I'm not telling you what house rules you can use. It's your game. Play how you want to. I'm only telling you what WBL is.
Actually you're not, you're misrepresenting what WBL is meant to be based on YOUR houserules. And you're being rude and dismissive to boot.
It's actually houseruled in my group that the requirements listed are necessary, and that for every prereq a caster does not meet the DC increases by +5. The kicker here is that they still have to be fulfilled in some way. So if the crafter is not a cleric, and the item calls for a cleric, then a cleric needs to be present for the entirety of the crafting, just to 'assist' so to speak.
As luck would have it, this interpretation is possible from a close reading of the rules.
A close reading of the rules says that if you don't have the prerequisites, it's +5 DC per prerequisite you don't have. In no way does it say any prerequisite is mandatory, no matter how close you read them. Otherwise, the Master Craftsman feat would be worthless. Not saying you can't have your house rule, just it's not RAW.
I agree with you, but I'm possibly going to be playing a crafter in a game with a GM who is strongly enforcing wealth rules and does not. If I spend my 5k to make a magic item, he says I now have a value of 10k, and I will get less gold than the other players until they catch up.
1. No. The wealth by level guidelines are meant for DM use to keep the wealth to a reasonable level. It's not a written-in-stone guide to how many gold pieces a character may spend on equipment at a given level.
2. Even if the DM doesn't account for the heightened value, it doesn't double it unless all loot given is in gold and gems. If the PC's find a couple of magic swords they don't need, that may be worth 10k, they can sell those for 5k, and use those 5k to craft something useful worth 10k. In the end, the wealth has stayed the same.
I don't think we agree. I do what your DM will do, more or less, that was my point. A weapon with a market price of 10k puts a 10k dent in your WBL, regardless of how you acquired it. If the rogue maxes his sleight of hand skill I don't allow him to discount the magical amulets he steals from the WBL.
What the feats do is allow you a sure supply of the items, and, if the DM is willing, customized items.
There's basically two interpretations, neither of which has DEFINITE RAW or RAI support though I think both RAW and RAI are more in favor of my approach (that stands for me though):
1. One feat allows you to double the value of any gold, gems and goods you find, as well as customizing your gear and providing a steady supply of items. This makes for a very, very, powerful feat. Few feats can compete with this. _Maybe_ improved initiative.
2. One feat allows you to customize your gear easier and provides a steady supply of items. This makes for a decent but not very good feat, about the same in power level as skill focus, the +2/+2 skill feats and the like.
Since the power of the feat is determined by how you apply guidelines, rather than some hard rules, RAI is more interesting than RAW in my opinion. Would RAI be to give a LOT of extra power to casters, especially prepared casters and especially wizards? I don't think so.
Don't invisibly adjust the amount of loot gained to compensate and never tell the players; I imagine most take crafting feats more for the control than the effective wealth expansion, but effectively losing that advantage might be enough for them to take different feats.
So, if the rogue player maxes his Sleight of Hand and steals a bunch of Rings of Protection and Amulets of Natural armor and sells them, you won't downsize the found wealth to compensate for his 200k extra gold?
It is my opinion that the wealth by level guidelines are intended to be used on the end result at all times, and never taking into account how something was acquired. That's the way we've used it all the time, and I can tell you IC feats are pretty popular anyway.
Why should a wizard that pays 5k for his ring come out richer than the rogue that steals such a ring for free, or the barbarian that chucks of the rogues arm for stealing the ring and takes it back?
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, WBL guidelines are there as rough guidelines for how much gp worth of equipment to give a character that is created at higher than first level. I was never supposed to have any effect whatsoever on established characters.
Somewhere along the line, it's become a hard and fast rule to many poeple, to the point where if you find too much treasure, invisible theives with infinite ranks in stealth take away all the "extra" treasure.
As I understand it, WBL guidelines are there as rough guidelines for how much gp worth of equipment to give a character that is created at higher than first level. I was never supposed to have any effect whatsoever on established characters.
Somewhere along the line, it's become a hard and fast rule to many poeple, to the point where if you find too much treasure, invisible theives with infinite ranks in stealth take away all the "extra" treasure.
"Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. "
(cut out some stuff from long quote, but don't think I misrepresented anything).
Note that it says "amount of treasure each PC is expected to have", not "amount of gold each PC is expected to have spent on treasure" (or equipment or whateveryawannacallit).
As I understand it, WBL guidelines are there as rough guidelines for how much gp worth of equipment to give a character that is created at higher than first level. I was never supposed to have any effect whatsoever on established characters.
Somewhere along the line, it's become a hard and fast rule to many poeple, to the point where if you find too much treasure, invisible theives with infinite ranks in stealth take away all the "extra" treasure.
"Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. "
(cut out some stuff from long quote, but don't think I misrepresented anything).
Note that it says "amount of treasure each PC is expected to have", not "amount of gold each PC is expected to have spent on treasure" (or equipment or whateveryawannacallit).
RIght, so where does it say to use that table as a hard and fast "PCs MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN THIS" rule?
|
There are also class features like the black blade that grant the equivalent of a magic item. Not to mention the ability of characters to give their equipment to another character. Or the looting of fallen comrades.
There are many ways to bypass the Wealth by Level guidelines, not just item creation feats.
In my games I let the players make custom items with them, and go over WBL by more than I would without the feats, but not double the amount. That way the feats are more useful.
@Absolute:The game is based on certain standards. That table is one of them. Nothing says a GM has to follow the table any more than they would have to follow any other rule, but for the sake of a discussion on the boards it only makes sense to use the book's standard as a common reference point.
That fact that the book says the WBL is the expected amount supports that as the designer's standard for how they made the game.
I am not a GM that has invisible thieve steal your things. I don't even keep a perfect count. I do have a rough estimate of what a level X character should have though. If you get too far above it I withhold treasure. If the group gets too far behind then I throw extra things in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really the problem I have with the GM enforcing wealth levels is when the following happens as an example.
1. Every player is handed 1000g for an adventure.
2. The fighter with Master Craftsman/etc. (who could have taken any number of more traditional fighter feats, but chose to take these specialized feats, even to the point of taking a feat that has the only benefit of making you qualify for other feats) decides to use his 1000g to make two +1 daggers. (1000g retail, makes them approx 500g to make, for sake of example, ignore cost of the dagger)
3. Now fighter has two daggers with a VALUE of 2000g total, others have 1000g.
4. When next x adventures each gives another 1000g, the GM makes sure that part fighter's share is divided among the other 4 players until they all have equal value. The characters in game did not decide to take the fighter's money "Hey the fighter used his money to make magic items, so we're taking his next 4 rewards to keep us all fair" the GM is artificially enforcing this.
THAT is what my friend is planning to do, and it's a big reason I might end up not playing in his game (I have two GM wanting to run games on Sunday nights, have to decide who to let down, this is making it not so hard.)
Really the problem I have with the GM enforcing wealth levels is when the following happens as an example.
1. Every player is handed 1000g for an adventure.
2. The fighter with Master Craftsman/etc. (who could have taken any number of more traditional fighter feats, but chose to take these specialized feats, even to the point of taking a feat that has the only benefit of making you qualify for other feats) decides to use his 1000g to make two +1 daggers. (1000g retail, makes them approx 500g to make, for sake of example, ignore cost of the dagger)
3. Now fighter has two daggers with a VALUE of 2000g total, others have 1000g.
4. When next x adventures each gives another 1000g, the GM makes sure that part fighter's share is divided among the other 4 players until they all have equal value. The characters in game did not decide to take the fighter's money "Hey the fighter used his money to make magic items, so we're taking his next 4 rewards to keep us all fair" the GM is artificially enforcing this.THAT is what my friend is planning to do, and it's a big reason I might end up not playing in his game (I have two GM wanting to run games on Sunday nights, have to decide who to let down, this is making it not so hard.)
I don't think a GM should tell the party how to divide treasure. It kills immersion also. As a whole what the party, not one player, should determine how wealth is adjusted. If the party decide to give all the treasure to player X that is on them.
edit:My players have always used the craft feats to help everyone, not only themselves. If a player helped only himself I would give out gear that they might need/want, and then cut back for a while so everyone is not too far apart.
Somewhere along the line, it's become a hard and fast rule to many poeple, to the point where if you find too much treasure, invisible theives with infinite ranks in stealth take away all the "extra" treasure.
Like a 3.X ethereal filcher?
Most GMs will try to balance the game around the WBL guidelines. To the players, it should be a transparent process.
The primary benefit of crafting is letting players control what to do with their own wealth. For non-crafting characters, the GM or the crafting character has control over what happens. A GM should still try to maintain a wealth balance between all the characters. If one character crafts a bunch of items for himself, a GM should probably structure treasure to benefit other party members. Using treasure found is as cost effective as selling items (50% loss) and then crafting an equivalent desired item (50% reduction in cost).
So of course crafting should be easy. . . the primary benefit of it is subject to the GM's discretion in how to place treasure.
My own thoughts on the OPs question are as follows. I find it problematic if you're going to claim that it's too easy to make items or whatever when in essence a big part of the games central axis is supported, and arguably even dependent on magic items and the use thereof. Now you might argue that you feel that it's 'too easy' or 'too fast' but my question is what your barometer would be exactly.
Some games have very loose crafting rules but require a great deal of luck (see the Pre-Savage Worlds Deadlands) or were left entirely up to fiat (second editions system). Now, to the idea that a world that has shops that can sell magic would be immersion breaking or that at the current potential speed of creation the world would be awash in magic items, well I would have to disagree. Many shops that would deal in such trade would likely be set up with well armed and protected guilds (a la Eberron) or would have other countermeasures. And as to the idea of the world being awash in the items, most people would simply make them for allies or for personal use/trade and sometimes as a payment for services rendered. As a side effect the items will tend to be adorning the trophy walls of the wealthy or be in the hands of adventurers as well as in the various places that said adventurers died at where they can be reclaimed by hopefully luckier ones.
Your idea of making it very easy to create cursed items is one of those things that sounds wonderful and logical until it starts seeing active play. See also the critical fumble discussions and the various crit table ideas in d20. Not saying that they can't work or that they're inherently bad ideas, just that hiccups are likely.
If the chance is small, say you would only have it happen on a '1' if they are trying 'over their head' then we have a new problem. Players might try to shoot at the moon in terms of item creation because frankly if the odds are the same regardless, and relatively small you're only adding a bit of extra rules text that often won't come up and be more likely to frustrate players who might make an occaisional item and roll poorly rather than those who are using the system heavily.
Conversely, if the chance is too high it makes it so that item creation is either prohibitively dangerous to the point where few people would even want to try (and then begs the question of what madman or madwoman made the magic items they're finding) which then makes the rules for making magic items questionable in use, after all if you want to discourage people from using something you might be further off not including it at all.
Part of it is also this, item creation being relatively easy is an asset to a DM. It means that if someone in the party has it then they don't have to work as hard to make sure that everyone will get at least SOMETHING useful out of the treasure rather than the items tending to weight towards one person or another, or even towards some classes more than others.
|
Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.
Expected : Regard (something) as likely to happen.
Please note the use of expected and that different games can have different values. WBL is by design and description not hard and fast. Enforcing a WBL cap is idiotic on its face as characters must move from one WBL cap to another as they move to the next level.
|
|
Somewhere along the line, it's become a hard and fast rule to many poeple, to the point where if you find too much treasure, invisible theives with infinite ranks in stealth take away all the "extra" treasure.Like a 3.X ethereal filcher?
Most GMs will try to balance the game around the WBL guidelines. To the players, it should be a transparent process.
The primary benefit of crafting is letting players control what to do with their own wealth. For non-crafting characters, the GM or the crafting character has control over what happens. A GM should still try to maintain a wealth balance between all the characters. If one character crafts a bunch of items for himself, a GM should probably structure treasure to benefit other party members. Using treasure found is as cost effective as selling items (50% loss) and then crafting an equivalent desired item (50% reduction in cost).
So of course crafting should be easy. . . the primary benefit of it is subject to the GM's discretion in how to place treasure.
As mentioned after the WBL table entry:
Encounters against NPCs typically award three times the treasure a monster-based encounter awards, due to NPC gear. To compensate, make sure the PCs face off against a pair of additional encounters that award little in the way of treasure. Animals, plants, constructs, mindless undead, oozes, and traps are great “low treasure” encounters. Alternatively, if the PCs face a number of creatures with little or no treasure, they should have the opportunity to acquire a number of significantly more valuable objects sometime in the near future to make up for the imbalance. As a general rule, PCs should not own any magic item worth more than half their total character wealth, so make sure to check before awarding expensive magic items.
Yes, WBL is a guideline.
And if -half- of the treasure you received for a level were used to make magic items using your interpretation you'd end up witih more wealth than the baseline for a full level higher.
Sure -- if all the wealth you get is liquid (art, gems, coin).
If, on the other hand, like *most* parties, the stuff you get is gear, then while it's worth 100% when looking at WBL, you can only sell it at 50%. So, (to oversimplify) as soon as you sell your gear, you're down to 50% of the proper WBL. Then, you use that 50% to craft an item, and you double it -- back to 100%.
That way, for instance, if you fight an elf who had a Keen Elven Curveblade +2, you're not hosed on the WBL table because none of you took the exotic proficiency -- you can sell it and use the coin to make another weapon that someone can use (that's a +3) -- or even share the wealth and make 2 +2 weapons and a Ring of Protection +1 (if you've got the feats).
In both cases, the party's total wealth from the item (and the crafted items) is 18,000 +/- the masterwork weapon.
I'm not seeing the issue.
Yes, WBL is a guideline.
And if -half- of the treasure you received for a level were used to make magic items using your interpretation you'd end up witih more wealth than the baseline for a full level higher.Sure -- if all the wealth you get is liquid (art, gems, coin).
If, on the other hand, like *most* parties, the stuff you get is gear, then while it's worth 100% when looking at WBL, you can only sell it at 50%. So, (to oversimplify) as soon as you sell your gear, you're down to 50% of the proper WBL. Then, you use that 50% to craft an item, and you double it -- back to 100%.
That way, for instance, if you fight an elf who had a Keen Elven Curveblade +2, you're not hosed on the WBL table because none of you took the exotic proficiency -- you can sell it and use the coin to make another weapon that someone can use (that's a +3) -- or even share the wealth and make 2 +2 weapons and a Ring of Protection +1 (if you've got the feats).
In both cases, the party's total wealth from the item (and the crafted items) is 18,000 +/- the masterwork weapon.
I'm not seeing the issue.
Exactly, and given that it also takes in game time, its an even larger investment and not (usually) available immediately.
Sure -- if all the wealth you get is liquid (art, gems, coin).
Note: the only items not subject to the 50% selling rule are commodities (gold pieces, cows, wheat -- listed at the front of the equipment section). Gems and art objects are not commodities. They have unique properties (a hunk of pure gold is no different than another hunk of pure gold) and have to be sold using the same system as magic items.
What's the point in having a guideline of how much wealth a character is to have if you are just going to ignore it completely? I think it is meant to give GMs an idea of how much gear the characters should have. I'm sure it's ok if they go over or under a bit but if you are just going to ignore it and let them go over by up to 100%, you are drastically changing the power level of the game. If that works for your games, that's great. I does require the GM to make some adjustments though. Encounters get easier (sometimes much easier) if the party has more gear.
I don't think anyone has said that you can't go over the WBL a bit. I think the issue is when the GM lets you double the guideline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,
Stopped me from crafting because of the xp pentalty.
Oops, you spent xp on the item and now you forget about the troll you fought and are now down to 4th level.
I've not read the errata but I don't believe in there being no restriction for CL as the info on Golem manuels increases your CL slightly to get you closer to the required CL for crafting golems. I'd keep the you can only craft the item if you are of the required CL otherwise you get the problem like that you've mentioned above.
Edit: Of course, the feats restrict the player from going insane. Aferall, my Gnome has to spend feats on Craft Wonderous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armour before getting Craft Construct and even then the constructs have their own skills like many of them based on a DC for Craft: Sculpture.
Feats are the best restriction really and spells. Anyway, I'm not going to tell you how to run your game, it's a nice idea if you feel it's too powerful for your players. Personally I like making my players powerful, atleast for now until I can gauge CR correctly and not accidently kill someone, which is pretty easy but still a worry as I don't like killing PCs.
I don't think a GM should tell the party how to divide treasure. It kills immersion also. As a whole what the party, not one player, should determine how wealth is adjusted. If the party decide to give all the treasure to player X that is on them.
edit:My players have always used the craft feats to help everyone, not only themselves. If a player helped only himself I would give out gear that they might need/want, and then cut back for a while so everyone is not too far apart.
Right, and see I would make some magic items for the other players, if they asked. But, if the other players don't need or want what I can create, then there's nothing I can do about that, so in that case, I'd be penalized by the GM.
Oh and his justification? They took feats that save your ass in a fight, you made the choice to take item creation feats (this was before I decided to play a fighter, when I was thinking about doing a sorcerer). I didn't argue with him, but I wanted to say "Yeah? Well my +5 Robe of Greater Fortification is far better than a dodge feat no matter how you look at it, so your analogy doesn't hold water."
In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,Stopped me from crafting because of the xp pentalty.
Oops, you spent xp on the item and now you forget about the troll you fought and are now down to 4th level.
I've not read the errata but I don't believe in there being no restriction for CL as the info on Golem manuels increases your CL slightly to get you closer to the required CL for crafting golems. I'd keep the you can only craft the item if you are of the required CL otherwise you get the problem like that you've mentioned above.
Well, by the RAW you couldn't lose a level. You could say "I choose not to level up because I am saving the XP for this item" but if you leveled up, you have 0 xp to spend.
Well, by the RAW you couldn't lose a level. You could say "I choose not to level up because I am saving the XP for this item" but if you leveled up, you have 0 xp to spend.In 3.5 it was an autopass. There was the XP penalty but it never really stopped anyone that wanted to craft,Stopped me from crafting because of the xp pentalty.
Oops, you spent xp on the item and now you forget about the troll you fought and are now down to 4th level.
I've not read the errata but I don't believe in there being no restriction for CL as the info on Golem manuels increases your CL slightly to get you closer to the required CL for crafting golems. I'd keep the you can only craft the item if you are of the required CL otherwise you get the problem like that you've mentioned above.
Still a hard choice, especially as next level as a spell caster you could gain new and more powerful spells. So it's a choice between gaining new spells and power or crafting a magic item that could also potentially make you more powerful.
It sounds like a lot of you just want to ban crafting feats (which is fine), but aren't willing to say as much. Just remember to clearly state what limitations you're going to place on crafting before anyone takes the feats or invest in spellcraft, or allow retraining if you decide they're a problem halfway through the game. Don't invisibly adjust the amount of loot gained to compensate and never tell the players; I imagine most take crafting feats more for the control than the effective wealth expansion, but effectively losing that advantage might be enough for them to take different feats. Feats are a very precious resource, and skills can be too depending on the character.I agree. And, likewise, if people want to encourage crafting (for example, by allowing people to have twice as much wealth in magic items wrt WBL), then I think the GM should say so upfront.
I have no intention of banning item creation. I think I am going to increase the DCs by 5 in my next campaign, but if the crafter fails the check by 5, the item has a minor curse (such as a +1 sword that drips blood or a wand of fireballs that deals 1 point of fire damage to the user when used). A failure by 10 would result in a cursed item by the core rules.
There are also class features like the black blade that grant the equivalent of a magic item. Not to mention the ability of characters to give their equipment to another character. Or the looting of fallen comrades.
There are many ways to bypass the Wealth by Level guidelines, not just item creation feats.
True enough. I make no attempt to use WBL on individual PCs in my group since the share wealth to help each other out. If something will help one PC and thus the party, the the PC gets what they need.
My complaint isn't so much exceeding WBL, it is that a dedicated crafter can build items for PCs earlier than the WBL guidlines suggest they should have access to it.
[...]
Thoughts?
I think the item creation rules are just fine. The only thing I houseruled back in from 3.5 is that the caster has to have the spells needed for the item creation; there is no +5 modifier if you don't know the required spells, it just fails.
I always found it stupid that a wizard could create an item that throws fireballs without knowing how to throw fireballs in the first place.
The only exception, since I'm GMing an Eberron Campaign, is the Artificer.
Are magic items, by raw, too easy to make?
Yes. Yes they are. And they are made far, far too quickly to boot.
No they are not. Most magic items come from experts with th master craftsman feat or adepts. A PC class spell caster is a rare, highly trained expert. Not only that they work with magic items almost every day. Also, um, Golarion doe seem, basically, awash in magic items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether the magic item creation rules are too easy or not is a matter of taste and opinion, rather than fact.
What is a matter of fact is that the rules for magic item creation are much more liberal than in any previous edition of PF/D&D. It is now, in my opinion, trivially easy to create magic items, requiring no sacrifice other than a minimal amount of time and a bargain amount of gold (compared to buying the same item). So, if you were happy with the balance in any of the previous editions, you are likely to find the PF version too easy.
Making it easier must have been a conscious design decision, and probably a smart one, marketing wise. There is no getting around the fact that most players like neat stuff, and making it easier for them to get neat stuff is bound to be popular. They far outnumber the folks worried about game balance, power creep and sense of logic/immersion.
The decision to make it easier has a few distinct effects on the game:
1) It makes magic much more plentiful, more every day and less rare and wondrous.
2) It, combined with the assumption of Magic Mart, is a tremendous boon to optimizers looking to squeeze out every last bonus. No more having to live and work with what you find adventuring. You can now have exactly the magic items you want, provided you have enough money.
3) It has upped the power level of the game.
4) For some people it creates an immersion issue, as the magic economy adds another thing that just defies any logic. Hardly the worst offender in that regard, though.
As for my opinion, I am on record as disliking the new magic item creation rules for a wide variety of reasons, a few of which I'll identify.
-- Combined with the Take 10 rule, it is now trivially easy to create magic items, and I don't want magic items to be trivially easy to create.
-- It is actually far, far easier to create magic items than it is to create high-quality mundane items (of course to create that magic item you need to have the high-quality mundane item first, but those are pretty much assumed to be available in any decent-sized city). This makes no sense to me.
-- I don't find sitting around creating magic items to be terribly heroic in comparison to recovering them adventuring - I might feel differently about this if it were more difficult and rare to do so. Spending a year questing for the materials and crafting a mighty magical sword seems a trifle more epic to me than churning out a few per month by just paying some gold and autosucceeding on a skill check.
-- In the hands of optimizers, it will produce significantly more powerful characters by assuring that they always have optimal equipment. This power boost in the characters requires more work by the GM to provide appropriate challenges. In my opinion, this type of power inflation doesn't really improve the quality of the gaming experience, just recreates the same experience with bigger numbers being involved.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and as I indicated, I know that I am probably in the more minority.
|
No they are not. Most magic items come from experts with th master craftsman feat or adepts. A PC class spell caster is a rare, highly trained expert. Not only that they work with magic items almost every day. Also, um, Golarion doe seem, basically, awash in magic items.Are magic items, by raw, too easy to make?
Yes. Yes they are. And they are made far, far too quickly to boot.
That's actually my argument, albeit from a completely different angle.
There are also class features like the black blade that grant the equivalent of a magic item. Not to mention the ability of characters to give their equipment to another character. Or the looting of fallen comrades.
There are many ways to bypass the Wealth by Level guidelines, not just item creation feats.
The WBL guidelines are just that: guidelines. Since magic items and their synergies are quite complex because of the sheer amount of them, WBL can only be used as an approximation.
But within that approximation, item creation feats do not allow to bypass WBL. They allow someone to tailor magic items to their needs. It does not matter how you gained your wealth, or what you paid for it. By the logic that the feats allow you treat group made items at half value, the magic item someone looted from a slain foe should be treated as costing zero GP, since they did not pay anything for it. Of course, this is not the case. Wealth is measured in your possessions, not the ways by which you acquired the possessions, or the money paid for them.
The WBL guidelines are in the rules to allow GMs to better approximate the power of a given character versus foes of appropriate ELs. Gaining more magic items via feats would skew that already shaky system even more.
As a side note, the APs I have read seem to roughly follow WBL for a party of four. Of course, the loot might be suboptimal, which a crafter could easily fix.
In the end it does not matter that much, even if you allow item crafting feats to influence WBL. Crafting takes time and money. Both can be restricted by the GM. Many times, crafters will sell suboptimal magic items for half market price to craft better ones at half market price, effectively gaining nothing regarding to WBL - of course, tailoring your magic items will increase your power level.
By the way, class features (should) have an opportunity cost: you do not have other class features.
Some basic guidelines I am considering for my campaign, which is a bit low in magic and crafting happens rarely, usually magic is found :
- Add 5 levels requirement on the craft feats, though the craft feats are free once you fill the requirement, but I'll require a formulae to craft items, just like spells, which will require research. spell completion items do not require this research.
- all requirements must be met, though this might be by someone assisting the crafting
- Crafting items cost twice as much as indicated (full value), this does not change crafting time and might be (patially) offset by gathering specific rare components needed for the crafting.
- multiple low value items can be made in a day, thus more than one scroll or potion can be crafted for example.
This messes with the normal market assumptions being able to sell items at half value, but makes sense as magic items are less 'tangible' than other items so a hard value is hard to establish and carry significant risk (curses) and investment (magical identification) to confirm.
There is very little trade in magical items, most items for sale are incidental sales or cost significantly more than the usual price, custom made items will be 50% more expensive, including specific scrolls and potions. Though I'd probably lower the prices of potions to be only slightly more expensive than scrolls
I intend to make the magical item shopping less common, and want a more special feel to magic in general, potins and scrolls will still be readily available, though it requires capable casters.
I will allow craft feats for special benefits besides allowing characters earlier access to crafting items, when they are actually high enough level to craft they can do so cheaper (25% cheaper) and a bonus to identifying those items without magic. This for wizards and other classes getting the feats as a bonus mostly.
As I keep looking at this discussion (and I'm still pro-crafting), I wonder if part of the issue isn't the fact that consumable and permanent objects are equally easy to make (cost and feats notwithstanding).
I think that making consumable objects (scrolls, potions, wands) is a good use of resources and would never take that away from a party -- plus, for all the worries about WBL - once they're used up, they're gone.
[Plus, really, I think giving Wizards Scribe at 1st does a lot in terms of showing the difference between them and Sorcerers -- and it also lets a somewhat (financially) successful Wizard to prepare himself for contingencies without needing to give up one of his precious (adventuring-day) spell-slots.]
I *like* that these can be made relatively easily (although a cleric rushing to get a wand done before the attack on the Fort he's defending can come dangerously close to messing up - at least in my experience).
Now, yes, permanent objects (Weapons, Wondrous Items, Staves, Rings) are a somewhat different animal, in that once they're made, the party tends to keep 'em until they can upgrade.
So maybe they should be a little harder to make -- say +5 to the DC on a permanent item (or something). This addition to the DC would also reduce people's ability to just ignore the requirements without making it that even a moderate level caster can't make an item if he's not rushing himself.
Just a thought.
My own thoughts on the OPs question are as follows. I find it problematic if you're going to claim that it's too easy to make items or whatever when in essence a big part of the games central axis is supported, and arguably even dependent on magic items and the use thereof. Now you might argue that you feel that it's 'too easy' or 'too fast' but my question is what your barometer would be exactly.
My barometer is basically this: if an item has a caster level of X, then I think it logically follows that the PC crafting it ought to have a pretty hard time making if they're not caster level X or higher. And even if they are caster level X, it shouldn't necessarily be automatic. If an item has a requirement of "must be a level 10 cleric" and you're not a cleric, and you're not even CLOSE to level 10, it ought to be damn near impossible, but perhaps achievable with a lot of luck (i.e. on a high d20 roll). Under the current rules, it's a cakewalk. This, to me, is something I find wrong with the RAW.
That's really the crux of the issue for me. All of the discussion about the WBL table, what it means, how it should be used, etc is fascinating to read, but what I really have trouble with isn't power level, wealth level, or treasure level in my campaigns, but rather that annoying problem of a low level caster being capable of EASILY making items that should, to me, be FAR beyond his skill level to do. I mean, I have in-game images in my head of this lvl 5 wizards peers warning him with ominous predictions of doom like "You're meddling with powers you barely understand!" and "You'll shoot your eye out!" and then he just hauls off and cranks out the item in like a week with absolute confidence and no possibility of failure. There's just an unavoidable "reality check" for me there as ironic as that sounds talking about magic in a fantasy game, but still, there it is...
The argument that the REAL limiting factors should be time and money alone just isn't good enough for me, as a DM. A) Because I don't think time is actually that big of a limitation in the first place, nor should it be, realistically (nobody spends their entire life sprinting from one race-against-the-clock adventure to the next with no breaks, IMO) and B) because they (time and money limitations) don't address the actual root cause of the problem, as I see it, namely that the rules allow pretty low level PCs to make VASTLY higher level items easily.
Lastly, as DM, I house rule a lot of stuff. I'm not asking anyone to approve or disapprove of any of my house rules for the sake of my game, because I'm going to run it the way I run it regardless. I just want to hear what other people do about this, if anything, and get some sense of whether people generally agree or disagree. If, in the course of the discussion, I hear an idea I hadn't thought of myself or someone raises an issue that hasn't come up, then I learn something, and so much the better. Everyone can run their own campaigns the way they feel is right, as far as I'm concerned.
Most GMs will try to balance the game around the WBL guidelines.
Where did you get that piece of information? I don't know any GM, including me, who cares about WBL.
And why should we? Say, for example, the WBL says 100k Gold is appropriate for level X. You have two wizards and one rogue in the party. One wizard will buy himself a mountain of scrolls, the other one will craft his own items. So what do you do - give the first wizard 100k, because the final value of his acquired items will be 100k, and give wizard 2 50k, because, hey, he will create items with a total value of 100k anyway? And the rogue, he will get 300k of loot - because he'll only be able to fence it in for 100k...
The only thing you can - and should - control is the total amount of money the party as a whole acquires.
Most GMs will try to balance the game around the WBL guidelines.Where did you get that piece of information? I don't know any GM, including me, who cares about WBL.
And why should we? Say, for example, the WBL says 100k Gold is appropriate for level X. You have two wizards and one rogue in the party. One wizard will buy himself a mountain of scrolls, the other one will craft his own items. So what do you do - give the first wizard 100k, because the final value of his acquired items will be 100k, and give wizard 2 50k, because, hey, he will create items with a total value of 100k anyway? And the rogue, he will get 300k of loot - because he'll only be able to fence it in for 100k...
The only thing you can - and should - control is the total amount of money the party as a whole acquires.
I know one GM that might just consider what you said here, or at the very least not allow the wizard to create items before the game starts. In fact, if I recall I asked "Since I have Craft Alchemy can I buy alchemical items for half price at creation?" and he was like "No."
RIght, so where does it say to use that table as a hard and fast "PCs MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN THIS" rule?
Nowhere, which I've said several times.
What I've said:
"The wealth by level guidelines are meant for DM use to keep the wealth to a reasonable level. It's not a written-in-stone guide to how many gold pieces a character may spend on equipment at a given level. "
"Since the power of the feat is determined by how you apply guidelines, rather than some hard rules, RAI is more interesting than RAW in my opinion. Would RAI be to give a LOT of extra power to casters, especially prepared casters and especially wizards? I don't think so."
"It is my opinion that the wealth by level guidelines are intended to be used on the end result at all times, and never taking into account how something was acquired."
The two first quotes where either directly quoted by you, or a response to you, so it's not something you could've missed. The kind of straw man you're trying to do now is seen as rude by most people on this forum, and I'd appreciate if you stopped.
The DM can use these guidelines to balance encounters (everyone's got equipment for three times their WBL? Oh, those bugbears just gained two levels!) and to balance between players. If all players employ about the same level of optimization, having about equal WBL should put them at about the same power level (disregarding from the other balance issues of PFRPG).
If we interpret the guidelines your way, Craft Wondrous Items can give the whole party a bunch of bonuses ranging from +2 to a stat to +1 natural bonus to AC compared with lower-level versions of the magical items. Is this within reason for a single feat, compared to Weapon Focus which gives a single +1 to hit with a single type of weapon? While it helps the whole party, which is good, it might still unbalance encounters (especially combined with other crafting feats) which means the DM either has to increase the difficulty of the things they encounter or pull back on the loot they gain (the second solution being what I do).
If the wizard only crafts stuff for himself, he might start to outshine the other players because he's got much better stuff - while the rogue takes Dodge for +1 AC, the half gold price means the wizard can get an amulet of natural armor +2 instead of +1, and bracers of armor +3 instead of +2 and some other minor bonuses. In this case, the DM might have to reign back on wizardly loot and loose coins - swap the metamagic rod for a magic short sword that the rogue will prefer. Of course the DM shouldn't say "Now, split the 10000 gp so the wizard gets less than the others!"; instead it might be "You find 2000 gp, a quiver of magical arrows, a magical short sword and a suit of magical full plate"
The only thing you can - and should - control is the total amount of money the party as a whole acquires.
Honest question: Does this mean that if the rogue has the skills for it, he can steal for hundreds of thousands and sell it off to buy whatever he wants? Or is that controlled by what NPC's have, and in that case, doesn't that require nerfing their wealth to abysmal levels and/or DM fiating it harder to steal stuff?
I'm not sure I understood what you mean with your post, because your example seems to contradict your final statement - in your example you're talking about separate party members but then you say you should only apply it to the whole party.
Not trying to be snarky, I'm just confused.
I didn't argue with him, but I wanted to say "Yeah? Well my +5 Robe of Greater Fortification is far better than a dodge feat no matter how you look at it, so your analogy doesn't hold water."
This is excactly what I'm talking about. This is the reason why I don't think the feats should allow you to "break" the WBL. If one feat clearly is so much better than the others, and on top of that is most easily acquired by the most powerful classes, something's wrong.
The only thing you can - and should - control is the total amount of money the party as a whole acquires.
Honest question: Does this mean that if the rogue has the skills for it, he can steal for hundreds of thousands and sell it off to buy whatever he wants? Or is that controlled by what NPC's have, and in that case, doesn't that require nerfing their wealth to abysmal levels and/or DM fiating it harder to steal stuff?
I'm not sure I understood what you mean with your post, because your example seems to contradict your final statement - in your example you're talking about separate party members but then you say you should only apply it to the whole party.
Not trying to be snarky, I'm just confused.
No, I mean that the GM should only control the total amount of money that the party has at their disposal. What the party does with it should be of no concern. So, to use my example above, if the WBL says that a party of 4 should have a wealth of 400k, then the party should decide what to do with it. If they decide to buy the big a$$ sword for the fighter and everyone else gets 2 potions and a dagger, so be it. If they decide to divide it evenly and everybody buys what he likes, while the wizard crafts himself some items, so be it. If they decide to give it all to the wizard so he makes items for them (which right now happens in my campaign, albeit with an artificer), so be it. And if the rogue is a master haggler and manages to get a 50% bonus on his share, then let him have it.
Of course, as a GM you should notice if and when the wealth of the party reaches its limit, and you can control it - next time, the rewards may be less... monetary.
This is how it has always been handled in every campaign I have ever played or mastered.
In our current game, the party wandered through unchartered wilderness for about 7-8 character levels, without any chance to buy or craft items. Now that they are back in civilization, they try to catch up; the artificer works overtime while the rest of the party is having a good time.
But none of the players ever complained about too little wealth. Or too much, which may have happened every now and then...
No, I mean that the GM should only control the total amount of money that the party has at their disposal. What the party does with it should be of no concern. So, to use my example above, if the WBL says that a party of 4 should have a wealth of 400k, then the party should decide what to do with it. If they decide to buy the big a$$ sword for the fighter and everyone else gets 2 potions and a dagger, so be it. If they decide to divide it evenly and everybody buys what he likes, while the wizard crafts himself some items, so be it. If they decide to give it all to the wizard so he makes items for them (which right now happens in my campaign, albeit with an artificer), so be it. And if the rogue is a master haggler and manages to get a 50% bonus on his share, then let him have it.
But how does that work with non-gp wealth? If they find magic items worth 400k when the WBL says they should have about 400k, but they can't use those items effectively so they sell and say they don't have item creation feats - do you then let them play with just their 200k they get for selling, ending up severely under-equipped?
What I really REALLY wish but know will never see on these boards is people debating/discussing honestly.
+1
In an effort to be right, often people don't try to understand (or do understand but want to ignore it). It's not just here though. It seems to be rampant in society.
My own thoughts on the OPs question are as follows. I find it problematic if you're going to claim that it's too easy to make items or whatever when in essence a big part of the games central axis is supported, and arguably even dependent on magic items and the use thereof. Now you might argue that you feel that it's 'too easy' or 'too fast' but my question is what your barometer would be exactly.My barometer is basically this: if an item has a caster level of X, then I think it logically follows that the PC crafting it ought to have a pretty hard time making if they're not caster level X or higher. And even if they are caster level X, it shouldn't necessarily be automatic. If an item has a requirement of "must be a level 10 cleric" and you're not a cleric, and you're not even CLOSE to level 10, it ought to be damn near impossible, but perhaps achievable with a lot of luck (i.e. on a high d20 roll). Under the current rules, it's a cakewalk. This, to me, is something I find wrong with the RAW.
That's really the crux of the issue for me. All of the discussion about the WBL table, what it means, how it should be used, etc is fascinating to read, but what I really have trouble with isn't power level, wealth level, or treasure level in my campaigns, but rather that annoying problem of a low level caster being capable of EASILY making items that should, to me, be FAR beyond his skill level to do. I mean, I have in-game images in my head of this lvl 5 wizards peers warning him with ominous predictions of doom like "You're meddling with powers you barely understand!" and "You'll shoot your eye out!" and then he just hauls off and cranks out the item in like a week with absolute confidence and no possibility of failure. There's just an unavoidable "reality check" for me there as ironic as that sounds talking about magic in a fantasy game, but still, there it is...
The argument that the REAL limiting factors should be time and money alone just isn't good enough for me, as a...
I suppose I can see your point, the issue being less about technical power level than it is about the rules making a kind of internal sense. I can appreciate this and even agree to an extent. I think part of why it bothers me less is that a lower level caster can use high level scrolls and people with no magical ability can activate a wand for UMD. To me magic is basically a science that the wizards have mastered and the sorcerors work intuitively (as to divine casters they have divine beings doing the math for them) so I figure it just means that things would be more difficult (see the DC).
As for their rolls, while I can see your point I think some of it was done to make it so that players would feel encouraged to make crafters and be able to do things that were a bit beyond them if they felt willing to try. I'd also point out that unless the players have the resources to pull it off it isn't likely to really happen in game often (IE them making something radically above their caster level)
Too easy, no. Too cheap? Yes. 50% is too much of a discount, especially when you get to high levels.
Saving 50% on a cloak of resistance is negligable. Saving 40,000 on a magic belt or 100,000+ on a magic sword? Yeah.
Too easy, no. Too cheap? Yes. 50% is too much of a discount, especially when you get to high levels.
Saving 50% on a cloak of resistance is negligable. Saving 40,000 on a magic belt or 100,000+ on a magic sword? Yeah.
But if the GM enforces crafting times, 40 to 100 days is a long time to not be out gaining XP. A lot can happen in 2-3 months.