The rogue is not competing with the wizard, and even if he was the wizard could craft all of the rogue's items, and the rogue is still 20000 leagues behind the wizard. If your argument is based on balancing then the rogue just needs a complete rewrite.
That is fairly off topic. If the rogue were THAT badly written then nobody would play one. This isn't a discussion of how balanced the various classes are. It is a discussion about the fairness of charging for item crafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question is simple "does one PC charging 75% of cost to PC's affect game balance"
My answer no
Why because if the other PC's get annoyed. All they have to do is have one of them take Leadership feat pick a Elven Wizard Cohort who can craft Magic arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Items etc.
For Kingmaker AP: They leave the Cohort In there castle making all their magic items and only pay 1/2 price.
In effect the Cohort is giving the Fighter whom takes leadership Item Creation Feats (as many as the fighter needs) for the cost of 1 feat. While the Characters are adventuring the Cohort makes the items.
Time Solved
Cost Solved
Spend 1 Feat, get your Items for 1/2 Off. Done.
Now the real question is Does that throw a game out of balance.
If the game is designed for the charcters to only have Y wealth, and a feat can give the characters Y x 2 Wealth then you have a problem.
So how tied to game balance is the Wealth By Level rules? Because on feat can smash it, and with Kingmaker the Leadership feat is a perfect synergy feat.
That is not a reason why it should not work. Being evil does not mean you have to stab your buddy in the back.
mentions evil campaings
Being evil means always being aware that your evil allies have the potential to stab you in the back. Some more than others, of course.
The PC's are always going against bad guys that work together and even die for each other. Why can't the PC's do the same?
Of course that's possible. I'd like to bring in the example from the movie "The Mummy Returns". Evil priest-guy's evil lover gets reincarnated. They're in love. She KILLED her pharaoh to be with him and killed herself because she knew he would resurrect her later (and that didn't work out for a couple thousand years, but 'meh'). So the crapola hits the fan, they're in a collapsing pyramid, and her 'true love' is hanging by his fingernails onto a cliff overlooking what amounts to egyptian hell. Rocks are falling everywhere and the whole place is coming down. She's probably 50 feet from him.
What does she do? She screams "NO!" and runs for her life (didn't work out so well, but still). Because despite all of it, her continued existence was more important to her than his. She could stomach suicide when she was pretty sure he would resurrect her. But if they BOTH died, she was screwed again (and presumably the afterlife for her was pretty bad, considering she was a pharaoh murdering traitor), and she wasn't willing to risk it, even for the man she'd already risked so much for already.
That to me is hallmark Evil. When things get really bad, you will turn your back on ANYONE to save your hide. Religious folks might fear their god more than death (because really, death is no escape from your god). Followers of a powerful person might expect being Raised from the dead if they die well. But ultimately, nothing is more important to an evil person than themselves. Dying for your 'friends' is called 'screwing up'. It wasn't supposed to happen, see? ;-)
The rogue is not competing with the wizard, and even if he was the wizard could craft all of the rogue's items, and the rogue is still 20000 leagues behind the wizard. If your argument is based on balancing then the rogue just needs a complete rewrite.That is fairly off topic. If the rogue were THAT badly written then nobody would play one. This isn't a discussion of how balanced the various classes are. It is a discussion about the fairness of charging for item crafting.
Either the balancing act has merit or it does not. If it has merit then it should be discussed. If it does not then your last post should be rewritten.
But ultimately, nothing is more important to an evil person than themselves. Dying for your 'friends' is called 'screwing up'.
I disagree. Evil people have loyalties beyond themselves. The trope of the evil guy trying to get revenge because you killed someone he cared about is an example.
Being evil means the people you will die for is a part of a very small list. It does not mean you don't care for anyone enough to die for them.
But ultimately, nothing is more important to an evil person than themselves. Dying for your 'friends' is called 'screwing up'.I disagree. Evil people have loyalties beyond themselves. The trope of the evil guy trying to get revenge because you killed someone he cared about is an example.
Being evil means the people you will die for is a part of a very small list. It does not mean you don't care for anyone enough to die for them.
Hey, no fair linking to tvtropes. Bad!
Also, bad example. Even the entry mentions that subversions are more common than actual examples. And few entries are cases of flat-out-revenge-even-it-it-kills-me. Usually it's I-will-have-revenge-and-get-on-with-my-life. The bad guys seldom expect to die in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But ultimately, nothing is more important to an evil person than themselves. Dying for your 'friends' is called 'screwing up'.I disagree. Evil people have loyalties beyond themselves. The trope of the evil guy trying to get revenge because you killed someone he cared about is an example.
Being evil means the people you will die for is a part of a very small list. It does not mean you don't care for anyone enough to die for them.
Hey, no fair linking to tvtropes. Bad!
Also, bad example. Even the entry mentions that subversions are more common than actual examples. And few entries are cases of flat-out-revenge-even-it-it-kills-me. Usually it's I-will-have-revenge-and-get-on-with-my-life. The bad guys seldom expect to die in the process.
Nobody expects to die, not even the good guys who die.
All I am saying is that being evil does not overrule the capacity to value someone/something over yourself. You are just a lot less likely to do so than a good person would.As to crafting for other evil party members it would depend on various things such as why are we together, what is my relationship with them, do I know they are evil, and so on....
PS:Bad guys are normally played badly IMHO. You can't really defeat the good guys if they are working together, and your group is not. You can be just as vicious without being a backstabber to your team.
My type of bad guy-->If the prisoner won't talk kidnap a family member and torture them. You are certainly not good, but your buddies know you are willing to do what must be done for the group.<--Good guys won't do that(torture innocents).
The rogue is not competing with the wizard, and even if he was the wizard could craft all of the rogue's items, and the rogue is still 20000 leagues behind the wizard. If your argument is based on balancing then the rogue just needs a complete rewrite.That is fairly off topic. If the rogue were THAT badly written then nobody would play one. This isn't a discussion of how balanced the various classes are. It is a discussion about the fairness of charging for item crafting.
Either the balancing act has merit or it does not. If it has merit then it should be discussed. If it does not then your last post should be rewritten.
You honestly want to argue that the rogue should be the only one getting free crafting, because his class sucks? Sorry I don't see it. You're writing to someone who likes the Rogues in Pathfinder.