is an involved character interaction directly subject to DM discretion as to what the NPC would or would not do. There are no direct rules for getting discounts through diplomacy and haggling, and therefore neither is valid as a part of character creation. There are rules for crafting for a discount, which are abundantly clear. 1/3 or 1/2 market price, make your checks, get an item.
False implies an attempt on my part to deceive or be untrue through intent or contrary to *fact* and there is little fact here, mostly opinion. Your use is perceived as hostile. Please stop.
The rules dictate how craft is used when it is allowed. When it is allowed is subject to DM discretion.
You assume that DMs would *let* you go to the market with your gold and by your components and have the time to get your stuff together. You *assume* that DMs perceive wealth as only capital funds and not net value. You *assume* that craft can be used as you stipulate. And if your DM lets you? Rock on.
PirateDevon wrote:I knew your character for years. He made my stuff too.
That, however, is valid and sensible. If you're traveling with The Master Smith, why would you buy a sword?
I am glad we can agree on something. ; - )
Would you feel this way if I said I traveled with ANY master smith and not another player character?
PirateDevon wrote:I don't care if players get to do things before a game. I care that only *certain* players get to do something before a game.
Everyone gets the option of making pre-game actions so long as those actions are valid. If someone's only actions are buying stuff at market price, then that's all they do. It's their choice.
Right but it is all subject to the validity of the DM's discretion right? You are currently (in my mind) defining what is valid "before game" and what is not when the rules offer no clear and articulated rules for dictating what is valid. You are arbitrarily deciding what is allowed and what is not.
PirateDevon wrote:Starting wealth indicates what the character is left with at that level when the game begins. How is that assessed? Through an evaluation of worth.
How is that worth determined? Through market value. There is no other reference. To claim that a specific character gets a specific set of criteria for valuation because they said so isn't fair.
Except under that interpretation you still have that one character starting with 27.5 tons of wheat to fund the weapon/armor creation precisely because their budget to be spent is better spent by doing it themselves. And that X-month creation process would still do the table more good shunted back into character creation.
I am saying that the Master Crafter starts at level 6 with 16,000 GP worth of wheat. He then sells that. Since what the wheat is worth is determined by market value in PF and the rules say he gets only 1/2 of that value. He has 8,000 GP.
Craft away.
*handwave time spent*
That is different than having 16,000 gp to spend on crafting. Which is what you advocate by shunting it before character creation.
PirateDevon wrote:Why does one guy get to pay less but another one not get to make more? Both have invested in a set of rule based abilities (feats or skills) that allow them to do so. By allowing only one person or type of person or proportion of people to use that benefit you are not allowing someone to get maximum bang fo their buck for taking certain abilities, you are creating inequity for not taking certain types of abilities.
They both get the same. They both get 1000g. They both get to spend it as they see fit. One invests in the "stab good" school. The other invests in the "acquire cheap" school. The "stab good" guy gets to stab gooder. The "acquire cheap" guy doesn't stab as good, but gets to acquire more, better stuff. They each made their respective choices and acquired their respective advantages from the same starting supplies and options. The crafter isn't strictly better off. She is trading one advantage for another, and it's only fair that she actually get the advantage she payed for.
And we repeat ourselves but I will do it. You say they both get 1,000 gp. I say the both get 1,000 gp worth of stuff. One invested in "make stuff" the other invested in "get paid to work". They made their respective choices.
The crafter *is* better off. Because she has more stuff than other people. She is acquirring the advantage "make stuff" and gets to use that advantage all game long. In your world she not only gets that during the game but before it also...because somehow you interpret you set of actions to be the only ones valid in the nebulous "before" because you can reference rules that stipulate what happens in the "now" of game.
Page 399-400. You start with a X gp budget that you spend to purchase whatever. That is not market value of objects you possess. It makes no mention of your net worth, but it does set the budget. Acquiring additional gold goes above the budget. Acquiring goods at lower prices does not.
Per the SRD:
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.
Emphasis mine.
Its not often that I feel the need to break out the dictionary but I did it above so I could be clear. If we consider that wealth is all objects of value not just cold hard cash, as I noted earlier, and we look at the table of wealth by level, we see that the amount of wealth a level 6 character has is "16,000 gp".
Is that worth? Is that cost? What is it? You *have* 16,000 gp? That is a lot of money!
If that wealth was cash, why would they specifically state that you should start with approx 10% in coins? They don't say get 16,000 gp spend as wanted. They say you have "16,000 gp" wealth at 6th level. Which the average character would have approx 10% of in coins.
But that would seem, to me, subject to DM approval. Not to mention they say "budget your wealth" not "spend your money". If you interpret "budget your wealth" as "spend your money" then the line about spending your money on 10% percent of coins seems a little weird to me.
You could claim that master crafter started with 100% in coins since it does say
"Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."
Why exactly is Master Crafter walking around with nothing but gold coins? Surely that is subject to DM approval?
To say that you had previously spent those coins with a discount is no more in the spirit or text of the passage above then my desire to have a 6th level break dancing gnome bard perform for weeks before the game started so I could have double the GP. Why? because the gnome has a wealth of 16, 000 gp. It is allocated in percentages relative to the total pot of 16,000 gp. That he was break dancing forever doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter that you crafted. Because your wealth is 16,000gp
Wealth is defined as all assets. Liquid and not. I could post a bunch of links to dictionaries and wikipedia and a bunch of other references but do I really need to?
A person who makes, and therefore has, MW plate when no one else possibly could have afforded it, has more wealth. It works like this:
Start with 16,000 gp.
Buy 10,000 gp worth of stuff.
Craft with 6,000 gp. (Creates a 18,000 gp object)
Sell all assets. 8,000 + .5(18,000) = 17000 gp.
Compare 17,000gp versus 16,000 gp. Has the wealth level been exceeded?
The power to produce in this system or "get a discount" creates a situation where the potential cash on hand is in violation of the fixed standard of wealth because the mechanism that defines what things are worth, market value, is fixed in all transactions. Producers reap a precise and immutable profit. If anything the crafting feats give a unique advantage throughout the game by persistently exceeding the value of wealth by any level because the market is fixed and the rules state that you can sell all your stuff at 1/2 market value.
The thing that bothers me about your argument is that you believe that the above mentioned bonus isn't just good enough for the game, but needs to be carried into "before" the game. You shuck and jive about the immutability of starting wealth and then claim that somehow crafting is a discount and not the same. It is the same. It is pure, cold, hard, profit. Extra money. More than what anyone else has. Why? Because the PF rules promise you a fiscal reward for selling your stuff. You can sell you stuff as soon as the gun goes off. And even if you didn't sell you stuff you have more *wealth* by modern interpretation and definition of the word.
You can't stab as good or sneak as good because you want to make stuff and sell it or use it or whatever. You don't get a discount. You pay for what you make. You get those components by talking to people, handing them gold, taking those things, standing in a forge, working with a tool. Those may be actions that are boring to play but why should they happen before the game? Because you say so? Because it happens to favor your idea of wealth as only money? Nothing in the book supports that view. In my opinion your logic is inconsistent with the ideas and concepts stated in that section as I, and others, read them to be.
There honestly isn't anything more to say. I have no doubt that you will pick apart what I have said committed to your interpretation. Ultimately, I am glad that it works for you.
Edit:
I got it. I can beat myself at my own game. The percentages are rules of thumb for your GP expenditure. So you shouldn't have more than 10% in gp when you are DONE with all of your resource allocation and crafting. That doesn't circumvent the wealth definition issue but it does counter my spend coins on 10% coins issue. *sigh* I don't even need her eher now, I can smash these two arguments together by myself now.
Looking back over the thread it is obvious to me that VV has spent a lot of time and energy crafting this very interesting perception on crafting. I think only a game designer coming down and saying "it can't be done it works like this" would possibly make a dent. Or they would say "subject to DM approval" which would make me laugh at this point.
I am saying that the Master Crafter starts at level 6 with 16,000 GP worth of wheat. He then sells that. Since what the wheat is worth is determined by market value in PF and the rules say he gets only 1/2 of that value. He has 8,000 GP.
Craft away.
*handwave time spent*
That is different than having 16,000 gp to spend on crafting. Which is what you advocate by shunting it before character creation.
So what you are saying is that the Master Crafter uses his 16k of wealth to create 16k worth of gear.
Why did he spend skill points/feats on crafting abilities again? Why not just buy the 16k of gear to begin with?
You might as well just give out the gear he wants as treasure as he levels, rather than making him burn resources to take Xk of treasure, sell it, and turn it into Xk of gear. Because it makes absolutely no difference and saves discussion time.
I can't believe how much has been posted here since my last post in this thread. After seeing all the arguing over this, I now know why Pathfinder Society Play does not allow characters to have the magic crafting feats. And if they are reading this thread, they may decide to not allow some of the crafting skills as well.
Anyway, TriOmegaZero's post made me remember a point I had forgotten to make earlier. To me, the crafting skills and feats exist so that characters can make items that they could otherwise not go out and buy for their characters. If you can just go to the local magic or armor shop and pick up what you want to craft, then tough luck, go and buy it with your starting wealth. But if you want something either not available in a shop or because there are no shops, as in the OP's situation where their town has been destroyed, then that is acceptable as long as the item does not take a ridiculous amount of time to make.
Now, as for pre-game activities for characters starting higher than 1st level, here is something I have done that works well whether or not the initial adventure is going to be time sensitive. For example, I am going to run a game where the players start at 5th level. I tell them starting level, starting wealth, whatever restrictions the campaign may have, and that there will be a certain amount of down time upon character completion but before the first adventure begins. So if I tell them they have two weeks before adventuring, then they can do whatever they want in that amount of game time so long as it is not an activity that generates XP. A bard could make some extra gold by performing, a fighter could work as a guard (a very uneventful time period as per the no XP earned rule but still gold earned), someone with crafting skills or feats could craft stuff, etc.
Which means that wealth is assessed through *value* not cost. Hell it is used in the definition! That you spend your money better, when it leads to you having more means that you HAVE MORE WEALTH. When game time starts you have exceeded the wealth of other characters by having more in assets to liquidate over anyone else.
But look here is the deal and this is the crux of the issue.
You say you get the amount of gold to spend. A lot of us think that you get that amount of gold worth of stuff. You say wealth is fixed in coin. We say wealth is your net worth. Standard definitions seem to support the net worth interpretation of wealth.
Game definitions trump the dictionary. The dictionary is only a valid source when a term is not defined in the rules proper. Wealth by level is defined within the game as a budget of gold that is spent, which has absolutely nothing to do with value of goods owned and everything to do with expense. Lowering expenses does not change your 1,000g budget.
alse implies an attempt on my part to deceive or be untrue through intent or contrary to *fact* and there is little fact here, mostly opinion. Your use is perceived as hostile. Please stop.
Opinions can be false if they are contrary to fact. And 'false' does not imply any intent to deceive, only that a statement is factually incorrect.
It is a fact that Diplomacy does not grant any explicitly defined ability haggle or gain any sort of discount.
Would you feel this way if I said I traveled with ANY master smith and not another player character?
Simple. The NPC master smith is not party access to a discount. NPC funds do not belong to the party. If Boris' brother Alfred is in the party and is giving up personal funds to give Boris better gear at his own expense, that's moving party funds, not pulling them from the void. If Alfred is not in the party and gives Boris a masterwork dwarven waraxe, that acquisition is abstracted to market. And if Alfred is in the party and has Craft: Weaponsmithing and chooses to make Boris a masterwork dwarven waraxe for 110g, that's still coming out of the party's ability set, not NPCs'.
Right but it is all subject to the validity of the DM's discretion right? You are currently (in my mind) defining what is valid "before game" and what is not when the rules offer no clear and articulated rules for dictating what is valid. You are arbitrarily deciding what is allowed and what is not.
It's not at all arbitrary.
You start with a 1000g budget. That is cast in stone. Everything else is not. Getting very explicitly defined and legal discounts does not change the budget one whit. If I go shopping and have a fifty-dollar limit, and I see a ten-dollar blouse I want, I don't say, "Wait, this blouse is 50% off, so I deduct twenty dollars from my limit." I say, "This blouse costs me ten dollars."
Beyond that, it's a matter of, "Does this detract from the game?" When you start a game, you want to get the party together and get going. At the same time, players want to actually use their abilities to the advantages they took them over.
Having The Master Smith buy his gear at market means you're denying him the use of those smithing skills he invested in. You're forcing the player to choose between throwing the skills she invested in out the window to pay full price buy things she can and should be making herself at large discounts, which is tremendously unfair to the player, or the player can use those rightfully gained smithing skills to delay the adventure for some arbitrary length of time to do things that she should have done before ever leaving the clanhold.
Let us look at a timeline here. Personal history > Arbitrary accounting phase > Adventure. Where is it best for a game to start? I'm gonna say adventure.
An adventure should begin with characters who have done all logical preparation. If someone's a griffon-rider, they should be allowed to have their griffon ready. She should not be forced to choose between having their griffon ready and not throwing her skills out a window as she pays double the price she should have to.
What you don't want to hear at the start of the high-level adventure is this:
"I am Elfy McMage. I have come down from my century's study in my lofty tower that I might deal with the troubles of this world. But first, I have this pile of thirty scrolls that I must scribe into mine spellbook that for some reason I did not scribe in there before I left. If you will excuse me, I shall return next month."
"I am Boris 'Dwarfmeister' Smith. I have come from the great clanhold of Dwarfheim and its sacred superawesome forges that I might slay evil and monsters and all that good stuff. But first, I must spend the next three years and change here in Podunk making that adamantine axe, mithral plate, and mithral shield that for some strange reason I forgot to make before leaving Dwarfheim. If you'll excuse me, I'll be right back."
"I am Griff N. Rider, of the griffon riding tribes in the northern wastes, fresh from my training and eager for glory. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go incubate this griffon egg and raise the little bugger from birth until he's all big and strong. Funny how this wasn't a part of my training. Excuse me, I'm about to go try and figure out how long it takes for a griffon to grow up."
"I'm Sly Smallson. Um... I really don't want to wait around for the griffon to grow up. Can't we just get to the adventuring part?"
I don't know about you, but I think that's one very rocky start to the game. I'd much rather skip that preparation part, or better, put it some place in the backstory where it's more sensible, and then actually start the game when folks are ready to start the game. And all three of those players are perfectly justified. The griffon rider has the ability to raise that griffon from birth at half-cost. There is absolutely no reason why he should be forced to pay full price on that griffon. That he chooses to actually employ his abilities rather than cow toe to a DM trying to rob him of that ability is not a player failing. Here, the DM has forced the players to choose between throwing their abilities out the window or inconveniencing the entire table. In this situation, it's the DM who has failed. The players aren't doing a thing wrong.
I am saying that the Master Crafter starts at level 6 with 16,000 GP worth of wheat. He then sells that. Since what the wheat is worth is determined by market value in PF and the rules say he gets only 1/2 of that value. He has 8,000 GP.
Trade goods are the same as cash. A ton of wheat is currency, as good as twenty gold coins. It is not sold at half-price. It's traded at value. Besides, that wheat can just as easily start as gold coins.
The crafter *is* better off. Because she has more stuff than other people. She is acquirring the advantage "make stuff" and gets to use that advantage all game long. In your world she not only gets that during the game but before it also...because somehow you interpret you set of actions to be the only ones valid in the nebulous "before" because you can reference rules that stipulate what happens in the "now" of game.
The person who has "make stuff" always has the advantage of make stuff (except when the party's lost in the wilderness for five levels). That is in no way different from the indisputable fact that the guy who takes "stab good" always has "stab good." And "stab good" increases in value as well. Better damage means more with higher accuracy, and higher accuracy means more with higher damage.
And there are many actions that are perfectly valid before the game begins. Cleave is not one of them. There's a lock on your budget to start, and "stab good" has no defined ability that applies before the game without breaking that locked starting budget. "Buy cheap," however, does not break the budget.
The masterwork sword is going to be an advantage as soon as the first fight starts. That Weapon Focus is going to be an advantage as soon as combat starts. There is little difference. If one person takes an ability to have more, better stuff rather than an ability to stab better, there's nothing wrong with her getting more, better stuff.
Why exactly is Master Crafter walking around with nothing but gold coins? Surely that is subject to DM approval?
It's no more subject to DM approval than feat selection. That the DM can choose to be a dick after choosing to be a dick on the matter is not relevant. And that is what this comes down to. The player has every right to actually be able to use her character's abilities to gain their defined advantages. If the only way to do that is start out with 660g in pure cash from your 1000g reserves so that you can make that masterwork full plate and masterwork axe, then that's what you have to do. The DM is already damning logic by saying Boris couldn't have made the stuff in Dwarfheim.
To say that you had previously spent those coins with a discount is no more in the spirit or text of the passage above then my desire to have a 6th level break dancing gnome bard perform for weeks before the game started so I could have double the GP. Why? because the gnome has a wealth of 16, 000 gp. It is allocated in percentages relative to the total pot of 16,000 gp. That he was break dancing forever doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter that you crafted. Because your wealth is 16,000gp
Rubbish. It's every bit as much in the spirit of the wealth limit as my docking ten dollars from my personal shopping limit after I buy that blouse for ten dollars half-off.
Start with 16,000 gp.
Buy 10,000 gp worth of stuff.
Craft with 6,000 gp. (Creates a 18,000 gp object)Sell all assets. 8,000 + .5(18,000) = 17000 gp.
Compare 17,000gp versus 16,000 gp. Has the wealth level been exceeded?
You spent 10,000g on market goods and 6,000g on personal crafting. You spend 16,000g. You have not spent a penny more than starting wealth. You're golden. That others might not be able to get the same amount of swag with the same amount of money is irrelevant; the crafter has invested all these skills to make the stuff in the first place.
You can't stab as good or sneak as good because you want to make stuff and sell it or use it or whatever. You don't get a discount. You pay for what you make. You get those components by talking to people, handing them gold, taking those things, standing in a forge, working with a tool. Those may be actions that are boring to play but why should they happen before the game? Because you say so? Because it happens to favor your idea of wealth as only money? Nothing in the book supports that view. In my opinion your logic is inconsistent with the ideas and concepts stated in that section as I, and others, read them to be.
They should happen before the game because that is where it makes the most sense to put them for the good of the game. The most basic of preparations should be completed and out of the way when the game starts rather than four years in coming.
And the wording in the book is expense-based, not value-based, with chance abstracted to market.
I max out Craft(Jewelry) and Diplomacy. I spend ALL my wealth by level crafting jewelry (high quality, DC 15 or 20). Game session 1, I start out at the nearest metropolis, where I use my Diplomacy check (in game) to trade all my wares for adventuring gear at 75% market price. Now I go adventuring with almost 245% wealth by level.
Ah, you're making a merchant? Fabulous. Good excuse for some traveling. However, you can't invoke abilities that don't exist. Diplomacy doesn't work that way. It has no ability to either decrease prices or raise proceeds, bar through DM decree. And you don't actually choose where you start.
So, if you were to start with all of your wealth in the form of self-made jewelry that's 150%, once you sell it. However, past level four or so, you're getting into the realm of transactions of such magnitude that they cease to be subject to the standard abstracted economic rules as there just isn't enough of a market to offload 31,500g in jewelry very easily, making finding buyers a task unto itself and by the time you find buyers for all of it, you've wandered so far and done so much adventuring that it's not anywhere close to +50% wealth anymore. The higher the starting level, the more goods you have to sell, the harder it is to find buyers for it all. It's still a nice bonus, mind, but you've had to contend with the problem of being almost completely sans gear while the party protects you for a level or two. And it's not at all unreasonable that they demand a cut of your profits, as they're pretty much serving as your wandering merchant's professional body guards.
And do mind that the pregame crafting must make sense. After all, The Master Smith making his own gear makes sense, and the griffon rider raising his own griffon makes sense. If you're making all this jewelry, then the only background that really makes sense is that you're a professional jeweler and merchant or something similar, particularly since your stated goal is to sell all this jewelry. We can work with that. However, some schmuck who happens to have Craft: Jewelry as an incidental that has nothing to do with the story and then starts out with a cart full of merchandise does not make sense.
Nothing I described you seem to have any problem with, so just let your players know and everyone starts with lots more cash than they deserve.
"Deserve" is an interesting term, and pretty much irrelevant. Starting wealth also doesn't mean nearly so much as you seem to think. If you're starting at level 3, and someone pours literally everything into crafting, then manages to offload the gear, that's 1,500g profit. By level 5, standard wealth is over ten thousand. Not a big deal for long.
I've had a player start out with nearly all his wealth in crafted goods, and it went much like my above example. We started at level 1, and he was professional arms merchant. An Artificer with a crossbow, a mule, and about fifty swords he sought to sell; the starting thorpe couldn't afford 'em and wouldn't want or need 'em anyways. Which means he had to find a place that had need of fifty swords. Such places are not generally very safe. The payoff from the trip amounted to a quest reward (though an exceptionally lucrative one, of which the merchant's party got their cut as his bodyguards) and got the party swept up in the orc wars. The added funds didn't unbalance things in the least.
(If they want to take item creation feats and say they made what they bought, I'm find with that, but it would change nothing materially)
And that is fundamentally unfair and pointless, like telling the Barbarian, "We're going to use your normal damage when you rage, but you can say you do extra damage."
I am saying that the Master Crafter starts at level 6 with 16,000 GP worth of wheat. He then sells that. Since what the wheat is worth is determined by market value in PF and the rules say he gets only 1/2 of that value. He has 8,000 GP.
Craft away.
*handwave time spent*
That is different than having 16,000 gp to spend on crafting. Which is what you advocate by shunting it before character creation.
So what you are saying is that the Master Crafter uses his 16k of wealth to create 16k worth of gear.
Why did he spend skill points/feats on crafting abilities again? Why not just buy the 16k of gear to begin with?
You might as well just give out the gear he wants as treasure as he levels, rather than making him burn resources to take Xk of treasure, sell it, and turn it into Xk of gear. Because it makes absolutely no difference and saves discussion time.
I am gonna try to stay really calm given that I gave an
actual mathematical example in the post you are quoting from.The whole point is that crafting by itself takes only one third the cost of what you are creating and that then makes it so that the crafter has an economic advantage if allowed to use all of their money to craft before the game "begins". How?
Well VV was using MW plate as the big example. It costs
1500 gp plus 150 gp for MW. 1650 gp. You only pay one third of that to craft it.
You sell it. Rules say half value. Cost to produce? One third. 550gp
Value received for sale? 825gp. Ca-ching Ca ching.
You have? MORE money. MORE stuff. It is not a one for one exchange. The magic crafting feats are one for one on the magic part (half value to produce half value to sell). But the base object that is being used? the mw sword? the MW plate? the MW rod? One third price.
The whole point here is not that I am so cruel bastard that wants to see every financial transaction ever made by a character. If you go all the way back to the OP I was the first person to say "yeah awesome craft before game". An entire conversation then ensued about how to utilize crafting *before the game starts* to represent that a crafting person basically walks away with MORE than what other people have. Not one for one. Not equal. Not the exact same amount. MORE
And my point? I don't believe that is right or fair as I read the rules. (And I do not appear to be alone) I believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the great start line. Sure, things happened before the game started, but if that is the case then it should be so for everyone. Crafters craft. Professionals profession. Etc.
I believe in treating my players fairly.
And so on...
This is a game for people to socialize. To establish mutual standards at a table and have fun. I posted in this thread originally because I read a cool idea and gave my two cents.
I am not at your table. You are not at mine. This doesn't matter and I no longer care.
I respectfully disagree with your position. I know, at the very least, that I am not crazy because I do not appear to be alone. You read the book one way, I read it another. I am glad you have fun. I am going to go work on my campaign so my players can too.
You have? MORE money. MORE stuff. It is not a one for one exchange. The magic crafting feats are one for one on the magic part (half value to produce half value to sell). But the base object that is being used? the mw sword? the MW plate? the MW rod? One third price.
The whole point here is not that I am so cruel bastard that wants to see every financial transaction ever made by a character. If you go all the way back to the OP I was the first person to say "yeah awesome craft before game". An entire conversation then ensued about how to utilize crafting *before the game starts* to represent that a crafting person basically walks away with MORE than what other people have. Not one for one. Not equal. Not the exact same amount. MORE
And my point? I don't believe that is right or fair as I read the rules. (And I do not appear to be alone) I believe that everyone is equal in the eyes of the great start line. Sure, things happened before the game started, but if that is the case for everyone. Crafters craft. Professionals profession. Etc.
I believe in treating my players fairly.
You keep saying "they get more," "they get more," "they get more."
Yes they get more items. They're supposed to get more items. It's only fair that they get more items, even from the beginning.
The orc with the big axe and rage and high strength and power attack has better attacks from the beginning. It is good and fair that the orc has better attacks.
The dwarf with the hit die and constitution and toughness has more hit points from the beginning. It is good and fair that the dwarf has more hit points.
The mage with the high intelligence and the big spellbook and spell focus has more spells at higher DCs from the beginning. It is good and fair that the mage has more spells at higher DCs from the beginning.
The thief with many skill points and a good skill list has more and better skills from the beginning. It is good and fair that the thief has more and better skills from the beginning.
They all have all these advantages from the outset.
The griffon rider with a lot of ranks in Handle Animal and a good charisma score and maybe even racial skill focus has a better mount from the beginning. It is good and fair that the griffon rider has a better mount from the beginning, same as all the other advantages characters can invest in.
Starting with a better mount, or a better suit of armor, or a better axe. These are all advantages. Starting with Weapon Focus, or Spell Focus, or Skill Focus. These are all advantages. That the character who invests in an advantage in gear while another invests in an advantage in damage.
The dwarf smith having more, better gear is no more unfair than the orc brute dealing more damage with greater accuracy. That the smith has the better gear from the outset is entirely fair as well, considering the orc has the advantage he invested in from the outset as well.
You keep saying, "more stuff therefore not fair," yet more stuff is precisely the advantage the crafters are investing in every bit as much as the dwarf taking toughness seeks more hit points, and it is fair.
More
Yes. Right. Absolutely.
I understand the root of your argument; crafting is fair for use at any stage of the game in which the expenditure of wealth is involved. Before game, during game, etc. You see this adjudicated by your sense of balance, time, cost/benefit, reading of the rules,etc. You have brought up lots of great points and really interesting paradigms and you have fought for your cause with incredible aplomb.
Its not that I don't get what you are saying it is that I don't agree.
Where I see inequity you see fair and vice versa. I read something different.I see something different. I believe something different. I construe things differently, and hey, maybe I am wrong
I don't think I am, at least a person or two doesn't think I am, and ultimately this isn't an issue at my table, has never been and when it is I will recall this thread in attempting to understand a differing point of view.
I do not agree with you, end of story. Until a PF game dev comes down and says "Hey this is what we intended and mean" I will interpret my way. You will yours. Every game is different. As long as my players feel fairly treated I am happy.
Devon, the reason I didn't mention your point about getting more wealth by crafting is because I agreed with it. Look to my 'smurfs vs. space' example upthread. I acknowledged it was a matter of opinion, so there was no reason to belabor the point.
Now as to my actual point...
Anyway, TriOmegaZero's post made me remember a point I had forgotten to make earlier. To me, the crafting skills and feats exist so that characters can make items that they could otherwise not go out and buy for their characters. If you can just go to the local magic or armor shop and pick up what you want to craft, then tough luck, go and buy it with your starting wealth. But if you want something either not available in a shop or because there are no shops, as in the OP's situation where their town has been destroyed, then that is acceptable as long as the item does not take a ridiculous amount of time to make.
Now I'm bolding this to make it standout, not because I'm yelling. I yell in all caps. :)
Changing the price of an item, or saying it is not available in stores, is hiding from your players what you are allowing them to have.
Any time you do this, you are basically saying 'I don't want you to have this item'. Obviously all items come from the DM. They approve the starting equipment, they chose what treasure to place, they decide what items are available for purchase.
It is a sliding scale of 'kid at Wonkaland' and 'mom has key to the cookie jar'. You should be exceedingly clear at the start of the game how much control the player has in his gear selection. My opinion is that the player should submit what gear he wants for his character, and you give the yea or nay. And then work the approved list into the adventure. Make quests for the notable items. Doing this prevents the 'well, another piece of junk for the market' response.
Now, if you're not going to let him choose what items to create, and keep him from exceeding his WBL, you should tell him not to waste time investing feats and skill points in crafting. Because he's not going to get anything out of them. He will still have the exact same items he would have had he not taken the feats. Only the flavor of how he got them changed.
TL;DR Stop doing tax work on gear and just tell the player what you will let him have.
Devon, the reason I didn't mention your point about getting more wealth by crafting is because I agreed with it. Look to my 'smurfs vs. space' example upthread. I acknowledged it was a matter of opinion, so there was no reason to belabor the point.
Yeah sorry about that. I was in the throes of being smurfarific.
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Because I'd be willing, if I saw a PC who'd spent skills in non-adventuring areas, to give them a little something, in return for playing against the obvious cliche skill set.
And then your character misses a climb check by 1 point and falls to his death. 'giving them a little something' doesn't really compensate for that. There's a reason a cliche skillset exists, and that reason is the adventures the DM sends the characters on.
Unless they spent their 'little something' on a Ring of Feather Falling?
Virtually no one is object to a crafter getting more items from the beginning. If they are getting items from the beginning they are fine. The problem lies with going into the past. You are giving the crafter a resource, TIME, and are fervently denying that same resource to everyone else.
That time is not being denied to anyone. Everyone who has the ability to utilize that time is given it freely. It's just you only have so much gold to spend.
The Wizard uses her time to scribe spells.
The warrior/smith uses her time to make swords.
The griffon rider uses her time to raise a griffon.
The Monk uses her time to find someone to cast a permanent Magic Fang on her fists.
The assassin uses her time to make a bunch of poison.
The evil Cleric uses her time to raise some zombie minions.
It's just that you start with X amount of gold. That the elf Bard may have a century in which she could have gone around singing and making money is irrelevant, as she still starts with X gold. But anyone who has the ability to utilize that time without going above that starting budget is allowed to do so. "You only have X gold to spend" is the only constraint.