Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

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


Advice

1,601 to 1,650 of 2,075 << first < prev | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | next > last >>

Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
we haven't had any new ideas here since the high 900's.

Hey, I'm partial to the math that I presented and that got promptly ignored in the 1200s!

PS working on that 2000+ job.

Are you sure it's not the same as QuantumSteve's calculation in the high 900s (link please?).

Also, you should know by now that sensible posts get ignored around here. You have to call someone out by name and make it really inflammatory. Even then they'll respond as though they hadn't read beyond the first two lines. Then your job is to respond with something that you've posted earlier in the thread. And so on until the internet explodes.

I'm having a reasonably good time reposting the same thing that Selgard keeps dodging, wondering how he'll dodge it next.

Also, Animal Farm.

I'm thinking of putting together a meta-thread called "What do you think are the ten best posts of the 'Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?' thread" thread. Of course probably eight of the top ten comments were posted by me.

edit: Also, Khmer Rouge! Selgard do you not hear my siren song?
edit^2: This has to be at least the twelfth or thirteenth shark this thread has jumped.

The new thread has been created. If I get banned for this I just want you all to know that it's been fun (even/especially Selgard, Dragonfire and AD).

WHERE???? I think this thread sometimes lacks a lot of needed levity. I totally have a nomination for something weird too


nevermind, found the thread, can't find the post


dragonfire8974 wrote:
EDIT: the other scenario is that the character is collecting the money to build orphanages or tithe to his church or something RP that isn't meant to increase the character's power, i wouldn't even raise an argument against it

From a game balance point of view I think this is the best way. Non-crafter PCs still get to select the items they want instead of hoping that they can find or buy it from an NPC but everyone's WBL stays where it should.

From a RP perspective the characters get to feel like they are more a part of the larger world. They become invested in protecting and improving that orphanage or church which gives the GM more tools with which to craft a compelling storyline.

edit: Ironically the OP suggested that solution some time around the 100th post.


dragonfire8974 wrote:
WHERE???? I think this thread sometimes lacks a lot of needed levity. I totally have a nomination for something weird too

I put it in the Website Feedback forum.


Humphrey Boggard wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
EDIT: the other scenario is that the character is collecting the money to build orphanages or tithe to his church or something RP that isn't meant to increase the character's power, i wouldn't even raise an argument against it

From a game balance point of view I think this is the best way. Non-crafter PCs still get to select the items they want instead of hoping that they can find or buy it from an NPC but everyone's WBL stays where it should.

From a RP perspective the characters get to feel like they are more a part of the larger world. They become invested in protecting and improving that orphanage or church which gives the GM more tools with which to craft a compelling storyline.

edit: Ironically the OP suggested that solution some time around the 100th post.

I believe that AD had already played the "you're a jerk" card at that point. Once the Jerk is played, things tend to quickly grind to a halt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would laugh so hard if this thread got locked down at 1999 posts...


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I would laugh so hard if this thread got locked down at 1999 posts...

i actually would want that to happen


Derek Vande Brake wrote:
I would laugh so hard if this thread got locked down at 1999 posts...

Party pooper. As for spending down-time drinking and whoring, I'm sure The Party would be okay with that. But not Cindy Crafter, oh no, not her. Paraphrasing Hooper X - "Keep your eyes on her; she the Devil!"


Except the wealth disparity is supposed to be there in fact that's what the devs decided was balanced so if you ask the DM to remove the disparity you unbalance the crafter by making him weaker congratulations on gimping your party.

And for any feat other than craft wondrous items it pretty much is balanced but CWI is just jacked because it applies to too many things.

Also for those of you who recall the making a church suggestion was also shot down by the players because how dare Mr. Crafter have character goals! F*** that guy ... what an a%!@*#$ ... oh wait.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

imo the one with the crafting feats is free to charge whatever he wants, and ppl who have a problem with that are quite frankly unreasonable.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Selgard wrote:

Here is the issue:

Its not that no one gets down time. Its that no one gets to charge the partnership for partnership stuff.

If the partnership requires 2 hours overtime to get the work done, does any one member get to charge extra? or are they putting in time for the partnership and get a fair share at the end?

I've never once said that the crafter gets no free time. I just haven't. I've said repeatedly that the crafter crafts during group time and gets off time with the group.
The discussion is whether or not crafting for Freddy Fighter is off time or group time.
To me, its group time. You are helping the party doing your part of the party stuff.
You say any crafting that isn't for yourself is your personal time you are getting screwed out of and its slavery. I patently disagree.

If the group is never givin you any down time and you are locked away in a shoe box perpetually crafting then charge them for it. I've already said so, directly and explicitly. Everyone gets down time.
But by that same idea- if the group sets aside some group time for you to craft, then why not craft? Its costing you nothing and they are covering the other things needing to be done.
If the folks in the group are all doing group things- regardless of what they are- and you are asked to craft *during that time* whats the problem?
When "group work" is over everyone meets at the tavern, discusses the day, shares a meal and a pony keg and has a nice relaxing time.

What slavery is involved?
Is the wizard going to the library to research the Glabrezu slavery?
Are the paladin and rogue engaged in slavery when going to sell the loot and schmooze with the temple and nobles abit?

No.. of course not. The group has just sliced up the "group time" pie so that things can be done in the most efficient manner.
No one's getting screwed, no one is enslaved, and no one is charging for what they do.

-S

Circular logic.

"You have downtime to craft, but when you are crafting for a group member it is group time."
i.e. no logic at all.

My problem with your vision Selgard is that it is even older than communism, it is the small community vision, with the other guys having a said to everything that happen in the community and everything I do.
you see it as a wonderful thing with people caring for each other, I see it as a horrible place where the gossiper next door feel he has the right and the duty to pry in my life, "suggest" how I should live it and try to force me into living it the "right way".
0 individuality, 0 privacy, 0 individual rights. Rule of the mob with no rights for the minority.
The crafting thing seem to be simply a by product of that vision of the game.
You see the characters as members of a community that have subscribed some iron bound contract. That is not friends, that is slavery to the party goal.

Sczarni

Did anyone think of idea of making items free of charge but accepting donations? It seems less hostile that way.


Call me a social bastard but our group does not charge one another for stuff. WE simply look at the whole group and see what area's need improving, like mage, fighter, tank and healing ect... We get treasure and we share it and if we can we pool it together for the common good for an item for a character then we build it.

We have 4 players and we all specialize in certain area's like my dwarven fighter can make weapons and armor. Mage can make wondrous items and potions. Druid can make bows, the paladin well, he just heals.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
dragonfire8974 wrote:

well... i've voiced lots of unhappy things around SKR's FAQ. i don't like the FAQ, i don't agree with it. I understand that you may be trying to execute the FAQ, but there's no non-wonky way to do it, and charging characters for crafting is something that could be a solution in your game but for me, it would need to be heavily monitored by the GM so that the crafter's wealth doesn't get out of control.

Personally, if i were to execute SKR's FAQ, i would infer that Item creation was a more intensely personal process and would work like preparing spells and i would revamp time constraints and such... but yeah, i'd normally just allow as much crafting as everyone wants, just give out only items

SKR's FAQ is RAW. Even if you disagree with it, it is RAW. It isn't some post on the forums that may or may not be correct, it is part of the FAQ.

It sounds like you are saying that you disregard that part of the rules, that you houserule rule to suit your tastes more. Am I reading that right?


dragonfire8974 wrote:
voska66 wrote:


now, if the GM corrects for the wealth disparity, or if the PC uses the extra money to tithe/build an orphanage or other RP endeavors that don't increase character power relative to the others, I would have no problem. I wouldn't have a problem if the GM rewards the player for building orphanages and tithing money, but when the player uses the money to increase their power above the rest of the party, that's where i have a problem.

Wait, what? Is this really anything but meta-gaming? It's wrong for the crafter to take the money, but it's okay he spends it on something that doesn't increase his power (relative to the other characters), even if the GM "rewards" me for doing it... But if I am giving away all this cash to some church organization or similar, presumably they will back me up if my reputation is ever called into question- having a large organization like that in your debt is definitely a form of power. It's a touch more subtle than a fireball, but it'll do.

If a more secular fee-crafting Wizard were to spend all his fee-cash on creating an awesome wizard-tower complete with magical protections (which could act as a party's safe haven in time of need, but is owned by the Wizard) and buying a ton of rare books (possibly including new spells) for his library, would that be objectionable? It seems like what you mean by power is really WBL, and WBL as it relates to adventuring gear in particular.

A further problem, as others have pointed out, is that if the crater crafts for free, then he is behind the party in terms of WBL, though WBL kind of goes out the window in my experience as soon as the game actually starts getting played unless the GM "enforces" it, which kind of breaks my suspension of disbelief, I don't know about you guys. I have characters that are over WBL because they got lucky and found something great, or because they bet basically everything they owned on a fight against the champion of the Arena and won. I also have characters that are well below WBL because the gear just doesn't show up sometimes because we spend 2 levels wandering around in the boondocks, or we lose it/use it up the loot we "ought" to have had. I think WBL is just a tool for building a character at above 1st level that has accumulated about the right amount of junk in their career "so far."

Anyway, if the crafter crafts for free, and the party (of four) finds 12000 gp, everyone gets 6000 gp in gear... And the crafter has (at minimum) one less feat than everyone else, and if crafting is actually their shtick, expect them to be much weaker as they have probably sunk many feats into something that, relative to the other players, makes them NO MORE POWERFUL so long as they craft for free.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Malag wrote:
Did anyone think of idea of making items free of charge but accepting donations? It seems less hostile that way.

The free crafting crowd has already said that they would not tip the crafter, as the crafter is only doing their job.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
VedounMar wrote:

If you'd like to move the goalposts to a more nuanced aspect of which gear we are talking about so be it. I was referring to the essentials, armor, weapon, stat enhancers etc. Rather than accessories. . . If the party has finished acquiring the resources it needs to maximize its effectiveness, and the rogue wants an extra bauble, then charging has little meaning one way or another.

I suspect my initial example of the marines in combat was the most apropos of the examples placed so far, as off hand as it was. No direct analogy exists with RL, as combat is handled classically with large scale economies as backing. Though I seem to recall Russia during WW1 or 2 would have one soldier with the gun, the other with the ammo. Though the logistics of large scale warfare don't necessarily apply, and frankly the heat of the moment aspect of my initial example I think applies better then the refinements that followed. Reason being that the logistics of running a war, like economies, are larger and more complicated things than the methods of small group survival. The mechanics of the crafting feats are very simple, and the more complicated parallels simply don't work. Whereas the simpler analogy I initially used, while by no means perfect, did analogize better.

I would have to disagree that I moved the goal posts. The more I think about it, the less I feel that your ammo example is correct, it is comparable to arrow making and ignoring the rest of the gear a soldier carries. Making ammo is usually fairly quick, even for grain counted and hand load stuff.

A more appropriate example would be a group of special forces mercenaries. They get a job, do it, get paid.

If one of the mercs learns how to make all kinds of guns, and spends hours or weeks making each one, so that it jams less, is more accurate, is lighter, etc.. and could sell it for a good amount of cash.

The other mercs wouldn't force him to make them several guns each at cost. I highly doubt that it would even cross their minds - how to leverage their relationship for a discount, sure. And I suspect that they would be quite happy to get a 40% discount.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beej67 wrote:
Selgard wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Selgard wrote:
Heaven forbid someone gets a benefit from a group mate taking a feat!
Why is forty percent benefit not enough? Why would you rather get zero benefit than forty percent benefit? Why do you keep avoiding my other questions?

It has nothing to do with "being enough". It has nothing to do with the amount.

The crafter can charge 1 gold piece over what it costs to make and its just as bad as them charging the full 50% extra.

You are getting hung up on the cash while ignoring the principle.

And you're getting hung up on the principle without considering the results. Crafters purposefully chose to be less effective by burning their feats, yet you demand to reap all the same benefits for no cost, while keeping all your feats, and providing no compensation to the crafter. Your demands do not result in 50% -off items. They result in full price items at the store. Your demands kill the golden goose.

Animal Farm.

I have to come back to this.

Beej The Mage turns to Selgard The Fighter and says this:

"Fine, if you want me to craft your magic arms and armor for you at cost, I will do so, but you must max out your Craft Armor skill and Craft Weapon skill at all times, buy a forge, maintain it, and beat all of our swords out of pig iron with a hammer."

Selgard The Fighter replies:

"But that's a pointless waste of my time and training! We can just buy master crafted swords to enchant at the store for a few hundred gold!"

Beej the Mage rebuts:

"It has nothing to do with "being enough". It has nothing to do with the amount. You are getting hung up on the cash while ignoring the principle."

*

Telling other people what to do with their character's time and buildouts sure is fun, huh?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malag wrote:
Did anyone think of idea of making items free of charge but accepting donations? It seems less hostile that way.

Our group has done this.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistwalker wrote:
I would have to disagree that I moved the goal posts. . . The other mercs wouldn't force him to make them several guns each at cost. I highly doubt that it would even cross their...

Looks like I should have made a better effort of separating the two lines of discussion. The moving the goalpost paragraph was intended to be addressing a different line of discussion from the analogy line.

Mistwalker wrote:
I would not agree that magic items are by an large essential survival tools. A handy haversack is necessary to survival, useful yes, but a regular backpack would also do.

Within this paragraph we see the contrast between what I had intended to be talking about (key equipment), and you started talking about non-essentials (the haversack). Other posts scattered about have specifically mentioned key equipment, such as the fighter's armor. The level of emotion alone implies that we were talking about key equipment. Key Equipment being defined as that which either shores up weaknesses, or reinforces the strengths of a particular character. Though this probably hadn't been defined before, which may again be a mistake of mine. However, whether intentionally or due to poor expectations on my part, the goalposts definitely took on a new location. From: "This will help the party survive", To: "This is neat"

The second line of discussion, the analogy, I had placed into it's own paragraph. . . probably should had done more to visually separate the points. It is true that this may be an artificial division at this point as you were using your analogy to support your above point. . . but my analogy was on such a completely different wavelength in regards to the point it was trying (and apparently failing) to make that I continued to keep the points separate in a (failed) attempt at clarity.

Your analogy (regarding sunglasses at first, then later returning to essential materials weapons/ammo which I appreciate) is more the Ant and the Grasshopper sort of point. Though not as extreme. It was laying out the benefits of labor vs. not. This sort of thing holds true in a broader more RL sort of way, but fails (I think) to capture the more immediacy of risk and the very, very stark division of labor that the adventuring party faces. My point, failing to get across as it may have been, was a very simple one. The party has X resources to face the challenge in front of them. Their chances of surviving that challenge are increased if they function as a team (or unit). Whether that threat is five feet or five weeks in front of them, doesn't really change the dynamic of resource allocation all that much.

My initial analogy, by way of reminder, related to sharing ammo in a battle, not the manufacturing of it. I did make a crafting ammo analogy in the second version, but the previous post was attempting to walk back to that initial analogy (where no crafting was involved) where the folks wouldn't haggle in the middle of a firefight. I mention this because your previous post while responding to mine talks of crafting ammo. . . which relates to my second analogy, not the first. My previous post was discussing the first analogy, not the second. Different wavelengths suspected.

Since I tend to find myself disassembling the points of others for an inordinate amount of time, I had thrown in that analogy to make a point (albeit a minor one) of my own. It would have been more precise to make the point directly. . . but would not have been as much fun :)

Vedoun


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
VedounMar wrote:
My initial analogy, by way of reminder, related to sharing ammo in a battle, not the manufacturing of it. I did make a crafting ammo analogy in the second version, but the previous post was attempting to walk back to that initial analogy (where no crafting was involved) where the folks wouldn't haggle in the middle of a firefight. I mention this because your previous post while responding to mine talks of crafting ammo. . . which relates to my second analogy, not the first. My previous post was discussing the first analogy, not the second. Different wavelengths suspected

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding happened. The fee crafter crowd has stated that they fully participate in combat, so they would pass the ammo if required or necessary.

My examples of hand crafted ammo, sunglasses and hand crafted firearms deal with what I consider the crafting issue. If items are crafted during downtime, the crafter deserves to be rewarded for their time. This time could have been spent increasing their skills, researching, with significant other, kids, etc.. but was instead spent making an item for a team mate. The crafter is willing to cut a huge discount for the team mate, but shouldn't be forced to have their time unrewarded, be unappreciated. That is the in character answer.

The out-of-character issue is two fold. The first one is WBL. The crafter's net worth for WBL is calculated at the cost of the crafted items, while the non-crafter's net worth is calculated based on the retail value. So if the crafter provides items at cost to the rest of the group, they are always behind based on WBL.

The second issue is that the crafter ends up having to take one for the team, as they are down at least one feat, perhaps more, as well as having to put a lot of ranks into a skill. So the feat(s) that the crafter put into crafting ends up not making them stronger in combat (as compared to their team mates), but also get's them chastised by their team mates for "gimping" themselves.


Selgard wrote:

Why is the crafter a special snowflake?

Why does taking that one feat suddenly mystically and magically entitel you to more of the group's gold than anyone else?

Apparently some of you just think crafters are inherently better than everyone else.
I just don't buy that.
(err no pun intended.)

-S

p.s. ok pun intended, who am I kidding?

Because, by RAW, the crafter is entitled to more WBL than the rest of the party. To not charge the party would be the same as gimping your character in relation to the rest of the party because you increased the power of your companions.

-
My question is: Why do you think the rest of the party is inherently better than the crafter?

Why do you insist on taking advantage of the crafter?


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:

well... i've voiced lots of unhappy things around SKR's FAQ. i don't like the FAQ, i don't agree with it. I understand that you may be trying to execute the FAQ, but there's no non-wonky way to do it, and charging characters for crafting is something that could be a solution in your game but for me, it would need to be heavily monitored by the GM so that the crafter's wealth doesn't get out of control.

Personally, if i were to execute SKR's FAQ, i would infer that Item creation was a more intensely personal process and would work like preparing spells and i would revamp time constraints and such... but yeah, i'd normally just allow as much crafting as everyone wants, just give out only items

SKR's FAQ is RAW. Even if you disagree with it, it is RAW. It isn't some post on the forums that may or may not be correct, it is part of the FAQ.

It sounds like you are saying that you disregard that part of the rules, that you houserule rule to suit your tastes more. Am I reading that right?

for my games, i do. there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky. but that's not the position i'm debating from. that's personal preference.

EDIT: but i do think that charging isn't the best way to implement the FAQ, and I personally, wouldn't implement it at all


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dragonfire8974 wrote:
loaba wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Because he knows there is no distinction between "crafted" magic items and "looted" magic items, and he knows how much he can sell his "looted" magic items for.

Just because he takes the first offer, doesn't mean the crafter does. So the answer is, unless he's there to witness a transaction, he really doesn't know what the crafter might get for any items he makes.

You, Adamantine Dragon, the player, know that crafter can't sell for more than wholesale. That's meta-gaming. You should also know that there is a chance, in certain situations, where the crafter could possibly negotiate something higher than the flat 50.

I really shouldn't jump back in here because i've been absent for the last 400 points, but it seems the same things come up

who says it is the crafter who sells loot? and who says the crafter is the only one who knows what things are worth?

even assuming me, as the big dumb fighter, don't know anything about prices, don't worry about how the loot is distributed or sold off, i just get a pile of shinys after each adventure, i assume wholesale (read as crafted prices) will come up sometime in the adventure if not right away when I purchase something and mention that one of my friends is a crafter. Or the one time I come along cause we're in a dangerous town and I accompany someone to sell off the loot.

Now, i'd just like to clear up that however you wanna play is fine, but learning prices is not a purely metagame aspect

We need you jump back if we hope to hit 2000 posts! :)


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

loaba, I don't presume to put words into your mouth. Kindly stop putting words into mine.

In fact I have been the one pointing out that this insistence on knowing "exact" values of items is ridiculous. However, recognizing a 15% difference in value does NOT require knowing the fractional copper value of an item. Except in your arguments. Which shows how strong your arguments are.

Exactly... Recognizing a 15% difference in value requires an Appraise check.


dragonfire8974 wrote:
for my games, i do. there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky. but that's not the position i'm debating from. that's personal preference.

Well, the easiest way is for the crafter to only craft for themselves. I find that odd as well.. Which means something wonky this way comes.


Dr Grecko wrote:
Selgard wrote:

Why is the crafter a special snowflake?

Why does taking that one feat suddenly mystically and magically entitel you to more of the group's gold than anyone else?

Apparently some of you just think crafters are inherently better than everyone else.
I just don't buy that.
(err no pun intended.)

-S

p.s. ok pun intended, who am I kidding?

Because, by RAW, the crafter is entitled to more WBL than the rest of the party. To not charge the party would be the same as gimping your character in relation to the rest of the party because you increased the power of your companions.

-
My question is: Why do you think the rest of the party is inherently better than the crafter?

Why do you insist on taking advantage of the crafter?

crafted items count 1/2 when considered WBL. the crafter has the same WBL, but crafted items count at their cost


Dr Grecko wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
for my games, i do. there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky. but that's not the position i'm debating from. that's personal preference.
Well, the easiest way is for the crafter to only craft for themselves. I find that odd as well.. Which means something wonky this way comes.

you're not kidding. there's no way to implement the FAQ without something wonky.

I, if i were to implement it, would make crafting like preparing spells. those with the craft feats can attune items to themselves, but those without craft feats have to spend money (like an offering to the items) to attune them


Mistwalker wrote:
Malag wrote:
Did anyone think of idea of making items free of charge but accepting donations? It seems less hostile that way.
The free crafting crowd has already said that they would not tip the crafter, as the crafter is only doing their job.

Please remember to tip your wait staff :)

-
Thats a great point too. I know our group roleplays out Taverns from time to time.. Almost always we tip the bartender. Why should it be any different to tip your crafter?


Mistwalker wrote:
Malag wrote:
Did anyone think of idea of making items free of charge but accepting donations? It seems less hostile that way.
The free crafting crowd has already said that they would not tip the crafter, as the crafter is only doing their job.

tipping the crafter is optional in my party. usually I'm the crafter because its super powerful and I enjoy making sketches of my items even though i have no drawing talent whatsoever.

at lower levels, they tipped me, but i ended up giving it right back to the party members by feeding them gold when they were short from an item they wanted (because that's the kind of person and character i played).

i'm for free crafting because i like that group dynamic


dragonfire8974 wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
for my games, i do. there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky. but that's not the position i'm debating from. that's personal preference.
Well, the easiest way is for the crafter to only craft for themselves. I find that odd as well.. Which means something wonky this way comes.

you're not kidding. there's no way to implement the FAQ without something wonky.

I, if i were to implement it, would make crafting like preparing spells. those with the craft feats can attune items to themselves, but those without craft feats have to spend money (like an offering to the items) to attune them

Interesting method. Not sure that would even solve the problem we're discussing, but I like the flavor.

I envision it as.. a Crafters item is always attuned to him.. If the item is to function for another person, he needs to include a jewel infused with "his essence" for it to function for another person.

Inquisitors could possibly use the jewels via scrying to locate said crafter in an investigation for questioning.

But thats all a homebrew..


Cyrus Lanthier wrote:
someone other than me wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:


now, if the GM corrects for the wealth disparity, or if the PC uses the extra money to tithe/build an orphanage or other RP endeavors that don't increase character power relative to the others, I would have no problem. I wouldn't have a problem if the GM rewards the player for building orphanages and tithing money, but when the player uses the money to increase their power above the rest of the party, that's where i have a problem.

Wait, what? Is this really anything but meta-gaming? It's wrong for the crafter to take the money, but it's okay he spends it on something that doesn't increase his power (relative to the other characters), even if the GM "rewards" me for doing it... But if I am giving away all this cash to some church organization or similar, presumably they will back me up if my reputation is ever called into question- having a large organization like that in your debt is definitely a form of power. It's a touch more subtle than a fireball, but it'll do.

If a more secular fee-crafting Wizard were to spend all his fee-cash on creating an awesome wizard-tower complete with magical protections (which could act as a party's safe haven in time of need, but is owned by the Wizard) and buying a ton of rare books (possibly including new spells) for his library, would that be objectionable? It seems like what you mean by power is really WBL, and WBL as it relates to adventuring gear in particular.

A further problem, as others have pointed out, is that if the crater crafts for free, then he is behind the party in terms of WBL, though WBL kind of goes out the window in my experience as soon as the game actually starts getting played unless the GM "enforces" it, which kind of breaks my suspension of disbelief, I don't know about you guys. I have characters that are over WBL because they got lucky and found something great, or because they bet basically everything they owned on a fight against the champion of the Arena and won. I also have characters

...

the interior quote was mine, and only part of one where i addressed a metagaming concept that a character isn't going to know what things cost? I don't even know because the quotes were wrong


Dr Grecko wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
Dr Grecko wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
for my games, i do. there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky. but that's not the position i'm debating from. that's personal preference.
Well, the easiest way is for the crafter to only craft for themselves. I find that odd as well.. Which means something wonky this way comes.

you're not kidding. there's no way to implement the FAQ without something wonky.

I, if i were to implement it, would make crafting like preparing spells. those with the craft feats can attune items to themselves, but those without craft feats have to spend money (like an offering to the items) to attune them

Interesting method. Not sure that would even solve the problem we're discussing, but I like the flavor.

I envision it as.. a Crafters item is always attuned to him.. If the item is to function for another person, he needs to include a jewel infused with "his essence" for it to function for another person.

Inquisitors could possibly use the jewels via scrying to locate said crafter in an investigation for questioning.

But thats all a homebrew..

yeah. Have no clue how to solve the problem without there being something weird and/or homebrew


To me I guess the question of charging for item creation is sort of blurred and dependent on the group and/or characters.

If you consider the mercenary approach then characters can have noble goals but in general they are in it for themselves. This is the sort of group where charging 75% of the market price would be more than fair. But make sure you stay effective in other areas because you just might get kicked out of the group if you aren't effective enough.

If you consider the more "small village" kind of group where the group is bound tightly together by common goals then expect everyone to try and discuss the most effective route for the group. This is the group where charging any kind of extra percentage would be unheard of.

There are other group dynamics out there but barring an evil group where characters are actively trying to get more power than the others, sometimes at the cost of the other group members, these two are the most polarized when it comes to this subject.

Tbh I like both group approaches but I don't think I would ever take crafting feats in a "village" group.


I had a crafting character in a party. A witch, with brew potion, craft wondrous item, and craft wand.

We had a barbarian, rogue, and sorceror in the party. I did not take craft magical arms and armor.

I was content to make magical stuff for party members. Provided the party members supplied all necessary supplies, AND bought me the scroll for the requisite spells.

My own gear also came first.

I think I wound up making about 4 permanent items for the party. Most of what I put together wound up being potions built around an upcoming fight.

No one in the group had a problem with having to go out of pocket for my needs, or buying gear from the market when I didn't have time to make my headband of intellect +4 and his or her doodad. Or just waiting. Because they all saw that I was investing a substantial number of my limited feats to make all of this go (we finished at level 11. I was not human. So 3 feats cost me 18% of my hexes and 1/3 of feats. Or 25% of my total customization options post creation.

At no point did I feel obligated to make magical tat for my group at cost, nor optimize my character to do just that. Hence no magical arms and armor. Also the reason I didn't completely rebuild my witch as a healbot for the party, or some other such nonsense.

The party was apparently fine with this, as they contributed to making my spellbook rather absurd, helping me acquire a variety of specialized tools (crafting bonuses), and worked with my character for a sidequest that was very focused on him. As I did with everyone else.

Nothing in the rules demands that you give up all resources at all times equally and optimize everyone perfectly. Characters have personalities. They do things for themselves and the group. Requiring someone else to play a specific way makes fewer people at the table have fun.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
dragonfire8974 wrote:

there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky

EDIT: but i do think that charging isn't the best way to implement the FAQ, and I personally, wouldn't implement it at all

Take a look at the math I posted. A 20% or so crafting charge would keep everyone in balance with WBL. Nothing wonky needed.

Charging would seem to be the easiest way to implement things. What do you have against it? It doesn't make the crafter more powerful. It ensures that everyone is at the same level.


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:

there's no way to implement that part of RAW without something wonky

EDIT: but i do think that charging isn't the best way to implement the FAQ, and I personally, wouldn't implement it at all

Take a look at the math I posted. A 20% or so crafting charge would keep everyone in balance with WBL. Nothing wonky needed.

Charging would seem to be the easiest way to implement things. What do you have against it? It doesn't make the crafter more powerful. It ensures that everyone is at the same level.

i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?


Phneri wrote:

I had a crafting character in a party. A witch, with brew potion, craft wondrous item, and craft wand.

We had a barbarian, rogue, and sorceror in the party. I did not take craft magical arms and armor.

I was content to make magical stuff for party members. Provided the party members supplied all necessary supplies, AND bought me the scroll for the requisite spells.

My own gear also came first.

I think I wound up making about 4 permanent items for the party. Most of what I put together wound up being potions built around an upcoming fight.

No one in the group had a problem with having to go out of pocket for my needs, or buying gear from the market when I didn't have time to make my headband of intellect +4 and his or her doodad. Or just waiting. Because they all saw that I was investing a substantial number of my limited feats to make all of this go (we finished at level 11. I was not human. So 3 feats cost me 18% of my hexes and 1/3 of feats. Or 25% of my total customization options post creation.

At no point did I feel obligated to make magical tat for my group at cost, nor optimize my character to do just that. Hence no magical arms and armor. Also the reason I didn't completely rebuild my witch as a healbot for the party, or some other such nonsense.

The party was apparently fine with this, as they contributed to making my spellbook rather absurd, helping me acquire a variety of specialized tools (crafting bonuses), and worked with my character for a sidequest that was very focused on him. As I did with everyone else.

Nothing in the rules demands that you give up all resources at all times equally and optimize everyone perfectly. Characters have personalities. They do things for themselves and the group. Requiring someone else to play a specific way makes fewer people at the table have fun.

hahaha, i hope you took the cauldron witch thing, cause I always wanted to brew people into the potions i made for the party.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

but then the FAQ everyone bats around so much is getting ignored because the other characters now have 50% above WBL

EDIT: and crafted items only count 1/2 for WBL, so the crafter has 1/2 that. Again, this is according to the FAQ

EDIT AGAIN: wow, nevermind. that is real wealth, i'm an idiot


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

Just out of curiousity, does the same 20% fee hold up for a party of 5 players?


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

This is intriguing. I expect the Free Crafters will still say no.


Dr Grecko wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

Just out of curiousity, does the same 20% fee hold up for a party of 5 players?

so the idea behind this:

you have a party of x characters, and they need to have a fee n to have everyone have equivalent wealth

((x-1)n + 1) = (2-n)

Silver Crusade

Not sure why this argument is still going on but I think people need to just agree to disagree and file this as a per group decision.

No matter how many scenarios you try and come up with or examples you try and give, it will continue to be meta-gaming unless you yourself are a crafter. There is no "in-game" knowledge of the crafting cost. Even if you sit there and say you are going to get the materials you still will not know. You will only know what the crafter tells you.

There is no rule that says you can't charge extra for crafting and there is no rule that says you can so each group can decide on their own if they want to or not.

The argument about the knowledge needs to stop. Only a crafter knows the costs to create items.


Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

let me try this again

but then the FAQ everyone bats around so much is getting ignored because the other characters now have 50% above WBL where the Crafter is supposed to be the only one who has wealth benefits. according to the FAQ, the other characters have to be charged at full price


1 person marked this as a favorite.

WBL is a GM tool. Not a player one. This is why it's in the GM section of the book. Players don't care. However, if a crafter begins supplying the party then the GM should theoretically be giving fewer treasure rewards for them to be "on track."


dragonfire8974 wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

let me try this again

but then the FAQ everyone bats around so much is getting ignored because the other characters now have 50% above WBL where the Crafter is supposed to be the only one who has wealth benefits. according to the FAQ, the other characters have to be charged at full price

Naw, it all makes sense. Since whatever he crafted for the party evens out wealth among the players, and the crafter can still craft his own gear exeding the wealth of the other players, all that would need to happen is for the GM to drop less loot so that the WBL targets remain in check. So yes, some GM intervention to maintain the WBL targets, unless the GM just ups the CR instead.


Dr Grecko wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
dragonfire8974 wrote:
i've looked at the math, but how do you keep the crafter from not getting out of control in Wealth?

There is nothing that needs to be controled if a 20% fee is applied.

10th level party of 4
WBL 62,000 gp
Fee crafter party 20% fee
3 characters pay the crafter 12,400 gp, leaving them 49,600 gp, which turns into WBL of 99,200
crafter has 62,000+3*12,400 = a WBL of 99,200 gp

Everyone ends up with the same amount of WBL. No intervention of the GM on either side required.

let me try this again

but then the FAQ everyone bats around so much is getting ignored because the other characters now have 50% above WBL where the Crafter is supposed to be the only one who has wealth benefits. according to the FAQ, the other characters have to be charged at full price

Naw, it all makes sense. Since whatever he crafted for the party evens out wealth among the players, and the crafter can still craft his own gear exeding the wealth of the other players, all that would need to happen is for the GM to drop less loot so that the WBL targets remain in check. So yes, some GM intervention to maintain the WBL targets, unless the GM just ups the CR instead.

the FAQ states that the crafter is the only one that should benefit from the wealth gain of the feat, and this goes against the FAQ which someone says is RAW

again, another reason why i don't like the FAQ


Buri wrote:
WBL is a GM tool. Not a player one. This is why it's in the GM section of the book. Players don't care. However, if a crafter begins supplying the party then the GM should theoretically be giving fewer treasure rewards for them to be "on track."

yes


dragonfire8974 wrote:
Buri wrote:
WBL is a GM tool. Not a player one. This is why it's in the GM section of the book. Players don't care. However, if a crafter begins supplying the party then the GM should theoretically be giving fewer treasure rewards for them to be "on track."
yes

But not the crafter since he bought a higher WBL with the feat.

1,601 to 1,650 of 2,075 << first < prev | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar? All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.