Here's a better question Shifty...Thanks for the correction.
Just scrap crafting...
Less QQ, more pew-pew.
I just give people the option of commissioning specific magic items. If someone wants to craft their own equipment, I let them. I suggest they do them while they travel, in the evenings. In my current game, the half-orc barbarian bought a wagon so he could put his anvil on it, and 100lbs of coal and 100lbs of ore so he could craft in the evenings after a day of travel. He's making MW weapons as they travel, for both himself, other people, and to sell. He's having a ball. I populate the towns shops with random equipment, and if there's nothign there they want/can afford, they can commission it. The players can negotiate using diplomacy to get a discount (or through roleplaying! They have an in at the moment with the temple of Bast and gain a +2 circumstance bonus when dealing with the temple because they've been dropping off cursed items to be destroyed).
Amazing how much people get their backs up about stuff.
Anyway...
When I play magic item crafters, I definitely pass on the full savings to any of my adventuring companions and, when I'm not the item crafter, I expect the same courtesy.
I'm not adventuring with these people to make money off them or to enrich them by buying their services. I'm putting my life in their hands every time I set out as they are putting their lives in mine. If that doesn't go beyond making money off each other, I don't know what does.
Amazing how much people get their backs up about stuff.
Anyway...
When I play magic item crafters, I definitely pass on the full savings to any of my adventuring companions and, when I'm not the item crafter, I expect the same courtesy.I'm not adventuring with these people to make money off them or to enrich them by buying their services. I'm putting my life in their hands every time I set out as they are putting their lives in mine. If that doesn't go beyond making money off each other, I don't know what does.
Well, one can do it the complete other way round. Which is, in my opinion, not necessarily a better choice.
GM in the last 3.5 campaign I played stated 'I give out what is recommended for your WBL. If you use up consumables, that's your problem. If you as a party can't use those three flaming +3 Greatswords, go ahead and sell them. The fact you'll get 48.000 gp for them won't change the fact I dished out 96.000 worth to you, and will count the group as having received 96k. Don't like it? Take the craft feats and make your own stuff, along with the XP payment.'
And, of course, time between adventures tended to be barely enough to scribe a couple scrolls, so you'd be screwed even if mechanically being able to craft.
Did I mention I don't play withthat GM any more?
words of wisdom
Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity.
And MDT, yeah travelling crafting etc is something I like to factor in too, it helps prevent the crafting from being so...
ANTISOCIAL...
The antithesis of actual Roleplaying.
See the point of this thread is all about whether it is fair to charge the party a 50% mark up on items, notionally based on all the opportunity cost and effort for the Wizard.
What this thread is NOT about is 'what the bad guy could be doing'.
Right. That is why you brought up that the other PC's are doing valuable things themselves and so on. C'mon, you're not fooling anybody.
In any case, I think I'll stop participating in this thread. It gets my dander way too much and we are already accusing each other of having BadWrongFun, which always ends up with both parties looking like idiots.
You play the game the way you and your friends like, I play it the way I and my friends like. Everybody wins.
That's of course complete and utter BS. Yes, crafting has a damn high opportunity price. Because while the party is sitting on its ass, waiting for the crafter(s) to get done with their stuff, the BEG of the campaign is off advancing his plot.Right, and in cases like that, HOW IS THE WIZARD THE ONE PENALISED?
See the point of this thread is all about whether it is fair to charge the party a 50% mark up on items, notionally based on all the opportunity cost and effort for the Wizard.
What this thread is NOT about is 'what the bad guy could be doing'.
Here's a better question Shifty...
What god died and made Magnuskun the lord high pubah of deciding how every game in the world runs, and that other people's games are BS? As I said earlier in the thread, the amount of arrogance and hubris is absolutely amazing. Apparently, if you don't run your game as Magnsukn does, you are wrong and your arguments are BS because you are doing it wrong. Sort of like playing checkers using chess pieces. Blech.
You are aware that I can turn this line of argument right around and tell you the same, right? Anyway, let's stop accusing each other of BadWrongFun.
You play the game the way you and your friends like, I play it the way I and my friends like. Everybody wins.
This I can agree with.
Right. That is why you brought up that the other PC's are doing valuable things themselves and so on. C'mon, you're not fooling anybody.
No that was brought up to counter the suggestion (by apparently the wizards amogst us) that they are the only ones 'forced' into doing work while the others go on hot dates and go live large on the town.
Anyhow, I note your departure, so will leave it at that.
Surely, if my Wizard took Spell Penetration, or better yet, Skill Focus (Perform: Slide Whistle) (he fancies himself an aficionado) you wouldn't award him lees than an equal share of treasure for not doing his "job."
So, why is it, if he takes Craft Wonderous Item, he becomes the party's craft slave, and is expected to busily craft whatever is demanded of him as his role in the party?
The reason I started charging the party to craft for them; was players would get upset if I crafted my own stuff first, (so I could use it while adventuring), calling me selfish, or chose not to craft every day (resulting in their item not being ready in time for the next adventure) because I, like the rest of my group, also enjoy roleplaying my downtime and was tired of be couped up in my tower.
I didn't take Craft feats to make income at the expense of my party, but I also didn't take them to be treated like an NPC whenever we weren't adventuring.
|
Surely, if my Wizard took Spell Penetration, or better yet, Skill Focus (Perform: Slide Whistle) (he fancies himself an aficionado) you wouldn't award him lees than an equal share of treasure for not doing his "job."
So, why is it, if he takes Craft Wonderous Item, he becomes the party's craft slave, and is expected to busily craft whatever is demanded of him as his role in the party?
If the wizard takes Perform: Slide Whistle, then he damned well better spend a large percentage of his "spare time" entertaining my character with slide whistle performances.
Surely, if my Wizard took Spell Penetration, or better yet, Skill Focus (Perform: Slide Whistle) (he fancies himself an aficionado) you wouldn't award him lees than an equal share of treasure for not doing his "job."
How is he being awarded less than an equal share of treasure? He's actually getting MORE treasure than everyone else, which is what you want, not an equal share.
Party of 4 characters are awarded 10,000 gold each. Each wants a 10K gold item. So your wizard charges them 7,500 gold each to make their items. Each character now has 12,500 gold worth of items. The wizard, however, has 17,500 gold now, and then crafts HIS items at 1/2 cost. He can make 3 10,000 gold items, netting himself 32,500 gold in items. So, you have as much equipment as everyone else combined. This means you can outshine everyone, thus stroking your ego, and you also seriously unbalance the game for the GM, who has to throw out bigger enemies to handle your power creep, while all your team mates have to work twice as hard to keep up, since you have 3 times their wealth on a one-to-one basis.
So, why is it, if he takes Craft Wonderous Item, he becomes the party's craft slave, and is expected to busily craft whatever is demanded of him as his role in the party?
If he didn't want to be the go to man to make items why the hell did he bother taking the damn feat then?
The reason I started charging the party to craft for them; was players would get upset if I crafted my own stuff first, (so I could use it while adventuring), calling me selfish, or chose not to craft every day (resulting in their item not being ready in time for the next adventure) because I, like the rest of my group, also enjoy roleplaying my downtime and was tired of be couped up in my tower.
Two things, OOC issues are just those, OOC issues. You are solving an OOC issue with IC responses. Talk to your fellow players. If they don't agree to treat you with respect, tell them to go hang themselves and get another game. Or play something else.
I didn't take Craft feats to make income at the expense of my party, but I also didn't take them to be treated like an NPC whenever we weren't adventuring.
Again, that's an OOC issue, not a game balance or RP issue. Fix it out of game, or kick them to the curb.
Surely, if my Wizard took Spell Penetration, or better yet, Skill Focus (Perform: Slide Whistle) (he fancies himself an aficionado) you wouldn't award him lees than an equal share of treasure for not doing his "job."
How is he being awarded less than an equal share of treasure? He's actually getting MORE treasure than everyone else, which is what you want, not an equal share.
Party of 4 characters are awarded 10,000 gold each. Each wants a 10K gold item. So your wizard charges them 7,500 gold each to make their items. Each character now has 12,500 gold worth of items. The wizard, however, has 17,500 gold now, and then crafts HIS items at 1/2 cost. He can make 3 10,000 gold items, netting himself 32,500 gold in items. So, you have as much equipment as everyone else combined. This means you can outshine everyone, thus stroking your ego, and you also seriously unbalance the game for the GM, who has to throw out bigger enemies to handle your power creep, while all your team mates have to work twice as hard to keep up, since you have 3 times their wealth on a one-to-one basis.
So, why is it, if he takes Craft Wonderous Item, he becomes the party's craft slave, and is expected to busily craft whatever is demanded of him as his role in the party?If he didn't want to be the go to man to make items why the hell did he bother taking the damn feat then?
Two things, OOC issues are just those, OOC issues. You are solving an OOC issue with IC responses. Talk to your fellow players. If...
The reason I started charging the party to craft for them; was players would get upset if I crafted my own stuff first, (so I could use it while adventuring), calling me selfish, or chose not to craft every day (resulting in their item not being ready in time for the next adventure) because I, like the rest of my group, also enjoy roleplaying my downtime and was tired of be couped up in my tower.
The problem with much of this whole thread is that it ignores the point that any class can take the feats to craft magic items.
If you are not a spellcaster, you simply have to spend an extra feat in order to be able to do so.
So from the perspective of a wizard, his best bet is to simply say, "I'm sorry, I've got quite a backlog of things that I need to get done. I'm making a few items for myself, but then I have to deal with family issues before we leave town. I won't be able to do any crafting for anyone else for quite some time. Perhaps you'd better take that feat yourself."
Or even better, the wizard can simply not tell the party that he has item crafting feats. (I mean, really, how do you work feats into an actual character-to-character conversation:
"What feats knowest thee?"
"Eh? Like feats of strength?"
"No, like feats of craftsmanship."
"Ah, well, I be quite skilled at macaroni art."
"No, no. Of the arcane arts in crafting magical items!"
"Are you suggesting sirrah, that I treat with devils and demons??? Do you challenge my honor? Do I asketh of you what pacts you have made in exchange for thine oversized musculature?"
"No. but..."
"This conversation be over, sir, good day!"
"But I just..."
"I said good day sir, do not provoke me further!"
"?"
)
This gets him out of feeling like a "craft slave", while leaving him free to make his own items.
If you think that the wizard is being selfish, well, that's pretty much stereotypical of wizards.
Heck, a fighter or paladin could even just take leadership, and have a crafter cohort. (Or the Allied Cohort feat.)
I personally have run a character who went this route, and when the cohort was introduced to the party, proposed that the cohort receive a half-share of all treasure in exchange for spellcasting (healing) services. When the party agreed, the cohort then revealed that she was also an item crafter, and would be glad to make items at cost when time permitted. (Had they not agreed, she would never have revealed the fact.)
That's of course complete and utter BS. Yes, crafting has a damn high opportunity price. Because while the party is sitting on its ass, waiting for the crafter(s) to get done with their stuff, the BEG of the campaign is off advancing his plot. Adventure paths actually have timelines... outside of Kingmaker ( where I prohibited PC crafting for the self-same reason ), you have to get stuff done on a certain timescale, otherwise Bad Things happen.
So, yeah, time is a premium in most campaigns for crafters, and as such they have limited time to do their thing. If time is not an issue, suddenly we get again into the territory where parties have almost double their WBL, forcing the GM to cut the treasure in half or see the campaign derailed.
A RL example: I am playing a Sorcerer in a current Second Darkness campaign. I took Craft Wondrous Item and have been chugging out some low-level stuff for myself and some, at 75% market price, for my comrades. One of them has complained, the others are totally fine with it. The one guy who was not cool with it can happily buy things at 100% market price, so he actually does not lose anything from what I do.
However, we are pressed for time. We are between modules, so the GM gave us two week in-game to get stuff done and then we move on, travelling somewhere. And I highly suspect that free time will become much scarcer the further we go into the campaign.
So, where did I hurt the group? They got wondrous items for 75% of what they normally would have paid. Did I hurt them, according to you, by not taking another feat? I could as well have taken Skill Focus: Perform, because my character likes playing the guitar. Would you have tried to run me out of the group for that, because it was not the optimal min-max choice?
Exactly, we aren't all communist who give for the state (adventuring party).
I think 70% might be better (5 is hard math than 10 by hand), but getting paid for your timr while still offering a discount seems win/win.
MDT makes a great point about what charging your friends for magic items does, shift the average wealth of the party disproportionally to the Crafter. If you charge them nothing extra, you are using your feat like a fighter uses his feats to stand between you and a marauding ogre, as a teammate.
Downtime is noise. If a crafter is pressed for time, they craft what they want to craft. If a party member can convince them that a +1 sword is better than 2000gp of scrolls, more power to them, but I think its unlikely.
In the end, if you choose to take crafting feats, its because you want to spend time crafting and bolstering the party (and ultimately yourself s well). Whether you charge for it is an RP decision, and at its core is what range altruistic to selfish character you want to play, and I say that with no judgement. Its a range, Quantum Steve's party is the perfect example. They quarrel and squabble in downtime, but when the chips are down they work together. As long as charging for magic items doesn't dissolve the party cohesion, its acceptable. You just need to be able to deal with the consequences if it goes awry.
Am I reading this right that there are PCs who charge their fellow PCs for item creation for more than what it just costs to make?
Huh. I've never actually seen that before.
What I have seen is, say, a non-item creating character--let's call him Hoppy--who wants a +2 Magic Thingy of Awesome. Hoppy asks Grumpy and Morose, the party magic item crafters to make it for him.
If he can cover the material costs, he pays it. If he can't cover the material costs, the party has always chipped in to help, since they WANT Hoppy to have a +2 Magic Thingy of Awesome, because the last time he failed his save versus fear when fighting the devils was really embarrassing for all of them.
Furthermore, Morose knows she's in trouble if someone sneaks up on her to stab her in the back. Hoppy is really good at counter sneaking and stabbing, so because she made him a cool thing to help him stay in combat longer, he's going to return the favor by keeping her back protected. Likewise their buddy Clanky can be an even better meat shield for the casters because Grumpy made his armor better. That level of teamwork and cooperation is worth more than any gold pieces can pay.
I will note that this is how my players worked it out amongst themselves. No GM mediation was involved.
Now, about PCs selling crafted items to NPCs--if they find someone with the money and interest in the item, they will pay a fairly negotiated price. Usually the PCs earn some level of profit for it. Normally this only happens when the PCs are in a city and want to sell off some old stuff they no longer use and don't want to upgrade.
Am I reading this right that there are PCs who charge their fellow PCs for item creation for more than what it just costs to make?
Huh. I've never actually seen that before.
What I have seen is, say, a non-item creating character--let's call him Hoppy--who wants a +2 Magic Thingy of Awesome. Hoppy asks Grumpy and Morose, the party magic item crafters to make it for him.
If he can cover the material costs, he pays it. If he can't cover the material costs, the party has always chipped in to help, since they WANT Hoppy to have a +2 Magic Thingy of Awesome, because the last time he failed his save versus fear when fighting the devils was really embarrassing for all of them.
Furthermore, Morose knows she's in trouble if someone sneaks up on her to stab her in the back. Hoppy is really good at counter sneaking and stabbing, so because she made him a cool thing to help him stay in combat longer, he's going to return the favor by keeping her back protected. Likewise their buddy Clanky can be an even better meat shield for the casters because Grumpy made his armor better. That level of teamwork and cooperation is worth more than any gold pieces can pay.
I will note that this is how my players worked it out amongst themselves. No GM mediation was involved.
Other parties look at things in different ways.
If you've ever played Shadowrun, you can see the far extreme in the other direction.
But in general, it comes down to character motivation.
If a character has a reason to be bound tightly to the party, then that character is more likely to craft items for other party members at little to no cost.
If a character has outside motivations that conflict with party goals, then he might be less likely to be the selfless supplier of magic to the party.
I've played crafters that craft for free. I've also played crafters that charge whatever they can get to compensate themselves for the time and the feat that they are spending.
If you have limited time for crafting available, how do you decide which party member to craft for? Is it a committee based decision? Or do you take bids from the interested members to see who wants their item more? Or do you simply craft only for yourself and let the rest of the party wait?
It's not a black and white issue for many players.
Different groups have different play styles. This is just one that you haven't encountered yet.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If he didn't want to be the go to man to make items why the hell did he bother taking the damn feat then?
Um, because he wanted to make his own items?
"If you didn't want to be the go to man for melee damage, why did you take Weapon specialization!"
"If you didn't want to be the go to man for healing, why did you take Cleric?"
"If you didn't want to be the go to man for traps, why did you play a thief?"
It's a silly question.
As to the 'why charge' bit, here's a simple answer.
"Ok, we have some downtime, would you enchant my daddy's falcata (to drag another argument in for fun) for me?"
"Sure, that will be 1500 GP."
"What the hell? It's only going to cost you 1000 GP!"
"True, but I was planning to research Mortimer's Burning Itch since it's not a commonly known spell, but now I'll have to instead buy a scroll of another spell and put it in my spellbook. Since I'm using my down time to put a shiny enchantment on your daddy's stick, instead of you using that +1 dogslicer we found, I need the money to make up for my time."
"Oh, that makes sense. Ok."
|
Am I reading this right that there are PCs who charge their fellow PCs for item creation for more than what it just costs to make?
No, if you read the OP from the start it is:
Warrior type: - Caster player, you should take the craft weapon and armor feat and make my weapons at production cost.
Caster type: - No way I will ask for compensation, 75% of market price.
Warrior type: - no, production cost.
Caster type: - I will take craft wands.
If he didn't want to be the go to man to make items why the hell did he bother taking the damn feat then?
If you haven't noticed, the "good" warrior was requesting him to take it form character generation.
From Tim Bürgers post :
The player who nearly always plays warriors states, that he wants the items for 50%, because item creation is not meant to be a "money-generating-machine" for spellcasters.
He wasn't simply asking for a 50% discount on market price from the use of a feat the spellcaster already had, it was asking the spellcaster to take the Craft Magic Arms and Armor for his benefit.
The "solution" in our group was a rather disappointing one. Both the warrior- and the caster-guy were too stubborn, so the caster took craft wand instead.
"True, but I was planning to research Mortimer's Burning Itch since it's not a commonly known spell, but now I'll have to instead buy a scroll of another spell and put it in my spellbook. Since I'm using my down time to put a shiny enchantment on your daddy's stick, instead of you using that +1 dogslicer we found, I need the money to make up for my time.""Oh, that makes sense. Ok."
Sorry, I have to call BS on that. There's no mechanics for this, so stating that it takes you the same amount of time as making X is a strawman argument.
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
So it's GM fiat. Either he gives you the time, or he doesn't. It's basically if he wants you to have the spell or not. If he does, you make your rolls and you get it. If he doesn't, guess what, you don't. In either case, you're not balancing resources, you're forcing the other players to either spend more money than the have to (buying from someone else) or to make you the uber equipment god because you get 1/3rd of all their gold for making them stuff, then you make yourself more stuff. This all comes down to strictly the Wizard wanting to be the team power house and have his arse kissed regularly by the lowly peons. The wizard will end up with thousands and thousands of gp worth of equipment more than the rest of the party. Unless of course you're claiming you give away the extra bits to charity? You do that of course, so that you and your fellow adventurer's are on equal footing right?
|
|
Sorry, I have to call BS on that. There's no mechanics for this, so stating that it takes you the same amount of time as making X is a strawman argument.
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
So "The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched." mean nothing?
The kind GM should rule that cost and time to do the research are negligeable?
Generally it go the other direction.
You want a spell that isn't between those commonly know in my campaign? Do the research, pay for it and make your rolls, then you will know if it is even a spell that can work in my universe or not.
If possible the initial version will be one or two level higher than the final version and/or noticeably weaker. Only after further development it will reach its final version.
Sorry, I have to call BS on that. There's no mechanics for this, so stating that it takes you the same amount of time as making X is a strawman argument.
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.So "The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched." mean nothing?
Yeah, it pretty much is. 'It should probably take this long' means nothing. The GM can make it anything they want, and I agree, a lot of time it will be significantly longer. The reason it's BS is that the wizard isn't going to waste his time doing this. He's going to buy a scroll, or he's going to borrow someone elses spell book, and it's not going to take him 5 weeks to get one spell, it's going to take him a hand full of gold to pay another wizard for access to his spell book, and a few days to scribe it down. The only time I've had anyone ever use this clause is when I withheld a teleport spell, so they researched it themselves.
Yeah, it pretty much is. 'It should probably take this long' means nothing. The GM can make it anything they want, and I agree, a lot of time it will be significantly longer. The reason it's BS is that the wizard isn't going to waste his time doing this. He's going to buy a scroll, or he's going to borrow someone elses spell book, and it's not going to take him 5 weeks to get one spell, it's going to take him a hand full of gold to pay another wizard for access to his spell book, and a few days to scribe it down. The only time I've had anyone ever use this clause is when I withheld a teleport spell, so they researched it themselves.
Sorry, I have to call BS on that. There's no mechanics for this, so stating that it takes you the same amount of time as making X is a strawman argument.
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.So "The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched." mean nothing?
A previous campaign that I played in had a rule that any non-core spell was not available unless the character wanting access paid the research costs. No, you could not go out and buy a scroll, since it was non-core, it was assumed to be arcane (as in esoteric), and not available through normal channels.
And yes, my character did spend time and resources researching spells.
Overall, this seemed a good way for the DM to allow non-core material without allowing the cheese to run rampant.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry, I have to call BS on that. There's no mechanics for this, so stating that it takes you the same amount of time as making X is a strawman argument.
Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.So "The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched." mean nothing?
The kind GM should rule that cost and time to do the research are negligeable?
Generally it go the other direction.
You want a spell that isn't between those commonly know in my campaign? Do the research, pay for it and make your rolls, then you will know if it is even a spell that can work in my universe or not.
If possible the initial version will be one or two level higher than the final version and/or noticeably weaker. Only after further development it will reach its final version.
It's ok Diego.
MDT just doesn't like the argument, so he argues against another argument.
Note how in my example I specifically said that the spell in question couldn't be bought "since it's not a commonly known spell, but now I'll have to instead buy a scroll of another spell."
I do find it amusing that in his attempt to counter the point he ignores suggested rules, but demands fairness in following a non-existant rule (wizard shouldn't charge more than cost for a friend)
He then goes on to describe a situation that fits my scenario exactly "The only time I've had anyone ever use this clause is when I withheld a teleport spell, so they researched it themselves."
Which was wrong of him of course. Why would he choose to withhold the teleport spell when he chose the hell to be the DM to begin with?
A previous campaign that I played in had a rule that any non-core spell was not available unless the character wanting access paid the research costs. No, you could not go out and buy a scroll, since it was non-core, it was assumed to be arcane (as in esoteric), and not available through normal channels.And yes, my character did spend time and resources researching spells.
Overall, this seemed a good way for the DM to allow non-core material without allowing the cheese to run...
Yep, so basically anything normal you could get easily and swiftly per the normal copy/pasta rules. Anything from a 3PP was research. I not only find that fair but balanced. It really just reinforces my statement though that basically spell gathering is GM fiat, since you're either going to get the spells you want cheaply and easily (scrolls or book sharing) or you're not going to be able to get it without the GM making you jump through hoops. So either way, the argument that creating items prevents you from getting spells is a strawman.
Thanks for that Fozzy. I'm being serious here, having someone back me up on it being GM fiat is nice.
It's ok Diego.
MDT just doesn't like the argument, so he argues against another argument.
Pot and Kettle?
He then goes on to describe a situation that fits my scenario exactly "The only time I've had anyone ever use this clause is when I withheld a teleport spell, so they researched it themselves."Which was wrong of him of course. Why would he choose to withhold the teleport spell when he chose the hell to be the DM to begin with?
LOL
Now we're back to saying i'm having WrongBadFun because the world I built has limits on teleportation magic? I'm so glad you came along to tell me that I can't have a homebrew that deviates from your specifications of what a world should have. :) Thank god for you doing that, I would have never known that if I have a world that you don't approve of then I am doing it wrongbadfun ways. Please forgive me o god of 'How the game shall be played'.
BS.
A game world that has restrictions on how teleport works (which mine does) results in teleport not being just rare, it's damn rare and the secrets to making teleport nodes was lost centuries ago during a great war, because all the people that knew how got killed. But then, you don't really give a damn about anyone else's gameworld do you?
A previous campaign that I played in had a rule that any non-core spell was not available unless the character wanting access paid the research costs. No, you could not go out and buy a scroll, since it was non-core, it was assumed to be arcane (as in esoteric), and not available through normal channels.And yes, my character did spend time and resources researching spells.
Overall, this seemed a good way for the DM to allow non-core material without allowing the cheese to run...
Yep, so basically anything normal you could get easily and swiftly per the normal copy/pasta rules. Anything from a 3PP was research. I not only find that fair but balanced. It really just reinforces my statement though that basically spell gathering is GM fiat, since you're either going to get the spells you want cheaply and easily (scrolls or book sharing) or you're not going to be able to get it without the GM making you jump through hoops. So either way, the argument that creating items prevents you from getting spells is a strawman.
Thanks for that Fozzy. I'm being serious here, having someone back me up on it being GM fiat is nice.
I think you read me wrong on both points.
1) By non-core, I didn't mean 3pp. I meant "anything not in Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
2) Everything. Everything. Everything is GM Fiat. A GM can rule that a fighter's swing that hit with a natural 20 didn't. A GM can rule that magic works or stops working depending on day of the week. A GM can make NPC's do or say anything he wants and be anything from rice-paper-fragile to neutronium-indestructable. (Such as when our Pathfinder Society group decided that Grandmaster Torch was just a punk that needed to be taught a lesson...) By saying "x is GM fiat" you are simply copping out on making a real argument. The rule exists in the book for researching spells. Just as the rules exist in the book for crafting items. Any GM can change, modify, or ignores these rules. They are all GM fiat.
If you are going to talk about what the rules say though, the assumption that I have always gone by is that the rules are what the rules say they are. Crafting costs X. Research costs Y. You can't say one is hard and fast while the other isn't. They are both clearly stated.
If you are going to talk about what the rules say though, the assumption that I have always gone by is that the rules are what the rules say they are. Crafting costs X. Research costs Y. You can't say one is hard and fast while the other isn't. They are both clearly stated.
Please reread my post then Fozzy, I did not say 'It doesn't cost Y to research'. What I said was, the only time a wizard has to resort to research is if the GM pulls a GM Fiat since there are other rules, cheaper rules, faster rules, easier rules, than the research rules, in place to handle learning spells. So the only reason a wizard should EVER be using the research rules is BY GM Fiat. In other words, the GM saying 'All other rules don't apply and you must, must, must spend 1 year in research and spend 50,000gold to get that spell, and you must make a DC 30 spellcraft research check each week'.
So you see, you read my post as exactly the opposite of what I said ti was. I said that GM Fiat is the only thing that stops a wizard from getting any spell he wants cheaply easily and quickly. Don't feel bad though, you're obviously not the only one that read that and went exactly the opposite of what I posted. I even gave an example of a GM fiat that negated the normal rules, and someone else crowed I was arguing for them.
If you are going to talk about what the rules say though, the assumption that I have always gone by is that the rules are what the rules say they are. Crafting costs X. Research costs Y. You can't say one is hard and fast while the other isn't. They are both clearly stated.Please reread my post then Fozzy, I did not say 'It doesn't cost Y to research'. What I said was, the only time a wizard has to resort to research is if the GM pulls a GM Fiat since there are other rules, cheaper rules, faster rules, easier rules, than the research rules, in place to handle learning spells. So the only reason a wizard should EVER be using the research rules is BY GM Fiat. In other words, the GM saying 'All other rules don't apply and you must, must, must spend 1 year in research and spend 50,000gold to get that spell, and you must make a DC 30 spellcraft research check each week'.
So you see, you read my post as exactly the opposite of what I said ti was. I said that GM Fiat is the only thing that stops a wizard from getting any spell he wants cheaply easily and quickly. Don't feel bad though, you're obviously not the only one that read that and went exactly the opposite of what I posted. I even gave an example of a GM fiat that negated the normal rules, and someone else crowed I was arguing for them.
It took me less than 10 seconds to think up non-gm-fiat reasons for researching spells.
1) Player to GM - "I want a spell that acts like a lightning bolt, but does acid damage instead. This would be more thematic for my character because of his alchemical background. I'd like it to be a set spell, instead of metamagic because this is a signature move, and it doesn't make sense to me that it would take a metamagic feat to convert." "Hmm. Okay, but your character will need to spend time researching the spell. If he does, he'll end up knowing the spell, it will be his alone, and you won't need metamagic."
2) Player to GM - "I need a spell to allow me to maintain a symbiotic link with my cohort. Thematically, we're long-lost siblings, and we're seeking to strengthen our bond, and make sure we never lose each other again." "Okay, that will take some research. Assume it will be a third level spell. By the time you have had the in-game time to conduct the research, I'll have the spell outlined according to the spell design guidelines for you to be able to use."
It took me less than 10 seconds to think up non-gm-fiat reasons for researching spells.
Except that if you look up thread, the discussion was about getting spells that are already known in the world, not brand new custom spells that never existed before.
Your examples, again, come down to GM Fiat. Since the GM has to either create the spell, or ok it for his game. Any custom spell is, by default, GM Fiat. There is no rule saying you can get X custom spell by paying Y amount and the GM just sucks it up and agrees. So I'm afraid your examples are not a valid argument against what I posted.
Now, having said that, in my own games, I allow GM Fiat that spells with elemental effects can be found in all versions. The ones in the book are just the most common versions. This is predicated on Elemental Sorcerers being automatic research solutions fellows. No need to research an shocking hands (instead of burning hands) spell, there's an air sorcerer that casts it standard and he creates scrolls of it and wizards use those scrolls to get the formula so you can find it in a book somewhere normally.
I think the wizard asking for a price upgrade is kind of greedy. The fighter should pay what it cost the wizard to make it which is 50% base cost. It costs the wizard nothing and it further enhances the party's ability to function.
Now, this might be different if the wizard was coerced into taking craft magic arms and armor when he had no intention of doing so. That's giving up a feat that mostly helps just the fighter and only helps the wizard by how much the fighter contributes.
This is all really based on how well the team is gelling together. I've seen parties where the spellcaster has taken an item creation feat just to help other members of the party and never asked for anything. Some players are more selfish than others.
Ultimately, the wizard can charge whatever he wants. It's his feat and anything less than 100% is a discount though I feel that 75% is a bit much.
Ultimately, the wizard can charge whatever he wants. It's his feat and anything less than 100% is a discount though I feel that 75% is a bit much.
Okay, I wanted to stay out of this thread, but I just want to point out this theoretical situation:
Friend 1: So, hey, I am thinking about buying a new computer. The things I want seem to go for 400 Euros.
Friend 2: Well, I have the capacity to get your stuff, it costs me 50% of what you'd have to pay normally, but I have to invest a lot of my own time into getting the parts. So, I'll sell them to you at 75% of what you'd pay on the free market.
Now, what should be the appropiate response from Friend 1 to this? Should it be:
a.) Friend 1: Great, I can save 25% of what I'd have to pay normally and can use that money for other useful things! Thanks a ton, Friend 2!
OR
b.) Friend 1: You fiend! How dare you ask to get compensated for your time and effort, don't you know that since you are my friend and we spend a lot of time together, you are obligated to invest all of your own time to my benefit? Pshaw!
You decide.
We are co-owner of a small business.
See MDT above.
You seem to think you are the only one doing any work at the business.
Perhaps the Rogue should charge you 25% margin on all sales he fences, after all, he had to work on building the network of fences you are benefitting from - that was HIS downtime.
Maybe the Cleric should be charging you extras for all other non-battlefield healing?
I think the presumption is that the wizard is the only one working, whereas all he is doing is his job; like anyone else.
Isn't this EXACTLY what I said in an earlier post? Service for service. IF the rogue has a 'fencing' network he maintains which sells party loot for more money than usual, THEN it's fair that the Wizard makes his items at cost. Both benefit.
What I'm saying here is if the 'spellcaster' is expected to be spending his downtime making the party stronger, then EVERYONE should be under the exact same expectations. The Fighter can take Craft: Armorer to make the party's armor. The Rogue can take Diplomacy and Appraise and Bluff and Sense Motive to find work/sell loot. The Bard can kiss the local nobility's butt so they let us get away with dubious practices or 'suspicious' accidents.
This is above and beyond the notion of 'keeping my skills sharp' for the party's benefit; that's BS because every character has to do this (mechanically, they don't, mind you). The question the magic item crafter should be asking of the party is "While I'm making stuff for the party, what are YOU doing for the party's benefit?"
All too often other players won't have a good answer for that. If they want the crafter to be non-selfish with his time, they can be non-selfish with their gold. I think the difference between they way we're looking at this is that you're assuming that everybody being a team player is the status quo, where I'm assuming it isn't. I'd LIKE it to be the status quo, though.
It is so funny man that MDT is making these crazy WBL arguments. Because if I was playing a fighter and someone picked up crafting feats I would offer them a mark up of his cost without even thinking about balance. To me making a friend my slave is worse than some theoretical WBL balance that even creators of the game doesn't even follow, JJ dishes out 2x WBL.
It's just my philosophy whether in gaming or in life that if someone does something for me with his labor he gets compensated. Of course as a friend I do expect a discount but I never expect anyone to do work for me for free. WBL could take a big shaft up its behind for all I care.
He also ignores that the person who pays 75% of the market price is at 125% WBL, too. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humourously, by RAW, I don't believe it is allowed for a player to sell an item they craft for over 50% of value, except via GM fiat.
The rules clearly state:
Selling Treasure
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.
Just throwing that out there. I haven't found any other places that mention how to sell player-crafted items.
Also, crafting totally horks up WBL in a way that the GM has to deal with in the end... leaving it in the hands of the players will likely not end well unless they share a common goal.
As a GM, if I find WBL is getting out of whack, I tend to fix it via item breakage/theft if one party is way ahead of the curve, or tailored treasure if the rest of the group is way behind. If a 8th level party had all gotten nothing but GP wealth, and ended up buying all items at a 25% discount from the wizard, you'd be looking at this:
Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue each have 33,000 gp to spend.
Wizard crafts himself 66,000 gp worth of items.
Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue each pay the wizard 33,000 gp. Instead of getting 66,000 gp worth of items each, they instead get 49,500 gp of items each. The Wizard takes the 24,750 profit and crafts ANOTHER 49,500 gp worth of goods for himself.
In the first adventure post-crafting, the Wizard is sitting at 115,500gp of gear and spells. Well over DOUBLE any individual part member. He's got the WBL of a 12th level character, while the rest of the party is just over level 9.
Given that wizards are already powerhouses, unless the party is incredibly laid back about things and don't mind one character being even more grossly overpowered, this is going to cause fits for the GM. The GM is already, in a balanced WBL campaign, trying to make sure martials aren't overshadowed by full casters. Throw this huge WBL disparity on top of the mix, and you have to hope the Wizard is incredibly inept and unoptimized while the rest are hardcore CharOp guys...
So roleplaying Wizards of Abadar aside, accusations of mercenary or greedy or selfish behavior... this is an actual game issue that the GM will need to deal with.
EDIT: Also, yes, the other characters can invest multiple feats and skills to attempt to create their own items. However, these choices tend to be decidedly mechanically poor, and much more limited, than Wizard crafting. Also, taking a cohort to craft for you is arguably a poor decision as well. However, this might work as an option if the party realized it was the only way to maintain some form of parity. That said, once you're playing Crafters and Cashiers, one wonders why you're an adventuring party at all?