I don't see why that's not just another decision among the myriad of decisions made by the GM at the beginning of a campaign. Is it "yet another decision" syndrome? While the FAQ entry is important, we should also consider Sean's example which also states that in game time should be required. Given that he didn't put that in the FAQ, we can only take that as his opinion. However, the two coupled together says to me that "yes, crafting let's you exceed WBL but don't forget the time requirement of crafting, either." Since time is arbitrary at character creation, that's ultimately up to the GM but I would go with his suggestion that all crafting should take place in game.
Thanks for the faq, SKR. It was needed. I dont agree with it, much for the same reasons as jelly and RD, but it's good to have one.
Jellyfulfish wrote: I think I'll paint the items in "orange" as to indicate they were crafted I saw what you did there! Also, blue +3 longswords and yellow if theyre also keen and flaming...
Sean K Reynolds wrote: mdt wrote: Oh well, house ruling time. I have no intention of allowing level 10 characters to start with 200K worth of items for the price of one feat. If you're letting level 10 characters (WBL 62,000 gp) start with 200,000 gp worth of gear, you're doing it wrong.
If you're letting a character exceed the WBL by 100% with just *one* crafting feat, you're doing it wrong (see page 400). Its not all that hard for a character to exceed the WBL by 100% with just *one* crafting feat given your ruling.
Even if we ignore having twice the WBL in scrolls, its possible to use craft wondrous item to do this (as wondrous item allows creation of items for nearly every item slot).
What surprises me the most about your ruling is that your RAW allows for a flat out doubling of WBL. You didn't write "allows the character to exceed his WBL by X% for the first craft feat, Y% for the second craft feat, Z% for the third craft feat, etc."
Buri wrote: I don't see why that's not just another decision among the myriad of decisions made by the GM at the beginning of a campaign. Is it "yet another decision" syndrome? While the FAQ entry is important, we should also consider Sean's example which also states that in game time should be required. Given that he didn't put that in the FAQ, we can only take that as his opinion. However, the two coupled together says to me that "yes, crafting let's you exceed WBL but don't forget the time requirement of crafting, either." Since time is arbitrary at character creation, that's ultimately up to the GM but I would go with his suggestion that all crafting should take place in game. The question is "how much additional wealth is equivalent to, for example, improved initiative?" This could be play tested and documented by the game designers. The ruling that SKR added to the faq is that doubling the WBL is equivalent to 'improved initiative plus skill points in crafting'"
So people argued for 17 pages until a developer came in and told us all how it is. Now people are arguing with the developer on his ruling when he helped design the systems of the game.
This thread needs to die. It's over and done. No one says anyone has to follow the rules. If you don't want to use the rules given they gave you rule 0 to decide how to play your own game. Don't complain to a developer for an answer and then complain when he gives you one. Accept it and move on.
Darkwing Duck wrote: The question is "how much additional wealth is equivalent to, for example, improved initiative?" This could be play tested and documented by the game designers. The ruling that SKR added to the faq is that doubling the WBL is equivalent to 'improved initiative plus skill points in crafting'" Except crafting doesn't work like that. Like Khrysaor said and what I and other have been saying throughout the thread... play as what makes sense for you campaign but if you let people craft then let them have the full benefit of crafting. That just happens to be twice the gear for the same amount of gp and the crafting character getting the exact item he wants and that's really all that Seans FAQ and posts say and thankfully so. Anything else would get into territory that dictates how GMs have to run their games when they're going to run it their way anyway. There are plenty of ways for a GM to limit crafting both in game ("you don't find the materials you need for crafting but you did pass several magic item shops during your search") and out of game ("that's unbalancing, I can't let you do that"). All Sean's post said was don't half ass the benefit and if you're doing that to just be honest about it so those players can invest those abilities elsewhere.
Khrysaor wrote: So people argued for 17 pages until a developer came in and told us all how it is. Now people are arguing with the developer on his ruling when he helped design the systems of the game.
This thread needs to die. It's over and done. No one says anyone has to follow the rules. If you don't want to use the rules given they gave you rule 0 to decide how to play your own game. Don't complain to a developer for an answer and then complain when he gives you one. Accept it and move on.
SKR didn't design Pathfinder. Jason Buhlmahn did. SKR gave us such fan favorite additions as the much beloved "Vow of Poverty" and the idea that crit heavy builds are balanced because they do the same average damage.
I appreciate that the rule is clear now, but its still a bad rule.
Buri wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The question is "how much additional wealth is equivalent to, for example, improved initiative?" This could be play tested and documented by the game designers. The ruling that SKR added to the faq is that doubling the WBL is equivalent to 'improved initiative plus skill points in crafting'" Except crafting doesn't work like that. Like Khrysaor said and what I and other have been saying throughout the thread... play as what makes sense for you campaign but if you let people craft then let them have the full benefit of crafting. That just happens to be twice the gear for the same amount of gp and the crafting character getting the exact item he wants and that's really all that Seans FAQ and posts say and thankfully so. Anything else would get into territory that dictates how GMs have to run their games when they're going to run it their way anyway. There are plenty of ways for a GM to limit crafting both in game ("you don't find the materials you need for crafting but you did pass several magic item shops during your search") and out of game ("that's unbalancing, I can't let you do that"). All Sean's post said was don't half ass the benefit and if you're doing that to just be honest about it so those players can invest those abilities elsewhere. Pathfinder has a lot going for it, but when it makes a bad ruling, rule 0 doesn't suddenly keep it from being a bad rule. Customer feedback is what keeps Pathfinder from becoming the likes of Synnibar.
Darkwing Duck wrote: I appreciate that the rule is clear now, but its still a bad rule. Darkwing Duck wrote: Pathfinder has a lot going for it, but when it makes a bad ruling, rule 0 doesn't suddenly keep it from being a bad rule. And because you say it's a bad rule, this makes it a bad rule?
Khrysaor wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: I appreciate that the rule is clear now, but its still a bad rule. Darkwing Duck wrote: Pathfinder has a lot going for it, but when it makes a bad ruling, rule 0 doesn't suddenly keep it from being a bad rule. And because you say it's a bad rule, this makes it a bad rule? Instead of me telling you its a bad rule, I want you to tell me how you judge whether rules are bad or not.
In fact, I'd like for anyone who thinks this is a good ruling to tell me how they judge whether rules are bad or not. Be specific.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Pathfinder has a lot going for it, but when it makes a bad ruling, rule 0 doesn't suddenly keep it from being a bad rule. Customer feedback is what keeps Pathfinder from becoming the likes of Synnibar. It's not a bad rule. It's clarifying how crafting was intended to work. It's not an issue of rule 0. If it is, then it is no more an issue of rule 0 for crafting than it is for any other rule. Just because Humans are in the book it doesn't mean everyone's a human. Just because there are Rangers in the book doesn't mean everyone's a ranger. Just because someone has the perception skill maxed doesn't mean everyone does. Just because someone has the toughness feat doesn't mean everyone does. Just because the spell Wish is there doesn't mean everyone has it. Just because broadswords are in the book doesn't mean everyone has one. Just because the Rich Parents trait is in the book doesn't mean everyone has it. Repeat ad nauseam. But why not? Because the GM mixes these types of things together into a world and scenarios that make more sense than that. From your quote that GM is using rule 0 for that and that's bad. Similarly not everyone is a crafter and not all crafters "only craft." It's unrealistic to an extreme.
I don't judge rules as bad or good. I accept them for what they are and play by them.
Should someone just arbitrarily say the rules of a system are bad? Baseball allows 3 strikes and 4 balls before the batter leaves the box if he doesn't hit. I think that's bad. I want 4 strikes and 4 balls.
That doesn't happen. You play by the rules because that's what the game is intended to play out as. If the rules don't play to your style then you don't have to follow the rules given and can use rule 0 to determine your own style. The developers of any game don't allow for all rules to be acceptable to all people. This never happens as you can tell with threads like these. They design a rule system and tell you these are the rules to play by. If you don't like it don't play it.
Khrysaor wrote: I don't judge rules as bad or good. I accept them for what they are and play by them.
Should someone just arbitrarily say the rules of a system are bad? Baseball allows 3 strikes and 4 balls before the batter leaves the box if he doesn't hit. I think that's bad. I want 4 strikes and 4 balls.
That doesn't happen. You play by the rules because that's what the game is intended to play out as. If the rules don't play to your style then you don't have to follow the rules given and can use rule 0 to determine your own style. The developers of any game don't allow for all rules to be acceptable to all people. This never happens as you can tell with threads like these. They design a rule system and tell you these are the rules to play by. If you don't like it don't play it.
Your comparison of baseball is apt. Some people like baseball. Some people prefer football or soccer or ice hockey. I have no problems saying that I think the rules for baseball are bad and that the rules for ice hockey are better. I say it because I like action and the faster and more furious the action, the more I like the game.
A person who can't tell me what rules are bad - who can't tell me what they like - is someone whose opinion I have no faith in.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Khrysaor wrote: I don't judge rules as bad or good. I accept them for what they are and play by them.
Should someone just arbitrarily say the rules of a system are bad? Baseball allows 3 strikes and 4 balls before the batter leaves the box if he doesn't hit. I think that's bad. I want 4 strikes and 4 balls.
That doesn't happen. You play by the rules because that's what the game is intended to play out as. If the rules don't play to your style then you don't have to follow the rules given and can use rule 0 to determine your own style. The developers of any game don't allow for all rules to be acceptable to all people. This never happens as you can tell with threads like these. They design a rule system and tell you these are the rules to play by. If you don't like it don't play it.
Your comparison of baseball is apt. Some people like baseball. Some people prefer football or soccer or ice hockey. I have no problems saying that I think the rules for baseball are bad and that the rules for ice hockey are better. I say it because I like action and the faster and more furious the action, the more I like the game.
A person who can't tell me what rules are bad - who can't tell me what they like - is someone whose opinion I have no faith in. Comparing rulesets that have no bearing as the game is played entirely different makes for bad comparison.
EDIT: Preference has no place here. The rules are not yours to design.
Buri wrote: But why not? Because the GM mixes these types of things together into a world and scenarios that make more sense than that. From your quote that GM is using rule 0 for that and that's bad. Similarly not everyone is a crafter and not all crafters "only craft." It's unrealistic to an extreme. The game is fiction. The PCs are heroes. If the PCs are so diverse in power that some of them are regularly relegated to being wall flowers while the other characters are dominating the dramatic flow, that's a bad rule.
Khrysaor wrote:
Comparing rulesets that have no bearing as the game is played entirely different makes for bad comparison.
I don't understand your comment.
Darkwing Duck wrote: The game is fiction. The PCs are heroes. If the PCs are so diverse in power that some of them are regularly relegated to being wall flowers while the other characters are dominating the dramatic flow, that's a bad rule. And yet there are guides to optimization that prove your choices can make for a better or worse PC.
Khrysaor wrote:
The rules are not yours to design.
The rules are mine to use or to not use. When there are enough bad rules in a game system, I won't use that game system. I have the exact same vested interest in ensuring that bad rules are kept out of the game as did every single one of us who left 4e to pick up Pathfinder.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Khrysaor wrote: So people argued for 17 pages until a developer came in and told us all how it is. Now people are arguing with the developer on his ruling when he helped design the systems of the game.
This thread needs to die. It's over and done. No one says anyone has to follow the rules. If you don't want to use the rules given they gave you rule 0 to decide how to play your own game. Don't complain to a developer for an answer and then complain when he gives you one. Accept it and move on.
SKR didn't design Pathfinder. Jason Buhlmahn did. SKR gave us such fan favorite additions as the much beloved "Vow of Poverty" and the idea that crit heavy builds are balanced because they do the same average damage.
I appreciate that the rule is clear now, but its still a bad rule.
SKR worked on DnD 3E, and had some of his stuff go into 3.5 (without credit mind you). He now works as a developer for Paizo. After reading posts and article from him, it seems clear to me that he consults with JB and the rest of the team. The FAQ isn't something that SKR works on by himself. He's just the guy who puts finger to keyboard. I'm sure that he spent some time thinking about it and that he discussed it with JB.
I don't agree with all their rulings (JB has said that you can't put ranks into Fly just because you have the Fly spell). I disagree and allow that in my games.
Here's the relevant post.
So, yeah, he discusses things with JB. It's not like SKR is running around just making rulings at random.
I was actually curious to know how the WBL chart was constructed.
Anyways, I won't be using the now official version of this crafting rule. All characters created at a high level will have the same value of gear, as if they'd bought it. The newly created crafter has never used craft just as the newly created fighter has never used power attack. Sure, they both used it in backstory and that's how they got their stuff, but goldwise, no different.
However, once play has started, the crafter can go crazy. If over 10 levels the crafter has twice as much wealth as the same level fighter, I have no problem at all. In fact, it's almost fair given that particular crafter survived that many levels while down X number of combat feats. :-)
$0.04 (adjusted for inflation)
Khrysaor wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The game is fiction. The PCs are heroes. If the PCs are so diverse in power that some of them are regularly relegated to being wall flowers while the other characters are dominating the dramatic flow, that's a bad rule. And yet there are guides to optimization that prove your choices can make for a better or worse PC. And yet, there's plenty of evidence that, even when those optimization guides are used, an optimized Wizard (the class who benefits the most from SKR's ruling) will absolutely dominate over most of the other classes (even when those other classes are likewise optimized).
But even more than that, optimization shouldn't be required to make a character not be a wall flower. Because optimization limits character concepts.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Khrysaor wrote:
Comparing rulesets that have no bearing as the game is played entirely different makes for bad comparison.
I don't understand your comment. You're comparing apples to oranges and saying you don't like apples because they're not oranges. This is personal preference and doesn't account for what each one offers.
As I said before... just because you think something is bad doesn't mean it is bad.
Khrysaor wrote:
You're comparing apples to oranges and saying you don't like apples because they're not oranges. This is personal preference and doesn't account for what each one offers.
As I said before... just because you think something is bad doesn't mean it is bad.
And as I said before, tell me how you judge whether rules are good or not.
You insist that personal preference exists, but earlier you acted like you didn't even have personal preference (ie. that you couldn't tell the difference between a good rule and a bad rule).
Darkwing Duck wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: The game is fiction. The PCs are heroes. If the PCs are so diverse in power that some of them are regularly relegated to being wall flowers while the other characters are dominating the dramatic flow, that's a bad rule. And yet there are guides to optimization that prove your choices can make for a better or worse PC. And yet, there's plenty of evidence that, even when those optimization guides are used, an optimized Wizard (the class who benefits the most from SKR's ruling) will absolutely dominate over most of the other classes (even when those other classes are likewise optimized).
But even more than that, optimization shouldn't be required to make a character not be a wall flower. Because optimization limits character concepts. The classes that benefit most from this are casters. Not just wizards. They've also added a way for non-casters to be able to do the same things.
And if optimization will set you apart and make you 'shine' more than the rest, then saying a feat that can make you 'shine' is overpowered and a creates a bad rule(says you) has no validity. It's just another option. Power Attack makes melee 'shine' in combat where the feat starved cleric wouldn't invest since attacking isn't the primary focus.
The idea SKR was getting at in the FAQ and his responses in defense of his FAQ was that the wizard gave up a feat where he could have taken a metamagic, spell focus, or any other feat that would make him better at combat. He lost overall power compared to other options by taking the craft feat. If the feat cannot make up for this deficit then there is no point in taking craft feats. Getting the items you want doesn't make you better than anyone else if the WBL is relative. You have the exact same opportunities as everyone else with items, but now you are down one feat that could have been invested to equalize with the rest.
I am not personally happy with the ruling myself but having the intent clarified does allow me to tell my players how the feats are intended to work and it also allows the benefits to be noticeable immediately when making a character of a higher level. I think I would be ok with the ruling if characters without a caster level had a similar method to increase their effective wealth. I don't consider master craftsman equivalent.
Khrysaor wrote:
The classes that benefit most from this are casters. Not just wizards. They've also added a way for non-casters to be able to do the same things.
No, the classes which benefit from this the most are those who are casters AND have the skill points to spend.
That's wizards (and witches).
Khrysaor wrote:
And if optimization will set you apart and make you 'shine' more than the rest, then saying a feat that can make you 'shine' is overpowered and a creates a bad rule(says you) has no validity. It's just another option. Power Attack makes melee 'shine' in combat where the feat starved cleric wouldn't invest since attacking isn't the primary focus.
The issue is that each PC needs to share the shine time about equally. Power Attack doesn't upset that balance. This ludicrous ruling regarding WBL and Crafting certainly does.
Khrysaor wrote:
The idea SKR was getting at in the FAQ and his responses in defense of his FAQ was that the wizard gave up a feat where he could have taken a metamagic, spell focus, or any other feat that would make him better at combat. He lost overall power compared to other options by taking the craft feat. If the feat cannot make up for this deficit then there is no point in taking craft feats. Getting the items you want doesn't make you better than anyone else if the WBL is relative. You have the exact same opportunities as everyone else with items, but now you are down one feat that could have been invested to equalize with the rest.
Ignoring the fact that this argument is suspect (since it comes from the same guy who gave us Vow of Poverty), I don't disagree with the fact that the feat should give something in return for having gained the feat. But the question is "how much should be given in return?" The official answer is "far, far more than you could possibly get if you spent a feat and skill points any other way".
redliska wrote: I am not personally happy with the ruling myself but having the intent clarified does allow me to tell my players how the feats are intended to work and it also allows the benefits to be noticeable immediately when making a character of a higher level. I think I would be ok with the ruling if characters without a caster level had a similar method to increase their effective wealth. I don't consider master craftsman equivalent. Agreed, Master Craftsman is NOT equivalent. The fighter (and others) don't have nearly enough skill points to take advantage of it. The rogue doesn't have enough feats.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Khrysaor wrote:
You're comparing apples to oranges and saying you don't like apples because they're not oranges. This is personal preference and doesn't account for what each one offers.
As I said before... just because you think something is bad doesn't mean it is bad.
And as I said before, tell me how you judge whether rules are good or not.
You insist that personal preference exists, but earlier you acted like you didn't even have personal preference (ie. that you couldn't tell the difference between a good rule and a bad rule). No. I said I don't discriminate against rules to say they are good or bad. I accept them as the rules of the system. I then went on to an example of other systems where the rules don't get to change because you don't like them. Preference has no place in a game that has established rules.
Here's another;
In chess pawns can move only one space at a time except on the first move they make where they can move up to two squares. I don't like this rule. They are just meagre pawns and the rules of chess need to change because this is a bad rule.
Preference is not grounds for stating a rule is good or bad. The main argument to implementing rules is if they are balanced. SKR gave his official response and then an example as to why this is balanced. He then went as far as to say that if you're letting players get 100% more wealth than the WBL table states because of one craft feat, you're doing it wrong.
The FAQ says it's GM discretion. This leaves it up to the GM to decide a fitting amount that will not unbalance their games. The only thing that is certain is that there IS some economic increase for crafters to balance out the investment in a crafting feat. There will never be an exact percentage that a player can obtain from crafting. There are too many variables to determine, but saying there is no economic increase means that the feat has offered you nothing.
Khrysaor wrote: Preference has no place in a game that has established rules. Sure it does. As I pointed out, its place is in whether or not those games get played.
Khrysaor wrote: He then went as far as to say that if you're letting players get 100% more wealth than the WBL table states because of one craft feat, you're doing it wrong. Which is lazy and irresponsible. He should have given some guidelines for GMs to use to figure out how much more over the WBL they could go without disrupting game balance.
Instead, his ruling, as he wrote it in the FAQ, says nothing against doubling the character's wealth via crafting.
Wow man. His response is suspect? You really did get up on that high horse. Enjoy arguing with developers about how they think their game should be played. I'm going to get back to my life and gaming where I enjoy the rulesets I've been provided with and see them as balanced. Good luck turning the tides by telling developers they're incompetent.
BTW.... WBL is a guideline. Not a rule. Good luck.
Khrysaor wrote: Wow man. His response is suspect? You really did get up on that high horse. Enjoy arguing with developers about how they think their game should be played. I'm going to get back to my life and gaming where I enjoy the rulesets I've been provided with and see them as balanced. Good luck turning the tides by telling developers they're incompetent. Pointing out the bad rules he has made as well as the inconsistent rules he's made is not the same as calling him incompetent.
I've heard nothing but praise about his ability to write fluff, for example.
Khrysaor wrote: The FAQ says it's GM discretion. This leaves it up to the GM to decide a fitting amount that will not unbalance their games. The only thing that is certain is that there IS some economic increase for crafters to balance out the investment in a crafting feat. There will never be an exact percentage that a player can obtain from crafting. There are too many variables to determine, but saying there is no economic increase means that the feat has offered you nothing. What I find really interesting is that the majority of us who were vehemently fighting against such a ruling have accepted it and have said that we will simply house rule it and move on. We will keep it in mind for discussions but it won't apply that way in our games. Most of us had already said that we don't mind a little fluctuation anyway (a little over or under).
I'm not really sure why this fight is still going on. The official decision has been made. The suggestion to limit according to your own campaign has been made very clear.
I think that someone just wants to argue with you.
Pshaw! It's because the other guy is clearly WRONG and must be corrected!
Really Bob, you should know better.
I was just hoping this thread could make it another 17 pages beyond the official reply.
redliska wrote: I am not personally happy with the ruling myself but having the intent clarified does allow me to tell my players how the feats are intended to work and it also allows the benefits to be noticeable immediately when making a character of a higher level. I think I would be ok with the ruling if characters without a caster level had a similar method to increase their effective wealth. I don't consider master craftsman equivalent. All classes have access to the "awesomeness" that is CWI. That's pretty fair to me.
Bob_Loblaw wrote: Khrysaor wrote: The FAQ says it's GM discretion. This leaves it up to the GM to decide a fitting amount that will not unbalance their games. The only thing that is certain is that there IS some economic increase for crafters to balance out the investment in a crafting feat. There will never be an exact percentage that a player can obtain from crafting. There are too many variables to determine, but saying there is no economic increase means that the feat has offered you nothing. What I find really interesting is that the majority of us who were vehemently fighting against such a ruling have accepted it and have said that we will simply house rule it and move on. We will keep it in mind for discussions but it won't apply that way in our games. Most of us had already said that we don't mind a little fluctuation anyway (a little over or under).
I'm not really sure why this fight is still going on. The official decision has been made. The suggestion to limit according to your own campaign has been made very clear.
I think that someone just wants to argue with you. Stating that I don't like the ruling and pointing out the flaws of the ruling does not, by itself, cause an argument.
Yes but not the full section of goodies that can be made from CWI and it does cost an additional feat. I also think most of the classes without a caster level probably will spend a much greater amount of their wealth on other gear than miscellany from CWI as opposed to nearly all of their wealth for a dedicated caster.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Bob_Loblaw wrote: Khrysaor wrote: The FAQ says it's GM discretion. This leaves it up to the GM to decide a fitting amount that will not unbalance their games. The only thing that is certain is that there IS some economic increase for crafters to balance out the investment in a crafting feat. There will never be an exact percentage that a player can obtain from crafting. There are too many variables to determine, but saying there is no economic increase means that the feat has offered you nothing. What I find really interesting is that the majority of us who were vehemently fighting against such a ruling have accepted it and have said that we will simply house rule it and move on. We will keep it in mind for discussions but it won't apply that way in our games. Most of us had already said that we don't mind a little fluctuation anyway (a little over or under).
I'm not really sure why this fight is still going on. The official decision has been made. The suggestion to limit according to your own campaign has been made very clear.
I think that someone just wants to argue with you. Stating that I don't like the ruling and pointing out the flaws of the ruling does not, by itself, cause an argument. However, in your argument you hand waved away the part where SKR said that the GM can put a limit (he even throws out a number of 40%). Of course he's not going to be able to tell you what that limit is because it's all campaign dependent. Part of that is going to simply be if you are running the Slow, Medium, of Fast XP track. Paizo can't tell us everything to do with the game. Instead, as GMs, it's our responsibility to figure out what works best for us.
The ruling is only bad if you look at one aspect. If you look at it in its entirety, it is the official stance. I still disagree with it, but I also don't see it as bad because it leaves room for GM involvement. The guidelines allow for variance. So it is consistent with the CRB as well.
One thing that the FAQ didn't address is pre-1st level crafting. I would have to say that they can't for the same reason that they can later. It's not fair to the other characters that chose feats that can't be used before actually adventuring.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote: One thing that the FAQ didn't address is pre-1st level crafting. I would have to say that they can't for the same reason that they can later. It's not fair to the other characters that chose feats that can't be used before actually adventuring. I think thats a reasonable interpretation. I think its also supported by the fact that starting with magic items of any kind requires specific GM permission (Scrolls ARE magic items, right?).
I also think I'll houserule it if it comes up. It seems counter-fun to tell the wizard there is a benefit if he can stall adventuring for 4 days to make some scrolls with his leftover starting cash.
Same reason I'd likely let anyone with a Craft Skill start with extra mundane gear; in a lot of cases, they'll never see a chance in play for something like Craft (weaponsmith) to come up, which is a shame if they want to invest in it. This, sadly, is still unclear as to legality IMO.
Bob_Loblaw wrote: One thing that the FAQ didn't address is pre-1st level crafting. I would have to say that they can't for the same reason that they can later. It's not fair to the other characters that chose feats that can't be used before actually adventuring. It's not in the FAQ but Sean did say crafting should be contingent on time spent while adventuring. Take it for what's it worth, I guess.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
However, in your argument you hand waved away the part where SKR said that the GM can put a limit (he even throws out a number of 40%). Of course he's not going to be able to tell you what that limit is because it's all campaign dependent. Part of that is going to simply be if you are running the Slow, Medium, of Fast XP track. Paizo can't tell us everything to do with the game. Instead, as GMs, it's our responsibility to figure out what works best for us.
The ruling is only bad if you look at one aspect. If you look at it in its entirety, it is the official stance. I still disagree with it, but I also don't see it as bad because it leaves room for GM involvement. The guidelines allow for variance. So it is consistent with the CRB as well.
I didn't hand wave it. I addressed it. I said that rule 0 does not automatically keep a bad rule from being a bad rule.
I, also, noted that his "40%" appears NOWHERE in his FAQ entry.
As for whether he could tell us what the limits are, he could have given guidelines in the FAQ.
Whether it is the official stance has nothing to do with whether it is a bad rule.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote: Whether it is the official stance has nothing to do with whether it is a bad rule. Nor does your opinion make it a bad rule. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it objectively bad.
The ruling allows for GM's limiting effective wealth gained, which honestly should be enough for GM's to handle this on their own, IMO.
Incidentally, not only does it lead to one character (the Wizard crafter) hogging all the shine time, it, also, further promotes the Christmas tree effect - something that A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE have said they would like to get away from in Pathfinder.
KrispyXIV wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Whether it is the official stance has nothing to do with whether it is a bad rule. Nor does your opinion make it a bad rule. You may not agree with it, but that does not make it objectively bad.
The ruling allows for GM's limiting effective wealth gained, which honestly should be enough for GM's to handle this on their own, IMO. It is rule 0 that allows for GMs limiting effective wealth gained.
And every time a broken rule has to be patched with rule 0, its a bad thing.
As for whether it is just my opinion that it is a bad rule, I'll give you the same challenge I gave others..tell me by what standard you judge whether a rule is bad. I'm confident that I can prove by your standards that its a bad rule.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Incidentally, not only does it lead to one character (the Wizard crafter) hogging all the shine time, it, also, further promotes the Christmas tree effect - something that A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE have said they would like to get away from in Pathfinder. Yet, it's still there, and was reinforced just recently with this FAQ, according to you. At this point you should ask yourself if this is intentional on their part.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote: Incidentally, not only does it lead to one character (the Wizard crafter) hogging all the shine time, it, also, further promotes the Christmas tree effect - something that A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE have said they would like to get away from in Pathfinder. The fact that some classes benefit from this ruling more than others, or that some feats are more powerful than others, is not really relevant in general to whether or not crafting should increase wealth.
Different feats, classes, abilities, being of differing power levels was already the case, and will continue to be the case regardless.
The issues people have with Wizards are not going to be solved by lowering the number of toys they have; they are inherent to how Wizards work versus how Martial classes work. Crafting does not really change that either way.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote: Tell me by what standard you judge whether a rule is bad. I'm confident that I can prove by your standards that its a bad rule. Does a rule make the game less fun to play at the table for no real gain?
Thats my metric.
And yes, its subjective; my table has yet to complain about one person gaining a wealth advantage at the expense of character resources.
What tends to concern us more are issues like new or replacement characters coming into the game with full, custom WBL which may seem to reward bringing in a new characer over continuing with a disabled or dead previous character.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So, with this rule and the fact that you can create any magic item in Pathfinder without knowing the required spells, is there any reason not to do the same as Paizo and simply ban Item Creation?
|
