So we're allowed to threadjack Dennis?
Hey far be it for me to say what people are allowed to do. But it would be entirely appropriate to threadjack or smurf the thread at this juncture to save countless pages of meaningless repetition ;)
Bard takes Wondrous Item and Magic Arms/Armor and has most of what they would ever want.
Wiz takes Craft Staff and Wonderous item, and had his ring or rod through Arcane Bond. 2 feats.
Cleric does the same as the Bard.
Mirror, note the recurring theme of Craft Wondrous Item; that's the problem, not crafting. Taking Craft Magic Arms and Armor, or Forge Ring, or Craft Rod, or Craft: Armorsmithing are not the problem. It's one feat, not crafting as a whole. Fix the feat, don't scrap the entire section.
As a Wiz, I would probably just take Craft Rod, Quicken spell, and have as many quicken rods as I could craft.
Which means as many as you can afford. Which even at half-price are still quite expensive, and only so many of them are even useful, and is a very narrow application for that feat.
Ultimately there are many, many items of good value you could craft that give you an edge over your fellows. So why again shouldn't the Ranger have spent some of his gold training Griffin mounts? He starts with a Griffin?
The Ranger can indeed start with a griffon if he can afford and train it. 3,500g for the egg, DC25 to train; she'll need a +15 Handle Animal mod to take 10 on it, but if she can make it, more power to her.
You're acting like "reduced cost" means "free." If you're paying for an egg and raising it into a monster, you're still paying for the egg, which ain't cheap. Even a hippogriff egg is two grand.
Well, I'm training a Dire Polar Bear! Or a Tyrannosaurus! I just sink all 100gp of my funds into it, so now I have a trained 12hd monster to follow me around.
Unpriced monsters cannot be purchased without first negotiating a price for them; considering a young griffon costs seven grand, and a lowly hippogriff egg costs two grand, that polar bear and T-Rex will be exceedingly expensive.
Doesn't this sound even vaugely stupid? If so, crafting has a very similar effect, and you should at least recognize that. Others would allow it woth 10% to 25% of the starting wealth, and that's probably ok. At 100%, it's nuts, unfair, unbalancing, and an excellent argument for those DM's who want to throw crafting out of the game entirely.
Except with feats other than Wondrous Item, you're doing 10-25%, maybe. More with Arms and Armor, sure, but that's still an extremely focused field, and even doubling the value of your sword isn't as huge a step up as you seem to think.
The fact that Paizo saw fit to remove XP costs without some alternate increase in crafting prices like, say, 75% base rather than 50%, is a separate issue you can discuss with your group. However, a character who invests heavily in crafting deserves a large return, precisely because she's making a large investment.
Mirror, smurf the recurring theme of Smurf Wondrous Item; that's the problem, not smurfing. Smurfing Smurf Magic Arms and Armor, or Smurf Ring, or Smurf Rod, or Smurf: Armorsmurfing are not the problem. It's one feat, not smurfing as a whole. Smurf the feat, don't smurf the entire section.
I'm Papa Smurf, and I smurf this message.
Smurfing smurf script.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Mirror, smurf the recurring theme of Smurf Wondrous Item; that's the problem, not smurfing. Smurfing Smurf Magic Arms and Armor, or Smurf Ring, or Smurf Rod, or Smurf: Armorsmurfing are not the problem. It's one feat, not smurfing as a whole. Smurf the feat, don't smurf the entire section.I'm Papa Smurf, and I smurf this message.
[offtopic]
Maybe could you do this on the psionics threads? I had to stop reading them before my head asploded... and I like psionics.
Or maybe it's time for Jack Chick to strike again.
[/offtopic]
EDIT: WTF I am Smurfette
If you allow crafting in your game YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!11!
Maybe could you do this on the psionics threads? I had to stop reading them before my head asploded... and I like psionics.
There's a psionics thread? o.O
If you allow crafting in your game YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!11!
Sweet! My longsword has a +8 versus devils.
EDIT: WTF I am Smurfette
That dress looks quite fetching on you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'd ask that you please not derail the psionics thread. James Jacobs is still actively participating in that discussion, and I'd like to hear what he has to say.
Yeah his ongoing participation is what drags me back over there to lurk. That discussion crossed the ad nauseam line about 100 posts back though.
This entire discussion is really one about trying to use accounting to solve social contract issues.
Players look to minmax all their "thingies to get bonuses to kill walking bags of XPs". DMs, while they have to say 'no', know that if they do so too frequently, break the social contract of 'you have control over your character'.
One method I've used for allocating gear for higher level groups is this:
"Describe what adventure paths you went through to get from levels 3 through N" where N is the level the party is at.
Next, I take the 'progrssion through the character generation process' - what levels specific feats were taken at and that list of adventure hooks, and tell the other players to submit lists of gear that they think the new character should have, with the following rules of thumb applied:
1) Each permanent item must be tied to a previously completed adventure path, and must fit within the 'treasure and challenge rating' for the level range that adventure path went through. These are purchased at 100% of cost. EG, "Hyanfar's +2 longsword was acquired as her share of the treasure from the "Giants of Waco Canyon" adventure path.
2) Expendable items are purchased at 75% of list price if you could make them yourself, 100% of list price if you have to purchase them. (This reflects that you may not ALWAYS have time to make those items on the road.)
3) For every recurring enemy from a prior adventure path you define - this is someone who's alive, more powerful than you, and has a reason to dislike you - you may define one permanent item as being bought at 75% of list. No more than two recurring enemies/discounted gear pairs can be set this way.
For "We're all starting the new party out at level 6...", you build your character and level progression, hand the sheet to the person on your left, and they come up with the adventure paths you went through to get to that level. They then hand the sheet (with level progression and adventure paths defined) to the next person round the table who allocates gear. Gear limit allocations are capped by the table on page 400.
In terms of campaign feel, I vastly prefer the "few, precious, worth fighting over, has powerful people interested in it..." magic item level to the standard Pathfinder one, but I temper this based on what players want.
I began this thread thinking, "Of course, when you take an item crafting feat you are selling your feat slots for cash"
Then I read the "starting equipment value is the value of the equipment, not how much it cost" and I changed my mind.
Then I read something about "Starting with a crafting feats and no deals on crafted items just leaves you weaker" and I changed my mind again.
Then I read "You can't start with extra money you made doing X either" and I changed my mind again.
Now I'm just confused and my head hurts.
I think I'm leaning towards letting him do it, not because the rules say so, but because item crafting feats are just feat slots you sell for cash, and if you don't get the cash, then that really sucks.
I guess that was my original position.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Somebody made the point that item creation feats buy you the ability to effectively get a 1 for 1 return on loot that you sell instead of a 1 for .5 return (assuming you sell loot at half price, since crafting an item costs half as much as purchasing it). Players rolling up a new character in the middle of a campaign, at higher than 1st level, get this ability for FREE if they are buying magic items with wealth-by-level gp.
Perhaps a workable compromise would be for the DM to assign a certain percentage of wealth-by-level as craftable for PCs who take item crafting feats. In other words, if you took Craft Wondrous Item, you could use up to, say, 25% of your starting wealth-by-level gp to buy whatever wondrous items you want, at full price (stuff you made yourself), and the DM tells you what you get for the other 75% (stuff you looted from dungeons over the course of your adventuring career). You could even go 100% on it, but who'd spend all their cash on wondrous items? That better meets the intent of the item creation feats (you get what you want instead of what you randomly loot). Plus it doesn't break wealth-by-level since because they're buying at full price.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
That better meets the intent of the item creation feats (you get what you want instead of what you randomly loot). Plus it doesn't break wealth-by-level since because they're buying at full price.Different people see different intentions my friend.
When I look at the item creation feats, what I see is an exchange of resources. Your consuming a feat slot, in exchange for a discount on a specific gear types.
True enough, if you are spending cash money on crafting, it's a 50% discount. But if you are selling a +2 longsword, taking the money, and crafting a +1 flaming longsword, that's net gain 0 gp. What item creation feats are giving you in that case is the ability to exchange what you looted for what you want at 1:1 gp ratio. Still hella worth the feat.
And as for nonmagical crafting skills, TOTALLY not game-breaking or unbalancing. Having masterwork stuff at 1st level makes such a minute difference and lasts for what, 1-2 sessions tops? If somebody really spent skill points on craft skills I'd let 'em have whatever mundane gear they could craft, just pay for the materials.
Look this is simple. If he wants to do this, charge him, from his starting gold, the price of meals, shop rental and other miscellaneous expenses.Artisan's tools cost 5g.
And he what. Crafts it in the street?
Period. What's more, you're not charging anyone else for having eaten food or lived in homes all their lives.
That's right. They aren't trying to pull a fast one over the GM though, so I guess It's fair all around. To be really fair, I'm not charging the would be crafter for doing so either. Just for the extras he's trying to embezzel.
You're not charging the farmer Fighter for the homestead. You're not charging the Rogue for her pocket lint, or inn fare a month prior. To do what you're suggesting, having the character pay all these fees for things that happened before the game even began, is a baseless middle finger to that player and flat bad DMing.
Ouch. No knee jerk reactions please, we are allergic to flamewars.
Batts
And he what. Crafts it in the street?
No, he spends the costs to craft the goods. It costs 110g to craft a masterwork dwarven waraxe, plus the five gold for tools. That covers all costs of crafting. To charge more than 110g to craft because you can think of arbitrary expenses that you want to charge twice is cheating.
That's right. They aren't trying to pull a fast one over the GM though, so I guess It's fair all around. To be really fair, I'm not charging the would be crafter for doing so either. Just for the extras he's trying to embezzel.
"I want to use the abilities I invested in," is not embezzlement, nor is it trying to pull a fast one on the GM. The master smith who has invested in the required skills and then expects to actually be able to use them is not cheating, or pulling any sort of trickery. She's investing in crafting fair and square and expects to actually use it to her own advantage.
And gaining an advantage within the rules is not cheating, or being a vicious and sneaky, or detracting from the fun. Heck, that armor's not even going to be a very big advantage for very long at all.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't see the magic item creation feats as being a money issue. I see them as a character-choice issue. As Charlie so cleanly illustrated, a Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat allows you to sell the lame-o magical stuff you found and use the selling price to obtain the magic item you really wanted, as long as you wanted arms or armor.
If the DM were to gear up the new 6th-Level characters himself, giving them the mundane and magic items he thought they should have, then I can picture a PC with the right feats being able to substitute her choice of goodies for an equal amount of DM-provided brick-a-brack.
If the DM were to, for whatever reason, allow the players to outfit all their characters with equipment of their own choosing, he is essentially allowing access to all of the item creation feats for all the party. Under those circumstances, taking one of the actual feats doesn't do much for a character until play begins.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I guess you and I are VERY different GM's Chris. When I GM a campaign that starts at high level I give my PC's free reign to choose whatever they want from any book allowed in the campaign up to the value given for that level.
You know, that's the nicest way anybody's ever told me, "You're nuts."
I don't believe I ever said how I have players outfit their high-level new PCs....
...and the answer is: I've only done so once, starting a party at 4th level to head off into "Red Hand of Doom". And I asked them to tell me what kinds of adventures they'd had for their first three levels, found a pair of modules that fit their descriptions, and let them divide up the loot from those modules.
You know... that's not a bad idea... implementing a steady stream of wealth based on ranks in and bonus to money earning skills.
Much to ponder.
Hah! suddenly rogues become the most powerful class in the game as they dump all skill points into craft and profession skills and start cranking money out there ears and investing it into magic.
:)
I'd say it's gnomes and dwarves, with their Craft bonuses which stack with Skill Focus!
No, ** I AM ** Papa-Smurf!!!
Mirror, smurf the recurring theme of Smurf Wondrous Item; that's the problem, not smurfing. Smurfing Smurf Magic Arms and Armor, or Smurf Ring, or Smurf Rod, or Smurf: Armorsmurfing are not the problem. It's one feat, not smurfing as a whole. Smurf the feat, don't smurf the entire section.I'm Papa Smurf, and I smurf this message.
IF you allow crafting, you should also allow OTHER skills. Back to the bard perform, if you create a bard with the skills and abilities to market themselves as a rock star, and have leadership with minions selling merchandise, making money, and giving you a cut, what is the compariative value of that? Oh, and the bard has takes 3 feats to boost these abilities, so saying that "it's the feats" does no good. They invested significant resources, are weaker combatants because of it, and deserve a benefit for their sacrifice.
1) Bards are already rewarded for a high Perform skill, as all their class abilities are keyed off of it.
Should you shunt the discussion over to Profession, then Profession is a useless non-skill that does not have a function, that's completely vestigial, and is not to be invested in. If you want to make houserules to allow Profession to provide a meaningful supply of gold pregame and as you advance, however, that can be perfectly fair and really quite interesting, but is still a houserule.
2) Leadership is a non-feat. It essentially amounts to, "Consult your DM," and is such a total and blatant gamebreaker as to be absurd if allowed whole-cloth.
3) Starting gold is 1000g. You start with 1000g. That you can make an income does not change the 1000g. That someone else can make a suit of masterwork full plate for 550g doesn't change the 1000g, either, it just means they can afford the plate with their 1000g.
Over 5 years, I have the following additional starting wealth: 1560d6 gp, 240d6 pp, and 3160gp from other sources. Taking the averages (I'm not GREEDY), that's a total of 17,020gp extra starting wealth for my 7th level bard, which is not even double the 23,500gp they should...
And the elf could logically do the superstar thing for half a century before the game even begins. Which is why starting gold is set at 1000g, regardless of income.
However, crafting is not an income boost. It is not a shift in starting gold. It's a discount generator. And it's completely nonsensical and unfair to require The Master Smith to buy her own weapons and armor at market from the start. She has absolutely no reason to pay triple what she could make it for herself on basic gear- no more than requiring the Cleric to pay someone to cast Cure Minor Wounds on themselves when they could do it themselves.
So, the most logical thing for The Master Smith to do in that case is take her 660g and park her dwarfy butt in a forge for the next month and a half while she makes the basic gear she needs to do anything and that would have made more sense for her to have made in her backstory while she was still in her dwarven hold. Thus, she holds up the entire game for everybody because the DM was being a prick about not letting her use her "get a discount" ability to get a discount at a time when it would least inconvenience everyone at the table.
Can't blame the player at that point for holding the line. Cow-towing ain't a virtue, after all.
First, it's NOT starting GOLD. It's starting WEALTH, which includes the market VALUE of GOODS.
Yes, wealth means more than just gold. It still costs The Master Smith 550g in whatever form the wealth takes to make that armor. She can do so in exchange for 110 pounds of salt, or 183 pigs and a goat, or 36 pounds of saffron and a square yard of silk, or 27.5 tons of wheat.
And, a discount to cost IS an income boost. That's basic financial accounting; the lower your costs with the same revenue, the higher your profit margin, thus higher NET INCOME. Everybody knows that.
A reduction in expense is a reduction in expense. It is not a source of income. Basic economics; income and expense are different. Profit is income minus expenses. That does not mean income and expense are the same thing.
Starting wealth is a fixed-income problem. The income is 1000g. The objective is to get as much as you can with that 1000g. That you can get more out of a masterwork longsword than a +1 mace is significant. Choosing the masterwork longsword over the +1 mace is not a case of garnering a greater income. It's a case of spending less.
And, yes, the reason that starting WEALTH is set at 1000gp regardless of income IS because of what I and others have described. Thus, logically, the crafter, despite having spent feats and skill points, get EXACTLY THE SAME starting WEALTH. Not 3x because they crafted it all into quality trinkets, or 2x because they crafted it all into magic pantyhose. They get the same as everyone else JUST AS YOU SAID ABOVE.
Yes, they get the exact same starting wealth. And that 550g self-made masterwork full plate is within starting wealth. Making that full plate herself is not an increase in starting wealth, precisely because The Master Smith invested in the abilities to make the item at a reduced cost. Thank you for agreeing with me.
When you admit the silliness of my above argument, but insist crafters get special treatment, you are applying an EXCEPTION to the rule, and so I would ask you to justify that exception. But realize that it IS an exception, and a house rule, and NOT a standard function of the game, RAW or RAI.
So, why the exception? Do you think crafting is underpowered at high levels and needs a boost?
It is no exception. It's no special treatment. Starting wealth is 1000g, but being able to put that 1000g to better use does not change that you're starting with 1000g. That I have ten dollars and a half-off coupon to Ben & Jerry's in my purse, it doesn't change the fact that I went into Ben & Jerry's with ten dollars. It just means I was able to reduce costs to stretch my money farther. That's an expense reduction, not an income boost. And do note that I can't go into Barnes & Noble and use my Ben & Jerry's coupon there.
What's more, the crafter could just as easily start with a pile of gold/salt/silk/pigs/saffron/wheat/whatever and then spend the first couple of months game-time making all her equipment she would have made anyways at the reduced cost. That's inconvenient and annoying for everyone at the table, and can easily and logically be shunted back to character creation to streamline the game.
First, it's NOT smurf Smurf. It's starting SMURF, which includes the market SMURF of GOODS.
Yes, smurf means more than just smurf. It still costs Papa Smurf 550 mushrooms in whatever form the smurf takes to make that smurf. Smurfette can do so in exchange for 110 pounds of mushrooms, or 183 smurfs and a goat, or 36 pounds of toadstools and a square yard of smurfskin, or 27.5 tons of Gargamel.
You guys are both just spinning your wheels over the same BS. How about we just agree that it's not really covered well in the rules and move on?
|
Except that's a major houserule that has nothing to do with the system itself, and if you don't either remove crafting abilities entirely or make allowances for the folks who do take those abilities, it becomes very blatantly unfair to the folks who do take them.
I am quite aware, and I would have no problems allowing characters with a craft feat to have a boost to their WBL guidelines.
Something I determined when we were discussing the price of a luckblade and if it should be higher. Item cost is basically 'you must be this level to buy/make/find this'. Adjusting the item price is just the DM changing the level he wants/thinks you should have it. Either higher level by raising the price or lower level by decreasing the price.
So someone getting crafting feats in my suggestion would have a higher allowance to request items. Not by a lot, but it would be maybe at most counting as one level higher for equipment limits.
Now, as to the income/expense arguement...
You have 50 cubic feet of packing space to fill with smurfs.
One person spends a feat to let them pack 20 cubic feet of smurfs into 10 cubic feet of space.
Who has more space?
Yes, wealth means more than just gold. It still costs The Master Smith 550g in whatever form the wealth takes to make that armor. She can do so in exchange for 110 pounds of salt, or 183 pigs and a goat, or 36 pounds of saffron and a square yard of silk, or 27.5 tons of wheat.
You either intentionally ignored what was said, or just missed the point.
A reduction in expense is a reduction in expense. It is not a source of income. Basic economics; income and expense are different. Profit is income minus expenses. That does not mean income and expense are the same thing.
Now, let's be clear. I am not refering to income as revenue, or as assets. You are refering to income as revenue, which while not technically wrong, is also not fixed. Let's use specific terms with discrete meanings. Starting wealth is not revenue, it is assets. The PRD says as much. Assets include the total value of capital and debt. Putting the oversimplification aside, when you incur expenses, but add a value greater than that of your expenses to your capital, your assets go up. As in, increase in value. As in, the gp value increases. Which is what you are doing when crafting. Which violates the wealth by level assumptions of the game and the handy chart provided to us as a guideline to those assumptions. Do you understand that? A discount actually DOES increase your assets, which is what your wealth by level is, your assets.
Yes, they get the exact same starting wealth. And that 550g self-made masterwork full plate is within starting wealth. Making that full plate herself is not an increase in starting wealth, precisely because The Master Smith invested in the abilities to make the item at a reduced cost.
So, by my above stated argument, your assertation here is incorrect. They do NOT start with the same starting wealth, because wealth is assets, and discounts increase assets, to one starts with more assets than the other.
And if you allow that feats/skills are part of the resources that balance that discount, see David Bowie. Same expendature, similar result, entirely legal.
Now, your rebuttal was:
1) Bards are already rewarded for a high Perform skill, as all their class abilities are keyed off of it.
So, since the expendature was in the form of more useful ability, it shouldn't have the same game impact. My response is that, unless you don't intend to USE your magic items, the net effect is the same. The bard creates wealth, which he then turns into magic items. You create magic items, gaining greater efficiency at the cost of increased specialization. That is a zero-sum gain. The Bard took 5 years to do what the crafter did in 23 days: double their assets.
So, either you agree that wealth = assets, and therefore agree that the discount provided by item creation and crafting increases assets, or you disagree that wealth = assets, in which case: Ex..smurfsmurfsmurf.
[Now, as to the income/expense arguement...
You have 50 cubic feet of packing space to fill with smurfs.
One person spends a feat to let them pack 20 cubic feet of smurfs into 10 cubic feet of space.
Who has more space?
Wrong question, there. It's not the space that represents the wealth, it's the number of smurfs.
Same condition, but you fill all the spaces with smurfs. Who has more smurfs?
Jumping in here, as I've given an awful lot of thought to this:
There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing the half-price items for a crafter (who is able to make the spellcraft checks to make them). I allow this.
That said, there is a *large* difference between a crafter and non-crafter being created at higher, and "growing" up to that level, depending on how treasure is allocated, and gear accumulated.
Assuming an average treasure haul, a crafter and non-crafter alike will accumulate a certain amount of magic, non-magic, and gold or gold equivalents.
If the non-crafter likes what he has gotten, he's doing great. The crafter can sell gear for half, and re-fabricate that into something else of the same value. That is the benefit their feats give them.
If the non-crafter doesn't like what he's gotten, he sells for half, and buys something else of half value.
A way to simulate this when creating higher level characters would be to provide a random or semi-random set of gear out of perhaps half the starting gold (or half the entire groups' starting gold if everyone is creating at once). At that point, the crafters could 'convert' gear into other items they can make, while non-crafters can sell and replace at 50%.
The crafters end up with no higher value of items. The non-crafters have the choice between the items they "found", and items of less value but their choice.
Even that simulation is flawed though - as in actual play a crafter might *choose* to take gold found in place of other treasure. We typically get around that by making any "shares" based on selling price. That makes those who take the items over gold "richer" in the end.
A compromise can be found by allowing only a portion (1/2?) of starting gold to be converted by crafting - that representing the portion received in gold. But this doesn't address the issue of whether (in your group) wealth is represented by an items price, or its cost.
There's no single perfect system, because actual playstyles will vary what would or could occur if treasure had been accumulated "normally".
I stand in the middle on this, but would probably just do something simpler than Blake's method of limiting crafted benefit. I'd just give them something vague like "pick your equipment, tell me what you want to have be self-crafted, and you'll get a 50% reduction on those items." And if they go overboard, I'll veto some of them. It is "average" wealth by level, after all, and if the character reasonably could have more then they ought to. I'd also do the same go craft skills, but after a couple of levels they are fairly irrelevant because they just don't cut magic item prices.
I think giving non-crafters random items that they'll probably just sell is too much bother when you're just trying to integrate their new character. The starting wealth works fine by itself.
Anyone who wants their character to be uber-rich on account of other skills will discover that the starting wealth of mid-high level characters *is* being super rich.
You either intentionally ignored what was said, or just missed the point.
I'm beginning to think you're intentionally missing the point that The Master Smith only has to expend 110g in wealth to get that masterwork dwarven waraxe.
Now, let's be clear. I am not refering to income as revenue, or as assets. You are refering to income as revenue, which while not technically wrong, is also not fixed. Let's use specific terms with discrete meanings. Starting wealth is not revenue, it is assets. The PRD says as much. Assets include the total value of capital and debt. Putting the oversimplification aside, when you incur expenses, but add a value greater than that of your expenses to your capital, your assets go up. As in, increase in value. As in, the gp value increases. Which is what you are doing when crafting. Which violates the wealth by level assumptions of the game and the handy chart provided to us as a guideline to those assumptions. Do you understand that? A discount actually DOES increase your assets, which is what your wealth by level is, your assets.
Wealth-by-level is a design assumption at all levels, from one to twenty (and it does sway in either direction). It applies whether you're starting play at level five or getting there naturally by killing things and taking their stuff. Either way, you're supposed to have about 9000g by that point.
Thus, by your interpretation that wealth is determined exclusively by market value of all goods possessed by the party, crafting does not exist. Ever. It is an express violation of wealth-by-level and is intended to never be used because it gets the party ahead of wealth-by-level.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be an entire subtype of feats devoted to crafting that essentially read, "get ahead of the wealth curve." There are no fewer than nine feats in core alone that pertain to crafting, plus the Craft skill. They all essentially read, "get ahead of the wealth curve." Clearly, the intended benefit of these feats and skills is that if you invest in them, you can create more and better stuff. And they're supposed to put you ahead of wealth-by-level; it's the benefit they grant you, same as Weapon Focus granting you more AB and Toughness granting you more HP.
What's more, whether crafting is done in character generation or in-game, the result is the same; 110g for masterwork dwarven waraxe, and 550g for a suit of masterwork full plate. The ultimate result is the same whether The Master Smith gets this by crafting them in character creation or starts out with 27.5 tons of wheat to fund the endeavor then parks her dwarfy butt in the forge for a month and a half. Either way, she's expending 660g for the axe and the armor.
The interpretation that functions in line with the system as presented and complies with wealth-by-level is that the wealth is available assets, that can then be channeled through whatever acquisitions engine you can run it through. For most characters, the only acquisitions engine they have legal access to is the market, which includes chance acquisitions through abstraction. However, those with crafting skills have an additional acquisitions engine through which they can channel their initial resources; their crafting. They do not begin play with any more resources than anyone else. They just have means other than the market through which to acquire goods. Going back and using the market to measure their net worth is not an accurate use of wealth by level precisely because they invested in the, 'gain more efficient channels than the market, ability.
Wealth is a resource. A tool. What you do with it is your own business. If you invest in more efficient channels than the market to acquire goods from, that is not a violation of wealth-by-level. It's using those alternate channels for their stated purpose; getting swag at a discount.
So, by my above stated argument, your assertation here is incorrect. They do NOT start with the same starting wealth, because wealth is assets, and discounts increase assets, to one starts with more assets than the other.
Wealth is initial resources, channeled as you will. That you can channel resources in a more efficient manner than someone else is irrelevant. If my friend and I go into Barnes and Noble and both of us have fifty bucks, but I have the ten percent off member's card, I can buy more books than my friend can, but we still both have fifty dollars.
And if you allow that feats/skills are part of the resources that balance that discount, see David Bowie. Same expendature, similar result, entirely legal.
David Bowie was not a case of me and my friend both going in with fifty dollars. David Bowie was a case of my going in with fifty, but David going in with a hundred. Except the initial supply of money was constrained to fifty. You cannot start with a hundred. Getting discounts on books is fine, but the fifty dollar constraint is ironclad.
Wrong question, there. It's not the space that represents the wealth, it's the number of $murfs.
Same condition, but you fill all the spaces with $murfs. Who has more $murfs?
It's very much the right question. Why should the person who took the $murf-packing feat only get 25 cubic feet in which to put $murfs; after all, since she has the ability to pack double, and you're only allowing X amount of $murfs rather than X amount of space, you're robbing them of 25 cubic feet.
Likewise, if someone takes the, "220g off of masterwork dwarven waraxes" ability and you make them pay full price on their masterwork dwarven waraxe, they're essentially starting with 780g rather than 1000g because they have the ability to acquire that axe at 110g instead of 330g, just as the $murf-packer has the ability to fit 200 $murfs in that 50 cubic feet instead of 100 $murfs is still using only 50 cubic feet.
And the dwarf still has the ability to park her dwarfy butt in the forge first thing and annoy everyone at the table while she makes the basic gear she should have been allowed to make in character-creation to get that discount that she invested all these resources in and shouldn't be forced to throw out the window because the DM can't grasp that my having a Ben & Jerry's coupon doesn't mean that ten dollar bill in my purse magically became a twenty.
smurfyness
If you don't get it after I explained it this much, you are never going to. It's like tutoring logic functions all over again. I quite clearly stated my reasons for opposing pre-game crafting. I even checked to make sure someone with no knowledhe of the context could understand.
You do not agree that wealth = assets. That's fine, but you are simply wrong. It is definitional, RAW and RAI, and entirelly a priori. You might as well argue that gravity is intelligent falling or that stars are really holes in the crystal shell letting in the light of the philogiston. The enormity of your wrongness rivals that of Kanye West, the determination you show in defending such wrongness shames Ahab, and continuing this conversation is like pushing against the Moon and expecting it to move. You have won this argument through sheer attrition, and I capitulate.
The enormity of your wrongness...
Okay, that's a sentence that should just not be used on a public messageboard. I get your points, but there are a lot of alternative views on this.
Mirror, if you weren't supposed to be able to get ahead of what's normally available from WBL from the standard market, there wouldn't be nearly a dozen abilities that explicitly read, "get ahead of what's normally available from WBL from the standard market." The standard market is not the sole measuring stick of wealth. If you have the, "bypass the market," ability, essentially the, "get discounts," ability, it's a flat decree that you're supposed to be able to get more advanced gear than normal if you take it. The abilities practically read, "get more advanced gear than normal if you take this." RaW and RaI both read, "these abilities let you get more better stuff." When it happens is a technicality. That it doesn't disrupt gameplay when done in character-creation is just a bonus for the entire table.
Now tell me, Mirror. Let us say the dwarf starts with her thousand gold in wealth in the form of one thousand gold coins. That is clearly one thousand gold in wealth. Now, let us say her first act in-game is to spend 660g to create her masterwork axe and masterwork armor. How is that problematic or against the rules, either as written or intended? Further, how would it be problematic to shunt that creation process into character creation? How does that change the end result in the least?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Viletta, it's always a pleasure to read your posts.
One of the reasons I struggle against your position is that it's retroactive to a character's origins.
For example, we're starting a campaign at 6th Level. My elf wizard takes the feat Craft Magic Arms and Armor. By your reasoning, he could begin play with a +1 longsword that he'd made, and which would take up less of his "starting wealth" than the weapon would have cost to purchase on the open market. (And if I'm reading your position correctly, everyone should assume that the party has been adventuring together their entire careers, so he could have manufactured discounted weapons for everyone else in the party; do I follow your claim correctly?)
But, if we're trying to account for how much gold was actually spent on the characters' possessions, shouldn't they also have to pay for the weapon that they'd been using up until the izard could obtain the feat when he reached 5th Level? Or should we assume they were unarmed and unarmored until then? Or were they able to sell their original gear to someone else for full price?
The wealth-per-level guidelines is a necessary simplification. We assume that the PCs gained a lot of loot, and lost a lot of loot, in their careers: potions were quaffed, scrolls were read, mounts were eaten, perhaps great fortunes in gems were wrested from the deep ocean gnomes and then paid as ransom to recover an ungrateful duke. All of that's water under the bridge. When the campaign opens: this "starting wealth" is the value of the equipment they have.
You're right: a character with the crafting feats could insist on taking a month at that instant to turn liquid assets into magical equipment. If it were my campaign, and there were some time-sensitive reason the party gathered, I wouldn't mind at all inviting that player to run an NPC during that game month as the rest of the party deals with whatever threats are present. When everybody returns after a month of adventuring, the crafter PC should be ready to head out with them on the next leg of the journey.
smurfynessIf you don't get it after I explained it this much, you are never going to. It's like tutoring logic functions all over again. I quite clearly stated my reasons for opposing pre-game crafting. I even checked to make sure someone with no knowledhe of the context could understand.
You do not agree that wealth = assets. That's fine, but you are simply wrong.
So labor is not a part of value, in your view? The rules as written seem to be suggesting strongly that 1/2 of the value of an item is labor, the middleman's cut, etc. So in your view, an asset's value is based purely on capital inputs, and not labor inputs -- am I correct?
I'm not sure where I stand on this, partly because I haven't thought it through completely, but the valuation of assets would appear to be a mix of labor and capital costs in D&D, which would strongly imply that spending a feat for the ability to craft would be an expenditure of one asset (feat) to change the labor input value of another asset (gear).
In short, by cost/benefit analysis, is a character with less combat feats but better gear significantly superior to one with more combat feats and lesser gear? Does the BENEFIT of better gear EXCEED the COST of lost feats? If so, then I would say that you have an excellent point -- and you may. However, just to add another thought to the mix --
Gear increases effectiveness, and feats also increase effectiveness, so it seems to be exchanging one source of value for another,with the difference being the timescale in which the effectiveness occurs. The gear will enhance your effectiveness initially by quite a bit, but will only be of value in the short term. The feat provides less initial benefit but continues to benefit you over the longer term.
With that said, I'd probably disallow it, not because I necessarily think it's some hideous cheat, but because I wouldn't want to develop a headache over having a conversation like this at the game table. =)
Chris: Starting wealth is starting wealth. Where it comes from and what it is doesn't really matter. Your elf could be a lifetime adventurer in a party that's been together since level one, whose goods come from a lifetime of killing things and taking their stuff. Or he could have come down from his tower as a level 6 Wizard only recently and deign to take interest in the outside world, and his goods are personal wealth, purchases, and creations gathered through centuries of more peaceful business. Who you start out as doesn't really matter. What goods you owned yesterday are only of passing importance. All that matters is that right now, as you create and equip your character, you have 13,000g to work with. Whatever buying, trading, stealing, and selling of goods you may have done before, you now have 13,000g. Whether that's in the form of swords and potions or in the form of 650 tons of wheat is a character issue, not a rules issue.
That you can enchant your +1 longsword for 1000g instead of 2000g is an advantage in your ability to spend your 13,000g in wealth. What you were using beforehand is unimportant, though presumably it was that masterwork longsword you just enchanted. If you've just met your dwarven friend, it may not make sense that your Wizard enchanted his axe for him, but if they've been together for a while, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to give him that discount on the enchantment by giving the masterwork dwarven waraxe he made himself years ago a +1 enhancement. If you have a pair of siblings and the sister is a talented alchemist, there's nothing with her sharing discount alchemic goods with her brother. If the entire party has been together for a long time, there is nothing wrong with sis sharing discount alchemic goods with the entire party. If sis has been sequestered alone in the woods for the last five years and is just now coming out, it doesn't make sense for her to have shared anything with anyone at this point.
Now, let's look at three cases. All three star Boris, our The Master Smith. The campaign is starting at level two, with 1000g starting wealth. Boris is a dwarven warrior/smith who has only recently left his clanhold in search of adventure after attaining the rank of master in his trade. He's a Fighter with a +10 in both Craft: Weaponsmithing and Craft: Armorsmithing through whatever means, and is capable of taking ten to create masterwork weapons and armor.
Case 1: Pre-game crafting approved. In this case, Boris made his masterwork dwarven waraxe and masterwork full plate before he left his clanhold, then set off for whatever adventure in Podunk. He has the advantage of a masterwork weapon and a better suit of armor than he would otherwise be able to afford, but at the cost of the skills required to create them. He's investing in the ability to create his own gear at a discount, but it's not a huge edge, and mundane crafting means less and less with every level.
Case 2: No pre-game crafting, start with lots of cash. In this case, Boris comes from his clanhold and its fabulous forge ill-equipped with a wad of cash and then parks himself in Podunk to create his weapons and armor. Now, either the entire party is waiting on him, or Boris misses out on the first quest entirely in order to create the weapons and armor that really should have been made back in the clanhold. The entire situation of going from clanhold to Podunk and then crafting is entirely silly. And either the delay or the lost XP will be a big deal. And the delay doesn't even serve as any sort of balance; Boris is still a level 2 character with a masterwork axe and full plate before setting out on the first mission who paid 660g for the suite.
Case 3: No pre-game crafting, buying gear at market. This time, Boris starts with a suit of full plate and a regular dwarven waraxe, purchased at market. He may even say he made them himself. However, this is ultimately a slap in the face to Boris' player, who invested in the ability to get better gear at a discount, and then has to buy normal gear at market anyways. So, he's investing his limited skills and abilities in all this crafting, only to have his abilities denied him in one of the few instances it would be of use; when kitting himself with basic gear.
As you've probably guessed, my vote is for case 1.
This first part is not an argument, it is fundamental economics.
Wealth is an accumulated total of value. When a craftsman takes 550gp worth of raw materials and creates a suit of masterwork full plate, the end product is valued at 1650gp. That value includes the time and expertise which went into crafting the suit.
Thus, if a player starts with a suit of masterwork full plate, that suit is valued at 1650gp, regardless of what it may have cost in raw materials, because labor has inherent value. Thus, the full 1650gp is included in that character's wealth even though it was produced from a smaller pool of capital.
Now, here's the argument. One of the main reasons labor has value is opportunity cost. While you're making a suit of armor, you aren't doing anything else. Skilled labor has additional value because the time spent learning the skill also has opportunity cost. What else could you have been doing at the time? Oh, let's say: storming dungeons and stealing treasure, which is a safe assumption for what the non-crafters were doing during that same time period.
So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?
|
|
This first part is not an argument, it is fundamental economics.
Wealth is an accumulated total of value. When a craftsman takes 550gp worth of raw materials and creates a suit of masterwork full plate, the end product is valued at 1650gp. That value includes the time and expertise which went into crafting the suit.
Thus, if a player starts with a suit of masterwork full plate, that suit is valued at 1650gp, regardless of what it may have cost in raw materials, because labor has inherent value. Thus, the full 1650gp is included in that character's wealth even though it was produced from a smaller pool of capital.
Now, here's the argument. One of the main reasons labor has value is opportunity cost. While you're making a suit of armor, you aren't doing anything else. Skilled labor has additional value because the time spent learning the skill also has opportunity cost. What else could you have been doing at the time? Oh, let's say: storming dungeons and stealing treasure, which is a safe assumption for what the non-crafters were doing during that same time period.
So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?
And THIS is the problem with market fixing! An end to the tyranny of fixed pricing, the damn producers are colluding!
Weird I was going to ask about *value* versus *cost* but I was worried that it would anger the threadjack gods...but now that someone else said something I will add my voice.
|
|
So a perfectly realistic situation would be for the crafter to start with the same gold, but less experience than the rest of the party. You OK with that?
Because in D&D there is a set amount of time that it takes to level up? A 6th level PC could have started his adventuring career 60 years ago or 6 days ago. During his 3 years of on and off questing he took a small slice of time to use his accumulated wealth to craft himself something nice. I find your situation to be very un-realistic, not perfectly realistic, and it seems like just another angle to use to screw a player out of his feat usage. Put a maximum gp value per item cap on his items or something but telling him that because he wants to craft something he get to be weaker either by not getting to use his skill or by taking an XP hit is just a dick DM move.