|
Thanks to Diego for clarifying that coins are equipment. I never thought of them that way before. I can see that there are more grey areas to allowing pre-game crafting than I might have thought.
With a little exchange of favours done before the start of the campaign we can all treble our starting wealth.
In practice the whole party would be CR+1 for that.Magic item crafting later in the game works exactly like this except that the wealth would only be doubled, not trebled. I suspect that this rarely happens with regular Craft skills because they're so slow.
Not really.
It work this way
If crafting:
1) Get gear you don't want.
2) sell gear for 50% of purchase value
3) craft gear you want, spending 50% of purchase cost.
4) you have exactly the value of the item with wick you started.
If not crafting but getting usable gear:
1) Get gear you want
2) keep it, again you haven't lost anything.
Not crafting but getting non usable items
1) get gear you don't want.
2) sell gear for 50% of purchase value
3) buy gear you want at 100% of cost.
This is the only situation in which you "lose" money.
Technically you never "gain" money crafting magic items, you only exchange non useful items for useful ones at a 1:1 ratio.
I allow players to scribe a number of scrolls equal to their spell casting modifier. Int 18. You can scribe 4 scrolls at normal scribing costs. They're one use items and there's little else for a wiz to spend money on. If they want to throw 12.5 gold at monsters at 1st level, more power to them.
This player then rolls their starting wealth and finds that they have enough for the gear they wanted, except they only have exactly half the cost of the masterwork armor they were hoping for - so they say "Hey DM, I stole this masterwork armor before the game started."
Do you A) say no, B) allow them to have the armor but take the gold they have left (equal to half the price), C) allow them to have the armor and not spend any gold on it at all, or D) some other less obvious response.?
"Here's the deal. You can either just start with stuff you can afford, or you can have that armour - but the guy you stole it from will be after the thief and trouble may recur for you down the line."
A GM suggested that to me when I was playing a kobold wizard who'd stolen his only magical item from the hoard of the dragon he served - I could have one that was of appropriate cost, or one that was slightly better, with the dragon actually caring enough to want it back.
Gives a plot hook, doesn't unbalance the game (just reduce wealth slightly later if really necessary), lets the player feel their background really influences their character.
|
Waooow ... I'm impressed that it gets so much fuss...
Now Since i have done it for other characters, I allow crafting at half price for starting characters.
Starting wealth, starting gold are all so similar and it's almost surely the same wording from the boxed set version of D&D. (I'm sure it was already in AD&D 1).
The player invested feats (Craft) to get more for his money instead of taking other feats ... So be my guest.
That's what these feats are for...
In fact do as you want in your own campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting Wealth is Starting Wealth, not Starting Cash. Here's the difference.
If I ask you what your Wealth is, it is the sum value of your car (if you've paid it off), your house (if you've paid it off), all the cash in the bank, your belongings in your house, any stock you own (present market value of same), and any other assets you have. Does that mean if your wealth is $1,000,000 that you can go pay cash for a $900,000 home? Almost certainly not. Wealth is the value of all your belongings.
Cash, on the other hand, is how much cold hard cash you have if you want to buy something. If you have $100,000 cash, can you go out immediately and buy a $85,000 sports car? Yes, you can.
So, Starting Wealth is not 'how much cash do I have at character creation to buy things with', it's 'how much wealth do I have at the start of the game'. Thus why it's wealth, not starting cash or starting money or starting funds.
So, if you have 1,000gp in starting wealth (2nd level), and you have enough skill to craft masterwork arms and armor and you buy MW sword and MW shield and MW armor, you pay full price for those (170gp for the armor, 165 for the shield, 320 for the sword, roughly) and if you want to say 'I made these' then that's absolutely fine.
I'm doing that in a game I'm in right now. Why's it useful? My character came from an Asianic continent, so he has Mountain Scale Armor, and a 9-Ring sword, and a heavy steel shield. He made those himself, and he shows them off to people who are interested in having him make things for them. He takes the approach that who wants to see a pretty but unused bit of MW equipment in a shop when you want someone to make something for you? You want to see how it holds up to steady use, so you know what you're getting.
I do the same in my games when I run, starting wealth is a measure of what your character is worth at the start of the game. If he had to buy everything he has on the market at moment 0, that's how much he'd have to spend. That is, by definition, your wealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the player is going to [all the trouble of investing in crafting skills, item creation feats, etc, then I see absolutely no reason to bar said player from a reasonable amount of items created with said skills/feats. If the fighter with Craft: Armoursmithing shows up with a Masterwork Breastplate she crafted herself, then good for her.Answer this hypothetical for me, would you please?
A player puts together a halfling rogue and places skill ranks into disable device, stealth, knowledge local, perception and bluff, and takes skill focus (disable device) as their feat.
This player then rolls their starting wealth and finds that they have enough for the gear they wanted, except they only have exactly half the cost of the masterwork armor they were hoping for - so they say "Hey DM, I stole this masterwork armor before the game started."
Do you A) say no, B) allow them to have the armor but take the gold they have left (equal to half the price), C) allow them to have the armor and not spend any gold on it at all, or D) some other less obvious response.?
I have to ask because I get the impression from you, and others sharing the position that crafting be allowed to provide a discount on goods, that the answer would be A despite the fact that B is exactly the justification used for allowing crafting discounts - that the player put points in the skill needed or took the feat needed and should get something out of that besides having that skill or feat for later use.
Sorry, but B is NOT related to the justification given. Disable Device is a perfectly useful skill that is used frequently in the course of adventuring. Giving a player with Disable Device the ability to 'steal' items outside of the adventure for the same net benefit as players with craft skills de-values the craft skills and removes far too much of the incentive to purchase crafting skills.
Crafting skills are downtime/roleplaying based, and only very rarely ever come into play during actual encounters. That said, as another person pointed out, when you're the GM, you get to decide, and maybe you'll let the person steal a starting item... and have that as a plot hook. But that means the party had better be okay with being on the wrong side of the law, since they're now aiding and abetting a known criminal.
|
|
If the player is going to [all the trouble of investing in crafting skills, item creation feats, etc, then I see absolutely no reason to bar said player from a reasonable amount of items created with said skills/feats. If the fighter with Craft: Armoursmithing shows up with a Masterwork Breastplate she crafted herself, then good for her.Answer this hypothetical for me, would you please?
A player puts together a halfling rogue and places skill ranks into disable device, stealth, knowledge local, perception and bluff, and takes skill focus (disable device) as their feat.
This player then rolls their starting wealth and finds that they have enough for the gear they wanted, except they only have exactly half the cost of the masterwork armor they were hoping for - so they say "Hey DM, I stole this masterwork armor before the game started."
Do you A) say no, B) allow them to have the armor but take the gold they have left (equal to half the price), C) allow them to have the armor and not spend any gold on it at all, or D) some other less obvious response.?
I have to ask because I get the impression from you, and others sharing the position that crafting be allowed to provide a discount on goods, that the answer would be A despite the fact that B is exactly the justification used for allowing crafting discounts - that the player put points in the skill needed or took the feat needed and should get something out of that besides having that skill or feat for later use.
Sorry, but that was just a stupid example. Reason being, crafting generally taken as an 'out of campaign' type of action. Something you do between adventures. Actually robbing someone, is ADVENTURING. Even after the game has started, there is a big difference between. "We are going to be around this town for a week, anyone want to make some potions or scrolls" and the rogue in the party saying , "Hey as long as we are here, I am going to do some five finger discounts". Same effect.
Seriously people, PCs had lives before they started adventuring. If part of their life was growing up as a scribe for a wizard or apprentice for a blacksmith, then what is the problem with them starting out with a scroll or a nice sword. I mean, they learn the trade somehow. I am pretty sure at some point while my 1st level wizard had to write a scroll to get the feat. Or my fighter had to make a dagger to get his rank in Craft - Blacksmithing. Why suddenly can't they take those items with them as long as it isn't more than their starting 'wealth'.
Now for the people that didn't put ranks in Craft or put a feat in Scribe Scroll, then they should have to pay full price. Even if you are in a campaign where all the players are friends, the characters that do have the skills can't give 'employee' discounts to their buddies. The actual Wizard that trained the lad or the Blacksmith that owns the forge, isn't going to let that. House rules always applies.
I mean you guys are worried about players starting off with what a handful of first and zero level spells and masterwork weapons and armor....really? Most of them should have those after their first couple of encounters in my book. At least all of them should have them by 2nd and 3rd level. Who cares if they have a +1 damage or -1 AC Penalty.
Also for the guy that says, what about the fighter that makes a sword and 1/3 the cost and sells it for 1/2 the cost and uses that as justification for starting out with 20k gp. That is a sim, not RPG. I can't believe you would even entertain a player that tried that. Basically tell them, well, now your character is middle age with a wife, and kids, and a business to run. You have to retire from adventuring because of your obligations.
|
|
Sorry, but that was just a stupid example. Reason being, crafting generally taken as an 'out of campaign' type of action. Something you do between adventures. Actually robbing someone, is ADVENTURING. Even after the game has started, there is a big difference between. "We are going to be around this town for a week, anyone want to make some potions or scrolls" and the rogue in the party saying , "Hey as long as we are here, I am going to do some five finger discounts". Same effect.Seriously people, PCs had lives before they started adventuring. If part of their life was growing up as a scribe for a wizard or apprentice for a blacksmith, then what is the problem with them starting out with a scroll or a nice sword. I mean, they learn the trade somehow. I am pretty sure at some point while my 1st level wizard had to write a scroll to get the feat. Or my fighter had to make a dagger to get his rank in Craft - Blacksmithing. Why suddenly can't they take those items with them as long as it isn't more than their starting 'wealth'.
Now for the people that didn't put ranks in Craft or put a feat in Scribe Scroll, then they should have to pay full price. Even if you are in a campaign where all the players are friends, the characters that do have the skills can't give 'employee' discounts to their buddies. The actual Wizard that trained the lad or the Blacksmith that owns the forge, isn't going to let that. House rules always applies.
I mean you guys are worried about players starting off with what a handful of first and zero level spells and masterwork weapons and armor....really? Most of them should have those after their first couple of encounters in my book. At least all of them should have them by 2nd and 3rd level. Who cares if they have a +1 damage or -1 AC Penalty.
Also for the guy that says, what about the fighter that makes a sword and 1/3 the cost and sells it for 1/2 the cost and uses that as justification for starting out with 20k gp. That is a sim, not RPG. I can't believe you would even entertain a player that tried that. Basically tell them, well, now your character is middle age with a wife, and kids, and a business to run. You have to retire from adventuring because of your obligations.
Instead of the thieving skills use
- Perfom- Profession (anything not adventurer related)
- Craft (anything not adventurer related)
- Animal handling
Why the character can't start with a trained mount for free (animal handling)?
More cash (profession, crafting and performing skills)?
All the above can be justified the same, identical way, of giving discounted extra equipment at start.
"I have 1 rank of Profession (trader), I have learned my job working in my father hardware shop, we sell practically anything and I get the stuff at a discount."
"Fury is the first horse I was allowed to train by myself. We have been together from when he was a colt."
If all that is needed we can all get valid RP justifications and 1 skill rank to start with extra gear.
Sorry, but what I see is people saying "if you can give me a decent Role Play justification and take a skill I feel is subpar you get extra cash."
Nice as this is a RP game, less nice when you deny it to other players on the basis that the skill is useful or simply because it don't produce anything (like perform).
I don't have any problem with 1st level characters having more gear than the assumed norms - I have a problem with inconsistent rulings fueled by some arbitrary distinction between "downtime skills," and "ADVENTURING skills."
Exactly.
|
|
Stuff.
If it's an excuse to encourage role-play backgrounds that doesn't result in any long-term imbalance, I'm all for it. For stuff that exists solely for making money, I might allow them one week's worth of revenue (hey, taxes and expenses are a b+$+~), with the option to take 10 on the check.
Also, I totally would allow them to train an animal for free if they had handle animal. Do you force Druid's to pay to have their animal companion trained for them when they could do it themselves?
|
|
Straw man Stabbity?
The druid companion and similar class features are free.
And the druid companion come with a limited bag of tricks. The others are taught during play. There are very specific rules for that.
Again, why you fell that is "right" to gift someone with x2 or even x3 his initial stuff and deny that to the other player, giving him at most a few GP?
What is worse is that this idea will favour the most glib player and the guy that prefer to push the rules, while it will leave behind the others.
|
|
Straw man Stabbity?
The druid companion and similar class features are free.
And the druid companion come with a limited bag of tricks. The others are taught during play. There are very specific rules for that.Again, why you fell that is "right" to gift someone with x2 or even x3 his initial stuff and deny that to the other player, giving him at most a few GP?
What is worse is that this idea will favour the most glib player and the guy that prefer to push the rules, while it will leave behind the others.
So you're telling me that despite a druid spending an assumed year or so with his animal companion that he has not already trained it? That's a bunch of hogwash.
Sure, he gets one trick for "free", but the "free" part is that it's in addition to the normal tricks (3 or 6, depending on the AC) and he doesn't make a handle animal check, not that he can't train the other tricks before the campaign starts.
And I'm not "gifting" the money, they need to take a specific skill or feat to get it that has little (if any) use outside of getting more money or being more efficient with what you have. If they spend that resource, they should get the commensurate reward when it will matter (during the first adventure, which requires them to use it before that adventure) just like everyone else does. What you're talking about is effectively saying "no, druid, you have to wait to get the primary benefit of your skill until AFTER the first adventure. Oh hi barbarian, you want to use intimidate right now? Go for it!"
Sleight of hand is a bit of a misdirect as they can easily use that during the adventure (such as hiding their weapon if the adventure starts in a town). The skills/feats I'm referring to require time frames in the days or weeks to use, not a few minutes at your local potion shop.
If you want to start a campaign with the premise that no-one had time to do ANY task requiring days/weeks, then go for it, but I usually assume that people existed before the game started and thus there would be some quantity of time to take advantage of using those abilities.
EDIT: Also, I don't argue that they should get UNLIMITED benefit from that ability, I say they should get SOME benefit from that ability. Generally the Druid will get their AC tricks, the crafter gets a couple pieces of gear for himself, the wizard crafts a few scrolls, etc.
I'm not going to argue this point any further. If you hate Crafting skills so much and don't want players to benefit from them, BAN them.
I'm not going to argue this point any further. If you hate Crafting skills so much and don't want players to benefit from them, BAN them.
That was never the claim and I find it odd that you have interpreted things that way. In fact, everyone who doesn't let players retroactively use skills and feats have explained how crafting is still beneficial in their games.
I'm not going to argue this point any further. If you hate Crafting skills so much and don't want players to benefit from them, BAN them.That was never the claim and I find it odd that you have interpreted things that way. In fact, everyone who doesn't let players retroactively use skills and feats have explained how crafting is still beneficial in their games.
It's called "I'm taking my ball and going home, because you won't let me win!" argument. It's usually used by people who can't win, and know they're wrong, but refuse to admit it.
I think it is more like somebody becoming exasperated. When somebody wants to point out how flawed your opinion is and press until you "admit you're wrong" I doubt that's a situation which most folks find fun.
Anyhow, I think that those arguing in favor of pregame crafting aren't really asking for the PCs to get extra money for their backstory so much as a little extra time to use their abilities before embarking on fast paced adventures make those abilities difficult or even impossible to use. I think that's probably part of the distinction being drawn between the "adventuring" and "non-adventuring" skills. As Diego pointed out though, you can buy coins with your starting wealth, so starting wealth and starting gold are essentially the same other than the time needed to either go buy stuff or craft it.
As an aside, I'm actually rather against giving a PC anything extra or special because the player presents a good background story. If there's a feat or trait to get the desired item/ability and the player wants to change some details that's fine, like taking the "Rich Parents" trait and saying that the PC got the extra 900gp through successful heists. I suppose that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to suggest that I apply the same solution to the swordsmith problem.
I suppose what I should do is come up with some reasonable house rules on pregame crafting and maybe even a craft point system which gives PCs some free crafting time each time they take a rank in a Craft skill or an item creation feat. There was stuff like this in 3.5, and I wouldn't be shocked to see it in PF one day.
I recognize that starting wealth is supposed to represent wealth not gold, but I don't want to encourage players to do the patently silly act of holding onto that wealth until the game starts to craft.
I think about it this way: They spend that starting wealth on the magic item materials, not the scroll. Those magic item materials are then used to make the item because their character can do that. What difference does it make if this happens just after the start of the game or just before?
It is gold. If you continue the oft decapitated quote:
Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level.
WBL only comes into play after 1st level. At 1st level starting gold is very much a real statistic just like skill ranks and not some abstraction. If they have the skills and the gold let em do it, I say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread sure got lively since I last checked it.
I don't have any precise pointers, or any references, I just got an opinion and that's how I run the games I got.
If you can make it, you can make it before the campaign starts.
Why? Because it's a very specific and limited skill and feat set.
I hear many people pull the "But my char got X Skill..." defence.
To that I say: Yes, 600gp of your starting wealth is made with that skill!"
That's how the bard got 1000gp, part adventuring, part stealing, part singing.
The crafter on the other hand, he's very specific, he BUYS cheaper materials, and then changes them, that is by all means by the rules, as materials are under equipment.
The difference is that the blacksmith doesn't buy the sword cheaper. He buys the cheap ore, he smelts it, he reforges it. There's no "I stole this, I inherited this, I got this, I earned this." That is covered by the wealth given out by the gm. If you got 1k, and got an inherited mw sword, deduce it's cost from the starting total because how you GOT the weapon is fluff, and that's all it is.
On the other hand, I'd let the rogue start out with unique items or materials due to his skillset. He might not be able to use it, but he stole it, his skill making it easier for me to allow him non-standard places to "shop", the fact that he 'paid' starting gold for it doesn't mean he bought it, it is just a guideline to measure how much effort it took to get it, and possible resources and contacts used to get there in the first place.
To finish the rant.
Buying cheap materials and changing them into something else is not the same as "Because I have skill X."
If you got lockpicking, fine, buy materials such as lockboxes and open them.
That's how my starting skill + items interact.
How you got it, how it looks, who had it before you is all fluff. And you 'pay' to keep track of your power/item bar/level. The only time it's an issue, is when a munchkin feels threatened that someone might get close without optimizing their combat skills. Because this does not come up in social or rp events.
I fall into the side of letting PCs gain a bit of benefit from the use their crafting skills and feats before the game starts.
1) I rather like the idea of someone starting off with a sword (armor, etc.), using it for heroic acts, enchanting it (and not ditching the sword for a shinier one for a mechanical rule reason -MW needed for enchanting).
2) the wealth increase is momentary, for the first few fights. The GM can easily tailor the fights to have less loot, etc...
3) If the PCs share their skills so that the whole group is well outfitted, then great. They are all friends and have a reason to stick together (rather than the metagame PC tag).
4) Those that say, well, I use my pickpocket skill to increase my wealth. No problem, make a roll vs my random perception roll - if you succeed, you get a few goodies. If you fail, you face the possible consequences (depending on how fast you run, how fast ou talk, etc) - jail, injury, reputation, less wealth due to fine, etc.
The example of a wizard (with stealth skill) steals 100 gp worth of scrolls - well, I suspect that the owner of the scrolls will be using magic to come and look for them.
I can understand the arguments against starting with a bit of extra wealth - I can even spin why the craft skills don't add to your starting gear - you messed up a few times learning and that is why you have the same amount as the others and not more. I just find it tends to push players to only looking at combat optimization and a bit less towards roleplaying and character development.
2) The magic item creation feats are not designed to increase the Wealth By Level. What they are designed to do is allow characters to customize their magic items without losing money from selling "excess/unwanted" items (i.e., +1 longswords when everyone already has a +1 weapon or someone wants a +1 scimitar instead) at half market price (see Selling Treasure, Core Rulebook pg. 140) and then paying full market price on upgrades/replacements.
I have seen that a few times, but haven't been able to find a source for it. Could you provide me with a source?
I find that there is a flaw in your argument. If the PCs sell the gear and buy other gear, you are saying that they lose gold.
They do not lose wealth. What I mean by that, is that according to the wealth by level guide, which you seem to be supporting, if the PCs do lose gold on selling and buying (or commissioning) gear, then over time, it will not matter, as the GM should be dropping a bit more loot to make up the difference to keep them in line with the guide.
2) The magic item creation feats are not designed to increase the Wealth By Level. What they are designed to do is allow characters to customize their magic items without losing money from selling "excess/unwanted" items (i.e., +1 longswords when everyone already has a +1 weapon or someone wants a +1 scimitar instead) at half market price (see Selling Treasure, Core Rulebook pg. 140) and then paying full market price on upgrades/replacements.I have seen that a few times, but haven't been able to find a source for it. Could you provide me with a source?
I find that there is a flaw in your argument. If the PCs sell the gear and buy other gear, you are saying that they lose gold.
They do not lose wealth. What I mean by that, is that according to the wealth by level guide, which you seem to be supporting, if the PCs do lose gold on selling and buying (or commissioning) gear, then over time, it will not matter, as the GM should be dropping a bit more loot to make up the difference to keep them in line with the guide.
What you are talking about is during play. It is perfectly acceptable for a character to craft items at half cost during the course of the campaign. It is up to the GM to keep in mind that they are doing this and do exactly what you are saying: adjust the wealth they find during play accordingly.
What should not happen is for a level 10 character to say that he's been crafting Wondrous Items since level 3 and his wealth ends up being 118,000 instead of the 62,000 it should be. This gives him the wealth a character 2-3 levels higher should have. This increase in power is essentially an increase in CR by 1 to 2. It is significant especially because the gear crafted is specifically tailored to the character instead of some of it being incidental. Imagine if everyone says they have been adventuring together for years and the wizard has been crafting gear for them all during their down time (perfectly reasonable). Would it be ok for the party to have twice their starting wealth because they can craft a back story as well as items?
The wealth by level guidelines say that this is the amount of wealth expected by characters of level X. This means that if you have almost twice that, you are going to be significantly more powerful. This is one of the reasons why people claim that there is a caster/non-caster inequality. It's not the only reason but it is a significant reason.
The perception that players must sell gear at 50% is flawed as well. That is more of a general guideline. If you have a deal with a merchant or go through the trouble of setting up a shop and staffing it to sell your extra stuff while you're out you should be netting higher than 50% gain. There is nothing in the rules stating that players can not actively profit from crafting and/or selling gear. The WBL is a guideline as well and should be adjusted per the individual campaign needs.
The perception that players must sell gear at 50% is flawed as well. That is more of a general guideline. If you have a deal with a merchant or go through the trouble of setting up a shop and staffing it to sell your extra stuff while you're out you should be netting higher than 50% gain. There is nothing in the rules stating that players can not actively profit from crafting and/or selling gear. The WBL is a guideline as well and should be adjusted per the individual campaign needs.
The general assumption for selling gear is 50%. That is spelled out in the CRB.
As for the WBL Guideline, it should be noted that this is a basic assumption the game is build on. It isn't meant to be a straight jacket. It is meant to be a bit flexible. A character isn't supposed to start level 7 with 23,500 gold and then have a windfall of 9,500 more gold once he hits level 8. What isn't supposed to happen is for that level 7 character to be doubling his wealth because that increases his power significantly.
According to the CRB: "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game assumes that all PCs of equivalent level have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items."
Can't get much clearer than that. Double wealth is not "roughly equal."
What you are talking about is during play. It is perfectly acceptable for a character to craft items at half cost during the course of the campaign. It is up to the GM to keep in mind that they are doing this and do exactly what you are saying: adjust the wealth they find during play accordingly.
What should not happen is for a level 10 character to say that he's been crafting Wondrous Items since level 3 and his wealth ends up being 118,000 instead of the 62,000 it should be. This gives him the wealth a character 2-3 levels higher should have. This increase in power is essentially an increase in CR by 1 to 2. It is significant especially because the gear crafted is specifically tailored to the character instead of some of it being incidental. Imagine if everyone says they have been adventuring together for years and the wizard has been crafting gear for them all during their down time (perfectly reasonable). Would it be...
Why is that an issue? I can see it being an issue if you let your players buy literally anything in the book. Is there no scarcity of resources in your campaign? Are your players not bound by travel, market conditions, the presence of other buyers/supply issues? I only see massive amounts of gold being an issue when your players have access to anything and everything. However, cities only have certain limitations on the number of items they have depending on their size. It's very reasonable to expect a cities only headband of vast intelligence was just bought last week.
Why is that an issue? I can see it being an issue if you let your players buy literally anything in the book. Is there no scarcity of resources in your campaign? Are your players not bound by travel, market conditions, the presence of other buyers/supply issues? I only see massive amounts of gold being an issue when your players have access to anything and everything. However, cities only have certain limitations on the number of items they have depending on their size. It's very reasonable to expect a cities only headband of vast intelligence was just bought last week.What you are talking about is during play. It is perfectly acceptable for a character to craft items at half cost during the course of the campaign. It is up to the GM to keep in mind that they are doing this and do exactly what you are saying: adjust the wealth they find during play accordingly.
What should not happen is for a level 10 character to say that he's been crafting Wondrous Items since level 3 and his wealth ends up being 118,000 instead of the 62,000 it should be. This gives him the wealth a character 2-3 levels higher should have. This increase in power is essentially an increase in CR by 1 to 2. It is significant especially because the gear crafted is specifically tailored to the character instead of some of it being incidental. Imagine if everyone says they have been adventuring together for years and the wizard has been crafting gear for them all during their down time (perfectly reasonable). Would it be...
A character that begins play has a history. The higher level the character, the more history he has. A caster that can teleport anywhere isn't limited anymore especially since we are talking about back story. That's the exact problem several of us are trying to point out. Using back story as a means to increase your wealth is not balancing.
I allow players who took craft skills and/or feats to craft unique items at the beginning of play but they need to stick to the WBL. Those who do not have craft skills or feats are restricted to the book for their starting wealth. This allows the players who took crafting feats to have a benefit without them being overpowered.
They would still be limited by the market. The common caster is not going to have traveled the world over the be able to teleport all over the place to get what they want. They also need to have a degree of familiarity in order to teleport to places and no player can reasonably say they've been literally everywhere. The amount of GP is irrelevant here. Make a living breathing world and stop letting your players buy anything they want. Limit them by means of the in-game world instead of arbitrary numbers and limitations.
They would still be limited by the market. The common caster is not going to have traveled the world over the be able to teleport all over the place to get what they want. They also need to have a degree of familiarity in order to teleport to places and no player can reasonably say they've been literally everywhere. The amount of GP is irrelevant here. Make a living breathing world and stop letting your players buy anything they want. Limit them by means of the in-game world instead of arbitrary numbers and limitations.
But the argument that others are saying is that they could have and therefore the GM should allow it. They are saying, quite clearly, that they should start with far more gear than others because they qualified for a feat that another character didn't.
My limitations aren't arbitrary. They are meant to allow the players to have a benefit without increasing their power. Your limitation is as arbitrary as anyone else's. By saying that the uncommon caster (the one the PC is playing) didn't travel the world over to make his gear is rather arbitrary.
That should be a discussion between GM and player. GMs should expect a level 15 caster to have had some travels and therefore access to stuff that a level 1 shouldn't and a player should realize even though he's creating a higher level character doesn't mean he's walked the world and defeated everything in the known multiverse with his junk hanging out of his pants. The way I'm saying to limit them is for both sides to make reasonable concessions about the character's experiences and to base what they have off a mixture of that and the world in an organic fashion rather than simply limiting them to a preset GP value. That is arbitrary as it has no connection to the character or the world in which in came up in and is just a number in a book. I can guarantee you also that if I play a character up to a certain level I would be above the WBL chart prescribed amount of GP in items since all the while I'm going to be making deals, rolling diplomacy and crafting, yes I said crafting, gear to be exactly what I want. That is a base disconnect that can only be solved in one-on-one discussions between player and GM or the group and GM if the group is saying they've been together since before they were sperm and ova.
That should be a discussion between GM and player. GMs should expect a level 15 caster to have had some travels and therefore access to stuff that a level 1 shouldn't and a player should realize even though he's creating a higher level character doesn't mean he's walked the world and defeated everything in the known multiverse with his junk hanging out of his pants. The way I'm saying to limit them is for both sides to make reasonable concessions about the character's experiences and to base what they have off a mixture of that and the world in an organic fashion rather than simply limiting them to a preset GP value. That is arbitrary as it has no connection to the character or the world in which in came up in and is just a number in a book. I can guarantee you also that if I play a character up to a certain level I would be above the WBL chart prescribed amount of GP in items since all the while I'm going to be making deals, rolling diplomacy and crafting, yes I said crafting, gear to be exactly what I want. That is a base disconnect that can only be solved in one-on-one discussions between player and GM or the group and GM if the group is saying they've been together since before they were sperm and ova.
I think that placing reasonable restrictions is just fine even without having a big discussion about it. If a player came to me and said, "Hey Bob, the CRB says I should start play with 62,000 gp but what I want will run me 65,000 is that ok? I know that you said we are level 10. This is within the WBL Guidelines and I did take Craft Wondrous Item." I might say, "sure, that's no problem."
However, if the same player came to me saying, "Hey, I took Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level and I would have made all my own gear, so you have to let me start play with 118,000 worth of gear." I am likely to say, "Not gonna happen."
I think that placing reasonable restrictions is just fine even without having a big discussion about it. If a player came to me and said, "Hey Bob, the CRB says I should start play with 62,000 gp but what I want will run me 65,000 is that ok? I know that you said we are level 10. This is within the WBL Guidelines and I did take Craft Wondrous Item." I might say, "sure, that's no problem."
However, if the same player came to me saying, "Hey, I took Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level and I would have made all my own gear, so you have to let me start play with 118,000 worth of gear." I am likely to say, "Not gonna happen."
I agree. A player shouldn't be able to pull a number out of their butt anymore than you should. However, that player deserves at least some consideration and probably some rolls because it's unlikely they haven't used the feat once in 7 levels. That's where the concessions come in. In that case, your concession is realizing the player took the feat is likely to use it and the players concession should be they are bound by the number of checks you allow and the rules for the feat and craft mechanic in general.
I believe a better and fairer concession would be to allow the character with the feat to make any custom magic items the GM is ok with allowing in game. And those that don't have the feat, get their equipment from the book. All prices are starting prices from the book.
This keeps it fair for the fighter/barbarian/etc who didn't take the feat, prevents the wizard/cleric/etc from having 1.5x to 2x as much equipment than the martial classes (who are already at a disadvantage at higher levels without giving the casters that much equipment), but still gives the character who took the feat a boon.
|
|
To a point, it is also part of the GM's job to make characters useful. If a character is a crafter, allowing the skill to only be useful at creation is not useful at all.
As many people have stated, this is an RP game. It is not just up to the players to find RP uses for skills, sometimes the GM needs to make suggestions too. This includes finding ways to help players make pretty much any skill useful during the adventure.
A good armorsmith should, for example, know the value of some armor that they see. With enough ranks they should be able to look at some armor and say, "That looks like it was made by such-and-such the great, he is renown for putting protective magics in the armor, go carefully." I find that this adds depth to the world.
|
|
I believe a better and fairer concession would be to allow the character with the feat to make any custom magic items the GM is ok with allowing in game. And those that don't have the feat, get their equipment from the book. All prices are starting prices from the book.
This keeps it fair for the fighter/barbarian/etc who didn't take the feat, prevents the wizard/cleric/etc from having 1.5x to 2x as much equipment than the martial classes (who are already at a disadvantage at higher levels without giving the casters that much equipment), but still gives the character who took the feat a boon.
The problem with that is that most of the items someone would want are the Big 6, and those ARE in the book. And are you including scrolls and potions in that list? After all, there is not really a "custom" with those. And what if you're in a world in which one of those not-custom items is actually unheard of and would have to be custom made? Or maybe the character custom-made it anyway so they could have it on the style of item they wanted? (A leather belt instead of a cloth one, for example.)
What I would probably allow is that they pay half for their items of the type they can craft (but require that they calculate the DC and confirm they can make it by taking 10), to a limit equal to one quarter their starting wealth (any more than that is bought at full price). This means that they can, at most, increase their wealth by +25%. This doesn't require a custom/not-custom distinction, but still caps their gear. It also matches up roughly with the idea that you either keep or convert gear (and thus gain no wealth increase from looted gear), but also with the fact that some of the loot you get is effectively cash (gold, platinum, gems, etc) and can be used more efficiently with crafting.
The problem with that is that most of the items someone would want are the Big 6, and those ARE in the book. And are you including scrolls and potions in that list? After all, there is not really a "custom" with those. And what if you're in a world in which one of those not-custom items is actually unheard of and would have to be custom made? Or maybe the character custom-made it anyway so they could have it on the style of item they wanted? (A leather belt instead of a cloth one, for example.)What I would probably allow is that they pay half for their items of the type they can craft (but require that they calculate the DC and confirm they can make it by taking 10), to a limit equal to one quarter their starting wealth (any more than that is bought at full price). This means that they can, at most, increase their wealth by +25%. This doesn't require a custom/not-custom distinction, but still caps their gear. It also matches up roughly with the idea that you either keep or convert gear (and thus gain no wealth increase from looted gear), but also with the fact that some of the loot you get is effectively cash (gold, platinum, gems, etc) and can be used more efficiently with crafting.
And I would not play a non-caster non-item making class in your game if you did this. It would be stupid to do so. I'd play something like a magus or a paladin in your game, since I could then start with a 25% boost in wealth. It's already hard enough for a Barbarian at level 12 to keep up with a spell caster, without giving the spell caster 25% boost in equipment.
|
|
And I would not play a non-caster non-item making class in your game if you did this. It would be stupid to do so. I'd play something like a magus or a paladin in your game, since I could then start with a 25% boost in wealth. It's already hard enough for a Barbarian at level 12 to keep up with a spell caster, without giving the spell caster 25% boost in equipment.
The problem with that is that most of the items someone would want are the Big 6, and those ARE in the book. And are you including scrolls and potions in that list? After all, there is not really a "custom" with those. And what if you're in a world in which one of those not-custom items is actually unheard of and would have to be custom made? Or maybe the character custom-made it anyway so they could have it on the style of item they wanted? (A leather belt instead of a cloth one, for example.)What I would probably allow is that they pay half for their items of the type they can craft (but require that they calculate the DC and confirm they can make it by taking 10), to a limit equal to one quarter their starting wealth (any more than that is bought at full price). This means that they can, at most, increase their wealth by +25%. This doesn't require a custom/not-custom distinction, but still caps their gear. It also matches up roughly with the idea that you either keep or convert gear (and thus gain no wealth increase from looted gear), but also with the fact that some of the loot you get is effectively cash (gold, platinum, gems, etc) and can be used more efficiently with crafting.
Dude, THEY PAY A FEAT (quite possibly multiple). If your barbarian took a feat that said "+10-25% wealth" and you denied them that wealth it'd be no more fair.
If you're really upset about it, let the caster make items for other party members too.
EDIT: And the "I would not play X in your games" argument is the most over-used empty threat of an argument ever concocted, and you do no-one favors by using it. Reserve it for when the gap is truly large enough that you would give up the possibility of entire character concepts rather than play with that "change." I doubt a slight change in wealth would do that.
Dude, THEY PAY A FEAT (quite possibly multiple). If your barbarian took a feat that said "+10-25% wealth" and you denied them that wealth it'd be no more fair.If you're really upset about it, let the caster make items for other party members too.
Dude! There's no feat in the game that says 'You may have 25% more wealth than anyone without this feat'. And no, I don't have to take multiple feats. You've limited it to 25%. I take Craft Wondrous Item, and I make exactly 25% extra Wondrous Items, then buy everything else straight.
And if it's ok for the crafter to make stuff for everyone else, why are you limiting it to 25%? If there's 4 crafters (Pladin, Magus, Ranger, Cleric) in the party, and each took a different magic item crafting feat, why couldn't they each make 25% more of that type? That would double everyone's WBL. There's no logical reason to limit it in that case.
You miss the point that the system is balanced, on CR, by WBL assumptions. If you add 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent to that WBL, and especially for only one character, then you are throwing the whole system out of whack. At lower levels, that's no big deal (level 1 to 5). At level 12 or level 15 it's a MAJOR skewing of power level.
And I would not play a non-caster non-item making class in your game if you did this. It would be stupid to do so. I'd play something like a magus or a paladin in your game, since I could then start with a 25% boost in wealth. It's already hard enough for a Barbarian at level 12 to keep up with a spell caster, without giving the spell caster 25% boost in equipment.
The problem with that is that most of the items someone would want are the Big 6, and those ARE in the book. And are you including scrolls and potions in that list? After all, there is not really a "custom" with those. And what if you're in a world in which one of those not-custom items is actually unheard of and would have to be custom made? Or maybe the character custom-made it anyway so they could have it on the style of item they wanted? (A leather belt instead of a cloth one, for example.)What I would probably allow is that they pay half for their items of the type they can craft (but require that they calculate the DC and confirm they can make it by taking 10), to a limit equal to one quarter their starting wealth (any more than that is bought at full price). This means that they can, at most, increase their wealth by +25%. This doesn't require a custom/not-custom distinction, but still caps their gear. It also matches up roughly with the idea that you either keep or convert gear (and thus gain no wealth increase from looted gear), but also with the fact that some of the loot you get is effectively cash (gold, platinum, gems, etc) and can be used more efficiently with crafting.
Dude, THEY PAY A FEAT (quite possibly multiple). If your barbarian took a feat that said "+10-25% wealth" and you denied them that wealth it'd be no more fair.
If you're really upset about it, let the caster make items for other party members too.
So what if they took a feat? They are getting a benefit, creating custom items. There is no feat that should allow any character to essentially get a +1 to +2 bonus to it's level/CR. The crafting feats allow more than a meager +25% wealth. They can grant nearly double the wealth depending on the level of the starting PC and the feat. Craft Wondrous Item can grant a 10th level character an addition 118,000 gold. That's two levels more worth of gear than a 10th level character should have.
The argument about the Big 6 is irrelevant. By allowing custom items, the PC that took the craft feat can make it a custom item. Instead of just having a Headband of Intellect, maybe it also grants the wearer Arcane Sight. He still gets his Big 6 item and he gets something that isn't off the shelf.
Augh, this again?
It's almost like this issue has popped up since August 2000. It should have been addressed more than a decade ago by the designers.
|
|
Dude, THEY PAY A FEAT (quite possibly multiple). If your barbarian took a feat that said "+10-25% wealth" and you denied them that wealth it'd be no more fair.If you're really upset about it, let the caster make items for other party members too.
Dude! There's no feat in the game that says 'You may have 25% more wealth than anyone without this feat'. And no, I don't have to take multiple feats. You've limited it to 25%. I take Craft Wondrous Item, and I make exactly 25% extra Wondrous Items, then buy everything else straight.
And if it's ok for the crafter to make stuff for everyone else, why are you limiting it to 25%? If there's 4 crafters (Pladin, Magus, Ranger, Cleric) in the party, and each took a different magic item crafting feat, why couldn't they each make 25% more of that type? That would double everyone's WBL. There's no logical reason to limit it in that case.
You miss the point that the system is balanced, on CR, by WBL assumptions. If you add 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent to that WBL, and especially for only one character, then you are throwing the whole system out of whack. At lower levels, that's no big deal (level 1 to 5). At level 12 or level 15 it's a MAJOR skewing of power level.
You COMPLETELY misunderstood how I was working that.
It was not +25% per feat, it was half price for the items you can craft, to a MAXIMUM of +25% wealth. This means that taking more than one just increases the odds you'll get to use the full +25%. That's it. No more. 1.25* is the limit. Done. Over.
And I don't claim that it's perfect, but it's certainly better than saying "Yeah, I know you took a feat for this, but %!$% you." I'm just trying to offer ideas here.
And, by the way, you miss the assumption that the CR system's balance requires that you can use your feats to some extent. If you take a feat for crafting items, but have no more items than anyone else, aren't you actually lower CR by some fractional amount? If you took 6 item crafting feats and have no more items than anyone else, wouldn't you say that's at least 1 full CR lower? I mean, since everyone gets to choose any item they want, what exactly is the item crafter getting?
You're also missing the fact that the utility of items requires exponentially more gold. Having +25% wealth does NOT grant you items that are 25% better, it would grant you a benefit closer to 10% (if that). Why? Because a +3 longsword does not cost 50% more than a +2 longsword, it costs 125% more. A +4 longsword does not cost 33% more than a +3, it costs 78% more. This is why it's okay that WBL is approximate: You have to be WAY off for balance for it to become unfair (IIRC there was a character in rise of the runelords that received a mere +1 CR for having DOUBLE the normal wealth.)
To use your own argument against you: "I would never play an item crafter in your games."
Dude! There's no feat in the game that says 'You may have 25% more wealth than anyone without this feat'.
His point is that its a valid interpretation of Craft Wondrous Items for it to be the above feat.
If you've spent a feat on Crafting, its only fair that it be acknolwedged you should see some (significant) reward from that feat.
So, the real question is, does all that extra wealth benefit the character more than the barbarian's investment in Power Attack does? Or perhaps his investment in an additional Rage Power?
I dont know that 25% wealth does more than either of those awesome feat choices.
EDIT: Bob, the Custom Item Idea is definately a great compromise, but I dont know that its any less difficult/questionably RAW than increased wealth would be.
Dude! There's no feat in the game that says 'You may have 25% more wealth than anyone without this feat'.His point is that its a valid interpretation of Craft Wondrous Items for it to be the above feat.
If you've spent a feat on Crafting, its only fair that it be acknolwedged you should see some (significant) reward from that feat.
So, the real question is, does all that extra wealth benefit the character more than the barbarian's investment in Power Attack does? Or perhaps his investment in an additional Rage Power?
I dont know that 25% wealth does more than either of those awesome feat choices.
EDIT: Bob, the Custom Item Idea is definately a great compromise, but I dont know that its any less difficult/questionably RAW than increased wealth would be.
It's actually better than letting someone have more wealth than they should. The WBL guidelines are clear that the wealth all PCs should have is roughly equal at all levels of play. Where does the GM draw the line at how much extra you can craft so you don't have significantly more power than anyone else. What if the group all said they have been friends since childhood? Would the GM allow the one who took the feat to increase the entire party wealth by more than 10%? 20%? 50%? Where is the cut off?
The Craft feats should grant a benefit, no one is saying that they shouldn't. I just don't think that a feat that a wizard can take at 3rd level should provide an increase in power by 2 levels while a feat that the fighter takes at the same level doesn't increase his power by much at the same level. How would a GM find a way to make Craft Wondrous Item equal to Weapon Specialization for a starting 10th level character?
So what if they took a feat? They are getting a benefit, creating custom items. There is no feat that should allow any...
Yet, if the player played through those levels and was crafting all the way through no one would complain that they had twice the value in gear since they can get materials at half the item cost.
So what if they took a feat? They are getting a benefit, creating custom items. There is no feat that should allow any...Yet, if the player played through those levels and was crafting all the way through no one would complain that they had twice the value in gear since they can get materials at half the item cost.
Actually, they wouldn't have twice the wealth, at least not in the games that try to stick with the WBL. For myself, as GM, I adjust the amount of wealth available based on what the party has. I look their wealth over at every level and make adjustments accordingly. If they have too much, then I provide less. If they don't have enough, then I provide more. It's up to them what they do with it, but I try to keep them within about 10-15% of the WBL.
But you see, dear Buri, they expect the DM to place less treasure to balance out those savings.
So you're really spending a feat to have some choice in gear selection, not get a discount. They don't tell you that, but that's what it is.
Heh, ninja'd with an example.
That's where I start to call hacks. Since, just because I have a +4 flaming longsword doesn't mean that dragon "lost" the headband I could have gained if it was only a +1 longsword. That example isn't meant to be taken literally but I hope it communicates the spirit of what I'm trying to say which is treasure hordes shouldn't be based on the party, but the likely left over stuff of the enemies I'm fighting and what they're likely to have. Then again, I prefer more organic based games.
Basically, if the character has the time and raw resources (materials, feats, skills, etc) then the crafting rules and their imagination is the only real limitations on what they can do.