I use a simple house rule that mimics the guideline of no more than 1/2 yer money can be spent on one item.
No more than 1/2 your money can be used to craft.
Other than that, I really don't see what the the hoolabaloo is about this.
That's the same one I've been using. Works very well.
Ah, right. I forgot about scrolls.Any CWI or even Arms & Armor can be made like so, if you want minimal skill investment:
Armor/weapon/object : Bought from any artisan.
Spells : Either supplied by wands/scrolls, or a +5 to skill DC.In any case, you still save a bunch crafting. Meaning this isn't caster exclusive. And even casters will have to rely on this, as some items mix both arcane and divine spells, or so I've been told anyway, but they will have to use scroll, wand, or another caster on items they want that don't use their spell list.
Fun fact: Spells themselves are neither divine nor arcane. The caster class spells out what sort of caster it is. Also, scrolls can be arcane or divine but that spell it contains is neither. Evidence: a witch (arcane caster) can cast spells from a cleric (divine caster) spell list.
You either need to use spell craft or craft bows still if you wanna craft bows no craft jewelry allowed. Big chunk of copy paste.
Creating Magic Weapons
To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value. Additional magic supplies costs for the materials are subsumed in the cost for creating the magic weapon—half the base price of the item based upon the item's total effective bonus.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a 1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
At the time of creation, the creator must decide if the weapon glows or not as a side-effect of the magic imbued within it. This decision does not affect the price or the creation time, but once the item is finished, the decision is binding.
Creating magic double-headed weapons is treated as creating two weapons when determining cost, time, and special abilities.
Creating some weapons may entail other prerequisites beyond or other than spellcasting. See the individual descriptions for details.
Crafting a magic weapon requires 1 day for each 1,000 gp value of the base price.
Item Creation Feat Required: Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons).
Once again Master Craftsman says you must use the chosen skill to create the item no where does it say you can use craft baskets in place of spell craft or other available options. I would like to see the feat changed to allow characters without caster levels to be able to make all magic items but RAW it seems the selection for non casters is quite limited. CWI however is vague enough that it's up to the GM what is applicable.
Yeah kinda getting off topic but to simplify my position. WBL is a guideline, crafting feats should increase wealth a bit but never double character wealth, and I wouldn't let people make use of them until the campaign actually started. Everyone should start out on the same level it feels unfair to players who don't want to invest in crafting because they find it boring, not part of their character concept etc.
The devs wont' be bailing us out on this one. You know why? because even if they come with answers graven on stone tablets, another thread or two on this exact same topic will be up with the month. Because it's that kind of question that doesn't have a clear unifying answer. The Dork and others hate it when I say this... but this is the kind of problem that each GM is meant to answer for themselves. PFS did it by banning crafting altogether. I have my own answers for my own campaign. I don't publish them here because I'm sure the charopers on this thread will hate each and every single one of them.
That may be so. However, 34 people would like to know as well. So, at least a happy new year would be nice. :)
I think the BALANCE of crafting is up to individual GMs. Only they can know the game world sufficient to make conclusive rulings about this. However, I'm asking if it was the INTENT of the craft rules to essentially let a crafter be 'richer' than a non-crafter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming a party was able to generate double their WBL by using crafting feats at 10th level each character would have 124,000 GP which rests comfortably between that of a 12th (108,000 GP) and 13th (140,000 GP) level character.
Crafter party guy lets say he gets a +4 weapon, +4 armor, +5 cloak of resistance, +2 ring of protection, +4 stat belt, and a +1 amulet of natural armor. That's a total of 113,000 GP so 11,000 GP left over for base costs of armor and weapon and miscellany.
Non-crafter party guy can have a +3 weapon, +3 armor, +4 cloak of resistance, +2 ring of protection, +2 stat belt, and a +1 amulet of natural armor. The total is 57,000 GP leaving 5,000 GP for base costs of armor and weapon and miscellany.
So crafter party member has an additional +1 to hit and damage, AC that is 1 better, saves are all better by 1 and an additional +1 bonus to a stat. The remaining cash for the person in a crafter party is still more than double as well.
A magus that had picked up forge ring, craft wondrous item, and craft magic arms and armor has received a greater benefit than taking weapon focus, dodge, and extra traits (pick up traits to increase saves) or iron will/lightning reflexes/great fortitude (these feats provide a net increase to save of +2.) This benefit also extends to every member of the party as well.
Wealth by level is a guideline and I think a crafter should receive some monetary benefit how ever I would never allow crafting pre game since the constraints on the crafting feats (time and not all loot is in coin) are completely bypassed. If a GM allows the players to take crafting feats they should ensure reasonable crafting time is available (the PC's shouldn't have a year off to make shiny stuff) and that loot is predominantly in the form of magical goods.
Like leadership these feats can be damaging to game balance if not handled properly.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even when you assume the ideal situation of a complete doubling of funds, the returns are actually quite minor. Everyone sees 80,000gp jumping to 160,000gp and they have the typical "OMG! That be brokerz!" knee-jerk reaction without realizing that their toys scale in price. For every additional +1 you are often paying MORE THAN DOUBLE what the lesser bonus cost you. A +1 weapon, for example, costs 2,000gp. A +2 on the other hand costs 8,000gp! Yeah. Doubling your wealth over everyone else actually gets you very little.
When you consider that this kind of minor imbalance between characters happens already, simply due to variation in character building skills, than you should realize that the naysayers are all really worried over nothing. When you further realize that the crafter in question had to invest FEATS AND SKILLS in order to get those minor bonuses (consider other opportunity costs) then, hopefully, you will come to the conclusion that the gains are actually smaller than they first appear.
I also think those saying "these kinds of bonuses make this feat too powerful" are also over thinking things. Feats are not necessarily balanced amongst themselves. Some are clearly more powerful than others. CWI is merely par for the course.
The devs wont' be bailing us out on this one. You know why? because even if they come with answers graven on stone tablets, another thread or two on this exact same topic will be up with the month. Because it's that kind of question that doesn't have a clear unifying answer. The Dork and others hate it when I say this... but this is the kind of problem that each GM is meant to answer for themselves. PFS did it by banning crafting altogether. I have my own answers for my own campaign. I don't publish them here because I'm sure the charopers on this thread will hate each and every single one of them.
Actually, in this particular instance, I wholeheartedly agree. I do NOT want a dev coming in and laying down the law on this one. This is a personal group to group matter that should be handled by the GM.
To that end I will NOT be FAQing this thread, ever.
Actually, in this particular instance, I wholeheartedly agree. I do NOT want a dev coming in and laying down the law on this one. This is a personal group to group matter that should be handled by the GM.
To that end I will NOT be FAQing this thread, ever.
I think I ninja'd you here. I don't want a "you have to do this and such" answer. Just want some insight as to how the crafting abilities were intended to work with the world at large. Thus, you pressing the FAQ button is safe. Read my post above the one you just made.
I think I ninja'd you here. I don't want a "you have to do this and such" answer. Just want some insight as to how the crafting abilities were intended to work with the world at large. Thus, you pressing the FAQ button is safe. Read my post above the one you just made.Actually, in this particular instance, I wholeheartedly agree. I do NOT want a dev coming in and laying down the law on this one. This is a personal group to group matter that should be handled by the GM.
To that end I will NOT be FAQing this thread, ever.
Yes, by all means, press the FAQ button. Create multiple accounts and hit the FAQ button from all of them! I will ignore 68 FAQ requests just as easily as one :)
Personally, I always run my campaigns at way below WBL. Why? Because I find that it makes them more dangerous. Sure, I have to adjust the CR of encounters somewhat, but really, what GM doesn't have to adjust encounters for their particualy party of PCs?
I've always found that low-wealth campaigns cause the PCs to rely more on their own strengths and to explore the capabilities of their characters more than high-wealth campaigns.
Just my preference, of course. Carry on! :-)
I removed a couple posts. Calm down, folks.
I removed a couple posts. Calm down, folks.
Golly. Hope that wasn't my fault! :/
WEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Did you post count just drop by half? LOL
We're not talking about a simple +1 bonus to a longsword, although that is enitrely possible. We're talking about a caster having nearly 2x the wealth he should. Given then choice, would you take a 10th level character with 62K or 118K? All for the option of using a class feature.Statements like this reek of a GM who absolutely refuses to control his game world which is a responsibility explicitly doled out by the CRB to the GM. Crafting doesn't grant you double starting gold. It simply let's you create an item for half the cost. If you allow your character to have infinite access to resources (or resources whenever they want them, same thing) and all the time they want to craft then yes, you've created the ideal situation for crafting. It's no different than putting a spellcaster against something with no SR and poor will saves or a melee character against something with low AC. In pretty much every instance the person who's environment favors them most will wipe the floor with the other guy's face. You keep things even by introducing variations so no single class or ability can outshine the rest.
I don't understand why you think I'm not in control of my game world. I'm in control. I actually explicitly stated how I control the wealth. You said I was doing it wrong. What you, and others, are essentially saying is that the GM needs to monitor the wealth but only if they do it the way you want. I monitor it and I'm sorry that it doesn't meet you criteria but the fact is that I have a simple way that works consistently regardless of level or character. It doesn't require any case-by-case arguments. The best part is that it is actually exactly what is expected by the explicit, not interpreted, rules (yes, a guideline is actually a rule but meant to be a bit more fluid).
Gunslinger who has a blunderbuss (2k) plus rich parents = 2.9k "WBL" at level 1. From my understanding, you've basically said that character should get no more toys until level 3 and only then only about 100 gp worth. I don't think that's fair at all.Actually I don't tell my players why I make most of my decisions. However, if I don't keep thing balanced what I'm telling everyone else is "sorry, next time play a wizard."
Things should remain relatively balanced, regardless of which feats a character takes. One character should not be considered at least 1 level higher because, by virtue of his class, they have greater access to misunderstandings of the rules.
Nothing you have posted circumvents the fact that all characters should have roughly equal wealth at every level and that the GM should make appropriate adjustments if things get out of whack.
The gunslinger does not start with a 2k blunderbuss. He starts with a class feature worth up to 40 gold. No different than a wizard's spellbook.
The gunslinger does not start with a 2k blunderbuss. He starts with a class feature worth up to 40 gold. No different than a wizard's spellbook.Gunslinger who has a blunderbuss (2k) plus rich parents = 2.9k "WBL" at level 1. From my understanding, you've basically said that character should get no more toys until level 3 and only then only about 100 gp worth. I don't think that's fair at all.Actually I don't tell my players why I make most of my decisions. However, if I don't keep thing balanced what I'm telling everyone else is "sorry, next time play a wizard."
Things should remain relatively balanced, regardless of which feats a character takes. One character should not be considered at least 1 level higher because, by virtue of his class, they have greater access to misunderstandings of the rules.
Nothing you have posted circumvents the fact that all characters should have roughly equal wealth at every level and that the GM should make appropriate adjustments if things get out of whack.
He starts with an item which has value of 2k. The fact that he has a limit on selling it, doesn't change the set value of the item he just got, nor it's firepower(no pun intended).
Blunderbuss is 2k. What he sells it for does not change the value, just like me selling a normally bought blunderbuss for 40gp does not lower it's value towards wbl.
So as long as we slap on "you can't sell it."-clause, we can freely break wbl into smithereens, good to know.
Yeah, not really agreeing with it. Changing the sell price of something should not change the value.
The entire purpose of the gunslinger's gun clause is so they don't sell it for a bunch and make a cheaper one later with their free feat. The clause only affects the sell price and who uses it. Other than that, it still handles like a 2k blunderbuss, shoots like a 2k blunderbuss, damages like a 2k blunderbuss and misfires like a 2k blunderbuss.
If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Unless we're okey now with pre-game items above wbl as long as they can't be sold or used by other characters, just like the mechanic used to make a 2k gun into a 40gp gun?
I wonder if my GM would let me dual wield repeating crossbows. You know, as long as I can only sell them for 20 gp a piece. I wonder if he'd be concerned about the balance of our encounters at level 1 with that. Or, if I had one and I "loaned" one to another party member. Seriously, that's the most expensive non-firearm weapon I could find those are only 400 gp a piece. Or, to make things really equal, exchange them for 5 repeaters... as long as I can only sell all 5 for 40 gp. Better yet, I'm curious how you'd treat a class that gets a Holy Avenger (been a popular "example" item lately) at first level so long as you could only sell it for 40 gp. Is that still not unbalancing? What if was a paladin archetype?
I don't understand why you think I'm not in control of my game world. I'm in control. I actually explicitly stated how I control the wealth. You said I was doing it wrong. What you, and others, are essentially saying is that the GM needs to monitor the wealth but only if they do it the way you want. I monitor it and I'm sorry that it doesn't meet you criteria but the fact is that I have a simple way that works consistently regardless of level or character. It doesn't require any case-by-case arguments. The best part is that it is actually exactly what is expected by the explicit, not interpreted, rules (yes, a guideline is actually a rule but meant to be a bit more fluid).
My point stands regardless if you took offense to the rest of the post. About the post, though: if you allow crafters to have infinite resources and time to craft (regardless of the value of the items you hold them to) you don't have control of your game world. This is as true at 100 gp as it is at 1 million. It makes no difference if they're crafting a potion or an insanely powerful item. If they can create another once they lose the original you've effectively let them run loose. It's no wonder you hamstring crafting like you do.
As has been demonstrated, the built-in limits to crafting prevent someone creating +5 weapons and armor before level 15 at the earliest and even then creating enhanced weapons has a diminishing rate of return (25k min for +5 item and that's just the enhancement, no effects!). At that point your characters probably need it anyway. Crafting is nothing to be afraid of in an organic world. You may be content with your houserule. Awesome. But, it's not how the rules and game setting inherently work. "WBL says blah." Good for it. Craft says you get more for less. Both are true at the same time. How? Lots of "here and there" clues. For instance, mithral and darkwood are explicitly stated to be rare. Adamantine is touted as being "so costly." Dragonhide is only around as long as there are dragons. Alchemical silver is made via a "complex process." Cold iron is mined from "deep underground." Mine shafts have a tendency to collapse which can take a while to clear, unless that never happens in Golarion. High level spells like wish that are required for really high level items take components like 25k gp diamonds. I've never read a campaign setting where those were just lying around. That's the natural world of Golarion. I don't see anyone abusing the ability to craft there considering a mining party is just as likely to come up empty handed as it is to be robbed.
|
While there are points there and there from both parts, it should be good to let the pistols out of the equation. A weapon that sucks for anyone, except the best wielders that invest a lot of feats and class features in it - and only starts not sucking too much only at level 5 for these masters - is not a good comparison with the "starting with way more wealth by level than normal" concept. Especially since in a campaign where they are commonplace instead of emergent, they are way less costly, and more reliable.
Here's why the gunslinger stands out: for any other character to acquire the same weapons will require a cost that is beyond what any level 1, 2, 3 and even 4 can afford. You have to be level 5 in order to be able to afford a blunderbuss if you're trying to follow the example breakdown for no more than 25% of wealth going into a single weapon. That situation is unique to that class alone. Any other class can acquire any other class weapon for the normal amount of gold afforded to a class at level 1.
As Tyki said, it works like a 2k blunderbuss regardless of the fact they can only sell it for 40gp. The fact remains that you get the benefit of a 2k gp weapon for free.
|
|
... or that the weapon isn't worth 2000 gp at all, and the price is meant to reflect rarity instead of efficiency ? Like some others around here, I've been there the whole time during this gal's playtest. 'Know all what has been said about a gunslinger's balance and design goals under the sky. The blunderbuss's price is irrelevant to the situation, despite looking like a similar one. No sane people would buy such weapon at 2000 GP without being a gunslinger, people who can craft them for half the normal price just with their Gunsmith class feature, and make more damage with them than a single d12 without any modifier at best before enhancement and class features.
And note that one of the only strictly enforced rule about wealth distribution is that you shall not have more than half your wealth in a single item. There, the guidelines truly are nothing more than suggestions, because a wizard spending 25% in armor and 25% in weapons is probably too stupid to become an archmage some day.
The blunderbuss is a class feature that costs money to use. It doesn't exceed WBL because, if we use the formula for selling stuff, it's only worth 80 gold but even then, it is a class feature.
A wizard starts play with how much "wealth?" How much does it cost for a spell book, twenty 0-level spells, and five 1st-level spells (don't forget the cost to scribe). What about the masterwork weapon if they choose that route?
Class features don't count as wealth and shouldn't. Note that once the gunslinger wants a better gun, it does count against his wealth.
This conversation is going nowhere. For some odd reason we're being told that the GM must make sure the crafters don't abuse crafting and at the same time are being told that we are wrong for how we do it even though it is precisely what is being advocated.
And note that one of the only strictly enforced rule about wealth distribution is that you shall not have more than half your wealth in a single item. There, the guidelines truly are nothing more than suggestions, because a wizard spending 25% in armor and 25% in weapons is probably too stupid to become an archmage some day.
I've argued this myself but was essentially told "no." I'm glad some people can use it but some can't. Good to know.
This conversation is going nowhere. For some odd reason we're being told that the GM must make sure the crafters don't abuse crafting and at the same time are being told that we are wrong for how we do it even though it is precisely what is being advocated.
No where did I say must. What I have said is to be prepared and ready to accept the consequences for the ramifications if you let crafters go unhindered. I'm advocating an approach to restrict crafting, should you choose to do so, that works with the world we're handed by default. See, I'm talking in a way that allows for an individual campaign to be such. The rules are modeled in such a way as well. If you live in a resource rich area that is relatively peaceful, the market should be booming, which takes characters* crafting to do. On the flip side, if you're not in such an area or at least separated from your resources, you're not going to be crafting.
*Note that Pathfinder tries very hard to treat all characters equally and rarely makes distinctions between NPC and PC. NPCs can beat PCs with the same rules the bind the PCs and give them their abilities. It's a very ability-agnostic setting. It makes no difference if an NPC is a level 20 fighter or if a PC is a level 20 fighter. Each have the same abilities and generally the same resources.
What you do restricts possibilities if it were applied in each campaign regardless of the GM or campaign setting, which is what you're advocating by saying your way of doing things is explicitly laid out in the rules. As I've stated, it makes no sense that I can't swing my hammer on an anvil because some counter has reached its limit. I should only ever be denied that if I a) have nothing to craft (no materials, got all I want anyway, etc) or b) the situation is not conducive to crafting (combat, sea voyages, traveling, etc). I've never put you down for your houserule but I've tried to have honest discussion about it. Also, I've even said that it's cool you play that way. However, you refuse to see it as such so I'm going to keep saying what I'm saying and hope that maybe the right explanation will at least get you to admit what you do is a houserule.
As I've said, I'm just interested in the intent and mindset as to why the crafting abilities are the way they are. What was in their head? Did they originally envision the crafter being an occasional tinkerer or the mad Wizard locked in his tower coming up with god-knows-what? I know both are possible per the rules but it is that way through various permutations of ideas over time. I'm just curious to know where it started and how it evolved and how they see it working with the world at large. I would love to sit down with a dev/designer/whoever and have even just a 10 minute one-on-one about it but that's not practical so I made this thread.
Not allowing crafters to craft pre game does not create a negative scaling feat. WBL doesn't mention in what proportions wealth should be made up of just coin, and the crafter doesn't need to spend all their starting wealth they can decide how much gear they want to start with and how much will be made up of GP.
A bard in a group with no dedicated martial characters gets less from inspire courage than a large group that includes lots of classes that make attack rolls. If a ranger picks orcs as a favoured enemy early on in her adventuring career and later on encounters very few orcs the ability becomes less useful. Or lets say a paladin plays 2 sessions and during the first session he encounters nothing but evil opponents and in the second session all the enemies are neutral his smite evil ability is now useless. Pick up power attack and spend a few sessions without combat and skill focus becomes a more attractive feat etc.
Crafting can be used anytime you are not engaged in combat and have money. Like most feats or class abilities it's usefulness is not static. crafting becomes more powerful as you level, if in an ideal situation a level 2 character has doubled their wealth by level they still have less GP worth of things than a level 3 character later on (ideal situation still) it gives you more wealth than a character 2 levels higher.
So what's my point? Crafting feats are situational their effectiveness depends on how much gold you can get instead of gear as loot, how much down time you have, and how many players are in your party. If a player picks the feats they should be willing to work to get their benefit, no one else has got to reap the benefits of their feats or class features yet. If you want to give mechanical benefits for feat selection pre game to represent a characters previous accomplishments ok but that includes those players without crafting feats let everyones imagined histories have an effect maybe they should get extra loot for perform skills or craft skills, unique items for winning gladiatorial events etc.
The blunderbuss is a class feature that costs money to use. It doesn't exceed WBL because, if we use the formula for selling stuff, it's only worth 80 gold but even then, it is a class feature.
A wizard starts play with how much "wealth?" How much does it cost for a spell book, twenty 0-level spells, and five 1st-level spells (don't forget the cost to scribe). What about the masterwork weapon if they choose that route?
Class features don't count as wealth and shouldn't. Note that once the gunslinger wants a better gun, it does count against his wealth.
This conversation is going nowhere. For some odd reason we're being told that the GM must make sure the crafters don't abuse crafting and at the same time are being told that we are wrong for how we do it even though it is precisely what is being advocated.
Where exactly does is it written than items crafted use their full value towards WBL.
And where does it state that starting equipment, be it class feature or not is an exception?
How come it's bad for someone to save 120gp on 1st level by making a few scrolls, but it's ok to have 900gp more than anyone else?
There seems to be a lot of two sided rulings, being bad for some, but ok for someone else. It was stated that WBL was equal for all, but in this case it's not, because people have a strange fear of their players running amok with double amount of items.
But the truth is, the munchkin people so much fear won't go that route, because the Ragelancepounce barbarian is more appealing to that type of player, so is min-maxed 2 handed fighter or a well statted ranger.
I don't have issue with people being against pre-game crafting, it's their game. What the problem is, for me, is hearing that 12 scrolls are bad, but +900gp is ok. As is hearing that crafters apply full item value towards WBL, but because they can sell, which no sane crafter who spend seven weeks on an item with 0 profit possibility, is charged full value to his wbl, but the free gun is not.
Mind you, there's still no exception stating that a class feature or item restricted to you has less value than an item crafted. There can't be an exception here and there, either it is or it's not.
Now, if by not being able to share an item, or selling it for 4d10 makes you okey with nullifying the 2k cost, then you should be okey with it applying to any other pre-game item, crafted, given or class feature.
Where is it written otherwise?
I like these sorts of statements. "Prove to me you didn't do something when you have no alibi to say otherwise." It's infinitely easier to prove something is than to prove it is not.
I concur with some of the other posts that, to the OPs question of starting a character higher than 1st level, wealth by level refers to total wealth as an absolute value, as opposed to the lump sum of GPs.
It's easy to assume that building a chararacter above first level works that same as first level, the but rules don't actually say that.
With first level characters, you roll starting gold by class, then can apply feats and traits (i.e. the richboy trait that gives you an extra 900gp), then buy items, and the result is your character's total wealth.
From 2nd level onward you start with the total wealth already determined according to the chart. It's not modified. We know this because it's not termed 'starting gp' anywhere and not set as a starting point with the 'real' total wealth determined later - the chart defines the total wealth for a giving level.
Other people have noted that this is fair re crafting because the intended benefit of item crafting is to allow gear customisation, not significant wealth generation. It's true that cash can be turned into double value gear, but cash is also supposed to be a small part of treasure at the levels when crafting comes online, and is needed for component costs, and other incidental expenses.
The intended benefit of item crafting is letting you swap obsolete gear for useful gear. Since you are able to choose your gear when making a new character, you already get that benefit at charcter creation above 1st level. The item creation feats, just other feats, are for use in play after that.
I concur with some of the other posts that, to the OPs question of starting a character higher than 1st level, wealth by level refers to total wealth as an absolute value, as opposed to the lump sum of GPs.
It's easy to assume that building a chararacter above first level works that same as first level, the but rules don't actually say that.
With first level characters, you roll starting gold by class, then can apply feats and traits (i.e. the richboy trait that gives you an extra 900gp), then buy items, and the result is your character's total wealth.
From 2nd level onward you start with the total wealth already determined according to the chart. It's not modified. We know this because it's not termed 'starting gp' anywhere and not set as a starting point with the 'real' total wealth determined later - the chart defines the total wealth for a giving level.
... it is, actually. The equipment section states you get an amount of gp at character creation then refers you to the WBL table (whose values are also in gp) for the amount you get past level 1.
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.
The arguments based on that first sentence that say it's a value representation forget that value can not be spent but gold can, or at least Pathfinder does not define such a concept. "Spending value," to me, is like drinking a potion or activating a scroll. Spending gold, however, gets you stuff.
Prove it's NOT written otherwise.
INFINITY LOOP
Z-ONOES!!
?
Very astute post. Your meaning is perfectly clear. *nod*
|
|
... it is, actually. The equipment section states you get an amount of gp at character creation
True, for level 1 only.
then refers you to the WBL table (whose values are also in gp) for the amount you get past level 1.
"Value" in GP =/= "amount" of GPs.
The closer you'll get of "having pieces" after level 1 is the "10% of wealth" guideline. Let's say it goes up to 30% if the DM is generous and because it fits your concept. You may begin now begin crafting once in the game !... if you ever find the time to do so and are ready to suffer through the lack of appropriate, potentially life-saving equipment during the crafting adventuring days.
Where exactly does is it written than items crafted use their full value towards WBL.Where is it written otherwise?
Nowhere I know of. Which is why I find it weird applying this to one type of item aquirement but not the other.