Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?


Advice

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,075 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Mistwalker wrote:


There were several others on the free crafting side of the argument.

Show me the whole context Mist.

The quote you listed I've seen several times in the context of "if you are going to CHARGE ME, then don't bother to play with me."

That is not remotely the same thing as "You have to make me stuff INSTEAD OF MAKING YOURSELF STUFF." which is what was claimed.

Nobody I know would insist that crafters make stuff for the non-crafters, without making stuff for themselves.

And nobody I ever played with would DEMAND the crafter make them anything.

Many I play with would say "if you are going to CHARGE ME, then you are not welcome."

Not the same thing. Not by a long shot.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
You guys can build all the convoluted rationalizations you like. I already know the answer.

I am interpreting that as saying "I have made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with facts".

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.


Mistwalker wrote:


It's a wash in combat. The crafting takes place out of combat.

It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.


Mistwalker wrote:

I'm picking on you Selgard because you are the self-admitted thread leader of the free crafter crowd.

:)

Selgard wrote:

You are already benefitting personally from your feat to the extent that you care to at the moment- is there really any good reason not to help your group-mate to get better? No reason but greed.

There is often more than one reason, not simply greed. I have the impression that you have a fixation with that angle and only see that one.

I have had crafters that used the fee to provide the funds to run an orphanage, or temple, etc. There's one.

I have had crafters that used the fee to make sure that they had extra items to enable them to maintain their lifestyle (noble blood, to good for corse wool, only the best and preferably silken)(OK, that one may be a bit of greed). There's one point five

I have had crafters that have had to make sure that they had the necessary items to bail the group out when their overly optomistic view of the situation bit them on their posteriors (last thread on this subject when I mentioned this, I was fairly well roasted, saying that "their" characters didn't need another PC to play mother too them - even if they did). There's another one.

Selgard wrote:
IC its not about the 100 gold fee. Its about trust, and having issues with the guy beside you who thinks he's worth more than he's worth. Its about a guy who is so greedy that he's going to charge the group money for things he should be doing for free. Its about wondering if you can really trust this guy or not- since if he's that incredibly greedy, what other lows will he stoop to?

IC how can I trust someone who thinks that they are so much morally higher than me, that are strting to dispise me because I won't spend days/weeks working for free, for what they say is the greater good of the group. Someone who is so increadibly centered on the greater good, how can you trust them not to sacrifice you or other lows, if they believe that it is in the greater good?

This is gonna sound rude, and i apologize, but.. dayum.

really? you are gonna take my money and give it to someone else so you get the warm fuzzies in the guise of charity? Thats harsh.
thats like robbing someone and giving the money to charity.
Advise: Talk to the group about donating some of the crafting money that everyone is saving to charity. Let the folks actually paying the money share in the warm fuzzies and good will. It'll still be your idea.. but .. wow.

Its not that I object to the "playing mom" thing, but.. really it kinda goes back to the previous thing.
Instead of taking my 5% to use for the group, talk to the group.
"hey guys, we need a "party fund" for scrolls and stuff to use when the chips are down and the stakes are high". Myself, I'd find that *highly* preferable to you pocketing 5% whether I like it or not, and then using it how you see fit- even if it might ultimately be to my benefit.

The two issues seem to mainly be about party communication rather than the crafter trying to pocket excess change. A group fund is a good idea. One party member deciding the group needs a fund whether they like it or not, taking the group funds to put money into it, and then personally deciding what gets used with the funds or not? Not so much.

I mean the group could very well decide "well lets chip in 5% out of each item he crafts for us, to use for the group fund, and he can just make group scrolls from that".. but at least then they are in the loop. And presumably will get the benefits of it sometimes too.

Imagine if the payroll person at work took 5% off the top and put it into a savings account for you without you knowing about it.
Some tiny part might be grateful, but i'd imagine the greater part would go straight to the cops.

If you want to help the group with a group fund or charity or whatever- discuss it with the group. Folks are generally a *lot* less hostile to that, than someone just deciding whats in their best interest to spend their own loot on.

-S


Mistwalker wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
You guys can build all the convoluted rationalizations you like. I already know the answer.

I am interpreting that as saying "I have made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with facts".

Please correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

Mist, please note that I don't accuse you or anyone else of being stupid, intractable or otherwise lacking human decency.

I just say that your argument is weak.

My point is clear. You and the profiteers are claiming that crafters are the only characters who can exploit their abilities for extra gold.

I have repeatedly demonstrated that ANY CHARACTER can do that.

Crafters are the only characters jerk enough to try it.

And if I play with one who tries to charge me, I will return the favor. You charge me. I charge you. You don't like it, fine, neither do I.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

Is there any reason to argue with a fanatic AD? The holes have been presented numerous times. Your rather excitable insistence does not remove their existence from the opposing side's perspective.

I will however mock you and heal myself thank you very much. Every caster in the game has access to heal spells.

Edit: I doubt you'd want to play with me. Most characters I play would charge in most situations. If you decided not to heal me when I was low on health when you were playing the designated group healer because you didn't want to pay my charge fee I'd make a group motion to deny you your cut of the treasure for failing to fulfill your healer duties. If it passes, which in most groups I've played in it would, no problems. If it failed your character wouldn't wake up one morning and depending on the group I'd find a new one.

So you can charge to fulfull your group duties but the cleric can't?

got it.

You really wouldn't have to worry about me for long in your group.. I'd be gone.

You can charge but only you? naah.. Not my style at all.

-S


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

That is absolutely hilarious. You're stating that because a character has taken a non combat feat they are weaker in combat. Despite the fact that said feat can be used to amplify their own combat prowess. Dude seriously. This is one of the glow in the dark holes I was mentioning.

Edit: Selgard. Are you under the impression that taking craft wondrous item makes it your group duty to make items for the party?

One feat does not make a dedicated crafter. Much like one spell does not make a dedicated caster or heavy armor prof make a tank.


Selgard wrote:

For all you pro-taking gold from the party for your crafting folk:

Why do crafters get to charge the group but its unreasonable for someone else to do the same?

Why can't Rodney Ranger or Bobby the Barbarian or Wendy the Wizard or whatever silly named people we come up with charge for their services too?

Answer me that, please.

When you are knee deep in the Dungeon of Doom and have 5 hp left and the cleric says "pay up or limp", why is he the bad guy here?

You keep calling me a communist- and I don't mind- but honestly. WHY are you trying to nickle and dime your buddies? WHY do you think you are so special that just for taking a feat, you deserve more money?

Forget WBl and all that crap, tell me why your character deserves my share of the loot just because you decided to take feat X instead of feat Y, where as if i chose feat A instead of feat B, I don't get to charge you?

I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
If Cindy Crafter starts charging the group, so should everyone else. Lets ditch the communist bandwagon and move straight on to Capitalizm.
Lets everyone charge for their group contributions. It'll be a straight up mercenary troupe then. Sound about right?

-S

Because the crafter isn't charging for his role.

He is charging for his product.
When you start making a good product you can charge. But not till then. Stop Strawmanning. Please. For the Unicorns.

Just noticed, Wizards start with Scribe scroll so that means, every scroll they make is at crafted cost (for WBL).
I wonder how many DM follow that.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

That is absolutely hilarious. You're stating that because a character has taken a non combat feat they are weaker in combat. Despite the fact that said feat can be used to amplify their own combat prowess. Dude seriously. This is one of the glow in the dark holes I was mentioning.

Jak, you are not understanding me. Let me repeat. It is the OUT OF COMBAT activities that balance out the in combat weakness. By crafting a magic item OUT OF COMBAT the crafter is providing their IN COMBAT contribution.

If they have the feat but DON'T CRAFT ANYTHING, then their combat contribution is lessened. So by crafting OUT OF COMBAT, they are contributing IN COMBAT. But only if they CRAFT THINGS.

You are saying that because their IN COMBAT CONTRIBUTION occurs OUT OF COMBAT, therefore they get to charge the other party members.

That's what I'm saying. And frankly I don't think it's that hard of a concept to grasp.


AD Where are these crafters that do not craft items for themselves? Where are they? Can you find me one?

My alchemist has needs to do more damage so I craft myself a headband o brains. My dpt just went up. Far more than it could have by taking any other feat. I think my in combat contribution is just fine.

Edit: And that isn't what I'm saying at all. I made my arguments a page or two ago and they've yet to be addressed although they have been agreed with. I have said absolutely nothing about it being out of combat contribution being justification for charging money.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I AM. THE ONE.

...AND THE ONE. AND THE ONE. AND THE ONE.

I got the thousandtheleventyfirst post! :D

Man, refreshing the page for 20 minutes was worth it!

(For the unicorns!)


Its not a straw man.

Everyone has a product.
The cleric who heals yuo, the bard who buffs you, the fighter and barbarian who fights for you, the rogue who knocks out locks and traps for you, the wizard who casts his spells for you.

They all have a product. Don't think so? Go pay someone else by the hour to do their work. They have a product. And its worth cold hard cash.

The fact that your feat lets you make a tangible object instead of what some of the others may do, doesn't mean its one whit less or more valuable than anything anyone else might do.

Everyone is working. Everyone gets the same reward. No one gets to charge the others for their work. They all get the same percentage of the haul as every other person.

The guy making a sword better gets no more reward than the guy who knows how to use the sword the best. They are both part of the same equation.

To think otherwise is to think the crafter Is the best and deserves more money than the rest. You are welcome to think that- but don't expect me to go along with it.

The guy putting the product to work is as valuable as the guy making the product.

-S


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


There were several others on the free crafting side of the argument.
Show me the whole context Mist.

Well, considering that I printed a word document a few pages long with specific quotes, I can't point you at the exact page or identify the post number.

A few similar ones:

Selguard wrote:
If the PC was just thumbing his nose at everyone saying "screw you guys, you won't pay my 10% then I'm not making anything for you" then while he was out partying, we'd be out finding another party member. Dude could party until the sun stopped burning for all we cared.
Selguard wrote:
If the crafter has the free time and I have the cash for the item and he just refuses not to craft for me - is that theft? No. But its a jerk move, and one that won't be forgotten. Needless to say, he won't be getting any favors from me.
Master arminas wrote:
Too bad, so sad jerk Wizard player ain't gonna be showing up at my games no more, no more, no more.
TarkXT wrote:
After all lectures on elves and dragons are much more important then ensuring the group is better equipped then the next encounter. YOu are a busy man with important things to do and you time is of incredible value. Why should you be bothered?.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So it is not unreasonable for the party members who took combat or metamagic feats to expect the crafter to hold up his end by crafting in his down time. That's the feat he picked


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


It's a wash in combat. The crafting takes place out of combat.

It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

Hmmm, does that mean that you have a say in my feat selection? That I have to select a craft, combat or metamagic feat? What if I chose Skill Focus Craft Poetry - what then?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Selgard wrote:

Its not a straw man.

Everyone has a product.
The cleric who heals yuo, the bard who buffs you, the fighter and barbarian who fights for you, the rogue who knocks out locks and traps for you, the wizard who casts his spells for you.
-S

Except for that these product don't take days to make. These products do not permanently grant power that is completely out of the product makers control. These products are listed duties of said character.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

AD Where are these crafters that do not craft items for themselves? Where are they? Can you find me one?

My alchemist has needs to do more damage so I craft myself a headband o brains. My dpt just went up. Far more than it could have by taking any other feat. I think my in combat contribution is just fine.

Edit: And that isn't what I'm saying at all. I made my arguments a page or two ago and they've yet to be addressed although they have been agreed with. I have said absolutely nothing about it being out of combat contribution being justification for charging money.

Jak, I am forced to conclude that you have serious difficulties in comprehension. I hate to say that because I really, really try to stick to the argument instead of attacking the arguer.

But this is about the third time you've attacked me by claiming that I've said exactly the opposite of what I actually said because you can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying.

So I guess I just won't respond to your posts anymore, since you don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm saying.

Oh well. I can explain things to you Jak, but I simply can't comprehend them for you.


AD. Ahh my favorite logical fallacy. If you cannot attack the argument attack the arguer.

I'm not attacking you AD. Occasionally I've mocked you, but I've yet to attack anything other than your arguments which mainly have consisted shouting that there is no difference between fulling my job duties as a healer/alchemist/wizard and building a house for a party member at cost.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

AD. Ahh my favorite logical fallacy. If you cannot attack the argument attack the arguer.

I'm not attacking you AD. Occasionally I've mocked you, but I've yet to attack anything other than your arguments.

Jak, I said I really hate to do it, but I have to eventually recognize the limitations of the arguer.

I'll just have to continue the debate with people who actually understand what I'm saying.

Good luck to you.


PRD wrote:

Selling Treasure

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

That is all.


Mistwalker wrote:


snipped

please.. pretty please.

its Selgard.

:)

-S


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


It's a wash in combat. The crafting takes place out of combat.

It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

Crafting may be an out of combat feat but it grants significant bonuses in combat. It is easily equal to weapon focus or other feats due to the increased effective gp total a player can weild with it. - Gauss


Ravingdork wrote:

I AM. THE ONE.

...AND THE ONE. AND THE ONE. AND THE ONE.

I got the thousandtheleventyfirst post! :D

Man, refreshing the page for 20 minutes was worth it!

(For the unicorns!)

LOL

Thanks RD, for the laugh.

-S


Khrysaor wrote:
PRD wrote:

Selling Treasure

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

That is all.

Heh... Yeah, so where in the RAW does it say you can sell to your party members at a premium anyway?

Here in the RAW it seems to say you can't.

SKR's quote that keeps getting tossed around doesn't mention selling to party members, it just says that the crafter can boost their own WBL due to the feat. (And I still vehemently object to that. Sean is generally one of the very best developers who post here, but in this case he's way off base).

So, with that quote in mind profiteers, what RAW says you can sell to PCs for more than 1/2 the price?


Selgard wrote:


Now this is my opinion here:

In your examples the "quest giver" is talking to the individual- much like might happen in an MMO. (not saying you meant it that way, just go with me for a second). In an MMO i go complete a quest, turn it in, and bam i get gold, exp, and all that.. Yay me. If you are with me and have the quest, you get credit too.

But in a D&D game whats really yhappened is that the DM has used the varying members of the party to lay some adventure hooks.
Wendy comes back to the group and says "Hey guys, the mystic thinks we should go deal with this evil item".
the barbarian comes back and says "yeah, but we also need to deal with this wolf" and so on down the line of PC's.

Back in the early 90s when I started with the groups I'm in still, that's how we played D&D. The DM would take Players into a side room and communicate privied Information, and it was up to the player to discuss whatever he/she wanted to with the party. If the Rogue had a side venture than coincided with the Parties overall quest, none were sometimes the wiser. And sometimes this meant PCs got different amounts of XP (of course, back in the day, every class leveled differently anyway).

If the Barbarian was the first to mention the quest, the reasons certain other group members agreed to it, weren't always brought to light.

My last campaign I was in (just ended a month ago) the Ship's Navigator sold Maps of the new continent for more money than the adventures usually brought in (at least after we paid for the crew and food for the next adventure for a shipload). Did he share? Not all the time. Did it bother us? Not overly.

Does this all sound MMO-ish? Class Quests and the like, maybe. MMOs after all are based on Roleplaying games (and not the other way around). The level of "Personafication" of the Quest Givers (Adventure Hooks, or whatever term you want to use to get your Party to do something) is what makes it different.

And quite frankly your approach to gaming sounds more like an MMO to me. This is our quest, lets grind our way up to the next level. Anyone need this Item, or do we Disenchant it/Sell it, and split the cash. Quest Completed? Let's move on to the next Quest. Everyone got all the applicable quests for this one? Good, let's go.

Very cold and businesslike. It has a very "we have 3 hours to go in, and kill the BBG", everyone knows their role, everyone needs to do what their supposed to do feel to it. If I'm misunderstanding how a "Team/Group" does it vs how a misfit crew does it, I apologize, but it that's how it sounds.

We spend more time Role Playing than Combat some days. We have inter-party fighting at times, but we do realize the usefulness of those in the party, which helps keep the group together. Our combats sometimes aren't pretty (Tactics? What's that), but flavorful. Does the Rogue pickpocket other PCs (and actually Steal from the party), yea, its been known to happen (and I'm not even considering Kender in the party).

Does someone have a higher WBL than others? Who knows. We don't keep track (well, I know I don't, and if I don't know my own in the group, I know nobody else is keeping track either)
Is it done to balance XP? Nope, these days we just level occasionally, back then, I doubt it as well

Selgard wrote:


From a practical stand point, how do you handle those time wise? in a pbp or pbm i could see it working out (since you can do something without wasting someone else's time) but otherwise- if you have 4 guy group and 4 individual quests.. do you have 4 different times the "group" meets and do the lil solo ones then?
or is the quest given to one guy but everyone helps with it then the one guy gives a lil white lie about the reward? (50gp guys honest, as he pockets the other 450)?

In person. The overall quest is to kill the Wolf Guy, the Ranger just draws maps of the areas they are traveling in, the Object that both the Rogue and Wizard are concerned about is in the Wolf Guy's Possession. It's one group quest, just with the side quests along the way. It actual works out pretty well usually. YMMV of course.

Now, since this is completely off base, because of the misfitness, "Stealing from the Party" vs "Charging for Services" does take a bit of a different view. If you're used to an MMO "Team-Group" Orientation, I suppose it is too much to ask. If you're used to a "Misfit-Crew" Orientation, everyone is screwed up enough to pay anyway.

Life long friends (character wise not the Players) are less likely to charge, but the group that "I met in a Tavern last month" are more likely to get charged. At least until that timeline grows some more, and you know In Character your group will be around each other for the long haul. But Bob, the character my character can't stand, is always going to get charged more too. But the key is, Bob's Player and I (or Me and Bob's Player if the charge is going the other way) are still friends about it.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Selgard wrote:
This is gonna sound rude, and i apologize, but.. dayum.

No problem, I didn't take it as rude. Shock, amazement (not necessarily in a complimentary way :)) or such, but not rude.

I am just finding your response a bit ironic. It may have been you (I think it was) who said that if the gold wasn't going to increase the power of the crafter, then you didn't have a problem with it. Also, I believe that part of the argument goes that it's OK, the GM will simply increase the drops to keep the PCs in the ballpark of WBL.

As for playing mother, not all groups look at things rationally or calmly. Some do need mothers to look after them.


Gauss wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


It's a wash in combat. The crafting takes place out of combat.

It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

Crafting may be an out of combat feat but it grants significant bonuses in combat. It is easily equal to weapon focus or other feats due to the increased effective gp total a player can weild with it. - Gauss

Jesus, YOU TOO Gauss?

That's my frickin POINT. Crafting provides combat benefits like any other feat. But the combat benefits come from activities that occur OUT OF COMBAT. YES! EXACTLY! Crafting is totally comparable to weapon focus!

Except those characters who take weapon focus don't charge their party members for it.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Well, if Gauss didn't get it either, maybe I was too hard on Jak....


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Selgard wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


snipped

please.. pretty please.

its Selgard.

:)

-S

Oops, sorry.

I blame FFS

Fat finger syndrome


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
PRD wrote:

Selling Treasure

In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

That is all.

Heh... Yeah, so where in the RAW does it say you can sell to your party members at a premium anyway?

Here in the RAW it seems to say you can't.

SKR's quote that keeps getting tossed around doesn't mention selling to party members, it just says that the crafter can boost their own WBL due to the feat. (And I still vehemently object to that. Sean is generally one of the very best developers who post here, but in this case he's way off base).

So, with that quote in mind profiteers, what RAW says you can sell to PCs for more than 1/2 the price?

Hmm, Adamantine Dragon, please look at the bolded part of the referenced text. RAW doesn't say that you can't - period - it says generally -which to me means that it is not always the case.


Gauss wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:


It's a wash in combat. The crafting takes place out of combat.

It's not a wash in combat. The crafter has taken a non-combat feat. They are therefore WEAKER in combat. They make up for that by crafting things OUT OF COMBAT. Their OUT OF COMBAT activities are what balance their IN COMBAT weakness.

That's the wash.

Crafting may be an out of combat feat but it grants significant bonuses in combat. It is easily equal to weapon focus or other feats due to the increased effective gp total a player can weild with it. - Gauss

Thats sort of the point, no?

The feat isn't worthless in combat. It just doesn't have "+2 to attack rolls" in the feat description.
No one is saying the feat is worthless. Just that taking it doesn't allow you to take more than your fair share of the loot.

-S


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Jesus, YOU TOO Gauss?

That's my frickin POINT. Crafting provides combat benefits like any other feat. But the combat benefits come from activities that occur OUT OF COMBAT. YES! EXACTLY! Crafting is totally comparable to weapon focus!

Except those characters who take weapon focus don't charge their party members for it.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Well, if Gauss didn't get it either, maybe I was too hard on Jak....

Too hard on? You're giving me a good laugh. You make a bold declarative statement and fail to state your intention and people are supposed to infer your intent. Idea instead of pounding that caps lock to scream your points flesh them out some so people have an idea of what you're talking about.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

If they have the feat but DON'T CRAFT ANYTHING, then their combat contribution is lessened. So by crafting OUT OF COMBAT, they are contributing IN COMBAT. But only if they CRAFT THINGS.

You are saying that because their IN COMBAT CONTRIBUTION occurs OUT OF COMBAT, therefore they get to charge the other party members.

That's what I'm saying. And frankly I don't think it's that hard of a concept to grasp.

1) I agree with this 100%. They have to craft things to be useful. For themselves. As Jak said: crafter makes a dohickey that give him a bonus to hit or damage, he's using his feat as intended. Absolutely.

What people object to, it seems, is being told that they have to use their feat to make your character more combat effective in a way that unbalances the wealth distribution. (Demonstrated earlier, with math and everything. Go look it up.)

2) I never said that anyone was asking the crafter to make their items instead of his own. Never. So, not so much a strawman as a misreading. However, a number of people, including but not limited to Selgard and dragonfire####, have said that a crafter who choses not to craft for them without a gratuity would not be welcome in their group or game. They said, as Mist quoted: "if the crafter takes the feat and keeps the benefits to himself, he's a selfish, greedy jerk, and I don't want to play with him." It has never been demonstrated how this is different from telling a character, "you didn't use Power Attack during that fight, and you should have. Get out of my group."

3) If a healer, as in your example, charges for healing as retribution for charging for crafting, there is a logical result: the wizard crafter charges for every fireball, every buff spell, every detect magic. The wizard then brews some Cure potions, and doesn't need to pay the healer anything, anyway. The same applies to the fighter charging to protect the wizard. "Let's see, I used Power Attack and Trip, so that's 50 gold." "That's fair. I cast Color Spray and Sleep, so that'll be 100 gold. Pay up."

See, if everybody charges for healing, combat and buff spells and combat actions, everybody ends up even at the end of the day. And then they still have to pay the crafter, who is within the rules to charge 100%. Alternately, they could pony up between 1 and 10% and accept that they are still getting more consistent mechanical benefit from that other character's feat than he does their Improved Trip or Extra Channeling.


Selgard since you seem to be the reasonable one on the anti-charge side I would appreciate it if you would address any of my concerns.

The solution it seems is that if you're going to play in a group with any member of the anti-charge side is to not tell any of the other pcs that you're crafting yourself items.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Heh... Yeah, so where in the RAW does it say you can sell to your party members at a premium anyway?

Here in the RAW it seems to say you can't.

SKR's quote that keeps getting tossed around doesn't mention selling to party members, it just says that the crafter can boost their own WBL due to the feat. (And I still vehemently object to that. Sean is generally one of the very best developers who post here, but in this case he's way off base).

So, with that quote in mind profiteers, what RAW says you can sell to PCs for more than 1/2 the price?

You realize that a player could still take the few mechanics-driven options to lower their costs to as low as 40% and that those options don't change the "half the listed price" number which let's you sell at 50%. So, there's your RAW that says you can make stuff and still gain 5-10% profit. I think max is 15% but let's be conservative in case I'm wrong. Even if it's just 5% profit I've seen people flip their shit on here over just that amount. Which, that would still run afoul of what you and Selgrad and other "free crafted items" people are saying.


Buri wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Heh... Yeah, so where in the RAW does it say you can sell to your party members at a premium anyway?

Here in the RAW it seems to say you can't.

SKR's quote that keeps getting tossed around doesn't mention selling to party members, it just says that the crafter can boost their own WBL due to the feat. (And I still vehemently object to that. Sean is generally one of the very best developers who post here, but in this case he's way off base).

So, with that quote in mind profiteers, what RAW says you can sell to PCs for more than 1/2 the price?

You realize that a player could still take the few mechanics-driven options to lower their costs to as low as 40% and that those options don't change the "half the listed price" number which let's you sell at 50%. So, there's your RAW that says you can make stuff and still gain 5-10% profit. I think max is 15% but let's be conservative in case I'm wrong. Even if it's just 5% profit I've seen people flip their s%#+ on here over just that amount. Which, that would still run afoul of what you and Selgrad and other "free crafted items" people are saying.

So, Buri, I would put this in the category of "exploit" where rules have been interpreted to gain an advantage that wasn't really their intent.

Yes, characters could do this. But I'd still object if they did. :)


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Jesus, YOU TOO Gauss?

That's my frickin POINT. Crafting provides combat benefits like any other feat. But the combat benefits come from activities that occur OUT OF COMBAT. YES! EXACTLY! Crafting is totally comparable to weapon focus!

Except those characters who take weapon focus don't charge their party members for it.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Well, if Gauss didn't get it either, maybe I was too hard on Jak....

Too hard on? You're giving me a good laugh. You make a bold declarative statement and fail to state your intention and people are supposed to infer your intent. Idea instead of pounding that caps lock to scream your points flesh them out some so people have an idea of what you're talking about.

Jak, I've reread what I wrote. I think it's clear enough. But since you and Gauss both missed it, I'll have to accept that maybe, just maybe, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. And if that's true, then I was too hard on you. So I apologize. I'll endeavor to spell things out in excruciating detail in the future.


How is it an exploit? It passes the munchkin smell test of using rules within the same book, which I don't think raises any alarms unless they're trying to link text across several books, one of which is often 3rd party material. Also, if it wasn't Paizo's intent then why put in options that let crafters acquire materials for less than half the item's cost? That doesn't make sense.


Buri wrote:
How is it an exploit? It passes the munchkin smell test of using rules within the same book, which I don't think raises any alarms unless they're trying to link text across several books, one of which is often 3rd party material. Also, if it wasn't Paizo's intent then why put in options that let crafters acquire materials for less than half the item's cost? That doesn't make sense.

Show me anything in the rules at all that discusses selling items from the crafter to other PCs.

Anything.

Then we can talk about the designers "intent" in that regard.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Jak, I've reread what I wrote. I think it's clear enough. But since you and Gauss both missed it, I'll have to accept that maybe, just maybe, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. And if that's true, then I was too hard on you. So I apologize. I'll endeavor to spell things out in excruciating detail in the future.

nah man, i got you. it just seems some people really do try to misinterpret things as a tool of debate

Edit: while jak is simply not making points anymore...

Edit my Edit: that wasn't fair, i'd take it out if i didn't leave it up too long


It doesn't have to. By large, the Pathfinder rules don't make much difference between PCs and NPCs. Mechanically, an NPC can be exactly identical to a PC and be RAW legit. So, if you can perform such a deal with an NPC then why couldn't/shouldn't you be able to do so in-game with another PC?

Shadow Lodge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So, Buri, I would put this in the category of "exploit" where rules have been interpreted to gain an advantage that wasn't really their intent.

You mean like crafters ending up with their appropriate level of wealth and the rest of the party ending up with double? Yeah, I'd call that an exploit, too.

Question related to my comments on the last page: would your character be okay with it if the crafter said, "I don't want to take any wealth from you because you don't think that's fair, so I'll make you the sword for a night with your wife"? Or your familiar, or whatever.

Would that seem like a fair trade? Is it just the gold that bothers you?

What other things could the crafter ask that would be non-impoverishing, but still worth their weight in gold? "Covert to my religion?" "Murder this otherwise innocent NPC that I don't like?" "Take all of my watches?" "Work for me for free, running errands, stealing things, killing NPCs, and generally doing what you're told around town, whenever we're on downtime and I'm making your something?"

None of those requests change the balance of the game. They're all fluff. Are those things fair to ask for, then? If not, maybe you're not really bothered by the gold, but by the idea that the crafter might have a vision for his character that's different from yours, and you want to impose your moral structure on him.


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:

Selgard since you seem to be the reasonable one on the anti-charge side I would appreciate it if you would address any of my concerns.

The solution it seems is that if you're going to play in a group with any member of the anti-charge side is to not tell any of the other pcs that you're crafting yourself items.

I've largely been skipping your posts, since you and AD are just sniping at each other.. sorry.

I said this earlier, I'll say it again.

I wouldn't necessarily kick- or try to get the group to kick- someone from the party jus for not crafing items for the group. The issue isn't that simple though. The reasons for why they aren't, are very much the issue.
Lets assume its me wanting something made.
Are they not crafting for me due to lack of time? Its taking 100% of the available down time to make things for themselves? I'm fine with that. Truly. Its their feat, they should most definately reap the benefit of it first and fore most. No doubt.
Likewise, if the DM told everyone that the crafter can't make things for others- then why punish the crafter because of it? Thats a no-brainer IMO but I figured i'd mention it anyway. heh.

But if dude is literally just being a prick. "I have a feat, no I won't use it for you, go suck an egg pal".
or if the group has said charging for crafting isn't acceptable and dude is just determined to tell them all to go to hell, his way or the highway, he gets to dictate terms to the group?

Well, thats really a much bigger problem.
If someone in the group is being a jerk, need to find out why. Preferably, resolve that. If its just a new guy being a jerk, then yeah.. Probably would just ditch him. Not because hes not crafting for me- but because he's being a jerk.
Same for going against the wishes of the group.

If you join a group who says no to charging for crafting, then thats the rule. You go with it, or you leave the group.
Flip side is also true. If you join a group and they say charging for crafting is ok- you don't get to be a jerk and harrass and annoy and pester and generally be an ass about it. You either shut up and pay, youmake your own crafter and render it moot, or you go home and find a new group.
I'm pretty sure that's what I've said in the past. If not, then consider what I'm saying now to be the official errata. (or dare I say it? clarification? lol)

I'd be really curious as to know what the guy just saying "sorry not crafting for you"- to know what his reasoning behind it is. its not as simple as saying "kick or no kick". there are some reasons to kick and others not to.. just depending on the circumstances.

They do need to realize though: if they've just decided randomly not to craft- they might find the group just randomly deciding not to assist them either. "Just randomly" doing things isn't really a valid reason not to help the group.

-S


Doram...

How do you see crafters having less and the rest of the party having double? How is that even possible? SKR's quote says the exact opposite.

Are you making the same argument, that somehow crafters can be FORCED to make stuff for the rest of the party without crafting for themselves?

How do you get to your conclusion? It seems 100% the opposite of what I see actually happen in game.


Doram ob'Han wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So, Buri, I would put this in the category of "exploit" where rules have been interpreted to gain an advantage that wasn't really their intent.

You mean like crafters ending up with their appropriate level of wealth and the rest of the party ending up with double? Yeah, I'd call that an exploit, too.

Question related to my comments on the last page: would your character be okay with it if the crafter said, "I don't want to take any wealth from you because you don't think that's fair, so I'll make you the sword for a night with your wife"? Or your familiar, or whatever.

Would that seem like a fair trade? Is it just the gold that bothers you?

What other things could the crafter ask that would be non-impoverishing, but still worth their weight in gold? "Covert to my religion?" "Murder this otherwise innocent NPC that I don't like?" "Take all of my watches?" "Work for me for free, running errands, stealing things, killing NPCs, and generally doing what you're told around town, whenever we're on downtime and I'm making your something?"

None of those requests change the balance of the game. They're all fluff. Are those things fair to ask for, then? If not, maybe you're not really bothered by the gold, but by the idea that the crafter might have a vision for his character that's different from yours, and you want to impose your moral structure on him.

so the idea is that the 'compensation' shouldn't be mandatory, or shouldn't be something that increases 1 character's power over the other's. if it is an RP thing, then it can be resolved by RP, and if your character is going to ask for something that your other character would find disgusting, either that could lead to good RP or that means you guys failed in playing a cooperative game

what i mean with the failing is that the two characters have completely different understanding of the GM's game


Buri wrote:
It doesn't have to. By large, the Pathfinder rules don't make much difference between PCs and NPCs. Mechanically, an NPC can be exactly identical to a PC and be RAW legit. So, if you can perform such a deal with an NPC then why couldn't/shouldn't you be able to do so in-game with another PC?

I'm not asking you to speculate on whether the developers are somehow OK with PCs and NPCs being treated the same with respect to selling/buying crafted magic items Buri. You can speculate, I can speculate. This whole thread is rampant with opposing speculation.

I'm asking for anything explicit in the rules about one PC selling crafted magic items to another PC.

If there isn't anything, then it's all speculation.


dragonfire8974 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Jak, I've reread what I wrote. I think it's clear enough. But since you and Gauss both missed it, I'll have to accept that maybe, just maybe, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. And if that's true, then I was too hard on you. So I apologize. I'll endeavor to spell things out in excruciating detail in the future.

nah man, i got you. it just seems some people really do try to misinterpret things as a tool of debate

Edit: while jak is simply not making points anymore...

Edit my Edit: that wasn't fair, i'd take it out if i didn't leave it up too long

Since you pseudo edited your snark I'll erase mine. I already made my points a few pages back. Now I'm just pointing out holes in the opposition. Mostly for fun and because I'm bored. I have no desire to convince anyone of my pro-crafting superiority other than my teammates.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Buri wrote:
It doesn't have to. By large, the Pathfinder rules don't make much difference between PCs and NPCs. Mechanically, an NPC can be exactly identical to a PC and be RAW legit. So, if you can perform such a deal with an NPC then why couldn't/shouldn't you be able to do so in-game with another PC?

I'm not asking you to speculate on whether the developers are somehow OK with PCs and NPCs being treated the same with respect to selling/buying crafted magic items Buri. You can speculate, I can speculate. This whole thread is rampant with opposing speculation.

I'm asking for anything explicit in the rules about one PC selling crafted magic items to another PC.

If there isn't anything, then it's all speculation.

just SKR's wonky FAQ. i really don't see how you can implement that without metagaming


Jak the Looney Alchemist wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Jak, I've reread what I wrote. I think it's clear enough. But since you and Gauss both missed it, I'll have to accept that maybe, just maybe, I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. And if that's true, then I was too hard on you. So I apologize. I'll endeavor to spell things out in excruciating detail in the future.

nah man, i got you. it just seems some people really do try to misinterpret things as a tool of debate

Edit: while jak is simply not making points anymore...

Edit my Edit: that wasn't fair, i'd take it out if i didn't leave it up too long

Since you pseudo edited your snark I'll erase mine. I already made my points a few pages back. Now I'm just pointing out holes in the opposition. Mostly for fun and because I'm bored. I have no desire to convince anyone of my pro-crafting superiority other than my teammates.

i wouldn't begrudge your snark, I was premature in coming to a judgement, did that with Doram earlier. if no one has addressed your concerns, if you would please repeat them, i'll do my best to give you a proper response


Alright my stance:

A) Craft feats grant the characters that took them extra effective treasure thereby upping their in-combat power. (Example: they can save 5000gp by making instead of buying a 10000gp item and spend that 5000gp elsewhere.)

B) I as a player would not personally charge allies for the crafting BUT I as a player also do not want the DM to have to ramp up encounters because the allies are too powerful. This is a lose-lose proposition. (Note: there are other options, such as reducing treasure.) As a DM I also support this idea.

Thus, I would ask them to donate the difference to some non-combat purpose. A temple donation for example. The allies would still benefit from items of choice rather than whatever items happened to be available as per Core Rulebook, Table 15-1 on page 461.

C) I am a firm believer in WBL and while I do not feel Im a 'nazi' about it (like one person stated) I do keep tabs on it and adjust treasures accordingly. In 7 levels of my current campaign I have only had to adjust once and everyone got an item chosen specifically for that character.

Summary: while I agree crafting for the group is highly beneficial the rules are not currently designed to allow this without some external (DM or player) controls.


Doram ob'Han wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So, Buri, I would put this in the category of "exploit" where rules have been interpreted to gain an advantage that wasn't really their intent.

You mean like crafters ending up with their appropriate level of wealth and the rest of the party ending up with double? Yeah, I'd call that an exploit, too.

Question related to my comments on the last page: would your character be okay with it if the crafter said, "I don't want to take any wealth from you because you don't think that's fair, so I'll make you the sword for a night with your wife"? Or your familiar, or whatever.

Would that seem like a fair trade? Is it just the gold that bothers you?

What other things could the crafter ask that would be non-impoverishing, but still worth their weight in gold? "Covert to my religion?" "Murder this otherwise innocent NPC that I don't like?" "Take all of my watches?" "Work for me for free, running errands, stealing things, killing NPCs, and generally doing what you're told around town, whenever we're on downtime and I'm making your something?"

None of those requests change the balance of the game. They're all fluff. Are those things fair to ask for, then? If not, maybe you're not really bothered by the gold, but by the idea that the crafter might have a vision for his character that's different from yours, and you want to impose your moral structure on him.

I mean, in reality, anything is fair agame- as long as the others can ask the same thing of you to do their party share of things.

"hey, yuo are bleeding profusely.. This heal? yeah.. Night with your wife. she is -smoking- i've been wanting to tap that for awhile. Want to be healed? It'll just cost you a night. no? aww. pity that".

or Ranger comes back and tells the group he found where big bad's lair is- he'll tell you if you agree to do his share of the camp chores. for a month.

Or the rogue says he'll open chests for 20% of the contents, his choice of the 20%. He'll open any door as long as he gets to pick what loot he gets off whatever's on the other side.

Wizard'll be happy to go to the library and research how to kill the demon you've been chasing, as long as you agree to do murder for him when he requests it, no questions asked.

The overall theme is still the same:
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If the crafter gets to charge extra, or somethign special, or whatever, then everyone else does too.

-S


dragonfire8974 wrote:


just SKR's wonky FAQ. i really don't see how you can implement that without metagaming

Yeah, that keeps coming up. I am a huge fan of SKR. I really am. But that was just bizarre. And it's pure metagaming.

The reason that quote constantly being raised by the profiteers bothers me is because there is nothing in that quote about selling from one PC to another at a profit. All SKR is saying is that crafters can make stuff for themselves and if they do, then they get their stuff valued at cost, while if they provide it to their party members at cost, their party members get it valued at price.

To me there is nothing in that entire quotation that has any relevance whatsoever to this argument.

Literally nothing.

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,075 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar? All Messageboards