|
After finally having a long term non PFS game with GMing Serpent's Skull the Change from 3.5 to Pathfinder with the most Dramatic change to the feeling of my games is by far the change from Exp cost to Gold cost in Magical item creation.
Before Pathfinder RPG Item Creation was rare in my games and finding Magic Items during the story was always a joyous occasion, because the cost was always too steep for Item Creation and the players relied more on the Items I gave them or they found in the story.
Now with Item Creation cost not being so steep with just a gold cost and much of the Pre-Req easily waived, Finding magical items have become a Joke, just thrown in the pile to sell so they can make others.
This has had a dramatic effect on my games with Magical items becoming easy to get and the items found being almost meaningless. I miss the old days before this, seeing the players smile when they found an Item they could use, even if it was not perfect.
It is too late to fix this for the current game, but for the next I want to bring that back. Looking for advice on how I can accomplish this without being a No-man or returning to Exp cost.
Any Ideas?
The item creation rules arent the actual problem they are just a symptom of it. The real problem is the level of wealth the game assumes players will have. Magic items are easy to make because they have to be under the current rules unless you simply want to line street corners with magic marts where players can buy and sell items. The reality is the players NEED a way to turn the items they find and the wealth they gain into items they can use, because otherwise they are in serious trouble.
Personally in my next game I am removing the entire wealth system, and giving the players back mechanical benefits of magic items through other means (heroic distinctions and super genius games archetypes which are like half classes). A flaming sword will finally be an important item, that a player keeps for the rest of his adventuring career and not something to be traded away in a few levels.
Giving xp for creating items wasn't really a problem for a player knowing the rules and a DM who was following the xp handing rules in 3.5, because in 3.5 you were getting more xp than your teamates if you were lower level, now surely it needed a smart player to know on what levels he should be left behind due to crafting and then he could actually get ahead of his companions in xp because of one big big battle and he had more xp.
I haven't actually done that but i have heard other people doing it in their games.
Also no crafting doesn't really affect you (in most campaings, serpent skull is an exception) if the DM follows the rules on magic item availability.
Creating items, let alone enchanting them, requires a resource that often, at least in my experience, adventurers have very little of: time (a minimum of 8 hours, and 8 hours per 1,000 GP value of the item).
If you have a problem with characters sitting down to create items, is there a way you can tweak your adventures that adventurers have less down time to make these items? While downtime should never be eliminated, adventurers are ADVENTURERS after all, not craftspersons. If they have 48 full hours to spare (not including time needed to eat or sleep) to make an 8,000 GP item, is the bad guy getting away with the kidnapped wizard's daughter in tow? Is the evil damsel hideously torturing the helpless dragon?
Also remember that item creation rules are suggestions, and it is strongly stated that the GM has final say in how something works. When I ran 3.5, I actually never used the XP cost requirements because I hated the idea of XP as a cost for getting something. Instead I required a quest--if time in the campaign allowed--for a specific item. Which can still work just as well now. So rather than, say, "You need 8,000 gp worth of material to make that cloak," it's, "You need the finest spider-silk spun by the cursed lady Arachnia over in the Lost Maiden Hills."
In the last game I ran (which changed from 3.x to Pathfinder halfway through), I felt I didn't have time to assign such quests as there was a political situation that required a lot of immediate attention--but that same situation gave the PCs enough of a sense of urgency that they weren't doing a lot of item creation anyway (actually, to the point I had to say at times, "Guys, you have more time than you think, please make Axel his Will save boosting item already so he stops fleeing from every creature in the universe's fear aura.").
You should be able to adapt your campaign without needing to adapt the rules. I hope you come up with some creative ideas to make item creation more of an in-story challenge.
Kolokotroni also has some good points about the suggested WBL being problematic to deal with. One thing is to try and give people stuff they can use, but state the party will be below WBL as part of the nature of the campaign.
Personally in my next game I am removing the entire wealth system, and giving the players back mechanical benefits of magic items through other means (heroic distinctions and super genius games archetypes which are like half classes). A flaming sword will finally be an important item, that a player keeps for the rest of his adventuring career and not something to be traded away in a few levels.
It's not that hard to alter. I've used such a system.
"INVISIBLE WBL" (tm)Keep the money low, and with each WBL increase give the PCs "Invisible g.p." to place into item slots. You can rename the item slots if you'd like into, i.e.
Armor Mastery: +3 Enhancement (9000 g.p.)
Weapon Mastery: +2 Enhancement (primary weapon) (4000 g.p)
+1 Enhancement (secondary weapon) (2000 g.p.)
+1 Enhancement (missile, thrown) (2000 g.p.)
Heroic Nature: +2 Enhancement Str. (4000 g.p.) (belt slot)
+4 Enhancement Wis. (16000 g.p.) (headband slot)
Etc., adding up the total to get the WBL recommended, and keeping the same #/type of body slots for game balance.
(Yes, MW $ isn't added, they'd be on the 'real' side of wealth. Though you could let them buy mw items too.)
Invisible expendables can be played as "Tapping some inner reserve of vigor/magic/spiritual power" etc.
This makes for more mythic characters, especially when some of the more colorful effects arise at later levels, but they are making legends, aren't they? (And it's not out of line given some class abilities have similarly spectacular effects with their weapons.)
It also lets you freely use powered up NPCs without worrying about dropping too much loot or desensitizing the players/PCs to magic by finding a hoard of +1 weapons/+2 belts/etc that the horde needed just to be effective. (It breaks my heart when heroic PCs on a mission to save the kingdom have to round up a large batch of +1 armor because the wealth IS valuable. It feels like scavenging.)
You can play this in percentages if you'd like: Some invisible, some real. Or have some types (expendables) be real while others (permanents) be 'invisible' expect for the rare "OMG, it's magical" ones.
If you let the 'real' magic stack with the invisible magic, the +1 magic sword will be very valuable, and be usable from the minotaur up to the kraken.
If you change g.p. to s.p. (in real wealth), then special materials become great treasure (as Elven Chain used to be), and mw items are 'neato' (esp. if stackable), and plate mail really is only afforded by the rich. (This decreases the viability of heavy armor wearers, but this could be one instance where Invisible WBL could be used to buy a real item. (A gift from a nobleman, etc.))
This also lets you be freer with Sunder & Rust Monsters, as the setbacks are temporary (say until next rest/practice with balance of new sword).
As for Crafting Items, the Crafter could get a 1/2 price discount for the appropriate item type, but not necessarily for other PCs. (Still worth the feat though.) If he can only spend "Invisible WBL", he won't sell any magic he's found because he can't turn it back into magic. You may even let "Invisible WBL" work side-by-side with traditional magic, the Invisible WBL making up the difference.
If you maintain that new magic items can only be crafted from I-WBL, then again, they won't sell any magic, unless they just want the gold. You also decrease the magicmart effect because NPC casters can't craft endlessly either.
There are some fine points to tune re: using on others/AoOs (which would double the length of the post), but that's the gist.
Hope it inspires,
JMK
Kolokotroni also has some good points about the suggested WBL being problematic to deal with. One thing is to try and give people stuff they can use, but state the party will be below WBL as part of the nature of the campaign.
My hope is also, that by removing wealth as a form of power, I can change certain mentalities within the game. IE stealing everything that isnt nailed down, looting corpses for rings and pocket change etc. These behaviors are decidedly unheroic, but have always been common practice in dnd because money/wealth equals power. If I can eliminate that, I think I would be a much happier dm, and maybe one day, player.
Check the FAQs, I believe some items can't have certain parts ignored for higher DC or just rule it. Personally I think making an magic item without the correct spell or similar spell is BS and I wouldn't allow it. On thought not I would allow alternate source of needed spell like a wand or such.
Whatever you do be upfront with your players. Don't limit downtime after people invest in crafting feats. Don't make them run all over for some exotic spidersilk.
You could give them rewards in the form of treasure that is enchanting materials.
Example in a room where they would normally find +2 punching dagger (that no one in the party would ever use) give them 8,000 g.p worth of spider silk, rare herbs, unubtanium dust, dragons tears, ect...
That way they can use the feats they got but you limit how much of their wealth is in enchanting materials.
But again be upfront with the players, nothing is worse then wasting feats you never get to use or use so rarely that they are meaningless.
|
|
Don't limit downtime after people invest in crafting feats. Don't make them run all over for some exotic spidersilk.
yeah, I am not planning on doing any of that stuff, right now I am just looking at Removing the rule that allows you to Waive Pre-Reqs, that should slow the items down and the CL will be something that means something
Don't limit downtime after people invest in crafting feats. Don't make them run all over for some exotic spidersilk.yeah, I am not planning on doing any of that stuff, right now I am just looking at Removing the rule that allows you to Waive Pre-Reqs, that should slow the items down and the CL will be something that means something
I should note in my defense that I make this clear to my players before it happens in game.
Dragnmoon, I still don't understand that if you are using the crafting RAW, how your players have the time to keep crafting tons of items even if you are taking care to give them some downtime. How much downtime do they get? Do you run modules/APs or your own adventures? What are the nature of these adventures? (Dungeon crawl, wilderness exploration, urban intrigue, etc.)
Please understand I am not criticizing you. I really just am having trouble imagining this happening. Different players, different paradigms. I want to understand yours better so I can understand the problem here.
|
|
I should note in my defense that I make this clear to my players before it happens in game.Dragnmoon, I still don't understand that if you are using the crafting RAW, how your players have the time to keep crafting tons of items even if you are taking care to give them some downtime. How much downtime do they get? Do you run modules/APs or your own adventures? What are the nature of these adventures? (Dungeon crawl, wilderness exploration, urban intrigue, etc.)
Please understand I am not criticizing you. I really just am having trouble imagining this happening. Different players, different paradigms. I want to understand yours better so I can understand the problem here.
Finding time is not an Issue, They can find weeks at a time for down time, though that may change shortly, to less down time on hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My quick and dirty solution was this:
1) Every 1,000 GP of a magic item made was one week of enchanting time. It had to be one week of uninterrupted enchanting time, in a laboratory.
2) Each week required a separate Spellcraft check. At the end of the week. When futzing with the Stuff of Creation, there is no "Take 10." You are an enchanter, not some dough-faced peasant spinning pots, or some musclebound oaf hammering out swords. Aid Another still works, though!
3) Any spellcraft check that rolled a natural 3 or lower meant the week was lost, as was 500 GP worth of materials. If you failed the spellcraft check but didn't roll a 3 or less, you merely wasted the week.
4) Any spellcraft check of a natural 1 has double the cost of materials lost, and the missing week, and gives the caster (and any assistants!) a negative level. However, the item itself will be quirky or unusual, possibly in an interesting way. (I use this rule for putting flaming or similar effects on weapons.)
This means that a +3 sword is nearly a third of a year's production. With the odds of a few blown weeks here and there, plus needing Restoration...
It also means that expensive items are likelier to be...story-tastic.
This has had a dramatic effect on my games with Magical items becoming easy to get and the items found being almost meaningless. I miss the old days before this, seeing the players smile when they found an Item they could use, even if it was not perfect.
I remember the smiles, but I also remember the shrugs where nobody really wanted a particular item and it got tossed into someone's pack and forgotten.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but you should definitely make sure that your players are on board with it. It's hard to tell from your original post, but it sounds like they're relatively happy constructing the items they like.
|
My quick and dirty solution was this:
1) Every 1,000 GP of a magic item made was one week of enchanting time. It had to be one week of uninterrupted enchanting time, in a laboratory.
2) Each week required a separate Spellcraft check. At the end of the week. When futzing with the Stuff of Creation, there is no "Take 10." You are an enchanter, not some dough-faced peasant spinning pots, or some musclebound oaf hammering out swords. Aid Another still works, though!
3) Any spellcraft check that rolled a natural 3 or lower meant the week was lost, as was 500 GP worth of materials. If you failed the spellcraft check but didn't roll a 3 or less, you merely wasted the week.
4) Any spellcraft check of a natural 1 has double the cost of materials lost, and the missing week, and gives the caster (and any assistants!) a negative level. However, the item itself will be quirky or unusual, possibly in an interesting way. (I use this rule for putting flaming or similar effects on weapons.)
This means that a +3 sword is nearly a third of a year's production. With the odds of a few blown weeks here and there, plus needing Restoration...
It also means that expensive items are likelier to be...story-tastic.
Not a fan of the whole enchilada that you have presented here, but definitely in a direction I like. I probably won't lift this whole stock for my game, but I'm definitely thinking I might use it as a jumping off point.
After finally having a long term non PFS game with GMing Serpent's Skull the Change from 3.5 to Pathfinder with the most Dramatic change to the feeling of my games is by far the change from Exp cost to Gold cost in Magical item creation.
You mean "From XP, gold, time and feat(s) cost to only gold, time and feat(s)", because that's the whole story.
Before Pathfinder RPG Item Creation was rare in my games and finding Magic Items during the story was always a joyous occasion, because the cost was always too steep for Item Creation and the players relied more on the Items I gave them or they found in the story.
So you need people who are dependant on you and grateful for any morsel you throw at them? Go give money to homeless people! ;P
Seriously, before Pathfinder RPG Item Creation was a stupider concept than... I can't even think of something that stupid. Maybe fighting ants in your house by burning it down. It was that stupid.
When you think about it for one second, it makes no sense that anyone creates items, not just that the players don't. And it makes even less than no sense (yes, that's possible) to make items just to sell them. Not only are you giving up a part of your very self to make the item just so you can sell it to a stranger, the fact is that you cannot really get those XP back. Except by adventuring.
And when you adventure, in the time it takes you to get the XP necessary to make a couple thousand gil, you'll probably find a couple dozen thousand gil in treasure.
So why make a living of creating items at all? It sounds like something you do as a slow but safe way to earn money. Like being a carpenter, just with magic items. No carpenter would do carpentering for money if they had to kill treants for the wood.
And then there is the simple fact that experience is not a currency. It should not be a currency.
For all these reasons I'm quite happy that dodos are now playing with XP costs.
and the items found being almost meaningless. I miss the old days before this, seeing the players smile when they found an Item they could use, even if it was not perfect.
Then go back to that. Get rid of item creation feats. Completely. Get rid of item shops. Make all items artefacts. After all, the rules can't be perfect for everyone right out of the book (a circumstance proven by the fact that PFRPG doesn't have rules that make all dwarves die horrible deaths for the amusement of all).
It is too late to fix this for the current game, but for the next I want to bring that back. Looking for advice on how I can accomplish this without being a No-man or returning to Exp cost.Any Ideas?
You're screwed. If you take away something, you're a "no-man". So be a no-man. Or accept that they can get the items they want instead of hoping for scraps.
Or use "craft points" (CP). Everything costs gold and craft points. At each level, you get a certain amount of craft points. You can transfer them to someone so he can create an item for you (because you're a fighter and want the wizard to make you're a belt of strength).
For CP costs, use the old XP cost (1 CP for 25 gp worth of item). Give the players enough CP so they can craft, say, half of their supposed wealth for their level in items. Or more. Or less.
If you don't hate potions and scrolls so much, you might waive the CP cost for all perishables.
And to account for long-time item creators, let's just say that the points come back after a certain, long, time. Something in the months or better yet years department. That means the players can't just wait around the limit (unless your campaign's time table is in the Kingmaker area, or even slower.)
That's about the only way I can see that limits the item creation output without bringing back XP costs or being a no man. It's a bit of work (though not that much) and some extra book keeping (though not that much). Threaten to take away their toys altogether first, they will be a lot more receptive for CPs then!
In 3.5, the game assumed, right or wrong, that each XP had a value of 5 gold. This was the case for many different spells and effects, and you see it even in the Pathfinder conversions of XP costs. So they believed they were charging you essentially an extra 20% of the item's total cost in XP back in 3.5.
The main problem with the current Pathfinder system, and the reason that PF crafting is one of the worst decisions I think they made in conversion from 3.5 (perhaps the only truly bad decision, I love what Jason and the others did almost everywhere else) is that it puts item crafting at a very annoying spot for a GM who likes to see players creatively use the items they find in treasure hoards rather than just craft the optimal thing every time: it puts item crafting at the same exchange rate as the buy/sell exchange rate (both are 50%), thus allowing a party in a game like Kingmaker with plenty of spare time to transform all magic items they find into the optimal set of items that cost the same amount as the ones they found, with absolutely no cost in anything but in-game time. To a lesser extent, it also doubles the value of all liquid assets like gold, making pure gold a better treasure than a magic item of equal market value.
So what do we do? The fact that Pathfinder's system had a roll to create, with a possibility for cursed items, was actually awesome. The problem is that it never realistically happens because the check DC is pathetic enough to be quickly makeable on a 1, and devs have specifically indicated that you can even take 10 on the check, making it even more irrelevant. The solution of raising the DC, however, is unfair to nonwizards, since any DC that they would have a chance to make at all would be autosuccess for the wizard.
My solution, which still makes crafting extremely beneficial, but takes it out of the anti-sweet spot where you can trade magic items you find for optimized items of equal value:
You may not take 10 on the check to create an item. A roll of 5 or lower [b]automatically fails[/i], regardless of your skill. A roll of a natural 1 automatically makes a cursed item instead.
Simple, quick, and it checks out mathematically well with the 3.5 system. I've posted it a few times on the forums before, and it seems generally well-regarded by others who share this problem. Hope it helps, Dragnmoon!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In one of his Dungeon a Day blogs Monte Cook was talking about the fact that players tend to sell 'interesting' found items and replace them with items that help their stats. His solution was interesting and I think applies to the general idea of selling stacks of items:
Take the cool stuff that the PCs find on adventures (but not the stuff made by PC or NPC spellcasters) and make it independent of slots. A ring of water walking that doesn't count against the two rings limit is a keeper. A slot-less pin of storing that makes any glove it is attached to a glove of storing so that one can have their gauntlets of ogre power as well is pretty nifty. Technically, there should be a price difference, but as long as you only use this special trick on items that don't really increase the combat power of a character, you can probably just handwave it away.
I take this even one step further, and just make found items a little cooler than crafted/ bought items but don't change their price if someone sells them. This way found items are just a little more valuable than their crafted equivalents.
Another possible solution is akin to what we do in PFS. The good treasures are the ones you cannot buy or craft otherwise. Players won't want to craft a wand of spider climb, but if they find one with 8 charges the versatility it offers easily offsets the fairly minor amount of gold they will get from selling it.
In one of his Dungeon a Day blogs Monte Cook was talking about the fact that players tend to sell 'interesting' found items and replace them with items that help their stats. His solution was interesting and I think applies to the general idea of selling stacks of items:
Take the cool stuff that the PCs find on adventures (but not the stuff made by PC or NPC spellcasters) and make it independent of slots. A ring of water walking that doesn't count against the two rings limit is a keeper. A slot-less pin of storing that makes any glove it is attached to a glove of storing so that one can have their gauntlets of ogre power as well is pretty nifty. Technically, there should be a price difference, but as long as you only use this special trick on items that don't really increase the combat power of a character, you can probably just handwave it away.I take this even one step further, and just make found items a little cooler than crafted/ bought items but don't change their price if someone sells them. This way found items are just a little more valuable than their crafted equivalents.
Another possible solution is akin to what we do in PFS. The good treasures are the ones you cannot buy or craft otherwise. Players won't want to craft a wand of spider climb, but if they find one with 8 charges the versatility it offers easily offsets the fairly minor amount of gold they will get from selling it.
This is also an excellent idea, and I try to make non-standard items as well when I have the time. It takes more prep work to come up with cool add-ons for each item in a big haul, so it's probably easier for a GM to apply a crafting failure chance, though the advantage of your retool of Monte's idea is that players can't possibly claim you're taking something away / being a 'no' man.
In order to craft magic items you need time, and money. Limiting one or the other will handle the issue, unless you run a PC-centric game where time effectively freezes for them. I normally have some missions with a timer(for lack of a better word), and some missions where the players have a lot of time, or I put in additional downtime between sessions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought about this some more, and there are really two tangentially-related issues being discussed here:
#1 -- Crafting is too good in PFRPG.
First of all, Rogue Eidolon is right when he says that losing the XP cost without adding a corresponding GP cost makes things cheaper. My personal house rule (pre-dating PFRPG) has been to say that crafting costs are 70% of the final market price in GP, not 50%. That way, you don't quite break even if you sell all of your magic items and craft new ones.
Second, there's the issue of ignoring spell requirements. I have mixed feelings about that. I kind of like the idea that only a cleric can craft a mace of Disruption, but on the other hand I think it's dumb if only a druid can craft an amulet of natural armor (wizards have several spells that can increase natural armor as well). I'd be happy leaving it up to GM's discretion, frankly.
#2 -- My players keep selling expensive, cool, useless items and using the money to buy cheap, bland, useful items.
The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium did a good job of analyzing this problem. Blocking item slots is one issue, but a fairly minor one (at least in PFRPG where the only "reserved" slots are the headband, belt and cloak slots). No one is going to trade in their +3 sword for a Ring of Water Walking, whether it takes up a slot or not (sorry, Monte). The best solution is to have the cool items (a) be relatively cheap and (b) do something useful in addition to doing something that's only useful in limited situations. Otherwise, your Helm of Underwater Action will either be sold in an eye-blink or it will gather dust at the bottom of your pack.
...
#2 -- My players keep selling expensive, cool, useless items and using the money to buy cheap, bland, useful items.
The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium did a good job of analyzing this problem. Blocking item slots is one issue, but a fairly minor one (at least in PFRPG where the only "reserved" slots are the headband, belt and cloak slots). No one is going to trade in their +3 sword for a Ring of Water Walking, whether it takes up a slot or not (sorry, Monte). The best solution is to have the cool items (a) be relatively cheap and (b) do something useful in addition to doing something that's only useful in limited situations. Otherwise, your Helm of Underwater Action will either be sold in an eye-blink or it will gather dust at the bottom of your pack.
An excellent analysis. For the quoted part, I'll point out that though my post may seem like one in favor of wanting players to keep the "expensive, cool, useless" items, I'm actually perfectly fine with those being sold if they aren't actually useful. Rather, I more have a problem with the ability to sell expensive but actually-useful items (even "Big 6") that are not strictly optimized in order to get something more optimized at no loss (possibly even more optimized in the same exact category as the item).
For instance, a party finds a mighty Ring of Protection +4 in a dragon's hoard, covered in draconic runes and topped with a blinking draconic eye. They say "cool, I always wanted more AC", so they sell it for 16000, add in 500 gp of their own gold, and then craft an upgrade to their Amulet of Natural Armor from +1 to +2 (3000 gp), an upgrade to their Ring of Protection from +1 to +2 (3000 gp), a Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone (2500 gp), an upgrade for their armor from +1 to +3 (8000 gp).
To be fair, I've never once stopped my PCs from doing that, and I had one player until recently who certainly did. However, it's just a little sad is all. Also, your 70% fix and my chance of failure fix both negate that problem. I like chance of failure because most people are risk averse and will fear the failure chance beyond rationality, even though it's almost the same loss amount as your fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I've never once stopped my PCs from doing that, and I had one player until recently who certainly did. However, it's just a little sad is all. that problem. I like chance of failure because most people are risk averse and will fear the failure chance beyond rationality, even though it's almost the same loss amount as your fix.
I think the mandatory 25% chance of failure is an anti-fun idea. If I'm the GM, what am I supposed to say when a PC fails? "Ha ha! You just lost 20,000 gold pieces. Shame on you for taking that feat in the first place, munchkin!"
|
Grognard warning-
Magic Item creation by PCs has been a horrible idea since its inception. A recent fix our group is trying out is crafting costs 100% of list price.
Buying it costs 150%
Selling it generates 10-25% of its value max.
City population x2 = maximum gold valued item available without a quest/adventure/mission
And my favorite fix... don't give junk magic the players do not need.
And my favorite fix... don't give junk magic the players do not need.
See thats the issue. The items aren't junk, they just arent the big six. I remember my friend having a blast with a cloak of the bat for several levels, but after several failed saves that cost him dearly, he gave it up for a cloak of resistance. Personally I cannot wait until after this weekend, my last session of my current campaign is saturday. After that I throw the whole wealth system out the window and start anew.
Don't limit downtime after people invest in crafting feats. Don't make them run all over for some exotic spidersilk.yeah, I am not planning on doing any of that stuff, right now I am just looking at Removing the rule that allows you to Waive Pre-Reqs, that should slow the items down and the CL will be something that means somethingI should note in my defense that I make this clear to my players before it happens in game.
Dragnmoon, I still don't understand that if you are using the crafting RAW, how your players have the time to keep crafting tons of items even if you are taking care to give them some downtime. How much downtime do they get? Do you run modules/APs or your own adventures? What are the nature of these adventures? (Dungeon crawl, wilderness exploration, urban intrigue, etc.)
Please understand I am not criticizing you. I really just am having trouble imagining this happening. Different players, different paradigms. I want to understand yours better so I can understand the problem here.
The 8 hours per 1,000 gold pieces is a bit of a myth. You can cut that down to 4 hours per 1,000 gold pieces by increasing the craft DC by 5. Since the craft DC is stupid easy to get anyway, another +5 is nothing. So now you're at 4 hours per 1k gold. The crafter can spend 4 hours even when adventuring to earn 2 hours worth of work. Thus there is never a period when a crafter isn't crafting. If an item costs 10k gold, it will require 40 hours of work (4 x 10). It can be in 5 days in a lab (4 hours per 1,000, you can work for 8 hours a day), or it can be made in 20 days of non-stop adventuring.
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit. If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night. If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).
See thats the issue. The items aren't junk, they just arent the big six. I remember my friend having a blast with a cloak of the bat for several levels, but after several failed saves that cost him dearly, he gave it up for a cloak of resistance. Personally I cannot wait until after this weekend, my last session of my current campaign is saturday. After that I throw the whole wealth system out the window and start anew.
And my favorite fix... don't give junk magic the players do not need.
Speaking of which, you have to resend your character-creation guide-lines again. I cannot for the life of me find it.
And you need to give out some junk items every once in a while. If every item a PC gets is what they want/need in the party, they get spoiled. Spoiled PCs are no fun to run games for, and their power level can get way out of proportion. Not every item need be useful. Fun can be as big a factor.
#1 -- Crafting is too good in PFRPG.
First of all, Rogue Eidolon is right when he says that losing the XP cost without adding a corresponding GP cost makes things cheaper. My personal house rule (pre-dating PFRPG) has been to say that crafting costs are 70% of the final market price in GP, not 50%. That way, you don't quite break even if you sell all of your magic items and craft new ones.Second, there's the issue of ignoring spell requirements. I have mixed feelings about that. I kind of like the idea that only a cleric can craft a mace of Disruption, but on the other hand I think it's dumb if only a druid can craft an amulet of natural armor (wizards have several spells that can increase natural armor as well). I'd be happy leaving it up to GM's discretion, frankly.
I can see the point about crafting items that you don't have prerequisites for being too easy. But it has been my experience that the XP cost for crafting items was pretty much never a factor. Time and money were always the primary limiting factors. I think PF correctly recognizes that those are the main barriers to crafting.
If anyone saw significant changes (like the OP) in their players' behavior because of the lack of XP costs, I think that's because of a quirk in their group overvaluing XPs relative to other groups. My experiences with groups, including Living Greyhawk, suggest that's a minority view.
#2 -- My players keep selling expensive, cool, useless items and using the money to buy cheap, bland, useful items.
The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium did a good job of analyzing this problem. Blocking item slots is one issue, but a fairly minor one (at least in PFRPG where the only "reserved" slots are the headband, belt and cloak slots). No one is going to trade in their +3 sword for a Ring of Water Walking, whether it takes up a slot or not (sorry, Monte).
This has been going on since 3.0 made the item creation feats so easy to use. Relatively expensive, quirky, and situational items get sold in favor of the Big 6 - stuff that's useful nearly all the time. This really hasn't changed much in PF save in the consolidation of some stat boost items.
I have seen no significant change in crafting in Pathfinder compared to 3.5 save that the dwarven monk is now crafting magic jewelry, rather than relying on a spellcaster, because he has Master Craftsman for his Craft (jewelry) skill.
See thats the issue. The items aren't junk, they just arent the big six. I remember my friend having a blast with a cloak of the bat for several levels, but after several failed saves that cost him dearly, he gave it up for a cloak of resistance. Personally I cannot wait until after this weekend, my last session of my current campaign is saturday. After that I throw the whole wealth system out the window and start anew.
And my favorite fix... don't give junk magic the players do not need.Speaking of which, you have to resend your character-creation guide-lines again. I cannot for the life of me find it.
And you need to give out some junk items every once in a while. If every item a PC gets is what they want/need in the party, they get spoiled. Spoiled PCs are no fun to run games for, and their power level can get way out of proportion. Not every item need be useful. Fun can be as big a factor.
Yea i'll resend it when we are ready to start the campaign [/Threadjack]
But the whole point of getting away from the wealth system is that I no longer have to worry about the party getting things they NEED in terms of power. Instead I can give out a smaller number of more interesting items like the aformentioned cloak of the arachnid, or a deck of illusions.
This has been going on since 3.0 made the item creation feats so easy to use. Relatively expensive,...
I think a lot of the problem here is that DMs see the stuff they give out as interesting items that they would want, but that's not necessarily what the players want or their characters. Why shouldn't the players sell stuff that's expensive and not as useful for something that is more useful.
I don't see the problem with crafting feats, other than it takes control from the DM and gives it to the players. You as a DM will always know what the party has, so if you give them a sweet helm of water breathing and they sell it after one or no uses, then you can toss in a section of quest where they need to breathe water, they might start keeping those random items around.
Also this is a note for DMs to keep your players slots along the same progression, so they don't sell the +4 ring of prot and use it to bump 5 points in AC among other items.
Players want stuff that is useful, not just interesting, interesting is the main thing for DMs, but the main thing for players is usefulness.
To be fair, I've never once stopped my PCs from doing that, and I had one player until recently who certainly did. However, it's just a little sad is all. that problem. I like chance of failure because most people are risk averse and will fear the failure chance beyond rationality, even though it's almost the same loss amount as your fix.I think the mandatory 25% chance of failure is an anti-fun idea. If I'm the GM, what am I supposed to say when a PC fails? "Ha ha! You just lost 20,000 gold pieces. Shame on you for taking that feat in the first place, munchkin!"
Say what I say--"Tough luck that time, but unless you fail twice in a row, you're still getting it at market cost (the 1 in 16 double fail has only happened once on a non-trivial purchase since we converted from 3.5) and you've already saved X (however much) so far--it was bound to happen eventually." By the time you lose 20,000 in materials crafting a 40,000 GP item, which is above the purchase limit even of a metropolis, you can afford to lose 20,000 (unless you're blitzing the item at low levels by teaming up money from several characters, in which case, them's the risks of doing so). By the time you've lost a total of 20,000 gold to failures, you're expected to have gained about 40,000, so it's hardly being penalized.
As for it being an "anti-fun idea", I find I usually agree with you on the boards, but I'll have to diverge in opinion there. The chances of actually losing money on the crafting (by failing twice in a row) is barely higher than the chance of instant death whenever a big brute bad guy waves around a scythe (assuming a x4 crit can kill you, which is usually true in our games). And if getting the item you want at market price wasn't fun, people would just never buy items from stores, I guess.
This has been going on since 3.0 made the item creation feats so easy to use. Relatively expensive,...I think a lot of the problem here is that DMs see the stuff they give out as interesting items that they would want, but that's not necessarily what the players want or their characters. Why shouldn't the players sell stuff that's expensive and not as useful for something that is more useful.
I don't see the problem with crafting feats, other than it takes control from the DM and gives it to the players. You as a DM will always know what the party has, so if you give them a sweet helm of water breathing and they sell it after one or no uses, then you can toss in a section of quest where they need to breathe water, they might start keeping those random items around.
Also this is a note for DMs to keep your players slots along the same progression, so they don't sell the +4 ring of prot and use it to bump 5 points in AC among other items.
Players want stuff that is useful, not just interesting, interesting is the main thing for DMs, but the main thing for players is usefulness.
I'd say it depends on the player. I'm hardly a stranger to optimizing (having written the optimization guides for Rogues and Fighters), and I optimize things a good deal, including buying pretty optimal items with my gold most of the time, but I like to roleplay too (I'm of the worldview that roleplaying and optimization should live in harmony and inform each other to make both better--it's in-character to want to survive and do well against one's enemies), and I love keeping items we find for flavor if I can convince both the party's main optimizer and my own inner optimizer that there is *any* reason to keep those items. Obviously an overpriced Helm of Underwater Breathing or something like that is just going to be sold, no matter how cool it is.
But with a crafting system like mine or Hogarth's that knocks the crafting from the 'anti-sweet spot' of giving the same value as the sell price of items, you can find good excuses to use a whole boatload of sorts of items. With the standard crafting system, there's simply no way to debate our party optimizer because when he says something like (sample text follows): "Look, I get that you want to keep that flavorful item, but you'll admit that the items I'm recommending are more optimal for the current moment, right? So we can sell the flavorful item now and craft the ones I want, and then craft a duplicate of the flavorful item later when we have more cash. It's equivalent in cost to keeping the flavorful item and crafting my items later when we have more cash, but this way we have the optimized items now." And he's correct. From an RP perspective, in a social contract like an adventuring party, a good-aligned character would be acting irresponsible to risk the party's life over some sort of attachment or fondness toward a particular item, and that's the only reason one could really give against that argument.
0gre/Monte's third solution beats that argument by making the items you find intrinsically different than anything you could ever craft, so there's still a loss to selling it, as you can't just 'buy a new one'.
A fourth solution would be to actually reduce the amount of money you get from selling items to less than 50% (anything to hit the two out of parity), but I don't recommend that way as it causes issues for non-magic crafting, which is already not the greatest.
As for it being an "anti-fun idea", I find I usually agree with you on the boards, but I'll have to diverge in opinion there.
It just seems to me like it's the equivalent of having monsters that are under-CRed 3/4 of the time and monsters that are over-CRed 1/4 of the time. The average CR is fine, but 1/4 of the time you end up in a no-win situation. I'd much rather have everything be "just right" most of the time, instead of playing Russian Roulette. I can appreciate that others might feel differently, though.
It just seems to me like it's the equivalent of having monsters that are under-CRed 3/4 of the time and monsters that are over-CRed 1/4 of the time. The average CR is fine, but 1/4 of the time you end up in a no-win situation. I'd much rather have everything be "just right" most of the time, instead of playing Russian Roulette. I can appreciate that others might feel differently, though.
As for it being an "anti-fun idea", I find I usually agree with you on the boards, but I'll have to diverge in opinion there.
To continue your metaphor, you can make some pretty neat encounters or dungeons designed around mainly groups of enemies that the PCs can plow through expending a few spells and resources followed by a big difficult (perhaps overly so, even) boss encounter (ah Skinsaw Murders!). But I think the main place where we disagree is at "1/4 of the time you end up in a no-win situation." I don't think crafting an item at market price (by failing once) is the metaphorical parallel of a no-win situation in combat. The double-fail can be painful, I'll admit, but it's worth it to our group simply for the beautiful way that it makes cursed items fit in organically with the rest of the system. In the old days, there was a lot of RP flavor of casters failing, being too reckless, and making cursed items but no mechanics for it. Now you get to be one of the casters who does that, on rare occasions. Our group finds the result hilarious on most occasions (ah cursed Swan Boat Feather Token that sank us into a haunted swamp--good times!). Heck, one of our players loves Helms of Opposite Alignment more than any other item in the game and tried to get our crafters to make Hats of Disguise over and over again to 'fish' for Helms of Opposite Alignment.
One simple way for any GM reading this thread to have more of the stability of Hogarth's system with the chance of cursed items of my system is to use the 70% cost and then have a roll, but only a 1 is an auto-failure (which is always cursed), and the GM makes the roll. So that way, you get an item each time, but sometimes it might not be what you expect!
This has had a dramatic effect on my games with Magical items becoming easy to get and the items found being almost meaningless.
Good. That's the idea.
I miss the old days before this, seeing the players smile when they found an Item they could use, even if it was not perfect.
Look, this is the same thing as Christmas gifts from people who don't really understand or "know" the people they're giving for. Even when you get them something that they like, there's a good chance it's not something they actually want. That sweater you got them with really funny Calvin & Hobbes artwork on the front... sure, they like it, sure they'll wear it, but you're forgetting that they're into Peanuts and if the artwork involved Snoopy your gift would go from "cool" to "that's awesome!"
This isn't about not appreciating good enough. This is about our job as DMs involving recognizing that good enough isn't. We don't want our players' enjoyment and happiness to be good enough, or at least we shouldn't.
Your fighter's player sees his PC as wielding a greatsword. You make random treasure or even crafted treasure lovingly by diving into a dozen sourcebooks to make an intelligent greataxe that has a bunch of really cool abilities and turns out to have an embedded protective angel that comes shooting out to breath of life the wielder any time he drops below 0 hp. That's wonderful... you're a good DM. But your player's enjoyment is tainted by the fact that his character is now pressured into using a weapon he doesn't envision as "right".
Dude, giving the gift of money for holidays isn't thoughtless. It's thoughtful. (Unless we're talking about a spouse or someone you really, really should be able to pick up greatsword desires from.)
Follow the wealth-by-level so if they get ahead because of the halved pricing for crafted items, just cut back on found stuff.
I know there's a joy in giving something you've made. Great. But there's a maturity in recognizing that giving what you want to give versus giving what the recipient wants to be given is kind of selfish. << Yes, oversimplification but it gets the point over.
But I think the main place where we disagree is at "1/4 of the time you end up in a no-win situation." I don't think crafting an item at market price (by failing once) is the metaphorical parallel of a no-win situation in combat.
You don't see the equivalent with being forced to run away from an encounter and then trivially succeeding on the next encounter? Then I guess there's no point in discussing the example.
|
|
Look, this is the same thing as Christmas gifts from people who don't really understand or "know" the people they're giving for. Even when you get them something that they like, there's a good chance it's not something they actually want. That sweater you got them with really funny Calvin & Hobbes artwork on the front... sure, they like it, sure they'll wear it, but you're forgetting that they're into Peanuts and if the artwork involved Snoopy your gift would go from "cool" to "that's awesome!"Your fighter's player sees his PC as wielding a greatsword. You make random treasure or even crafted treasure lovingly by diving into a dozen sourcebooks to make an intelligent greataxe that has a bunch of really cool abilities and turns out to have an embedded protective angel that comes shooting out to breath of life the wielder any time he drops below 0 hp. That's wonderful... you're a good DM. But your player's enjoyment is tainted by the fact that his character is now pressured into using a weapon he doesn't envision as "right".
Player 1: Sweet! A Greatsword with an embedded angel! What did you get?
Player 2: I got a rock...
(sorry, the Peanuts reference got stuck in my head...)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
#2 -- My players keep selling expensive, cool, useless items and using the money to buy cheap, bland, useful items.
The 3.5 Magic Item Compendium did a good job of analyzing this problem. Blocking item slots is one issue, but a fairly minor one (at least in PFRPG where the only "reserved" slots are the headband, belt and cloak slots). No one is going to trade in their +3 sword for a Ring of Water Walking, whether it takes up a slot or not (sorry, Monte). The best solution is to have the cool items (a) be relatively cheap and (b) do something useful in addition to doing something that's only useful in limited situations. Otherwise, your Helm of Underwater Action will either be sold in an eye-blink or it will gather dust at the bottom of your pack.
You have to keep in mind that found stuff is *already* cheaper by 50% than bought stuff. You can't sell a ring of water walking and buy a sword worth the same amount because you only get 1/2 value. You are weighing the ring of water walking against... a +1 cloak of resistance for example which makes it a *bit* tougher. To be honest, the ring is likely a terrible example because it's so damned situational.
I would suggest the cloak of the mountebank or the belt of dwarvenkind myself as a better examples. The cloak is pretty cool but it competes with a 'must have' item and it's expensive. If you found one that was slotless I think a lot of groups would keep it.
No one is going to trade in their +3 sword for a Ring of Water Walking, whether it takes up a slot or not (sorry, Monte).You have to keep in mind that found stuff is *already* cheaper by 50% than bought stuff. You can't sell a ring of water walking and buy a sword worth the same amount because you only get 1/2 value.
By "trade" I include such cases as "take one as your pick of the party treasure over the other" or "buy one with your hard-earned cash over the other" where you do indeed compare one price to the other directly.
You are weighing the ring of water walking against... a +1 cloak of resistance for example which makes it a *bit* tougher.
If you're selling a 15K Ring of Water Walking for 1K, you're getting ripped off. :-)
To be honest, the ring is likely a terrible example because it's so damned situational.
I would suggest the cloak of the mountebank or the belt of dwarvenkind myself as a better examples. The cloak is pretty cool but it competes with a 'must have' item and it's expensive. If you found one that was slotless I think a lot of groups would keep it.
It's a terrible example to you (and to me), but I bet that Monte Cook thinks that a slotless Ring of Water Walking is exactly the sort of cool thing players should get excited over.
I've never met a party yet that would set a Cloak of the Mountebank, personally.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The ring of water walking is 15k? For some reason I thought it was 2,500 and didn't bother looking. Yeah... worse example than I thought.
To me there are three big incentives to keeping found treasure and Monte is suggesting a forth.
I would probably keep the slotless Cloak of the Montebank and might even keep a slotted one. But I value mobility a lot and in our group we are more likely to keep items like that.
You have to keep in mind that found stuff is *already* cheaper by 50% than bought stuff. You can't sell a ring of water walking and buy a sword worth the same amount because you only get 1/2 value. You are weighing the ring of water walking against... a +1 cloak of resistance for example which makes it a *bit* tougher. To be honest, the ring is likely a terrible example because it's so damned situational.
I would suggest the cloak of the mountebank or the belt of dwarvenkind myself as a better examples. The cloak is pretty cool but it competes with a 'must have' item and it's expensive. If you found one that was slotless I think a lot of groups would keep it.
Not if you have the craft feats. You sell it fo 50% and make what you want at 50% of the cost. So you lose nothing (aside time).
Overall, I have the same problems and prefered the 3.5 magic item creation feats (using XP). It did halt the mass selling and then crafting of stuff. At least in my group.
I would probably keep the slotless Cloak of the Montebank and might even keep a slotted one. But I value mobility a lot and in our group we are more likely to keep items like that.
The Cloak of the Mountebank is a good item; as noted above, I haven't yet seen a party that would sell one if they got it as treasure. (Okay, I actually said "set" instead of "sell" by accident...)
Why is it a good item? Because it does something awesome once a day (which is cheap), rather than doing something mediocre many times per day (which is expensive). There are many items in the Magic Item Compendium that follow the same idea (limited uses of an awesome ability vs. unlimited uses of a mediocre ability).
By the way, I'd much rather have an item with the combined abilities of a Cloak of the Mountebank and a Cloak of Resistance over a Cloak of Resistance + a slotless Cloak of the Mountebank -- one multitalented item is way more memorable than a dozen single ability items, IMO.
I would probably keep the slotless Cloak of the Montebank and might even keep a slotted one. But I value mobility a lot and in our group we are more likely to keep items like that.The Cloak of the Mountebank is a good item; as noted above, I haven't yet seen a party that would sell one if they got it as treasure. (Okay, I actually said "set" instead of "sell" by accident...)
Why is it a good item? Because it does something awesome once a day (which is cheap), rather than doing something mediocre many times per day (which is expensive). There are many items in the Magic Item Compendium that follow the same idea (limited uses of an awesome ability vs. unlimited uses of a mediocre ability).
By the way, I'd much rather have an item with the combined abilities of a Cloak of the Mountebank and a Cloak of Resistance over a Cloak of Resistance + a slotless Cloak of the Mountebank -- one multitalented item is way more memorable than a dozen single ability items, IMO.
That is one of the good things about 4th edition! I like how all cloaks give a bonus to saves and do other stuff. At least it was like that in the PHBI. No idea if it is still true.
That is one of the good things about 4th edition! I like how all cloaks give a bonus to saves and do other stuff. At least it was like that in the PHBI. No idea if it is still true.
I find most 4E items to be pretty dull, but that's one of the good things they kept from the lessons learned in the Magic Item Compendium.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would probably keep the slotless Cloak of the Montebank and might even keep a slotted one. But I value mobility a lot and in our group we are more likely to keep items like that.The Cloak of the Mountebank is a good item; as noted above, I haven't yet seen a party that would sell one if they got it as treasure. (Okay, I actually said "set" instead of "sell" by accident...)
Ah, I misunderstood you.
Why is it a good item? Because it does something awesome once a day (which is cheap), rather than doing something mediocre many times per day (which is expensive). There are many items in the Magic Item Compendium that follow the same idea (limited uses of an awesome ability vs. unlimited uses of a mediocre ability).
Totally agree.
By the way, I'd much rather have an item with the combined abilities of a Cloak of the Mountebank and a Cloak of Resistance over a Cloak of Resistance + a slotless Cloak of the Mountebank -- one multitalented item is way more memorable than a dozen single ability items, IMO.
I like this idea as well and I agree that combined items are more appealing. The only problem with combined items is they are arguably less useful. If I have a cloak of resistance +3 and stumble across a Cape of the Montebank/ Resistance +1 it's a bit less appealing. Also, upgrading the item becomes an issue (though it's easy enough to handwave it and say upgrading it is just like upgrading any other cloak of resistance and the Cape part is added.).
Also, upgrading the item becomes an issue (though it's easy enough to handwave it and say upgrading it is just like upgrading any other cloak of resistance and the Cape part is added.).
That's how the Magic Item Compendium works it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, upgrading the item becomes an issue (though it's easy enough to handwave it and say upgrading it is just like upgrading any other cloak of resistance and the Cape part is added.).That's how the Magic Item Compendium works it.
Yeah, I kind of liked some bits in MiC, and not so much others. It's one of the few 3.5 books I keep around.