| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd imagine it would depend on whether or not your character would feel it was justified.
I'd imagine it would depend on whether or not your character would feel it was justified.
+1
85 percent is a bit high and the cohort is taking most of teh profits from magic item creation. MAybe try in character to lower the price because the more treasure you have now the eaiser it will be for the other characters to get future treasure. So the more you charge actually decreases future treasure and puts all of us at risk.
Now the other player is charging us about 85% of the market cost to get her cohort to make anything.
How has the other player justified profiteering from his fellow players? She is making a profit every time you buy something from him - she is getting ahead of the other players in Character Wealth. You should boycott buying from her.
In character, your cohort should be asking why he is adventuring with your party.
|
Remember one session (3.5) where we had a cleric who charged the group for healing. He also expected to be paid in advance and used the tables for NPC spellcasting service. At first we thought he was joking and kinda BSed about it for abit. Ended up in a couple encounters and the Cleric just hung around in the back. Chided him for it but didn't think anything of it. Then our fighter (barbarian maybe, can't remember) ended up getting low in HP and asked for some healing. Found out then the cleric was serious and actually pulled out of the combat since he hadn't been paid for his services. We managed to survive that encounter but ended up argueing that maybe we should charge him for what we did, like kill stuff. He argued that his cleric spells were far more valuable than anything we could do and it ended up getting a tad out of hand (in game and out I guess).
It ended when the rogue (who had not been in the arguement) suddenly shived the cleric. Found out he had been passing notes to the DM about it. For some reason it was so humourous we all laughed about it, including the cleric. For some reason that was the only session we played, but was a good end to that one.
So I guess the moral of the story is Shiv the Cohort.
My main question is thought, why should she be allowed to get any money at all, and when I go to get money for my cervices it is all of a sudden a big problem. Am I wrong for feeling this way?
I think it's rather cheap on your part to charge for your cohort's skills. You might as well charge for your own skills while we're at it.
I think it's rather cheap on your fellow player's part to charge extra for magic item's creation. He/she might as well take a higher percentage of the group's loot while we're at it.
'findel
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
TRY SUNDER ALL ITEMS SQUISHY CASTY AM MAKING.
THEN BOTTLE CASTY TEARS AND SELL ON EBAY.
ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM AM SMASH.
Does crafting cost XP in your game?
Does crafting cost XP in your game?Why would it?
Currently I am in this 3.5, pathfinder, home-brew, mix game.
It's possible that the DM kept the XP costs of 3.5.
@Brididine:
I think I would have had reacted to your cohort charging for its skills, but most likely in-character...
But I don't think worst of it than charging extra to craft items for other players. I would have reacted to that as well.
But all of this leaves on with a bitter feeling about the Leadership feat. Of all the feats, this one does not encourage fairness among players...
'findel
This is a bit of a slippery slope. If you try and charge the party for your cohorts percepting services, then does the Fighter get to charge the party every time he swings his sword? Does the Cleric charge for every Cure spell they cast? Does the wizard charge when he casts spells? After all, the Wizard is actually using spell components(unless they have the Eschew Materials feat).
Try looking at it another way. The money going to this item crafting cohort, is money the party was going to spend anyway. This way, at least, the wealth stays within the group, instead of vanishing to imaginary npc shop keepers. Not only that, but the group is getting a discount, so that the group is saving money. You are gaining benefits just the same as everyone else.
The player of the item-crafting cohort already invested a LARGE portion of character building resources into this. If this cohort is really the super-master-crafter you make them out to be, that's a massive expenditure of potential resources that could've gone to making something else. If they spent all their feats on item creation, then they'll never be the best spellcaster/melee/anything other than just being a magical walking vending machine.
Your cohort will be adventuring and be more directly involved in the action, while theirs sits around making items all day. The player has already made a sizable sacrifice and the entire party is benefiting from it. Your cohort spent some skill points. If it bothers you that much, make a new cohort that crafts magic items as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LARGE portion of character building resources
Took one feat, designed an NPC from the ground up, took the feats on that character.
Not very large.
My suggestion is to have your cohort die. Then, make a new cohort. Copy his build exactly... except you sell magic items at 80% of their cost.
Your friend will get to 75, then you go 70. Keep undercutting him.
Might as well go full passive aggressive about it, since the group thinks it's fine they're supporting his cohort's magic gear addictions.
LARGE portion of character building resourcesTook one feat, designed an NPC from the ground up, took the feats on that character.
Not very large.
I beg to differ. Not so much of an investment from the actual PC, but think of all the different kinds of potential npc's that the cohort could've been, just to sit at home and craft all day. Heck, even just a committed healer type of cohort would be a glorious thing for a group to have, even if they already have a cleric(cleric could focus on other spells and tasks besides healing).
One idea to bring up - since this cohort of the other player's has a method of making money from the other PCs, suggest that they get no share of the treasure recovered via adventuring. Since yours does not, suggested that yours gets a half share of recovered treasure.
If that doesn't fly, perhaps emphasize that any money the cohort receives for magic item creation services is the COHORT's and not their PC master's. The DM may be persuaded by that.
Personally, I would side-eye anyone trying to charge PCs for magic items, unless we have explicitly agreed upon playing a competitive game (perhaps the PCs are evil, for one example).
And if I were GM, I would not let any player abuse the Leadership/cohort situation for them to make money off the other PCs (ergo, impoverish the other PCs for their own gain).
Every game I've played in, players generally--without even having to discuss it--consider most resources the party has to be, well, party resources. This is a cooperative game, and people getting good magical gear is necessary for everyone's survival (if Casty doesn't make Barbarian magic shield, and Barbarian dies due to low AC versus a very nasty creature, Casty no longer has large wall of meat to hide behind, and very nasty creature will doubtless devour it next).
Now, yes, magic items cost money. Most of the players I play with will also contribute funds and resources toward magic item creation. But no one's ever asked for more than the cost it would take to create.
In short: ASSUMING this is supposed to be a standard cooperative game, what the other player is doing is unfair.
However, answering that by copying the unfair player's actions is also unfair. And that may have created more antagonism in the group rather than resolved the issue.
Talk to the players and the GM about the unfairness of charging for magic items. Emphasize the importance of everyone working together for their mutual survival.
And if everyone disagrees... well, if I were the OP? If they really thought that was okay, I'd personally find another group. That's just me, but I don't have a lot of tolerance for competitive behavior in a cooperative game. If the OP's not willing to leave the game, I wouldn't buy into the "magic item scheme" but I'd just try to do my best to get by with what I've got until the campaign ends. And further, if I'm a caster, I'd invest in item creation feats and if I'm not a caster, I'd invest in the Mastercrafter feat and Item Creation feats and make my own stuff for myself for cheap.
LARGE portion of character building resourcesTook one feat, designed an NPC from the ground up, took the feats on that character.
Not very large.
My suggestion is to have your cohort die. Then, make a new cohort. Copy his build exactly... except you sell magic items at 80% of their cost.
Your friend will get to 75, then you go 70. Keep undercutting him.
Might as well go full passive aggressive about it, since the group thinks it's fine they're supporting his cohort's magic gear addictions.
This sounds like Bertrand competition but this will end up with two wasted cohorts but cheaper gear making the entire party worse off. Wasting your cohort as well. Geasing the cohort will not work the best either to return with a magic item after giving the funds to create it. Also magic items have dimishing marginal utility for higher bonuses like stat boosters so one person having all the gold will result in a weaker party.
|
In our home games, PCs and Cohorts always, with some exceptions, charge 60% of the final price, pocketing 10%. Charging 85%, pocketing 35%, is excessive - especially for a cohort. - The crafter always keeps the money for himself - so a cohort uses the money to buy or craft better gear. It Never goes to the player's character.
The reason for charging is because the crafter is using their non-adventuring time to make something when they could probably be making something for themselves. This is especially true when asked to make a big item - the crafter knows she cannot scribe any scrolls or make any potions that may be needed during this time.
The only time we don't charge is if the item is needed for the entire group, or very much needed to help the party out, tactics-wise. For instance, if the whole party decides they should use potions of invisibility, a scroll of silence, and/or elixirs of hiding for mass-stealthing into a place, the crafter will not charge extra. Anything which the group puts money into together does not have an extra charge - just personal items.
The only time I have seen a healer charge was when I played a dwarven cleric of Abadar in the city of Kaer Maga- and I charged very little - and channels were free. The rogue also charged, again, silver pieces, for his contacts and guiding through the city. I kept a log of the balance. When the party coalesced, I had a contract made up that basically said that while we were worked toward a common goal, healing and other services would be of no charge. It made sense in character the entire time and only added to the fun of roleplay without shanking other party members.
Often all spellcasters will take at least one crafting feat, so that we can all craft at the same time.
Charging this 10% has NEVER caused in party or out of party conflict. Sometimes a new player will raise an eyebrow, but it always works out.
Our 3.5 game avoided this as we had a Law student draw up a corporate charter (He got class credit for this!) and we ran over 40 sessions under that charter. Several players had Leadership, or a weaker version of it, and this represented employees of their departments. E.G.: my Cleric had a temple with a Cohort from a different sect of the same god, the rest of my people were the staff, vicars, parish priests, etc. This was voted on by the corporate board, over my personal objection, as were most other big character choices. Besides an in-house temple, we had our own magic school, a squad of Paladins and a Sherlock Holmes style Baker Street Irregulars. The GM insisted on us keeping the Fluff solid.
Is the Pc keeping the profit...or is the cohort keeping it? In my game crafting cohorts charge the party (including the PC who cohort it is) full cost. Cohort does not mean b!#%#.
As for you charging for your cohort perception... I would happily let that cohort die a miserable death...unless he/she pays me for my whatever skills.
Though this situration seem to be causing strife in your group that if I was the GM I would probably just disallow the Leadership feat.
Though this situration seem to be causing strife in your group that if I was the GM I would probably just disallow the Leadership feat.
+1. There're all kinds of reasons to disallow this feat.
Does crafting cost XP in your game?No, there is no EXP cost.
Then I see only two reasons for a player controlled crafter to make a profit from his fellow PCs: it's an evil campaign (or possibly it's called Merchants & Moneys), or the DM allows minimal downtime to craft stuff.
If neither of those things are happening, talk to your group again about this. IME, players tend to have an unspoken attitude of communal ownership, and that's a good thing. If I were in your place, I'd be annoyed at another player's 'cohort' wanting to make a profit from me. In fact I'd call it a dick move, comparable to a PC rogue stealing party loot.
As Ice Titan suggested, if one cohort is charging extra for his skills, every PC and cohort should too. The rogue should be charging every time he checks a door for traps, the fighter should be charging for every hit he takes, and casters should be charging for every spell they cast. (There's even a formula for spell cost in the 3e PHB.) It's only fair, and in-character.
I think it would be ok for the crafting cohort to charge, say 60% and keeping the 10, but 85 is too much IMO. That goes for PCs with item craft feats as well.
The fighter isn't charging for Weapon Specialization (which helps keep the other party members alive by killing the enemy faster), and neither should he.
The reason I do think 10% would be ok is that while Weapon Specialization actually have a use during adventuring, crafting is a boring (very useful, but still boring) feat, and the crafter could have taken a more "egotistical" feat instead.
As long as the 'extra' 10% doesn't end-up in the pockets of the cohort's player, I'd be ok if this was a decision from the DM rather than the player.
Leadership shouldn't become the go-to save-50%-off-market-value-on-custom-magic-items-without-having-to-make-them -yourself feat. As far as a feat goes, saving 25% off market prices would already be quite generous IMO...
'findel
Let me just pose a hypothetical (but similar) situation).
A group of players makes a group of PCs, who, whenever they want magic items, they pay 100% of the market price.
One player then says, "Hey, guys. I can give everyone here a 15% discount on every single magic item. All I ask is that, of the money you give me (which is already 15% less than you'd pay if I did nothing) some of that amount goes to my character."
Why is that so bad? He's already giving you a discount. Yes, he could give you a bigger discount, but it's already a discount! It's different than charging for the fighter swinging his sword because the party wouldn't be paying a larger amount to a different fighter if they didn't have one- they'd just make do with what they had. But with magic items, EVERYONE is okay with paying 100% of the market price- but apparently they're not okay with paying 85% because that means they're not paying 50%.
Just think about that for a little while.
...
So I guess the moral of the story is Shiv the Cohort.
I concur.
Let me just pose a hypothetical (but similar) situation).
A group of players makes a group of PCs, who, whenever they want magic items, they pay 100% of the market price.
One player then says, "Hey, guys. I can give everyone here a 15% discount on every single magic item. All I ask is that, of the money you give me (which is already 15% less than you'd pay if I did nothing) some of that amount goes to my character."
Why is that so bad?
How about this:
One of the players at the table says he can get good sub sandwiches at discount and is willing to pick them up on the way to the game since it's right on the way. He'll give the everybody 15% off the price of the subs.Now suppose everybody knew he was actually picking them up for half price. How do you think they'd feel? Would they be so willing to accept the 15% discount or expect the 50% that the player is getting? Would you be inclined to take him up on his offer? How about game with him in the long term, buying subs through him every week?
Let me just pose a hypothetical (but similar) situation).
A group of players makes a group of PCs, who, whenever they want magic items, they pay 100% of the market price.)
...Why is that so bad? He's already giving you a discount...
Just think about that for a little while.
Because virtually everything that the adventurers do has a market price, (including spellcasting) and every character makes the group save on those fees by performing the task themselves.
Should the ranger charge for the "guide" fees as indicated in the CRB? 50% seems like a fair deal, saves the group money.
Same goes for the party wizard casting teleport circle on the group. It saves the party on traveling costs. Should he/she charge for a portion of that as well?
'findel
You are looking at it from a player point of view. I don't know how RP intense your group is, but the question to ask is this:
Is player X's character charging me for the items or is it player X.
If it is player X that needs to be handled outside of the game.
If it is just his character then your characters need to look at your relationship in the game, and decide what you would do if all of you were in a real adventuring group.
In character bargaining may get the price lower.
Let me just pose a hypothetical (but similar) situation).
I have to agree with Bill Dunn and Laurefindel. Assuming that downtime isn't an issue, charging fellow PCs more than at-price for crafted items is one of those actions I consider a dick move. Much like stealing from your own party, playing Lawful Stupid, or being a stubborn lone wolf.
It doesn't matter if "It's what my character would do" or "Well you'd be paying more on the open market." It's one of those actions that's very likely to cause tension between players, so why do it? Most reasons I can think of boil down to "I'm a dick."
How about this:
Alright, I can understand that. (I suppose I could rationalize it, but yeah, it seems like a dick move.)
I've always done this in games in the past, but the only crafting characters I've played were in 3.5, where it cost XP (and thus the other players were more than willing to give me money over cost to make up for it). So I guess in Pathfinder there isn't much to justify making a profit off your allies.
Let me just pose a hypothetical (but similar) situation).
A group of players makes a group of PCs, who, whenever they want magic items, they pay 100% of the market price.
One player then says, "Hey, guys. I can give everyone here a 15% discount on every single magic item. All I ask is that, of the money you give me (which is already 15% less than you'd pay if I did nothing) some of that amount goes to my character."
Why is that so bad?
How about this:
One of the players at the table says he can get good sub sandwiches at discount and is willing to pick them up on the way to the game since it's right on the way. He'll give the everybody 15% off the price of the subs.Now suppose everybody knew he was actually picking them up for half price. How do you think they'd feel? Would they be so willing to accept the 15% discount or expect the 50% that the player is getting? Would you be inclined to take him up on his offer? How about game with him in the long term, buying subs through him every week?
I'll take this one. Sure, the players can feel slightly cheated knowing he's getting those subs at half price and only getting the 15% off, but at the same time, they have to respect that that friend has the "hook up" and they don't.
For a real life comparison, my Dad trades music equipment on the side. He moves more gear(legit trades, no pawns or stolen property) than most actual stores do. The guys he trades with know very well, right up front, that he's getting something off the top for making the trade in the first place(a Finder's Fee). The ONLY thing they need be concerned with is that they are getting the item they want at X% discount. End of story. As long as it's not stolen, they can either take the discount, or they can take their business elsewhere.
A clever DM could even pick up on this, and have some wealthier merchants in town sell items at a lower price to undercut the PC's cohort... I wouldn't do this too much, but enough to get a rise out of the player, to maybe be more generous with their fellow teammates.
For a real life comparison, my Dad trades music equipment on the side. He moves more gear(legit trades, no pawns or stolen property) than most actual stores do. The guys he trades with know very well, right up front, that he's getting something off the top for making the trade in the first place(a Finder's Fee). The ONLY thing they need be concerned with is that they are getting the item they want at X% discount. End of story. As long as it's not stolen, they can either take the discount, or they can take their business elsewhere.
A clever DM could even pick up on this, and have some wealthier merchants in town sell items at a lower price to undercut the PC's cohort... I wouldn't do this too much,...
For a closer real life comparison, imagine if your dad bought you an an auction and that you had the hookup and he was using you as an automaton for trading guitars to get him money to buy better musical equipment than the other people in his band. Imagine that your dad frequently, on a daily basis, as his job, engaged in life or death situations and they were resolved by how good he played music with his band. He has the ability to give his band rad equipment at 50% off or take a finder's fee. I would not take a finder's fee on items sold to people that I knew could make the difference between my death or their death and survival. This person is taking the finder's fee.
Your concept makes perfect sense and I would agree with it if it matched up exactly-- people who have skills and connections in real life deserve to use them because it's something they worked towards-- but there's a different layer of intent here.
How about this:
One of the players at the table says he can get good sub sandwiches at discount and is willing to pick them up on the way to the game since it's right on the way. He'll give the everybody 15% off the price of the subs.Now suppose everybody knew he was actually picking them up for half price. How do you think they'd feel? Would they be so willing to accept the 15% discount or expect the 50% that the player is getting? Would you be inclined to take him up on his offer? How about game with him in the long term, buying subs through him every week?
I'll take this one. Sure, the players can feel slightly cheated knowing he's getting those subs at half price and only getting the 15% off, but at the same time, they have to respect that that friend has the "hook up" and they don't.
For a real life comparison, my Dad trades music equipment on the side. He moves more gear(legit trades, no pawns or stolen property) than most actual stores do. The guys he trades with know very well, right up front, that he's getting something off the top for making the trade in the first place(a Finder's Fee). The ONLY thing they need be concerned with is that they are getting the item they want at X% discount. End of story. As long as it's not stolen, they can either take the discount, or they can take their business elsewhere.
Sure, and I know that the bookstores I patronize are paying a bunch less for their stock than I pay them. But that relationship, in that atmosphere, is a business relationship. I expect that any discount I gain will be less than any discount the seller got. It's how they do business. This is true even if it's the bookstore owned by a friend of mine. If I'm operating through his business, where he has taxes/fees, rent, and employees to pay, I know the expectations.
That's not the same relationship as a gaming buddy buying subs for the gang. Nor do I really think it's the same relationship as an adventuring companion making adventuring gear.
Unfortunately, this is more of an observation, rather than a suggestion. This situation sounds like another case of the ultimatum game to me.
The great wiki has this to say about it here.
A few years back, I took a stab at writing about it, as it pertains to gaming, here.
Essentially, the ultimatum game shows a human tendency to reject otherwise beneficial offers simply because they are perceived as unfair. I find it interesting that the bulk of OP's group do not reject the offer.
Sure, and I know that the bookstores I patronize are paying a bunch less for their stock than I pay them. But that relationship, in that atmosphere, is a business relationship. I expect that any discount I gain will be less than any discount the seller got. It's how they do business. This is true even if it's the bookstore owned by a friend of mine. If I'm operating through his business, where he has taxes/fees, rent, and employees to pay, I know the expectations.
That's not the same relationship as a gaming buddy buying subs for the gang. Nor do I really think it's the same relationship as an adventuring...
Sure....but we don't know the situration here. The person making the items is not a PC it is a npc. The NPC might be your buddy who owns the bookstore. Heck I have a friend who owns a gaming store. I do get a discount becauase we have been friends for a very long time. I would not expect to bring a friend there and for him to get the same discount as me.
I really think the OP is missing something and really should ask clarficication on the relationship between the PC and the item crafting cohort. If the PC is not getting the 'extra' gold and pays the same(or even less)...than the OP has no ground to stand on.
I think the core of the problem is that one cohort is making a profit off of sitting around crafting, while another is risking his life running around finding stuff for free. Which in my mind is unfair in either roleplaying or gamist terms.
Unfortunately, this is more of an observation, rather than a suggestion. This situation sounds like another case of the ultimatum game to me.
The great wiki has this to say about it here.
A few years back, I took a stab at writing about it, as it pertains to gaming, here.
Essentially, the ultimatum game shows a human tendency to reject otherwise beneficial offers simply because they are perceived as unfair. I find it interesting that the bulk of OP's group do not reject the offer.
The funny thing is thinking about it this way since there are not really any magic items that make crafting more efficient and the crafter is sitting aroudn crafting the money going to crafter cohorts player would actually result in a stronger party as the party can now afford better magic items and gear and kill more stuff meaning my character is less likely to die. *
this is assuming all other things equal and the gm not making the game harder or adjusting difficulty based on new encounters. If he adjusts encounters too much to deal with your wealth then you actually end up worse off if he goes overboard. And better off if he does not correct enough.
I really think the OP is missing something and really should ask clarficication on the relationship between the PC and the item crafting cohort. If the PC is not getting the 'extra' gold and pays the same(or even less)...than the OP has no ground to stand on.
If the crafter has limited time to craft, Brigidine has noticeably less ground to stand on. Otherwise, the crafter's player is essentially running a second PC who's making a killing off of the other players.
Either way, I really hope Brigidine tells us all how this turns out!
I really think the OP is missing something and really should ask clarficication on the relationship between the PC and the item crafting cohort. If the PC is not getting the 'extra' gold and pays the same(or even less)...than the OP has no ground to stand on.
If the crafter has limited time to craft, Brigidine has noticeably less ground to stand on. Otherwise, the crafter's player is essentially running a second PC who's making a killing off of the other players.
Either way, I really hope Brigidine tells us all how this turns out!
We really don't have enough infomation to judge this. Maybe the GM house rule is that crafting cohorts make things at 85% for everyone....etc.
What I want to know is what the whole story is. I find it hard to believe that it is grossly unfair as the OP said he is the only one complaining about it.
@brigidine is there anyway you can get the player with the cohort in question or the GM to post their side of the story?
The game has tones of down time, and as I said before we are using Pathfinder item creation rules. However I don't think bringing the others in on this is going to work. As I said they didn't take too kindly the few times I suggested that they pay my cohort for the use of his skills, so I don't think they would like me getting a 2nd opinion. The point of the thread was to see if I was alone about feeling this way.
FYI: Her cohort is brought frequently into combat as well, and he set the price.
Fair enough...but since we really can't get into the minds of the other people involved the only meaningful advice anybody can really give is bring it up to there people in a calm rational manner and see if this issue can be resoolved.
I thouhgt of a unique solution if the GM relaizes that the cohort is causing a problem for players you could have both cohorts get murderers allow both players to retrain the leadership feat and get an adventure out of this stupid fight.