Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If the GM is supposed to adjust treasure values on the fly for every single player, that makes

a.) magic item crafting almost entirely pointless ( unless the GM announces his intention to do so before the start of the campaign, in which case taking magic item crafting feats is a choice of being able to customize your character better ).

b.) puts another workload on the GM in the case when the group is running an official adventure path.

and

c.) breaks in-game immersion when the GM obviously is disadvantaging the player with the crafting feats.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Good thing the GM isn't supposed to do that then. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, well, that is what Joana was implying, so I was pointing out which problems such "expected" GM behaviour would raise.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

WBL is a measuring stick for how powerful the party is, based on their equipment. If your party is under WBL, as GM, you have a few options: You can provide more treasure, or you can lower the difficulty of upcoming encounters; if your party is above WBL, you can throw in a succession of treasureless monster encounters to get them back on track, or you can ramp up the difficulty of upcoming encounters to provide the proper difficulty level.

Personally, I find it more disruptive when WBL is way off within the party; it's more difficult to plan an encounter to challenge one member of the party without wiping out the less-well-equipped members if they get in the way, and you have to provide specialized treasure that helps the underequipped members without adding to the power level of the overequipped one. As long as the PCs in a party have roughly the same amount of equipment, WBL is just a way to gauge how difficult encounters should be, like adjusting for parties with fewer than 4 PCs or more than 6 PCs.


Joana wrote:
Well, since WBL measures the value of the gear + treasure a PC has at any given time, it doesn't matter whether the PC crafted his +4 sword for half-price, looted it off the body of an enemy for free, or paid full market value in a shop; for the purposes of measuring what he has, they all count the same, no matter how much gold he spent to acquire it.

Actually, SKR has clarified that for a character with a crafting feat, the gear she's crafted counts at it's cost, not it's market price. It's a ruling I don't like, but that's the way the rules are intended.

EDIT: That said, I find WBL to be highly problematic in itself since there's such a large difference in usefulness of magic gear. I find it mostly useful in theorycrafting and for new characters, not so much for those that already exists.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ilja wrote:
Joana wrote:
Well, since WBL measures the value of the gear + treasure a PC has at any given time, it doesn't matter whether the PC crafted his +4 sword for half-price, looted it off the body of an enemy for free, or paid full market value in a shop; for the purposes of measuring what he has, they all count the same, no matter how much gold he spent to acquire it.
Actually, SKR has clarified that for a character with a crafting feat, the gear she's crafted counts at it's cost, not it's market price. It's a ruling I don't like, but that's the way the rules are intended.

Well, in that case, it's not the way I run it in my game. I have better things to do than keep track of how much of a PC's equipment was purchased and how much was crafted. I just look at what they have to see if they're on point to handle upcoming challenges.


I find it more useful to look at their numbers than their gear, only noting the more odd items like helmets of waterbreathing and similar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joana wrote:

WBL is a measuring stick for how powerful the party is, based on their equipment. If your party is under WBL, as GM, you have a few options: You can provide more treasure, or you can lower the difficulty of upcoming encounters; if your party is above WBL, you can throw in a succession of treasureless monster encounters to get them back on track, or you can ramp up the difficulty of upcoming encounters to provide the proper difficulty level.

Personally, I find it more disruptive when WBL is way off within the party; it's more difficult to plan an encounter to challenge one member of the party without wiping out the less-well-equipped members if they get in the way, and you have to provide specialized treasure that helps the underequipped members without adding to the power level of the overequipped one. As long as the PCs in a party have roughly the same amount of equipment, WBL is just a way to gauge how difficult encounters should be, like adjusting for parties with fewer than 4 PCs or more than 6 PCs.

Oh, and to make this clear, I very much agree with your points in general, but I want to raise the issue how the current magic item crafting system distorts the intended "all equal" WBL, making it difficult for the GM to balance against the overpowered crafting character, while not overwhelming the less equipped members of the party, or having to adjust with a ( IMHO ) heavy-handed approach in handing out specialized loot.

And that is already when taking your reading of how WBL should be handled, which I find difficult to accept, due to the problems of explaining it adequately and logically in in-universe terms.

I would prefer general revision to magic item crafting, which removes the "money machine" factor ( almost ) completely and thus leaves the feats more as customization tools.


I'm wondering why the crafting character, in specific, is overpowered. As a crafting character, I'm making stuff for the entire party. Doing less is stupid and a good way to get us all killed (especially since in PF it doesn't cost XP).


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In my experience, which is, of course, entirely anecdotal and limited to my gaming group, the crafter has invariably equipped the whole party, not just himself, so wealth disparity among PCs hasn't been an issue for us.

Ninja'd by Tacticslion. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm wondering why the crafting character, in specific, is overpowered. As a crafting character, I'm making stuff for the entire party. Doing less is stupid and a good way to get us all killed (especially since in PF it doesn't cost XP).

According to ( one IMO very liberal reading by some people of ) a FAQ entry by SKR in regards to WBL, item crafters should be the only ones benefitting from the advantages of their crafting feats.

Item crafting is, IMO again, still problematic even without that particular interpretation, but that is another topic for another day.


I haven't read the complete discussion yet, but wanted to post my 0.02 anyway ;)

Regarding Wealth By Level: I've always considdered this to be a rough guideline, to be checked when the DM starts getting the feeling the party is consistently over- or undergeared to the point where it negatively affects the game (ignoring stuff like Everdry Socks and other fluff).
To me, it's a tool to guestimate when it's time to throw in a couple of encounters with extra wealthy monsters, or (more likely), some poor NPCs in desperate need of expensive charity.
Sí signores, el bandits burned our whole village to the ground and made off with the harvest!

As for the original topic of diamonds and raising the dead, most adventurers in my campaign soon learn to invest in a Money Pouch, wich will turn any coins and gems into whatever coin or gem is desired by the user, making it easy to transport wealth and still pay for a beer at the bar. Obviously, gems generally have a fixed value based on size, and getting a 5000gp diamond IS a simple (if at times painfull) matter of forking over sufficient cash.

Actually Raising a PC doesn't come up a lot as we do considerably more roleplaying than combat, but the last time was when the PCs were around level 8, and PC A, a fighter, had, through some serious stupidity, caused the death of PC B: the party cleric.
Once the body was at the temple and the situation explained, the priests conversed with their god, then explained that under the circumstances, a Raise was possible, but for a price: a life for a life was only fair. This caused some serious debate among the players, but PC A, somewhat pale and sweaty, eventually agreed that yes, this was fair and he would willingly pay the price. Whereupon the ritual was performed, and the priests presented the party with a living PC B, and PC A with a set of holy garments, a prayer book he was instructed to study closely, and orders to go forth and spread the Good Word.
Not long after, PC A dutifully multiclassed into a cleric, and the party undertook a series of adventures to help him adjust his stats and equipment to match his new vocation.

Shadow Lodge

magnuskn wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm wondering why the crafting character, in specific, is overpowered. As a crafting character, I'm making stuff for the entire party. Doing less is stupid and a good way to get us all killed (especially since in PF it doesn't cost XP).

According to ( one IMO very liberal reading by some people of ) a FAQ entry by SKR in regards to WBL, item crafters should be the only ones benefitting from the advantages of their crafting feats.

Item crafting is, IMO again, still problematic even without that particular interpretation, but that is another topic for another day.

That's a little ridiculous. The FAQ is intended to define the amount of financial benefit those feats are supposed to grant, not to prohibit the PC from making items for his buddies. Just rule that any items crafted by the PC can be counted at crafting cost for WBL purposes regardless of owner, keep track of which items were crafted, and you're fine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Weirdo wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm wondering why the crafting character, in specific, is overpowered. As a crafting character, I'm making stuff for the entire party. Doing less is stupid and a good way to get us all killed (especially since in PF it doesn't cost XP).

According to ( one IMO very liberal reading by some people of ) a FAQ entry by SKR in regards to WBL, item crafters should be the only ones benefitting from the advantages of their crafting feats.

Item crafting is, IMO again, still problematic even without that particular interpretation, but that is another topic for another day.

That's a little ridiculous. The FAQ is intended to define the amount of financial benefit those feats are supposed to grant, not to prohibit the PC from making items for his buddies. Just rule that any items crafted by the PC can be counted at crafting cost for WBL purposes regardless of owner, keep track of which items were crafted, and you're fine.

Yeah, well, I am not the one pushing that particular line of thinking, that'd be Gauss, for example here:

Gauss wrote:

The WBL FAQ is to prevent non-crafters from benefiting from the crafter's feats. Prior to that FAQ a crafter's fellow PCs could tell the crafter to craft for them. Thus benefiting the party with a bonus feat that they did not earn, do not have, and should not have.

Crafting is INTENDED to increase the power of the crafter's magic items relative to the rest of the party. After all, he spent a feat on it didn't he? They did not.

- Gauss

Shadow Lodge

The WBL stuff is some of the more hopelessly broken stuff in the game, and it seems to get even more broken every time Paizo "clarifies" it.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
I've always thought of the diamonds (and gems) used for resurrection type spells (and for things like trap the soul) as having weird mystic properties that help serve as lenses to help focus and/or lure the spirits of the dead.

That or Pharasma likes diamonds...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They are a girl's best friend.


Late to the party...

Read the first page, then skipped to the last, because an odd thought struck me; earlier folks joked about the price of diamonds suddenly dropping, resulting in spell-failure. They also mentioned mining diamonds on other planes.

So, if diamonds are all over the place in the elemental plane of earth, then their value would be considerably less there, correct? So if you tried to Rez someone there you might need a diamond the size of a house!

On the other hand, you find yourself on a world where Rez doesn't exist, and then find out its because there are no diamonds. Even a tiny one would then be priceless.

So the last thing your party should do is buy-up all the diamonds in a region (for future Rez's) because they will drive up the prices, which just makes it harder for them to Rez in the long run.

Also, does it have to be a single diamond? Couldn't it be a 'net worth' thing? A handful of smaller diamonds doesn't cut it?


Tacticslion wrote:
I'm wondering why the crafting character, in specific, is overpowered. As a crafting character, I'm making stuff for the entire party. Doing less is stupid and a good way to get us all killed (especially since in PF it doesn't cost XP).

Few issues: One, the GM may limit how much you craft in an attempt to balance the feat. It has the end result of meaning that only the crafter ends up benefiting due to a lack of time.

Two, the crafter may charge 75 percent for gear crafted for allies, allowing him to make a ton of money and still benefit his allies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... uh, wow. I've never had anyone be so selfish in our games.

Almost inevitably, my crafters craft the stuff for the people that rely on stuff the most (generally not casters).

Silver Crusade

Ilja wrote:

Or they try to better the situation as much as they can. But, am I getting this right?

1. Having to redo stuff due to failing does not make a game hard, just tedious.
2. Losing makes you redo stuff.

So then what's the point of making it possible to lose? Why not simply make the campaign so easy there's no risk of losing - that way, no tediousness!

I said having to make multiple characters is tedious, not having to redo a mission due to failure.

Something can be difficult, and something can be tedious, and something can be BOTH difficult AND tedious.

For example: Jumping a 20 foot gap is difficult. It is however, not tedious.

To contrast, pushing a button 10,000 times is not difficult, but is tedious.

Going out to chop down trees is both difficult and tedious.

Difficulty is a measure of skill and strength required to complete a task, Tedium is a measure of how long the task will take and how interesting it is.

Ilja wrote:
Or they're losses that can't be rectified, but can be lived with though they feel like actual losses. Alderaan is blown up and Theoden is dead, losses that are never coming back, but the war goes on.

See, I'm not sure if I consider that a mission failure. If your mission is "save the galaxy" or "Save Middle Earth" and Alderaan is blown up or Theoden killed, you haven't failed. You've suffered a loss, but not a failure. Now, if your mission is "Save Alderaan" and Alderaan is blown up, then you have failed, but it's not a loss you can live with, because of the scope of your mission.

When one of our character dies and isn't saved (which as I've noted before has happened about a halfdozen times in as many months) the player gets to play NPC's and monsters for the rest of the session - often the party has a bunch of friendly NPC's in their vicinity and then the player gets to play one/a few of them. Sometimes they take over a cohort.

Ilja wrote:
After the session, I talk to the player about if they want to have one of the NPCs brought up to PC status, gaining the levels inbetween, or if the player wants to create a completely new character. If the player wants to create a new character, we go through what kind of character that would be and where it would fit into the story - however, usually the players have some NPC they'd prefer to play as NPC's already are in the story and thus can jump in quicker. If it's a new PC, it might take a session or three before they're in a situation where they can meet this new character, and during that time, the player plays NPC's or monsters (or can sit out the sessions, but that's only happened once)

I've tried this strategy a few times and it's left a bad taste in my mouth. There are too many problems that arise with letting players control the monsters/NPCs

1: The players don't care what happens to the NPC/Monster, so they will make it do something it wouldn't normally do, which leads to a fight between me and that player

2: The player will do things with monsters that I don't normally do, such as having monsters ignore their own safety to coup de' grace players.

3: Having players take the role of monsters puts them in an adversarial position to the each other, which can lead to fights above table.

Ilja wrote:

It cannot increase the power beyond maximal capacity, but since they're not at maximum capacity it increases their power towards it.

Just like how I can say "oh, my car runs much better now since I was at the mechanic, they fixed all the broken stuff!".
That doesn't mean I think my car runs better than a brand new car, it means it runs better than before I went to the mechanic. Thus, the mechanic made my car run better by removing the "broken" condition.

Your argument only makes sense if the party is always full of maximal capacity characters. Our party right now consists of a fallen druid, a fighter and a rogue who's both suffered Bestow Curse and has no easy way to remove that for at least two sessions, and a bard (who's fine!). Since they're in a situation where turning back risks losing their quest causing bad stuff to happen, they have to go with those numbers at the moment, and for them, getting all those debuffs removed would be seen as greatly increasing what they're capable of (granted, the druid's going to have to spend some time getting it's powers back).

But the rules assume that the players are at maximum capacity, and that's where the cost argument comes from.

Take Wish or Planar Binding. Those spells have expensive costs because they can directly increase party power beyond maximum capacity for both a long time and in significant ways.

Raise Dead, on the other hand, cannot increase party power beyond maximum capacity. No PC has ever gotten stronger than he was before he died after the casting of a Raise Dead spell.

Raise Dead already has significant limitations on it. It can't be used till you are at the appropriate level. It is limited by your castings per day. It is not a battle rez, so if a player dies in combat, they are dead for that combat. Why should it have an expensive material cost as well considering that the party's maximum strength is no better after the spell is cast than they were before it was cast?

Ilja wrote:
I think spawning Catarina the Copy in the middle of the Volcano of Doom is completely shattering to verisimillitude, but I get that for some people that works fine so I'm not throwing about "bad dm".

Two things:

A: I should clarify that when I say "put a new character in as soon as it is finished" should have "and is at a reasonable point in the story to do so."

I agree that plunking down a new PC directly into the Volcano of Doom breaks verisimillitude, but finding a prisoner chained in the dungeon of the Volcano of Doom doesn't. My style is once someone is finished, I identify the earliest, reasonable moment to introduce the new character. Typically, I don't like to have a character sit out more than an hour after their character is finished.

B: I don't allow X the Copy characters in my games and I make that clear from the beginning. If you chose to draw up a new character, it must be a new character concept. If you want to continue to play your current character, it must be raised.

Ilja wrote:
Look, I'm not arguing that raise dead should be free (in my games it doesn't exist), I'm saying that the gold cost makes a difference. The gold cost limits how much you can use the spell, and thus it limits how much more power the party gains through it.

And my point was that it's not possible for raise dead to increase maximum party power and the rules work off the maximum party power, therefore I don't see a reason to limit it beyond the limitations already built into spells.

I could understand having a cost associated with it if raise dead made you come back with a +1 sacred/profane bonus for a week or something, but it just doesn't.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Reading these threads often counts as tedious.


... and sometimes difficult. :)

Silver Crusade

Agreed. BUT THE TWO THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME!

;)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I take 10 on my reading checks, which explains why my responses aren't always exactly on topic.


I usually take twenty. That's why mine tend to be so long and messy.

(It doesn't say much for my skill ranks, though.)


Tacticslion wrote:

... uh, wow. I've never had anyone be so selfish in our games.

Almost inevitably, my crafters craft the stuff for the people that rely on stuff the most (generally not casters).

I don't think crafting for 75 percent of cost is selfish. If I am a plumber, I wouldn't do 2+ days of hard work for a friend for free. I would give him a discount(hence charging 75 percent). Similarly I don't expect my friends to do skilled labor for me without pay.

There are exceptions. If both me and another player were Paladins of the same order, for instance, I would do it for free, but as a general rule I wouldn't expect others to do free labor for me or vis versa.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Putting it in another way, why the spellcaster should spend 8 hours every day enchanting something for no return?
It can be done once as a gift. Even once or twice a year if we are speaking of a low value item, but if we are speaking of doing it for the whole group on a semi-constant basis, the enchanter has all the reasons to want to get something in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not "no return". It's "let us all survive long enough to get the bigger payoff". I get money from adventure, not my saving-my-life buddies.

They 'pay' me by standing in front of me when the pointy things come in my direction. I pay them by making it more likely the pointy things don't hit them (or by making their pointy things sharper to stop the pointy things from coming). Seems like a fair trade to me, especially since they get more utility out of it than I do.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Then the fighter is "paying" the wizard for killing 10 enemies at once with a fireball.

We're not talking about time in the dungeon, we're talking about the week spent in town after the dungeon, where the wizard is spending 8 hours per day in a laboratory crafting items and the fighter is spending those same 8 hours drinking and cavorting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Then the fighter is "paying" the wizard for killing 10 enemies at once with a fireball.

We're not talking about time in the dungeon, we're talking about the week spent in town after the dungeon, where the wizard is spending 8 hours per day in a laboratory crafting items and the fighter is spending those same 8 hours drinking and cavorting.

One day I'll get you to have a good conversation with us about magic item crafting and how ( or not ) it is disruptive to campaign balance. ;)

Or not, depending if you ever want to have that discussion. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aside from one, our fighters haven't tended to do that either. (Most of our groups lack a "fighter" in specific, so I'm using the term more generally, but even when we have had one only one fighter has ever been the "get drunk" type.) Also, outside of a bunch of zombies when I was comparatively high level, I don't think I've ever seen a wizard kill ten enemies at once with a fireball. Damage, perhaps, but not outright kill. ;)

I think it's just a really different style of play.

Also, the warrior in general does pay: he pays the cost for the work (i.e. the amount that it takes to get the thing enchanted).

While the mage is doing their own thing (crafting), the various people that actually rely on the stuff being made are doing other things (social interaction, making contacts, running errands, using their craft/profession skill).

I suppose at least in part it's because we've always run things with a 'party' fund that everyone's contributed to, and the resources were always taken from that. I find the idea of a bunch of people absolutely reliant upon each other's unique talents for survival to be squabbling over petty cash (especially when more is coming) kind of awkward, honestly.

I mean, if the warrior-type is being a jerk, well, that's one thing. But if it's just a question of "do we need this stuff to survive", I've always gone, "Welp: to the party-funds!" (and we sell off uneeded stuff that goes back into the party fund for later).

I don't know that we ever formalized how much went into the "party fund", but over the years, pretty much everyone gave rather evenly, without much question.


Tacticslion wrote:

It's not "no return". It's "let us all survive long enough to get the bigger payoff". I get money from adventure, not my saving-my-life buddies.

They 'pay' me by standing in front of me when the pointy things come in my direction. I pay them by making it more likely the pointy things don't hit them (or by making their pointy things sharper to stop the pointy things from coming). Seems like a fair trade to me, especially since they get more utility out of it than I do.

You are looking at it from more of an OOC perspectiveIt doesn't take you any effort to craft those items, but your character puts in a lot. Imagine you worked a job where you had to put in an extra 8 hours a day doing stuff for your friend, but you both got paid the same.

Would you consider that fair? Your teammates are putting in some work, right?

I think most people would request extra money for the extra work they were doing.


johnlock90, you didn't read the rest of my posts. My companions are doing other things. As a crafting wizard I'm not going to be a social butterfly anyway. The others are. I'm busy crafting, they're busy shopping, making money other ways (usually to add to the party fund) and doing other things. They're working too, usually (again, with a single exception).

I'm not thinking "out of character," I'm thinking practically.

If I were thinking "out of character," I'd be thinking about stuff from a perspective other than my mage's.

And, yeah. If I were the only one with the special skills that could keep us alive by making our stuff better, I'd do it, especially considering the other benefits I'm getting. Especially since they're doing work too.


Joana wrote:


That said, WBL is a much more useful tool for a GM running a homebrew, imo, as he's in a better position to adjust upcoming treasure and/or encounters to match the party than a GM running an AP who is in the position of having to make encounters more difficult or remove treasure (which often results in making encounters easier when it's gear used by NPCs against the party) when a party gets too much stuff. It's easier to make up encounters organically that drop the right amount of treasure than to adjust a pre-existing statblock to do so, or at least I find it easier.

Well, no it's not really useful. To me anyway. It's not an AP. My players have what they have, don't always run as a pack and have, at different times, been filthy rich and dirt poor (at various times and at various levels). One of the points of a sandbox game is that the encounters will not always be perfectly balanced. There are not "X" encounters in a day. Things vary. Often, and quite a bit. Like life, it's not always fair.


Tacticslion wrote:

johnlock90, you didn't read the rest of my posts. My companions are doing other things. As a crafting wizard I'm not going to be a social butterfly anyway. The others are. I'm busy crafting, they're busy shopping, making money other ways (usually to add to the party fund) and doing other things. They're working too, usually (again, with a single exception).

I'm not thinking "out of character," I'm thinking practically.

If I were thinking "out of character," I'd be thinking about stuff from a perspective other than my mage's.

And, yeah. If I were the only one with the special skills that could keep us alive by making our stuff better, I'd do it, especially considering the other benefits I'm getting. Especially since they're doing work too.

What do you mean by "making money other ways"? Professions make piddling gold. Shopping is something that a crafter has to do little of, so they would mostly be shopping for themselves(assuming you took Craft Wondrous Item, which covers most of what a caster needs).

Granted, your party could be out adventuring(which makes good gold) while you decided to skip the adventure to craft, but I have never seen that happen unless someone just didn't show up that week.

So I am curious, how is your party making money that would be comparable to your crafting?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

The WBL FAQ is to prevent non-crafters from benefiting from the crafter's feats. Prior to that FAQ a crafter's fellow PCs could tell the crafter to craft for them. Thus benefiting the party with a bonus feat that they did not earn, do not have, and should not have.

Crafting is INTENDED to increase the power of the crafter's magic items relative to the rest of the party. After all, he spent a feat on it didn't he? They did not.

This line of thought feels really weird to me. Crafting feats are not the only scenario in which the character taking the feat is not the only character who directly benefits. Fearless Aura, Lucky Halfling, and Bodyguard all benefit allies without benefiting the feat holder at all. In Harm's Way actually benefits allies at the expense of the feat holder, and the Intimidate form of Antagonize may have a similar effect. The argument that Craft feats shouldn't benefit party members who haven't taken the feat doesn't hold water given that there are non-Crafting feats that do exactly that.

Crafters should be allowed to benefit their party members by making cheap items. Parties should be able to sort out for themselves whether it actually makes sense for the crafter to make cheap items for other members, just like parties currently sort out for themselves where the money for healing items (or that 5K diamond) is coming from.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

johnlock90, you didn't read the rest of my posts. My companions are doing other things. As a crafting wizard I'm not going to be a social butterfly anyway. The others are. I'm busy crafting, they're busy shopping, making money other ways (usually to add to the party fund) and doing other things. They're working too, usually (again, with a single exception).

I'm not thinking "out of character," I'm thinking practically.

If I were thinking "out of character," I'd be thinking about stuff from a perspective other than my mage's.

And, yeah. If I were the only one with the special skills that could keep us alive by making our stuff better, I'd do it, especially considering the other benefits I'm getting. Especially since they're doing work too.

That can be right if the whole group live as a commune and they share everything, but if you don't do that, exactly how working 8 hours for several days compare to going to the town banquet and shaking hands with the Mayor? Or spending a few hours going in town to buy the equipment for the next expedition?

"Practically". Very well, making 18.000 gp of magic items for myself will be more useful for me than increasing the enhancement of the melee character weapon from +4 to +5.

Total the hours of "other work" and compare to those spent by the enchanter for the other guys, and then we will see who is selfish.

- * -

Welcome back Sean. Got a few good holidays?

I hope you are well rested, as we are already pestering you with new request for FAQs. :-P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:

I don't think crafting for 75 percent of cost is selfish. If I am a plumber, I wouldn't do 2+ days of hard work for a friend for free. I would give him a discount(hence charging 75 percent). Similarly I don't expect my friends to do skilled labor for me without pay.

There are exceptions. If both me and another player were Paladins of the same order, for instance, I would do it for free, but as a general rule I wouldn't expect others to do free labor for me or vis versa.

Does the healer in your group charge you each times he heals? That must be a hoot if he does.

How about the Mage - does he ask evryone for a couple of bucks to cast that fireball at the lich? I think he should - he had to go to school for years to learn that spell... its only fair.

And the thief... i think he should charge everyone when he does his job. Of course, when he does his job you probably don't have any money in your pocket anymore, but I think you should still owe him a little something for all that effort.

Ad infinitum. You know why they made Griswald killable in Diablo2? Because everyone wanted to kill him in Diablo1, because he asked you to protect his town, and then sold you weapons. Killing him was one of the most satisfying moments in Diablo2.

Welcome to that club. {smirk}


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure.

Crafter: no charisma, moderate wisdom, high intelligence: skill set = making things that deal with magic. Also destroying things with magic.

Face: high charisma, moderate intelligence and/or wisdom: skill set = making friends and influencing people.

Warrior: high strength, dexterity, and/or constitution, moderate to low others: skill set = hitting things and staying alive when things hit them (or try). Also looking impressive and capable.

Healer: high wisdom, moderate intelligence and/or charisma: skill set = making sure people don't make stupid decisions.

Sneak: high dexterity, moderate to low others: skill set = doing things sneakily.

Here's the thing - each of those guys can and do perform something differently. Sometimes more than one of the above rolls is inside a single character. Sometimes there are other rolls that exist.

But in a typical game we played, the crafter (whether me or someone else) worked to make stuff for the whole party... the warrior(s) and other front-liners first, because they're the ones who need it. Making something for myself is nice, and all, but what I'm doing by making stuff for them is making an investment in my future. Technically, yeah, it still belongs to the crafter in question. I suppose (s)he could 'recall' it whenever he wants. But... that's not really a need, because it comes from and returns to party funds.

Meanwhile, the face sells us; sells the crafter, the healer (who makes sure the face doesn't do something stupid), and the warrior. The warrior does his part by being there and not messing anything up.

Additionally, a Face has multiple other venues for making gold. The healer can make money from healing. The sneak can make money from whatever the sneak does (no one asks, in most cases). The warrior has profession or can simply do unskilled labor (which in both cases is pretty long and hard).

If the profession skill (or unskilled labor) makes piddling gold: so what? You're saying I demand a price from someone (the warrior) who could really least afford it anyway... because their methods of making money out-of-adventure are negligible? I mean, sure, there's all the money that we make from adventuring, but I suppose our groups are kind of odd in that we tend to have so many places that we find 'necessary' to put our money: charity, party funds, items the crafter can't create, greasing palms/making friends. Sure, that leaves us with plenty of money, personally, but that's what the party funds are for. If I suddenly need to be raised (to put this on an actually topical example, which we've quite strayed from), people pull from the party funds. If we need something the crafter can't make, dip into the party funds. Everyone gives some and gets some. And we've all got our own things to do.

And in our party fund, not all always give equally, and we don't put all our money in it. Those who are likely to benefit more from the fund are the ones who put more in. But unless someone really abuses it (something we've only had happen once... and it actually worked out really well in said game for story reasons, so no one was upset) I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain from either side of the screen.

That's what I meant by "selfish" above: it's just so different from the way we've ever played it. Our crafters have never looked at it as "I'm making this nice magic sword for you, fighter, just so you have a magic sword." but, "I'm making this nice magic sword for you, fighter, so please make sure I don't get a nice magic sword sticking in me. Also, stop getting hit so much. I suppose I should work on that magic armor."

We each looked at the other as rather necessary, and we worked towards making the group the most efficient at what they do. I don't know that I've ever realized exactly how smoothly said elements have run at our tables in the past. Makes me very glad to have played with the people I did, actually.

Shadow Lodge

MarkusTay wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

I don't think crafting for 75 percent of cost is selfish. If I am a plumber, I wouldn't do 2+ days of hard work for a friend for free. I would give him a discount(hence charging 75 percent). Similarly I don't expect my friends to do skilled labor for me without pay.

There are exceptions. If both me and another player were Paladins of the same order, for instance, I would do it for free, but as a general rule I wouldn't expect others to do free labor for me or vis versa.

Does the healer in your group charge you each times he heals? That must be a hoot if he does.

How about the Mage - does he ask evryone for a couple of bucks to cast that fireball at the lich? I think he should - he had to go to school for years to learn that spell... its only fair.

And the thief... i think he should charge everyone when he does his job. Of course, when he does his job you probably don't have any money in your pocket anymore, but I think you should still owe him a little something for all that effort.

Ad infinitum. You know why they made Griswald killable in Diablo2? Because everyone wanted to kill him in Diablo1, because he asked you to protect his town, and then sold you weapons. Killing him was one of the most satisfying moments in Diablo2.

Welcome to that club. {smirk}

Don't forget the fighter. I think he should charge for every blow of his that lands, and every blow that he takes. After all, if he wasn't there, then the bad guys would be beating the crap out of that skinny geek who cowers in the background, chanting gibberish, making shadow puppets, and playing with owlbear dung.

I think a fair price might be 5 gp for every point of damage dealt, and 10 gp for every point of damage taken.

Liberty's Edge

I know they are doing a crafting book soon, but that is a lift I don't envy the devs.

The system is a good example of nice things being given, then abused.


Pretty much.

So... how about those diamonds and dead folks?


The biggest crafting issue is that casters excel at it while characters without a caster level are penalized for investing in crafting. Casters have spells to make mundane items at incredible speeds while non casters must spend a large amount of time for noticeable payoff. Casters can use one skill spellcraft for all magical crafting. Non casters need an extra feat to qualify to craft magic items, are limited to 2 of the crafting feats, and are restricted to using a single craft or profession skill limiting the range of items they can make.

This means characters without a CL are discouraged from engaging outside of combat and social situations (maybe even social too considering not all classes can afford the skill investment.) If the party gets a fair amount of down time the wizard gets to make a new pearl of power while the fighter can go to the bar and sit around with his thumb up his bum.

As to the diamond thing maybe resurrection spells are not the best to be charged since the purpose of such spells is to allow players to continue gaming. But players end up in situations where they don't get to participate for other reasons and the possible loss of wealth can be a more meaningful consequence than loss of a character or story ramifications for some.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There is no "crafter" class. Taking a crafting feat is a personal investment, which, under the current ( vastly disliked by me ) system, should primarily give the person who takes it an advantage.

Extending it to the party at no mark-up is a huge favor given by the crafter, who could have remained just as effective taking another beneficial feat ( although Craft Wondrous Item is about the most effective feat, ever. ) in regards of being useful to the party.

Taking a 25% mark-up to the creation cost for crafting for your party members still is very good, although it will surely end up with the crafter being overpowering in the party. Which also ends up making the party more apt to survive encounters, but there you go.

But the other players demanding that you craft for them at no mark-up is nothing else but egoism on the part of the other players, who want free stuff without investing their own resources.

I say scrap that whole system, make crafting cost near (95%) to market price, lessen the number of crafting feats ( for example, make Craft: Rod, Staff, Rings one feat, instead of three ), reduce crafting times and let the crafting feats be just customization tools, instead of money making machines. That would reduce about all of the imbalancing factors of the magic item crafting system, leaving it just a way to get the right equipment in the way you want it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said this in previous threads, but I think it bears repeating: If you're not in a group that thinks crafting is done freely, or you're a caster that strongly disagrees with it, consider exchanging it for non-monetary payment.

"Okay, Fighter McGreatsword, I can craft you that belt of giant strength. You'll have to pay me for my expenses, and you owe me one."
Then, later:
"I am going to visit my husband in Othertown, and need a bodyguard for those four days. You owe me four days, so I assume you'll pay me back now?"

That way, the exchange in time spent is very obvious, it doesn't overpower the caster and it can be a great way to get more inter-group RP. And it's much less likely to cause players to feel cheated by the caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or conversely, make it like MORPG and have everyone get to choose a secondary profession. In other words, they get a profession feat for free (and if you wanted to make it even better, you could borrow a bit of the tier system from 4e and give additional crafting Feats at levels 10 and 20). This way you don't loose anything - it becomes an optional add-on system if a group chooses to use it. That would make it fair for everyone.

Except for the guy who has to go 'mine diamonds' just to Rez his dead buddies all the time (trying desperately to steer this back).

Dark Archive

THis thread has been an interesting read. As I recently got back from vacation, and I have missed out on fun topics such as this.

I started playing D&D back when Dwarf and Elf were character classes. I have done every edition that has come along, there are definately some aspects I miss from the older editions, and there are lots of things I love about Pathfinder.

THe current game I am playing in we had someone die, and die via a death effect, so raise dead would not work. Now out of game we had a nice long discussion about what we were going to do. Once we decided out of game that we were going to bring his character back, we then moved it to in game discussion. The paladin wanted him brought back to life so he could help vanquish the evil in the world (also the dead character and the paladin followed the same god. My character ( A cleric of Urgathoa) said no. He was new to the party, and thought it to be best to allow him to feed the ranks of the Pallid Princess as a corpse. Well I lost the vote, so we had to travel to find a place to get him brought back. Once again I refused to cast gentle repose, so we drug a stinking corpse half way across the country.

Anyway I get sidetracked easily. I think a good reason for the cost to bring them back is "payment" to your god. You are using their magic, and they have to have one of their agents ferry the characters soul back to the body, from the land of the dead, and you do have to pay the ferry man right?

Anyway my post is a bit out of time with the rest, but I just had to comment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I play is home-brew stuff, so my group doesn't have the issues of AP-placed treasure; everything we run across was put there by the GM.

This doesn't mean we don't find "useless" stuff (that is, stuff no one in the party wants/can use). Which is the basis for our party fund for paying for death fixes, or basic "everybody should have one of X" gear purchases. We sell the useless stuff.

I tend to be the guy with the crafting feats (on account of my playing a lot of wizards, who get free feats to apply to crafting, among other things. The clerics tend to be buying channeling improvements. Sometimes I get one to take craft magic arms/armor so I can skip it).

The only time we reference the WBL chart is in the case of somebody building a replacement character... and this usually only happens at low (1st-6th) levels, because we prefer keeping the party membership stable (that is, paying for raise dead, etc.) rather than deal with either the E-ticket "You look like a capable, trustworthy fellow; join our ranks" immersion-breaking "trust it 'cause it's a PC" effect OR the "Yeah... you can come along with us, I guess. But don't expect us to let you make any decisions or be at our backs," more-realistic-but-tedious "let him prove himself" response.

All that said. >whew<

I craft things for everybody, at cost. The payoff for ME, doing this, is that nobody in the party b&%+%es about how long we're spending in town while I craft: since everybody is getting something out of the downtime I spend, I don't have to make the choice of adventure or craft. And if everybody has the stuff they want and can use, the group survivability goes up.

As for the diamond thing? Well, to be honest, I never gave it any thought: it's just the way the spell was written. If I WERE to give it some thought (like now, lol) I'd say that the flat 5K cost should probably be adjusted to 1K/HD of the raisee, and that that 1,000 could be broken up into a number of items, not just a diamond, not just gems: how about an object d'art appropriate to the temple doing the raising? Etc.

Our group is often guilty of the 15-minute adventuring day -- so PC death is awfully rare to begin with. We haven't had to spend a LOT on raise dead... we usually DO, if somebody dies, with much IC grumbling about how now we don't have as much to bet on the tournament coming up. And usually a good deal of mocking the dead PC for his poor judgment (even if it isn't his fault).

Anyway. It seems like a non-issue, to me: if the cost is prohibitive, house-rule it. [OK, doesn't work for PFSOP, but this is General Discussion.]

Silver Crusade

I typically craft for others for 60% of price.

901 to 950 of 1,171 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.