How would a GM find a way to make Craft Wondrous Item equal to Weapon Specialization for a starting 10th level character?
How much wealth does it take to increase your expected damage by 4-6 per round? I can't think of any cheap way to accomplish this... I dont think going from a +2 weapon to a +3 (reasonable around level 10, when you're looking at 62k normally and the upgrade is 10k...) equals that, going from a +3 to a +4 (even more expensive!) is dramatically increasing the cost, etc...
Its very complicated. VERY complicated. But feats like Power Attack or Weapon Specialization can have huge effects, and are hard to duplicate with just money in a lot of cases (and the monetary cost scales upward with level).
I personally told my players who were crafting in my current campaign that when they brought in a crafting character, they could abuse the feats all they wanted at creation... but they had to use the wealth value for the next level down on the chart. So they had an advantage, but it was limited.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Oh no no no, the dragon doesn't 'lose' the headband, it never had it in the first place! :)
I agree completely. When someone says 'Craft feats don't allow you to go above WBL' I say 'then don't charge me a bloody feat for the privilege of gear selection'. Because that's all it amounts to.
|
Assuming that a DM does not change how much wealth they grant due to the presence of item crafting, a character with item crafting will have more wealth than one without (this usually extends to the whole party). This is because some loot is in cash form, which can be converted into 2* its value in magic items.
The question is, how much (on average) is that? That's a hard question. Probably in the 10% range, but it's hard to be sure.
Another angle would be to look at how much benefit a mid-range feat gives, like Weapon Focus, and compare that to how much extra benefit you would get from doubling the investment in one item.
Weapon focus gives a +1 to hit, weapon spec gives a +2 to damage. Therefor, a +1 extra enhancement bonus to a weapon is roughly equal to 1.5 feats. Since there is also DR overcoming in there, let's notch that up to 1.75 feats. At level 7 a character has 23,500gp. If you cap per-item expenditures at 50% of their wealth, a non-crafter might get a +2 weapon (8300 and change). A crafter who could outright double their wealth could instead get a +3 weapon (18300 and change, but paying 9,150). This seems a bit much, as they're getting a bit shy of 2 feats of benefit for one feat. Ratchet that down to "no more than an effective +50% wealth" and it matches up approximately.
Obviously more comparisons would need to be made at more levels. But it's hard to refute the idea that a feat should provide tangible benefit.
If he's invested his feats correctly, I'd say let him have the +3 weapon. Why? He's just as capable as the smithy, if not moreso, in the town he'd have to buy it from anyway but instead of spending gold he's spending time and the chance to lose out on some of that cash if his craft check fails. Crafter vs non-crafter each wading through the same pools of treasure of course the crafter has more "value potential."
How would a GM find a way to make Craft Wondrous Item equal to Weapon Specialization for a starting 10th level character?How much wealth does it take to increase your expected damage by 4-6 per round? I can't think of any cheap way to accomplish this... I dont think going from a +2 weapon to a +3 (reasonable around level 10, when you're looking at 62k normally and the upgrade is 10k...) equals that, going from a +3 to a +4 (even more expensive!) is dramatically increasing the cost, etc...
Its very complicated. VERY complicated. But feats like Power Attack or Weapon Specialization can have huge effects, and are hard to duplicate with just money in a lot of cases (and the monetary cost scales upward with level).
I personally told my players who were crafting in my current campaign that when they brought in a crafting character, they could abuse the feats all they wanted at creation... but they had to use the wealth value for the next level down on the chart. So they had an advantage, but it was limited.
A +2 to damage is in no way comparable to an increase in wealth by nearly double. If you had a choice between +2 damage and double your starting wealth, which would you choose?
It's nowhere comparable to increasing your power by having almost twice the wealth available. If you created a level 10 fighter with 118,000 how much more powerful would you be? Do you think it would be reasonable to allow that simply because the fighter invested in a single feat? Why or why not? Remember that 118,000 gold is what a level 12 character should have. What if the fighter took Craft Magic Arms and Armor at level 5 because he managed to qualify. Should he have 103,000 worth of gear (nearly what a level 12 character should have)?
Assuming that a DM does not change how much wealth they grant due to the presence of item crafting, a character with item crafting will have more wealth than one without (this usually extends to the whole party). This is because some loot is in cash form, which can be converted into 2* its value in magic items.
The question is, how much (on average) is that? That's a hard question. Probably in the 10% range, but it's hard to be sure.
Another angle would be to look at how much benefit a mid-range feat gives, like Weapon Focus, and compare that to how much extra benefit you would get from doubling the investment in one item.
Weapon focus gives a +1 to hit, weapon spec gives a +2 to damage. Therefor, a +1 extra enhancement bonus to a weapon is roughly equal to 1.5 feats. Since there is also DR overcoming in there, let's notch that up to 1.75 feats. At level 7 a character has 23,500gp. If you cap per-item expenditures at 50% of their wealth, a non-crafter might get a +2 weapon (8300 and change). A crafter who could outright double their wealth could instead get a +3 weapon (18300 and change, but paying 9,150). This seems a bit much, as they're getting a bit shy of 2 feats of benefit for one feat. Ratchet that down to "no more than an effective +50% wealth" and it matches up approximately.
Obviously more comparisons would need to be made at more levels. But it's hard to refute the idea that a feat should provide tangible benefit.
Allowing the crafter to craft custom items is very tangible. I don't see any need to set an arbitrary cap above what the system assumes just because a player spends a feat slot. Customization is incredibly tangible.
Here's the thing. Everyone keeps throwing around the WBL table yet people claim that's just a "view" of the players "wealth" not meant to be the number of GP on the character. Question: after character creation do you tell the player that their character doesn't have the remaining GP value after they did their shopping? If not, then you're treating exactly like the piggybank people say it's not. If it is a piggybank, the crafters should be free to do with that amount of GP with only the rules as their restrictions and the amount of time the GM feels is reasonable they spent crafting. If it really isn't a piggybank then you better start taking away "excess GP" after character creation.
A +2 to damage is in no way comparable to an increase in wealth by nearly double. If you had a choice between +2 damage and double your starting wealth, which would you choose?
In games where the GM is not allowing me to use my crafting feats, I would take the +2 damage.
It's nowhere comparable to increasing your power by having almost twice the wealth available. If you created a level 10 fighter with 118,000 how much more powerful would you be? Do you think it would be reasonable to allow that simply because the fighter invested in a single feat? Why or why not? Remember that 118,000 gold is what a level 12 character should have. What if the fighter took Craft Magic Arms and Armor at level 5 because he managed to qualify. Should he have 103,000 worth of gear (nearly what a level 12 character should have)?
What does it matter in the long run, if you are going to change the amount of treasure that the PCs are getting?
Also, it should also depend on what the PC is doing with the extra wealth. If they buy an inn (plot hook) with the extra gold, would you have the same type of objection?
If the PCs manage to acquire a large ship, do you consider that part of their wealth by level?
Allowing the crafter to craft custom items is very tangible. I don't see any need to set an arbitrary cap above what the system assumes just because a player spends a feat slot. Customization is incredibly tangible.
Does this mean that a non-crafter cannot commission a custom magic item from a crafter?
|
|
Allowing the crafter to craft custom items is very tangible. I don't see any need to set an arbitrary cap above what the system assumes just because a player spends a feat slot. Customization is incredibly tangible.Assuming that a DM does not change how much wealth they grant due to the presence of item crafting, a character with item crafting will have more wealth than one without (this usually extends to the whole party). This is because some loot is in cash form, which can be converted into 2* its value in magic items.
The question is, how much (on average) is that? That's a hard question. Probably in the 10% range, but it's hard to be sure.
Another angle would be to look at how much benefit a mid-range feat gives, like Weapon Focus, and compare that to how much extra benefit you would get from doubling the investment in one item.
Weapon focus gives a +1 to hit, weapon spec gives a +2 to damage. Therefor, a +1 extra enhancement bonus to a weapon is roughly equal to 1.5 feats. Since there is also DR overcoming in there, let's notch that up to 1.75 feats. At level 7 a character has 23,500gp. If you cap per-item expenditures at 50% of their wealth, a non-crafter might get a +2 weapon (8300 and change). A crafter who could outright double their wealth could instead get a +3 weapon (18300 and change, but paying 9,150). This seems a bit much, as they're getting a bit shy of 2 feats of benefit for one feat. Ratchet that down to "no more than an effective +50% wealth" and it matches up approximately.
Obviously more comparisons would need to be made at more levels. But it's hard to refute the idea that a feat should provide tangible benefit.
I'm referring primarily to the "start above level 1" case, because that's the case we're arguing. The argument is "can you get more out of crafting when starting above level 1."
Well, if you assume that everyone can pick whatever items they want when starting above level 1, then yes you should get more out of crafting because its normal benefit (choosing what you want) has been eliminated, and getting a bit more wealth out of it is the only other logical benefit to provide.
Also, to all of you who are saying that "double wealth" is obviously an overpowering benefit: You may want to check the math on that. Bonuses on items require exponential wealth investment. Investing double the amount of wealth on one item generally only results in about a +1 bonus over what it had. Do this on the big six (assuming you even have all of those items) and you net a an average of about +3.5 to AC and a +1.5 on saves, attack and damage and +0.5 HP per level and +0.5 skill points per level and lastly +0.5 on skill checks. Obviously this is worth a lot more than a feat. But how many is it worth? The +1.5 on all saves is a net of +4.5, or about 2 feats. The AC is 3.5 feats. The attack is 1.5 feats. The damage is about 1 feat. The HP and skill points are each half feats. +0.5 on skill checks applies to a lot of skills, but isn't a huge benefit. Probably worth a feat. Total worth: 10 feats. There might be some other minor benefits in there, but most likely not hugely significant.
There, so doubling wealth is worth 10 feats. So how much wealth is one feat worth? A guesstimate would be that if +100% is worth 10 feats, that 1 feat is worth +10%. This doesn't take into account the exponential nature of wealth, but at least it's close.
I don't mind that people don't want character's doubling their wealth, but if you let anyone choose whatever gear they want then you have to give that crafter SOME benefit or the feat is pointless. Since most people do operate under the "whatever you want" rule when making characters above 1st level, you should probably think of a different benefit for the crafter. Wealth is the easiest and most obvious choice.
Depends on how much of that wealth the fighter could use. Having three +5 armors is no different than having one +5 armor. You can only use one at a time.
This. The cost to improve your character is not linear in wealth; its diminishing returns.
It also happens that one feat can only improve your wealth in a given category so much; you can't improve your strength (via wondrous items) with the same feat you can improve your enhancement bonuses.
It also happens that these benefits are fleeting; taking a +3 weapon before the guy does at level 12 doesn't mean you have an advantage over the other guy forever. If he took weapon specialization instead, he DOES have an absolute advantage over you. Once his wealth gets him the same weapon you got with your extra wealth, you're paying extra to play catch up on the difference.
Once you both reach the caps that gear provides, that bonus wealth starts losing out...
Here's the thing. Everyone keeps throwing around the WBL table yet people claim that's just a "view" of the players "wealth" not meant to be the number of GP on the character. Question: after character creation do you tell the player that their character doesn't have the remaining GP value after they did their shopping? If not, then you're treating exactly like the piggybank people say it's not. If it is a piggybank, the crafters should be free to do with that amount of GP with only the rules as their restrictions and the amount of time the GM feels is reasonable they spent crafting. If it really isn't a piggybank then you better start taking away "excess GP" after character creation.
First, not everyone is saying that. I'm not.
Second, even if that is what it being said, your gold is part of your wealth.
Third, the point of the WBL is to help GMs keep their players from being more powerful than the system assumes at any given level.
This is what the CRB says: "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game assumes that all PCs of equivalent level have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items. Since the primary income for a PC derives from treasure and loot gained from adventuring, it's important to moderate the wealth and hoards you place in your adventures."
So it is very clear that the feats should not allow a character to have nearly double the wealth of other characters. If it did, then they would no longer have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items.
The CRB also says: "Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items."
You will notice that part of their wealth includes gear and coins.
You may also notice that the CRB says: "As a general rule, PCs should not own any magic item worth more than half their total character wealth, so make sure to check before awarding expensive magic items."
If you allow Craft Item feats to double wealth, then you are allowing the possibility of a single item to be worth double what others could have. Doesn't that interpretation seem odd?
If you allow Craft Item feats to double wealth...
This is only possible if the character in question spends ALL of their resources on the single type of gear covered by their single Crafting Feat... OR they spend multiple feats on crafting gear. If they spend 2-3 feats on it, its possible that MAY be worth that degree of increase in wealth.
2-3 feats will make or break a very large number of builds.
First, not everyone is saying that. I'm not.
Second, even if that is what it being said, your gold is part of your wealth.
Third, the point of the WBL is to help GMs keep their players from being more powerful than the system assumes at any given level.
This is what the CRB says: "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game assumes that all PCs of equivalent level have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items. Since the primary income for a PC derives from treasure and loot gained from adventuring, it's important to moderate the wealth and hoards you place in your adventures."
So it is very clear that the feats should not allow a character to have nearly double the wealth of other characters. If it did, then they would no longer have roughly equal amounts of treasure and magic items.
The CRB also says: "Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary...
None of those are hard and fast rules. They are guidelines, as is the WBL chart. The "should" and "for a balanced approach" is okay to convey the idea. It's not a straitjacket on the characters. However, if you say to your player that they have 50,000 GP to spend on their gear and don't provide any other stipulations then expect the crafters to really shine. You can't really later say "nope you can't have this" once everyone meets for play. If you want that sort of breakdown then it should be defined when you told them how much they had to spend. You can't expect every player reading those paragraphs to say "I am bound by these percentages" by virtue of the words alone if for nothing else than the fact they're not written that way.
I'm referring primarily to the "start above level 1" case, because that's the case we're arguing. The argument is "can you get more out of crafting when starting above level 1."
Well, if you assume that everyone can pick whatever items they want when starting above level 1, then yes you should get more out of crafting because its normal benefit (choosing what you want) has been eliminated, and getting a bit more wealth out of it is the only other logical benefit to provide.
How has it been eliminated? If you can make custom items instead of buying off the shelf, isn't that a benefit? I allow the crafter to use the Item Creation Guidelines, with proper GM adjudication (no True Strike at will items for pennies on the dollar). I have a player who had a ring crafted for his barbarian that turns him into a giant when he rages. It took some work to keep it balanced, but he was able to have a custom item crafted for him after the game had started. I would have allowed a wizard to combine a ring of wizardry IV with a ring of spell turning if he had the money and could meet the prerequisites. This would allow him to save a little money (one of them has a portion of its cost absorbed into the other) as well as keeping a ring slot open for a ring of freedom of movement combined with a ring of wizardry III if he wants. These items are part of his actual wealth, but they are certainly not things he could have started with unless he took the appropriate feats. There is a difference in how the barbarian had to wait until play started and the wizard could begin play with those items.
Also, to all of you who are saying that "double wealth" is obviously an overpowering benefit: You may want to check the math on that. Bonuses on items require exponential wealth investment. Investing double the amount of wealth on one item generally only results in about a +1 bonus over what it had. Do this on the big six (assuming you even have all of those items) and you net a an average of about +3.5 to AC and a +1.5 on saves, attack and damage and +0.5 HP per level and +0.5 skill points per level and lastly +0.5 on skill checks. Obviously this is worth a lot more than a feat. But how many is it worth? The +1.5 on all saves is a net of +4.5, or about 2 feats. The AC is 3.5 feats. The attack is 1.5 feats. The damage is about 1 feat. The HP and skill points are each half feats. +0.5 on skill checks applies to a lot of skills, but isn't a huge benefit. Probably worth a feat. Total worth: 10 feats. There might be some other minor benefits in there, but most likely not hugely significant.
I did the math. Craft Wondrous Item can be taken at 3rd level. A 3rd level character begins play with 3,000 gold. Now let's look at other levels, and assume that the wizard only makes wondrous items (which is where much of his gear is probably going to be). If you do the math, you will see that the increase in wealth is very high:
Level 4: 50%, equal to another level 4
Level 5: 71%, equal to level 6
Level 6: 81%, equal to level 7
Level 7: 87%, equal to level 8
Level 8: 91%, equal to level 10
Level 9: 87%, equal to level 11
Level 10: 95%, equal to level 12
Level 11: 96%, equal to level 13
Level 12: 97%, equal to level 14
Level 13 and 14: 98%, equal to 2 levels higher
Level 15 to 18: 99%, equal to 2 levels higher
Level 19 and 20: 100%, equal to 2 or more levels higher (we don't know what 1,057,000 gold or more is equal to)
Those numbers are huge.
There, so doubling wealth is worth 10 feats. So how much wealth is one feat worth? A guesstimate would be that if +100% is worth 10 feats, that 1 feat is worth +10%. This doesn't take into account the exponential nature of wealth, but at least it's close.
I just used only the Craft Wondrous Item feat and nothing else. What if it's Scribe Scroll? It would clearly not only double the wizard's wealth but give him so much versatility in spells that I don't even know where to start calculating.
I don't mind that people don't want character's doubling their wealth, but if you let anyone choose whatever gear they want then you have to give that crafter SOME benefit or the feat is pointless. Since most people do operate under the "whatever you want" rule when making characters above 1st level, you should probably think of a different benefit for the crafter. Wealth is the easiest and most obvious choice.
Doubling the starting wealth is significant. Even increasing your wealth by a single level is significant. The PC's effective level increases accordingly. That allows them to take on more challenging opponents and gives them even more wealth quickly.
By instead allowing those who invested in the feats to customize, you are granting the feats a benefit while at the same time not giving the character more power than they are meant to have.
If you allow Craft Item feats to double wealth...This is only possible if the character in question spends ALL of their resources on the single type of gear covered by their single Crafting Feat... OR they spend multiple feats on crafting gear. If they spend 2-3 feats on it, its possible that MAY be worth that degree of increase in wealth.
2-3 feats will make or break a very large number of builds.
What's to stop the player from doing that? DM fiat? Why not just start with a basic assumption, the one in the CRB and let the players know this?
I know that my players wouldn't double their wealth and I also know that practicality means that most casual players won't either. I have run games at conventions and at game stores where I had to prevent this. Some people are out to win the game and they are the ones that have to be watched.
As someone who cut his teeth on 1st Edition, as a GM I am generally able to see if someone has too much gear for his level. 1st and 2nd Editions didn't provide any help at all in this regard. Not everyone has this skill and that's why the WBL Guidelines were created.
|
|
Stuff.
You're making a lot of inappropriate comparisons here.
First, I was making the assumption that, custom or not, people are buying their items without restriction. This only happens when you make characters above level 1, and is the ONLY case we're discussing. If you're saying that the benefit of the feat, at your table, is to force other players to stick with the explicitly listed items and allow the crafters to make weird items, that's an okay benefit I suppose. However, not all tables do this (myself included) because it implies that those items are somehow not available to be made for those characters by for-hire crafters, which seems unlikely.
Second, you make the implication that being a couple levels ahead in wealth is equivalent to being a couple levels ahead as a character. This is not true in any way, shape or form. You do not get NEARLY as much benefit out of doubling wealth as you do those levels and to even compare the two is disingenuous at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst.
Third, you assume that I wanted to give them double wealth. I NEVER SAID THAT. I have never and will never say that. All I've said is that such a feat is worth SOME wealth increase. You apply double, I was saying 10-25%, and even that was up for debate. Obviously you're going to get bad numbers if you completely misrepresent what I was saying. The "double wealth == 10 feats" comparison was to compare how much it IS worth, not how many feats it actually takes.
Fourth: The developers disagree with you that double wealth is an earth-shattering benefit. In the rise of the runelords AP there was a high level caster that had double the normal wealth (with no feat/ability expenditure of any form). The adjustment? +1 CR. That isn't a whole heck of a lot. Having someone spend a feat to get 1/10th that benefit does not seem farfetched. (Disclaimer: I'm working from memory as I'm not at home to look at my books for this.)
TL;DR - Please don't completely misrepresent/misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Doing so will help no-one.
None of those are hard and fast rules. They are guidelines, as is the WBL chart. The "should" and "for a balanced approach" is okay to convey the idea. It's not a straitjacket on the characters. However, if you say to your player that they have 50,000 GP to spend on their gear and don't provide any other stipulations then expect the crafters to really shine. You can't really later say "nope you can't have this" once everyone meets for play. If you want that sort of breakdown then it should be defined when you told them how much they had to spend. You can't expect every player reading those paragraphs to say "I am bound by these percentages" by virtue of the words alone if for nothing else than the fact they're not written that way.
Those are "hard and fast rules." As guidelines they are hard (specific values) and fast (easy to follow and use). As GM, I can expect the players to read those paragraphs just like I can expect them to read any other paragraph in the CRB. Those aren't meant to be perfect. They are meant to make sure players and GMs know what the designers expected when they wrote the rules. They even say that some characters will spend it differently.
If a player came to me and said, "hey, after I made my character I realized that I spent a little more on weapons but I ended up cutting from other areas." I would say, "ok."
If a player came to me and said, "hey I found a way to double my gear by taking a craft feat." I would say, "that's not what it's for. Here's how it is supposed to work and why." My players don't come to the table with characters I haven't looked over. I generally see new characters weeks in advance and I work with the players to make sure that the characters fit in the world and that the characters fill the roles the players want. I make sure they understand how their choices work. Sometimes they read things differently than I do and it's important to make sure we are all on the same page. As GM I have final say but that doesn't mean I don't listen and understand. There have been plenty of times I accepted the player's interpretation of something.
|
|
None of those are hard and fast rules. They are guidelines, as is the WBL chart. The "should" and "for a balanced approach" is okay to convey the idea. It's not a straitjacket on the characters. However, if you say to your player that they have 50,000 GP to spend on their gear and don't provide any other stipulations then expect the crafters to really shine. You can't really later say "nope you can't have this" once everyone meets for play. If you want that sort of breakdown then it should be defined when you told them how much they had to spend. You can't expect every player reading those paragraphs to say "I am bound by these percentages" by virtue of the words alone if for nothing else than the fact they're not written that way.Those are "hard and fast rules." As guidelines they are hard (specific values) and fast (easy to follow and use).
To quote a movie "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The "hard and fast" indicates that the rule must be adhered to strictly, and has little to do with the words "hard" or "fast". The most complicated rules in existence with no easy interpretations can be considered "hard and fast" if they must none-the-less be adhered to.
EDIT: In other words, when they said "they aren't hard and fast rules", they meant that the rules are listed as guidelines rather than something that must be strictly adhered to at all costs.
|
So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
What's to stop the player from doing that?
A desire to play a more effective character for one?
Here's an example from something I'm currently working on; I'm remaking a 10th level Archer-Inquisitor for a campaign, and I've got 60k to spend (2k is set aside for party stuff). I already have covered the basics (+2 weapon, armor, stat belt, headband, cloak, boots of speed, lesser bracers of archery, etc.).
If I trade 2 feats for crafting to 'double my wealth' (Say, Manyshot and Deadly Aim, or Manyshot and Rapid Shot), what could I possibly buy to make up for the lost effectiveness? Doubling my investment in weapons and armor gets me at best a +1 to attack, damage, and AC. Doubling my wondrous items is worse; a +4 stat item is four times the cost of a +2, and things like bracers of archery/boots of speed dont double up just because I want to spend more cash there.
So my challenge is, please tell me, what can I buy with my double wealth that makes up for the loss of build-critical feats like Manyshot?
I really dont think Crafting Feats are notably better than other feats, even if they double your investments within their area of coverage, IMO. The benefit is really bigger early on, where they give you early access to cool things like Boots of Speed. But later? The next +1 on an item generally costs more than double what that first one did.
I may have to revise my earlier ruling in my campaign...
ORIGINAL TOPIC: I think a wizard should totally be allowed to craft with his starting allotment, and lead off with a few scrolls. It'll make life more fun at level 1 when he can improvise a few extra spells a day (albeit at relatively great financial cost to himself).
If a player came to me and said, "hey I found a way to double my gear by taking a craft feat." I would say, "that's not what it's for. Here's how it is supposed to work and why." My players don't come to the table with characters I haven't looked over. I generally see new characters weeks in advance and I work with the players to make sure that the characters fit in the world and that the characters fill the roles the players want. I make sure they understand how their choices work. Sometimes they read things differently than I do and it's important to make sure we are all on the same page. As GM I have final say but that doesn't mean I don't listen and...
I'm not saying that's how it should be. If I came to you as a player and said "hey I'm taking this crafting feat" the reply I'd expect out of you would consist of two parts. First, how much time will you give my character to say he's been crafting. This may need discussion on the characters mindset and goals, etc and it may not. Second, are there any specific material restrictions? Mithral or adamantine may be in particular short supply and that's fine but tell me sooner rather than later.
After that, I'd expect you to basically back off. I can only craft so much GP worth items with the amount of time you gave me so that really should be the limiting factor and not the overall amount of GP with which I can craft. The breakdowns the book gave don't have crafting and non-crafting related percentages so crafting should not be a factor in those equations outside of "does my level 10 character even have time to craft 10,000 GP worth of items?"
So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
Depends. How much time do they have to craft? That's the major sink in crafting: time, not GP. Limit them that way. If the character is constantly questing then they would have significantly less time to craft than someone who takes months-long furloughs.
|
|
Depends. How much time do they have to craft? That's the major sink in crafting: time, not GP. Limit them that way. If the character is constantly questing then they would have significantly less time to craft than someone who takes months-long furloughs.So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
This is before the first game, so this is stuff the character has accumulated over their pre-adventuring lifetime. Only purchased with their initial 2d6*10 gp. They are at 0 xp right now.
This is before the first game, so this is stuff the character has accumulated over their pre-adventuring lifetime. Only purchased with their initial 2d6*10 gp. They are at 0 xp right now.
My answer does not change. You're the GM. When did that character actually become level 1 and, thus, gain the scribe scroll feat? Has it been months? Years? Now, given the character's history and mindset, how much time is he likely to spend scribing scrolls? Make a decision and let the player decide what to do with the rest. I can't stand GMs who put strict limits on their players. The role of the GM is to setup the sandbox and let players work within that sandbox. Don't say they have x amount of gold to spend toward crafting or even to say they crafted two scrolls. Both of those are solutions pulled directly out of your ass. Instead, give them the guideline and let them choose what to do within that guideline.
In the case of crafting you have 3 requirements: time, DC and resources. At level 1 they have the resources (money). They can likely make the DC (dictated by their skills), that leaves only time up in the air. Tell me, Mr. GM, how much time (if any at all) do I have?
Stuff.You're making a lot of inappropriate comparisons here.
First, I was making the assumption that, custom or not, people are buying their items without restriction. This only happens when you make characters above level 1, and is the ONLY case we're discussing. If you're saying that the benefit of the feat, at your table, is to force other players to stick with the explicitly listed items and allow the crafters to make weird items, that's an okay benefit I suppose. However, not all tables do this (myself included) because it implies that those items are somehow not available to be made for those characters by for-hire crafters, which seems unlikely.
You said that there is no tangible benefit to not allowing the item creation feats to exceed the WBL Guidelines. I disagreed and said why. How you do things at your table is your way and if it works, great. However, it's hard to argue that customization isn't a tangible benefit.
Second, you make the implication that being a couple levels ahead in wealth is equivalent to being a couple levels ahead as a character. This is not true in any way, shape or form. You do not get NEARLY as much benefit out of doubling wealth as you do those levels and to even compare the two is disingenuous at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst.
Let's not accuse anyone of lying because that's not what's happening here. Let's remain civil. As for the implication that being a couple levels ahead in wealth isn't equivalent to being ahead in levels, let's look at your point in a moment...
Third, you assume that I wanted to give them double wealth. I NEVER SAID THAT. I have never and will never say that. All I've said is that such a feat is worth SOME wealth increase. You apply double, I was saying 10-25%, and even that was up for debate. Obviously you're going to get bad numbers if you completely misrepresent what I was saying. The "double wealth == 10 feats" comparison was to compare how much it IS worth, not how many feats it actually takes.
I didn't say that you want to give them double wealth. Never even implied it. In fact, I thought I was clear when I said:
"I know that my players wouldn't double their wealth and I also know that practicality means that most casual players won't either. I have run games at conventions and at game stores where I had to prevent this. Some people are out to win the game and they are the ones that have to be watched."
I didn't say, nor even try to imply that you are one of the people trying to win the game by finding every loophole they can. By reading your posts and the assumption that you are coming from, a 10-20% increase in wealth, it is clear that you are not one of those people. Those people do exist and I know you have seen them on these boards and probably other places as well.
Fourth: The developers disagree with you that double wealth is an earth-shattering benefit. In the rise of the runelords AP there was a high level caster that had double the normal wealth (with no feat/ability expenditure of any form). The adjustment? +1 CR. That isn't a whole heck of a lot. Having someone spend a feat to get 1/10th that benefit does not seem farfetched. (Disclaimer: I'm working from memory as I'm not at home to look at my books for this.)
I don't have access to the AP you are referring to but double the wealth is an increase in CR. So you do agree that it is significant. If it wasn't, why would it increase CR? Let's look at the wording the CRB uses for an NPC with PC wealth of equal level:
" NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR. Be careful awarding NPCs this extra gear, though—especially at high levels, where you can blow out your entire adventure's treasure budget in one fell swoop!"
Increasing the CR from APL to APL +1 goes from Average to Challenging. I can't find the section where it talks about how much resources you are supposed to use for each difficulty, but if I recall Average is supposed to use 20% of your resources while Challenging was closer to 50%. Like I said, I can't find that table and it may have been something from 3.5.
TL;DR - Please don't completely misrepresent/misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Doing so will help no-one.
I ask the same of you. I never called you a liar nor even tried to imply it. I think we are talking past each other.
Yes, I agree the rules do not say "you must spend all of these coins at character creation."
Do you agree that they also do not say "you can keep any left over coins."?
See, the passage says "You have gold, here is what you can do with it," which is different from "You have gold."
The point I was making is that the section is written so poorly that not only does it take an official stance on crafting (beyond the definition of the word 'wealth' and that fact that it is used in place of 'money'), but it also doesn't actually explicitly back up the way I am sure we all play it - that you keep the coin you don't spend.
Eh, it does say you gain gold pieces (e.g. money).
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.
None of those are hard and fast rules. They are guidelines, as is the WBL chart. The "should" and "for a balanced approach" is okay to convey the idea. It's not a straitjacket on the characters. However, if you say to your player that they have 50,000 GP to spend on their gear and don't provide any other stipulations then expect the crafters to really shine. You can't really later say "nope you can't have this" once everyone meets for play. If you want that sort of breakdown then it should be defined when you told them how much they had to spend. You can't expect every player reading those paragraphs to say "I am bound by these percentages" by virtue of the words alone if for nothing else than the fact they're not written that way.Those are "hard and fast rules." As guidelines they are hard (specific values) and fast (easy to follow and use).To quote a movie "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The "hard and fast" indicates that the rule must be adhered to strictly, and has little to do with the words "hard" or "fast". The most complicated rules in existence with no easy interpretations can be considered "hard and fast" if they must none-the-less be adhered to.
EDIT: In other words, when they said "they aren't hard and fast rules", they meant that the rules are listed as guidelines rather than something that must be strictly adhered to at all costs.
Whatever. What I am saying is that the people who wrote the book can't get any clearer when they say that every character of a specific level is expected to have a certain amount of wealth/gear. They don't say that they design encounters with the assumption that you will have up to twice your level in gear. They say you will have roughly the same amount of wealth as every other character of an equal level. No matter how much anyone tries to argue against that, it is very clear that they mean exactly that. They don't mean that if you have 1 gold piece over you will break the game to unplayability. They mean that so long as every character is close, things will be fine. If one character has much more than the others, that character will be more powerful and it will change the way your encounters work.
What I am saying is that the people who wrote the book can't get any clearer when they say that every character of a specific level is expected to have a certain amount of wealth/gear. They don't say that they design encounters with the assumption that you will have up to twice your level in gear.
Bob, the flaw in this statement is that the designers do not design encounters based around the existence of ANY single given feat.
All feats modify the base assumptions of the game, in the PC's favor. As long as most feats give an appropriate amount of deviation in the PC's favor, things should be fine.
So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
My ruling remains the same regardless of level. You can have whatever you can afford so long as you don't exceed your wealth (not gold pieces). If your wizard has Scribe Scroll (most likely unless you have an archetype that changes this), you can have a level 1 scroll for 25 gold. If you have the Enlarge Spell feat and want to scribe a scroll for with an Enlarged Ray of Frost, go for it. It will still cost you 25 gold but you will have a customized scroll because you meet all the requirements to scribe it. If you instead want to get a Heightened Ray of Frost, you would not be able to because you don't meet the requirements. Metamagic scrolls are not "off the shelf."
Whatever. What I am saying is that the people who wrote the book can't get any clearer when they say that every character of a specific level is expected to have a certain amount of wealth/gear. They don't say that they design encounters with the assumption that you will have up to twice your level in gear. They say you will have roughly the same amount of wealth as every other character of an equal level. No matter how much anyone tries to argue against that, it is very clear that they mean exactly that. They don't mean that if you have 1 gold piece over you will break the game to unplayability. They mean that so long as every character is close, things will be fine. If one character has much more than the others, that character will be more powerful and it will change the way your encounters work.
The rules do state you get a certain amount of GP at character creation. The rules also state that with crafting you only need to spend 1/3 or 1/2 the cost of an item to create the item. I don't see why you can't allow for crafters to have more/better gear than non-crafters. That's like saying your ranger can't have better archery skills than my non-ranger. It doesn't make sense. The only strict limit, by the rules, can apply to this is to limit the amount of time a character has to potentially use toward the crafting process.
So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
12.5 gp for each scroll that they scribe.
It is a momentary advantage, as once the scrolls are used, they are gone. They can only be spells that the caster already has in their spellbook.
3 scrolls = 37.5 gp = 3 additional spells to be used in or out of combat, once each
light crossbow + 25 bolts = 37.5 gp = permanent weapon that can resupplied with ammo fairly cheaply (or free from downed enemies).
My ruling remains the same regardless of level. You can have whatever you can afford so long as you don't exceed your wealth (not gold pieces).
Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment.
It's right there black and white, man.
What I am saying is that the people who wrote the book can't get any clearer when they say that every character of a specific level is expected to have a certain amount of wealth/gear. They don't say that they design encounters with the assumption that you will have up to twice your level in gear.Bob, the flaw in this statement is that the designers do not design encounters based around the existence of ANY single given feat.
All feats modify the base assumptions of the game, in the PC's favor. As long as most feats give an appropriate amount of deviation in the PC's favor, things should be fine.
Which actually is a very important point. They don't take into account that any feat increases your power or wealth to be equal to a higher level character.
The assumption is that every single character of a specific level will have roughly the same amount of wealth. That's it. That was written with the feats in mind so I fail to see how it matters. The obviously don't think that you should have significantly more wealth because you chose to play a wizard instead of a barbarian. That defies logic.
My ruling remains the same regardless of level. You can have whatever you can afford so long as you don't exceed your wealth (not gold pieces).Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment.
It's right there black and white, man.
How does that change anything I said?
Which actually is a very important point. They don't take into account that any feat increases your power or wealth to be equal to a higher level character.
The assumption is that every single character of a specific level will have roughly the same amount of wealth. That's it. That was written with the feats in mind so I fail to see how it matters. The obviously don't think that you should have significantly more wealth because you chose to play a wizard instead of a barbarian. That defies logic.
Thank you. I'm glad you agree that my level 15 crafter has 240,000 GP. What I do with my GP is between me, the rules and how much time I have to put toward crafting. What your level 15 non-crafter can do with his 240,000 GP is up to you.
The assumption is that every single character of a specific level will have roughly the same amount of wealth. That's it. That was written with the feats in mind so I fail to see how it matters. The obviously don't think that you should have significantly more wealth because you chose to play a wizard instead of a barbarian. That defies logic.
This is something of a False Dichotomy (I think thats the right one). You dont have more wealth because you are playing a wizard instead of a barbarian, you have more wealth because you chose to invest one resource into more of another (feats to wealth). That extra wealth is not free. You invested your character choices differently, and gained different rewards for it.
If you spent a feat (or worse, multiple feats) on gaining that extra wealth, as long as you aren't notably more powerful than the guy who spent those feats on being more powerful (which I do not believe is the case unless they spent those feats poorly), there is no issue.
Wizards are a bit weird as they are crafters by default; however, its still not free. Its part of the opportunity cost they pay losing out on other classes cool class features.
So, back to the original question.
How much would you charge a 1st level wizard for their initial scrolls?
They get the scribe scroll feat for free as a wizard. Should the 1st level scrolls cost 25 GP each (as normal scroll price) or 12.5 GP each (as crafted)?
Please note, this is a 1st level character wanting to have crafted these scrolls before the game starts.
This can be (on average) a difference between 2 scrolls or 5 scrolls of first level spells to start.
12.5 gp for each scroll that they scribe.
It is a momentary advantage, as once the scrolls are used, they are gone. They can only be spells that the caster already has in their spellbook.
3 scrolls = 37.5 gp = 3 additional spells to be used in or out of combat, once each
light crossbow + 25 bolts = 37.5 gp = permanent weapon that can resupplied with ammo fairly cheaply (or free from downed enemies).
This seems like a momentary advantage but is it consistent? What happens if the caster dies and ends up making a new one at 5th level? Do you apply the same ruling? What about if it happens at 15th level? What if it's not Scribing Scrolls but crafting a staff or wondrous item (something nor momentary)? I like things to be consistent and fair for my players and I don't want to have to continuously come up with a new rule for every level of play.
How does that change anything I said?
Because, if "starting wealth" = gold pieces then crafters can gain potentially 3x the mundane gear a non-crafter can and twice the amount of magical gear a non-crafter can regardless of level since the crafter acquires their gear through feats and the purchase of raw materials instead of purchasing the end product.
The assumption is that every single character of a specific level will have roughly the same amount of wealth. That's it. That was written with the feats in mind so I fail to see how it matters. The obviously don't think that you should have significantly more wealth because you chose to play a wizard instead of a barbarian. That defies logic.This is something of a False Dichotomy (I think thats the right one). You dont have more wealth because you are playing a wizard instead of a barbarian, you have more wealth because you chose to invest one resource into more of another (feats to wealth). That extra wealth is not free. You invested your character choices differently, and gained different rewards for it.
If you spent a feat (or worse, multiple feats) on gaining that extra wealth, as long as you aren't notably more powerful than the guy who spent those feats on being more powerful (which I do not believe is the case unless they spent those feats poorly), there is no issue.
Wizards are a bit weird as they are crafters by default; however, its still not free. Its part of the opportunity cost they pay losing out on other classes cool class features.
It's not a false dichotomy because the barbarian can't scribe scrolls, craft wants, brew potions, craft rings, craft staffs, or craft rods. It is unlikely that he would be crafting wondrous items or arms/armor but he could qualify for those by level 5 if he wants. However, crafting wondrous items, arms, and armor are all more difficult for him than for the spell caster. So it's a very fair comparison.
It is very easy to become more powerful with much more wealth. Create a 10th level wizard with 62000 gold and another with 118,000 gold but only 3,000 can be anything. The remaining 115,000 is "limited" to wondrous items and scrolls that he meets the requirements for (or can ignore if he can afford the increase in DC). I'm willing to bet that there will be a noticeable difference.
|
|
This is before the first game, so this is stuff the character has accumulated over their pre-adventuring lifetime. Only purchased with their initial 2d6*10 gp. They are at 0 xp right now.My answer does not change. You're the GM. When did that character actually become level 1 and, thus, gain the scribe scroll feat? Has it been months? Years? Now, given the character's history and mindset, how much time is he likely to spend scribing scrolls? Make a decision and let the player decide what to do with the rest. I can't stand GMs who put strict limits on their players. The role of the GM is to setup the sandbox and let players work within that sandbox. Don't say they have x amount of gold to spend toward crafting or even to say they crafted two scrolls. Both of those are solutions pulled directly out of your ass. Instead, give them the guideline and let them choose what to do within that guideline.
In the case of crafting you have 3 requirements: time, DC and resources. At level 1 they have the resources (money). They can likely make the DC (dictated by their skills), that leaves only time up in the air. Tell me, Mr. GM, how much time (if any at all) do I have?
At this point you are only talking about the difference of 2 days and 5 days of effort. So, unless you run your games as they become first level and immediately (as in within that week) start adventuring, this time difference should not matter. The only big difference is if the scrolls cost 25 GP or 12.5 GP each out of the original average of 70 gp that they start with.
Do you allow the first level bard in the party to start with extra gold from 2 - 5 days worth of performance checks? Or any other classes to start with extra starting cash based off of profession skill check in gp per week), or craft (1/2 your check per week in gp)?
It's not a false dichotomy because the barbarian can't scribe scrolls, craft wants, brew potions, craft rings, craft staffs, or craft rods. It is unlikely that he would be crafting wondrous items or arms/armor but he could qualify for those by level 5 if he wants. However, crafting wondrous items, arms, and armor are all more difficult for him than for the spell caster. So it's a very fair comparison.
It is very easy to become more powerful with much more wealth. Create a 10th level wizard with 62000 gold and another with 118,000 gold but only 3,000 can be anything. The remaining 115,000 is "limited" to wondrous items and scrolls that he meets the requirements for (or can ignore if he can afford the increase in DC). I'm willing to bet that there will be a noticeable...
What if the barbarian chose their level 1 feat to be scribe scroll? They're not a caster but any non-Wizard caster? What if they chose to take their 1st level feat as scribe scroll? What if you GM-ed it to say all characters can take scribe scroll? Would this be "fair" to you?
Part of the reason I like the classes in Pathfinder is because each comes with distinct abilities that put them at a distinct advantage versus the other classes. THIS is balance. Gimping a particular feat or class of feats is not balance. The trade off of the Barbarian over the Wizard is that the Barb is a melee damage powerhouse whereas the Wizard would probably die in the first round of melee. There is nothing wrong with this nor the dynamic of using starting gold to craft items. It's completely inline with RAW.
At this point you are only talking about the difference of 2 days and 5 days of effort. So, unless you run your games as they become first level and immediately (as in within that week) start adventuring, this time difference should not matter. The only big difference is if the scrolls cost 25 GP or 12.5 GP each out of the original average of 70 gp that they start with.
Do you allow the first level bard in the party to start with extra gold from 2 - 5 days worth of performance checks? Or any other classes to start with extra starting cash based off of profession skill check in gp per week), or craft (1/2 your check per week in gp)?
Nope because those checks grant extra gold and the rules state how much GP a character starts with. The particulars of the scribe scroll feat cannibalize upon this starting amount of gold which limits what else the character can do and get. Crafting is not equal to magically giving the character more GP. It costs to craft. If you don't like the balance of the crafting feats then houserule it to your heart's content. However, per RAW there's nothing wrong with a level 1, first session character having items they crafted for 1/2 or 1/3 the cost, depending on the craft feat/skill. I find nothing wrong with a crafting characters GP stretching farther than a non-crafter. It just makes sense. Give a man 100 dollars. He can go buy a cheap suit. Give a seamstress 100 dollars and she can go buy better quality material and create a better suit. I find zero disconnect. Raw materials are cheaper than the end product. It's the basis of commerce.
Make your ruling as GM as to how much time they'd have to craft and stick with that decision. That's not hard to do.
It is very easy to become more powerful with much more wealth. Create a 10th level wizard with 62000 gold and another with 118,000 gold but only 3,000 can be anything. The remaining 115,000 is "limited" to wondrous items and scrolls that he meets the requirements for (or can ignore if he can afford the increase in DC). I'm willing to bet that there will be a noticeable...
I'm betting the one with greater wealth will have a greater breadth of options, but the one with the two extra feats will have greater raw power, TBH.
There are a lot of good feats and metamagic and such to conisder, and you can't Stack metamagic rods.
How does that change anything I said?Because, if "starting wealth" = gold pieces then crafters can gain potentially 3x the mundane gear a non-crafter can and twice the amount of magical gear a non-crafter can regardless of level since the crafter acquires their gear through feats and the purchase of raw materials instead of purchasing the end product.
It doesn't actually change anything I have said. You can either buy what's in the book or you can customize if you have the requisite skills/feats.
Let's say you are a ranger and you rolled well on your starting gold. You managed to roll 200 gold. You also put 1 rank into Craft Armor. Let's give you an Intelligence of 14 and you took Skill Focus (Craft Armor) and a trait that gives you +1. That puts you at +10 to craft. You want to make a ironwood masterwork wooden armor (I don't know why, but it's what you want to do). It's value is 170 gold. It's within your budget. You can Take 10 and easily make this armor at 1st level. Go for it. It's not an "off the shelf item" so another character won't start with it. So you got to benefit from your feats and skills. You have something no one else has. You still have 30 gold left over for some basic gear like 2 short swords and survival gear (which you may not need since you can still put a rank into Survival and take a feat to give you a bonus).
Let's say you are a ranger and you rolled well on your starting gold. You managed to roll 200 gold. You also put 1 rank into Craft Armor. Let's give you an Intelligence of 14 and you took Skill Focus (Craft Armor) and a trait that gives you +1. That puts you at +10 to craft. You want to make a ironwood masterwork wooden armor (I don't know why, but it's what you want to do). It's value is 170 gold. It's within your budget. You can Take 10 and easily make this armor at 1st level. Go for it. It's not an "off the shelf item" so another character won't start with it. So you got to benefit from your feats and skills. You have something no one else has. You still have 30 gold left over for some basic gear like 2 short swords and survival gear (which you may not need since you can still put a rank into Survival and take a feat to give you a bonus).
Wait. Why can't someone else buy a non-standard item? My starting characters always buy cold iron secondary weapons, for instance.