I'm simply asking if the conceptual intent behind crafting was to let him have more/better stuff than the non-crafter. I think everyone here can look and see that's a clear possibility....
No, I really can't. I mean, if I twist my head into a pretzel and step three steps ---> that way and stand on one foot on a bed of sweet smelling roses and pretend that I've never tried to put one over on my DM, I can, maybe, see a valid justification for the position. It puts me in that pre-matrix-like shopping mall every time I make a character, of course, but that's a really interesting place. All it needs is a little more color.
English what it is, I submit that there's no way to have written a completely unambitious statement regarding starting wealth that would have clearly and succinctly (word counts matter in a print run) addressed the situation*. I submit that in a game system where more than a passing attempt at cross-class, cross-game, and cross-player balance was attempted, it's disingenuous to pursue the question of whether the conceptual intent behind crafting was to let him have more/better stuff than the non-crafter.
*look at how much fun DM's have had over the years perverting wishes
As I've said, I'm just interested in the intent and mindset as to why the crafting abilities are the way they are. What was in their head? Did they originally envision the crafter being an occasional tinkerer or the mad Wizard locked in his tower coming up with god-knows-what? I know both are possible per the rules but it is that way through various permutations of ideas over time. I'm just curious to know where it started and how it evolved and how they see it working with the world at large. I would love to sit down with a dev/designer/whoever and have even just a 10 minute one-on-one about it but that's not practical so I made this thread.You're all missing the point. I and others have made our own statements about crafting feats and the WBL table. But all such assessements of crafting feats and the WBL table are house assessements because from what I can see. the WBL table was not constructed with ANY FEATS IN MIND. The WBL table is a GENERALISED target that was designed for creating characters above first level and it's simply this.... this is the target for the value of stuff characters should have on them before you throw them into your first encounter. The table includes no discussion on crafting feats, heirloom traits, or any of that other stuff. It's essentially up to the DM to decide how it works out.
Personally I feel that both extremes of how to apply crafting feats are valid approaches as is the spectrum between. If you want to allow crafters to double their WBL.... go for it. If you want to say that they have no impact. BOTH ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.
The one thing that really matters is that all players share the shine time equally. No one is stuck being a wallflower.
Since allowing crafting to double one's wealth risks having one player tend to hog all the shine time, its generally a bad idea and cheating. That doesn't mean that its always a bad idea. A 10th level character using 5k of his gold to build a 10k item which...
Again, assuming that a crafter that will use his money explicitly to double his amount of wealth is a fearful assumption that's not a good thing to base anything on. He might use 10%, or 25% of his gold to make stuff. Locking down the whole thing because some ass out there might abuse it is like locking down barbarian or fighter because some asses have min-maxed them to the level of stupid.
You should assume the player won't abuse it, just get something out of it. And then assume that his DM will keep his hands on reins and keep things under control, slapping on a limit of his own if it comes down to that.
50% of starting gold for crafting in my games as example. Since the crafter spent all his feats on making stuff, he never really shines in combat because he got a +2 bonus to saves earlier than our ninja who is a menace both in and out of combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought about posting in here with my point, but at this point, I would feel like Luke walking into Mos Eisley. Debate is fine but arguing is not conducive to getting new ideas into the thread.
But here I go anyway:
From a RAW standpoint, even the WBL chart is only suggested guidelines for running an average game. As a GM, you are required to adjust everything for your gaming group to keep the game fun and interesting for everyone. The rules are not written to act like a computer game, but as set of guides for the GM to run a story around. If you want the more computer like gaming rules for pathfinder, that focus on balance without concern for individual GM and group standards, then play PFS, where crafting does not exist. Otherwise, all you can do is work with your GM and either listen to their end rules or move on to find a GM who games the way that you want.
|
Your character's wealth has a great impact on his power through the items (especially magic ones) he buys with it (ie, his equipment).
The WBL chart is a guideline to ensure that your character has the proper level of equipment consistent with the CR of the enemies he will face. It ensures that all of these factors (level, equipment, CR) result in an appropriate challenge.
The feats a character takes also impact his power.
A character who takes feats to craft should end up at the same level of power as a character who takes other feats (such as Power Attack or Quicken Spell).
Thus, the GM should ensure that the character who concentrated on Crafting feats is richer than the one who did not so that his superior equipment balances his not having Power Attack or Quicken Spell.
He should also ensure that this additional wealth (ie, superior equipment) does not unfairly advantage the Crafting character.
If I'm reading it right, I will be house ruling it to be the way I want it to work in my games. It seems like far more work than a GM should have to put into things especially if the player is building a dedicated crafter.
Thanks for the FAQ Sean!
That looks like it could use a quick check over from an editor - [crafte]. It might also seem more readable if "cost to craft" vs "full market price" or "unit production cost" vs "msrp" or something was used. Cost and Price are a little confusing.
So a PC created at higher levels with a few crafting feats can have about twice as many magic items as a non crafter?
I did not expect this to get ruled like that.
Man, I don't remember which side of the argument I was on.
You were on my side, especially if I was wrong. I don't want to be wrong all alone.
Man, I don't remember which side of the argument I was on.You were on my side, especially if I was wrong. I don't want to be wrong all alone.
The fact the ruling went the other way doesn't make the way you were running your games wrong. If you and your players were happy before, no one's forcing you to change how you're playing it :)
Honestly, I'm glad we know where things sit RAI, but I think most of the people commenting in this thread who were invested in their sides were clearly capable GM's in their own right, and fully capable of keeping things running well at the table.
So really, its a new ruling, and for that, we're all winners right?
Actually, I think I determined which side I argued via random table each time I rejoined it.
I gave up on using that table after I rolled "00" and followed the "Insult everyone in thread, tell-off moderators, and throw monitor through window." At least I wasn't on my own computer at the time...
It may just be my own sour grapes, but I feel that this ruling could have been phrased very differently. I would prefer to see the "...,you have to..." changed to "the GM may..." or some other language that allows GM discretion. The "balanced approach" is worded in such a general way as to be meaningless except for preventing a character from investing 90% of their wealth in armor.
The FAQ also contains two ideas that I find troublesome. First the idea that characters should gain special benefits from feats and skills before the game starts. The other idea that I disagree with is the idea that the sole benefit of a crafting feat is to multiply wealth. To me one of the primary benefits of the feats is that they allow you to turn mediocre found items into perfect fit select items. I prefer the concept that crafting neither creates nor destroys total value of items, it simply allows the crafter to select what they get, rather then rely on luck.
And one last thing. There is nothing in this ruling that even hints that a crafter should not start with double the number of items that the non-crafter has. Considering that the iconic crafter is the wizard, a class considered to be the most powerful in the game, did we really need to make them much MORE powerful at the higher levels?
And one last thing. There is nothing in this ruling that even hints that a crafter should not start with double the number of items that the non-crafter has. Considering that the iconic crafter is the wizard, a class considered to be the most powerful in the game, did we really need to make them much MORE powerful at the higher levels?
"...Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as...
I'd say that's a pretty clear indication that you should determine with your GM what limits there will be on crafting prior to the start of a game.
Man, I don't remember which side of the argument I was on.You were on my side, especially if I was wrong. I don't want to be wrong all alone.
I was also on the wrong end of things Bob and at least glad we now have an answer to this.
Man, I don't remember which side of the argument I was on.You were on my side, especially if I was wrong. I don't want to be wrong all alone.I was also on the wrong end of things Bob and at least glad we now have an answer to this.
It is nice to have the official answer even though I vehemently disagree with it!
I generally don't have any problems with the FAQ and how things are interpreted. This is one of those times when I think it is bad ruling.
Yeah thinking of setting a percentage of starting WBL that can be crafted based on your level at the time.
|
I have a mage and dang is he rich... a little hint scrolls :) every wizard can make them starting at 1st level and they are fairly cheap and a good way to increase your wealth beyond the rest of the party, just spend about 4 hours a day working on making them and between times you are at a town you can make 2+ of them and sell them off at fairly decent prices.. of coarse I am also dangerous because I will threaten berate and even kill NPCs who my mage feels is not offering a good price. And when I say kill I mean I will spend the money I made from selling the item to the NPC to hire someone to kill them for ripping me off. My mage is known for this now and can almost always get a better than normal price for selling stuff, he also has high appraise skill as well as a few others which help me use the rules to enforce his actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm reading it right, I will be house ruling it to be the way I want it to work in my games. It seems like far more work than a GM should have to put into things especially if the player is building a dedicated crafter.
Either the GM puts in more work, or the crafter ends up with 0 value for taking the feat and is better off taking Weapon Focus or anything else.
Example:
Wiz8 crafter is expected to have 33kin gear from WBL table. He has 23k gear plus 20k worth of scrolls he crafted (10k materials invested in the Cost equals 20k worth in Price). If you count them at their Price, his gear appears to be 43k... way over! So the GM reduces wizard-appropriate treasure for the next few sessions. Eventually his WBL (counted at full Price) matches the 33k. Wizard crafts again, makes another 1k worth of scrolls; now he's over again (when you count them as their price), and the GM is going to have to reduce wizard treasure to compensate. Anyadvantage the character gets by crafting is offset by the GM reducing his treasure. Every time this wizard uses his crafting feat, the GM punishes him by reducing his treasure compared to the other PCs. Does that make any sense? Do you punish the fighter's treasure because he's using Weapon Focus? Do you punish the cleric's treasure because she's using Extra Channel?
Yes, crafting means you get to exceed the normal WBL. That's because taking a crafting feat means you're not taking some other feat and not getting the benefit of that feat. Instead of Brew Potion, the wizard could take Spell Focus and be more dangerous in combat. Instead of taking Craft Wondrous Item, he could take Combat Casting and be less likely to get disrupted in combat. Every feat has an advantage; some are combat advantages, some are versatility advantages. The crafting feats add to your versatility and long-term survival at the cost of not granting you whatever bonus you could have gotten by taking any other feat.
It might also seem more readable if "cost to craft" vs "full market price" or "unit production cost" vs "msrp" or something was used. Cost and Price are a little confusing.
"Cost" and "Price" are game terms, they're right there in the magic item stat block.
So a PC created at higher levels with a few crafting feats can have about twice as many magic items as a non crafter?
Yes, if you want to spend several feats on crafting and give up other useful feats that'll keep you alive or make you more effective in combat, with the limitation that it relies on a certain amount of downtime while adventuring, yes, in theory you could end up with nearly double the normal WBL. But also keep in mind that treasure isn't just sacks of gold, and sometimes your share of the treasure is a +1 amulet of natural armor... but you already crafted one... so you're selling it at half price and therefore only netting half its value toward your WBL, so sometimes it's a wash.
Thanks for the response Sean.
I guess we view these things differently on many levels.
I have found that brew potion, scribe scroll, and to a lesser extent, craft wand tend to produce items that are consumed, and generally lower the relative WBL of the character who uses them frequently. For example, a wizard who has been heavily using scribe scroll is going to fall behind WBL because he is paying for spell power. By 8th level, that character is going to have less gp then a character who spent more of his gold on non-consumable items.
The other problem I see is that the vast majority of a wizards gear can be made with scribe scroll and craft wondrous item. Sure you might want to spend a couple of thousand on potions, wands, and maybe a ring or two, but really it is as simple as picking one bonus feat (instead of extend or empower spell) and you are going to have something like 160%-180% of the wealth of the other party members.
Finally I would just say that to me the main benefits of the crafting feats is that you get to pick exactly what you want, and can even make many items in the middle of the wilderness. Instead of that helm of underwater action in the middle of the desert, you can have a headband of intellect +4. Sure you may find one eventually, but considering the vast number of magic items, and the fact that there is usually a party member willing to take hand-me-downs, I think the crafter is still getting a great deal from the feat.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I really wasn't expecting 100% over WBL to be within the rules. 10%, 20%, or even 50% over WBL, maybe. Not double.
Thanks again Sean. Even if I don't agree, I am happy to have an official ruling on this topic.
If I'm reading it right, I will be house ruling it to be the way I want it to work in my games. It seems like far more work than a GM should have to put into things especially if the player is building a dedicated crafter.Either the GM puts in more work, or the crafter ends up with 0 value for taking the feat and is better off taking Weapon Focus or anything else.
Example:
Wiz8 crafter is expected to have 33kin gear from WBL table. He has 23k gear plus 20k worth of scrolls he crafted (10k materials invested in the Cost equals 20k worth in Price). If you count them at their Price, his gear appears to be 43k... way over! So the GM reduces wizard-appropriate treasure for the next few sessions. Eventually his WBL (counted at full Price) matches the 33k. Wizard crafts again, makes another 1k worth of scrolls; now he's over again (when you count them as their price), and the GM is going to have to reduce wizard treasure to compensate. Anyadvantage the character gets by crafting is offset by the GM reducing his treasure. Every time this wizard uses his crafting feat, the GM punishes him by reducing his treasure compared to the other PCs. Does that make any sense? Do you punish the fighter's treasure because he's using Weapon Focus? Do you punish the cleric's treasure because she's using Extra Channel?Yes, crafting means you get to exceed the normal WBL. That's because taking a crafting feat means you're not taking some other feat and not getting the benefit of that feat. Instead of Brew Potion, the wizard could take Spell Focus and be more dangerous in combat. Instead of taking Craft Wondrous Item, he could take Combat Casting and be less likely to get disrupted in combat. Every feat has an advantage; some are combat advantages, some are versatility advantages. The crafting feats add to your versatility and long-term survival at the cost of not granting you whatever bonus you could have gotten by taking any other feat.
I honestly didn't expect you to come and defend your decision. Thank you. I see your point but I don't agree with it. My position is that the Item Crafter is able to get exactly what he wants, and that is the primary benefit of the feat. I don't place treasure specifically for one character, and that may be why I don't see it as doing more work. I place treasure based on the enemy rather than the party. So if the fighter has Weapon Focus (longsword) and the party is fighting a bunch of goblins with spears, and one of those spears is +1, then the fighter isn't going to get much use from his Weapon Focus feat if he wants to use the spear. My players understand this and adapt accordingly.
One thing that popped into my head while reading this is that items that replicate spells are often not at the same power as the crafter. That may make things a little easier for me to swallow, as far as potions, scrolls, and wands go.
I don't have a problem with a little over/under on WBL. I have a problem with extremes. However, the method I use works great in my games. I just need to remember that when I'm discussing things on the boards, there is an official ruling that is counter to how my table does things.
I honestly didn't...
That can't be the primary benefit of the feat. What items are available in the GM's world are up to the GM. Feats need to give concrete benefits. The crafting feats must give some concrete benefit since the choice of items can't be it. And thus they let you spend a feat to save money.
If you allow all items to be made in your world, that's fine. I suspect that's what most GMs do. But feats shouldn't be based off of that. They need to always provide some concrete benefit.
Except Monkey Lunge.
And prone shooter.
Except Monkey Lunge.
I think this is why we should say, "All feats SHOULD provide some concrete benefit. Including Monkey Lunge."
Poor, poor monkey lunge.
And prone shooter... it still does nothing too, right? (EDIT: Talonhawk, you are the superior ninja.)
Oh well, house ruling time. I have no intention of allowing level 10 characters to start with 200K worth of items for the price of one feat.
EDIT: However, given the FAQ, I'll probably allow 10% of WBL for crafting, just because I don't like completely negating FAQs.
To the Paizo staff:
I know this thread was moderated a few times to keep things civil. Thank you for putting up with us, especially myself, and responding.
I honestly didn't...That can't be the primary benefit of the feat. What items are available in the GM's world are up to the GM. Feats need to give concrete benefits. The crafting feats must give some concrete benefit since the choice of items can't be it. And thus they let you spend a feat to save money.
If you allow all items to be made in your world, that's fine. I suspect that's what most GMs do. But feats shouldn't be based off of that. They need to always provide some concrete benefit.
Except Monkey Lunge.
Getting exactly what you want is the concrete benefit in my games. I don't have magic marts so my players actually look forward to crafting the gear they want. I also will not allow a class feature (the wizard can take craft feats) to potentially double wealth.
It's fine if that's the rule. I now have 3 house rules I am using instead of 2. I'm good with that. My players are good with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh well, house ruling time. I have no intention of allowing level 10 characters to start with 200K worth of items for the price of one feat.
If you're letting level 10 characters (WBL 62,000 gp) start with 200,000 gp worth of gear, you're doing it wrong.
If you're letting a character exceed the WBL by 100% with just *one* crafting feat, you're doing it wrong (see page 400).
OMG! Now I so want to see a 10th level wizard with nothing but 120 grand in scrolls... :)
He certainly wont be overpowered.
Oh well, house ruling time. I have no intention of allowing level 10 characters to start with 200K worth of items for the price of one feat.If you're letting level 10 characters (WBL 62,000 gp) start with 200,000 gp worth of gear, you're doing it wrong.
If you're letting a character exceed the WBL by 100% with just *one* crafting feat, you're doing it wrong (see page 400).
Sorry,
I have no intention of allowing a level 10 character to start with 120,000 GP worth of items for one feat. I was remembering the 100K+ for a level 10 and doubling it, forgot that was the doubled value.
And no, I am not forgetting page 400. A wizard does not need 25% of his value spent on armor (that little clause about specific classes not needing some of those and not following the percentages).
A wizard generally needs mostly utility items. He can, for Craft Wondrous Item, generally kit himself out entirely from magical items (Bracers, Robes, headbands, belts, boots, cloaks, etc) and make a rather powerful wizard with just that one feat, and perfectly satisfy the rules. Or at least come very close. He might choose to buy a staff, given how much he's saving on everything else, but that's still a lot of resources he's starting with over the guy who's a fighter (you might want to actually read the entire thread SKR, all this was gone over 15 pages ago). And really, a wizard or sorcerer doesn't need a weapon beyond masterwork, it's not his job to get into melee. Again, that pesky clause about his class not needing it.
Without at least a guideline ruling, what the FAQ has done is said that CWI can basically be used to double the wealth of the crafting spellcaster when he starts, since there are so many different items in it that he can build a bunch of them without violating the percentages of starting money (they'll be a mix of defensive, offensive, etc), since his class never buys armor and doesn't attack with weapons. What I suspect will happen is the level 10 wizards will insist on starting with about 100K in crafted materials, and then buy another 14K worth of actual items, with the crafting fluctuating a little up or down by player.
Up until the FAQ, I had disallowed this, and I still had a player show up with a 5th level wizard who'd taken CWI. He had spent 90% of his WBL funds on scrolls (free craft feat) and Wondrous Items.
The GM should always be free to place limits on the individual campaign so that everything "just fits." Sean stated this in the FAQ. If a player insisted on coming to the table with an amount of gear that would trash your campaign, then don't allow that character. If it becomes a pattern with the player themselves then don't tell them bluntly "you're not coming to the table with x amount of gear. It would be unbalancing. If you can't accept this then maybe this isn't the group for you." It's not rude but putting out the rules of the game table in clear language and gives them an out (leaving) if they honestly can not restrain their desire to use the crafting abilities.
To me, all that's said in the FAQ, is that if a player has the crafting feat then let them benefit from it economically as well as having the item they want. It's up to the GM to place limits on exactly what is allowed and when, etc.
To me, all that's said in the FAQ, is that if a player has the crafting feat then let them benefit from it economically as well as having the item they want. It's up to the GM to place limits on exactly what is allowed and when, etc.
This. The FAQ effectively states that the Crafting Feats do in fact allow player A to have more wealth than player B. In play, this should look after itself for balance (most treasure is not in craftable materials, plus time concerns); before play, it should presumably be limited by the GM, but the crafter should have some significant advantage.
Double wealth is almost certainly too much. I dont see a lot of people disputing this.
The problem is, no guidelines were provided on how much is permitted. So now every GM that says 'No, 10%' will have to deal with players getting upset that he's 'being a jerk GM'. If you don't believe me, take a look at the boards here on what people post and complain about. There's almost every other day a post by someone complaining about a GM who enforced a rule against them and someone else responding that yeah, he was a jerk for not allowing 'the rule of cool' to trump core rules.
If crafting can increase WBL, then there should be some guidance on by how much as well, just as there is guidance on how much to spend on different types of equipment, so that at least the rules have some guidance other than 'meh, whatever you want' which leaves things open to the 2x abuse.
I wasn't expecting the FAQ to rule that way. But one is forced to admit that a rule clarification must exactly be that ; clear. Going for any % of benefits for crafting skills at character creation would have been subjective and arbitrary. Yet, following SR reasoning as to why the feat must pay-off right away, I kindda disagree.
To me, the crafting feats allow immediate gear customization. As opposed to waiting for town shops to actually offer the wanted items. Or long commission endeavor. That in itself is a very nice benefit. Also, at creation, the character doesn't have the benefit of ANY feats. From this starting point onward, he will get to use power attack and whatnot, so will he be able to use the crafting feats to create his fitting gear, as opposed to have to look for it.
Doubling the gear value, at creation or otherwise during play (the character wealth is based -off cost not price according to the FAQ), means if the crafter crafts for himself, he can have up to double the gear value as compared to his partners. While crafting for everyone means the whole party get double wealth value ?!
Time to tag the items as crafted or purchased or found. I think I'll paint the items in "orange" as to indicate they were crafted...
As ever, DM discretion is advised.
-Jelly
Any advantage the character gets by crafting is offset by the GM reducing his treasure. Every time this wizard uses his crafting feat, the GM punishes him by reducing his treasure compared to the other PCs.
I completely disagree with this. The Wizard does receive an advantage; he gets custom gear. He gets to make exactly what he wants, when he wants it. He's not limited to found treasure or the magic markets, if setting has them. If the PCs end up holed up in some small town with little to no magic for sale; he can make something, others are SOL.
Your example is also skewed. The wizard will not be making extra scrolls for WBL when starting, he'll be making Wondrous Items, Staves, & Wands. Things that contribute to his effectiveness in combat all the time. Not things that are limited to actions per round. And Wondrous Items provide the most bang for the feat.
And if the WBL chart isn't for attempting to balance when starting characters what's it for? If this character gets more gear than anyone else how's this balanced? Like it or not gear contribute significantly to the power level of characters.
This answer is like a power munchkin's wet dream.
The problem is, no guidelines were provided on how much is permitted. So now every GM that says 'No, 10%' will have to deal with players getting upset that he's 'being a jerk GM'. If you don't believe me, take a look at the boards here on what people post and complain about. There's almost every other day a post by someone complaining about a GM who enforced a rule against them and someone else responding that yeah, he was a jerk for not allowing 'the rule of cool' to trump core rules.
If crafting can increase WBL, then there should be some guidance on by how much as well, just as there is guidance on how much to spend on different types of equipment, so that at least the rules have some guidance other than 'meh, whatever you want' which leaves things open to the 2x abuse.
Fundamentally, I dont see the difference between a GM determining a limit on crafting and a limitation on other character choices, like builds or archetypes.
I dont think a GM is more a jerk because he says 'You can spend only 20% of your starting resources on crafting' than if he says 'No RAGELANCEPOUNCE, synthesists, or Beastmorph vivisectionists'. Both of the previous are very reasonable IMO.
Disruptive play is disruptive play, regardless of legality by RAW, and is both the GM and the players responsibility to deal with. If that makes the GM look like a jerk... well, I suppose that happens, right?
Its also true though, that what is an 'acceptible' limit may vary from table to table. I may be ok with 50% wealth being spent crafting, you may be ok with 10%. Thats also ok as per the FAQ we have.
Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't like to know what SKR thinks would be reasonable. I just dont think its absolutely necessary for it to appear in the FAQ; confirmation that Crafting should be a net wealth gain seems reasonable to me.
Yes, crafting means you get to exceed the normal WBL. That's because taking a crafting feat means you're not taking some other feat and not getting the benefit of that feat. Instead of Brew Potion, the wizard could take Spell Focus and be more dangerous in combat. Instead of taking Craft Wondrous Item, he could take Combat Casting and be less likely to get disrupted in combat.
I'd have to find a little bit of issue with this statement. The problem is that Craft (pretty much anything) is still making the person more dangerous in combat. And with the ruling given, you get to have the benefits of both. Maybe even in more than one area.
That said, I don't have a problem with how it advances in game...my issue was with use during character creation.
I think a lot of people are glossing over the time element. Crafting is not instantaneous. Even at 1k gp per day, that's only 2 +5 tomes per year. That's 3 years to make the tomes. The other various items are coming 1 every couple/few months. Also keep in mind that 1 level does not equal 1 year. Currently, I'm playing the Rise of the Runelords AP and I'm level 2 but only about a month has passed by. After our last session, we're already within earshot of level 3 and, since turning level 2, only about a week has gone by. So, ~3 weeks at level 1 and I'm anticipating another week, maybe two, as level 2 for ~5 weeks total. Granted, that's enough time to make a pretty useful item but no character of that level is going to have the cash or ability to produce the item. I hear Kingmaker is a bit more drawn out but there's still limitations in available gp, selling items to make other items, resource acquisition, etc.
I think a lot of people are glossing over the time element. Crafting is not instantaneous. Even at 1k gp per day, that's only 2 +5 tomes per year. That's 3 years to make the tomes. The other various items are coming 1 every couple/few months. Also keep in mind that 1 level does not equal 1 year. Currently, I'm playing the Rise of the Runelords AP and I'm level 2 but only about a month has passed by. After our last session, we're already within earshot of level 3 and, since turning level 2, only about a week has gone by. So, ~3 weeks at level 1 and I'm anticipating another week, maybe two, as level 2 for ~5 weeks total. Granted, that's enough time to make a pretty useful item but no character of that level is going to have the cash or ability to produce the item. I hear Kingmaker is a bit more drawn out but there's still limitations in available gp, selling items to make other items, resource acquisition, etc.
Buri, I think most people here (MDT, I believe at the very least) do not have a problem with crafting in play due to time requirements; its only at character creation that the issue is truly present.
If I misrepresent anyone, I appolgize, but I believe this was stated earlier in this thread or the other one?
I think a lot of people are glossing over the time element. Crafting is not instantaneous.
All true, and I'm ignoring the time component because my sole complaint deals with item creation at character creation. Time is completely arbitrary at that point.