| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... the faq kinda makes sense but is badly worded IMO. Before the faq:
Q: can i break the wbl with cwi?
A: yes or no, depends on the dm
After:
A: yes, by 0-100%, determined by the dm.
Ruleswise, these are more or less the same. The devs often rule that and interpretation is up to the Dm, so i assume the same goes now. But why not just state it clearly in the faq? "It depends on the dm and campaign" is a valid answer.
"Oh yeah? Rules? Well rules were made to be broken. AND YOUR THREAD COULD BE BROKEN! Just House rule it!
Oooooh yeeeah!
Snap into a Slim Jim!"
|
Fergie,
Personally, I'd say no more than 20%. Thast will provide a boost but is not likely to massively overshadow everyone else Also let them know that they can't do as one of my players asked and spend 81% of their WBL on crafting a Robe of the Archmagi for a new character. Bonus geek points for the first non-developer to know which level they were trying to get in on.
Wow. Quite the show around here. And, to clarify, no, the thread was not created to give guidance on how much starting wealth to grant as "precrafting." It was simply asking if crafting is meant to allow crafters to exceed their prescribed limit according to the WBL chart and the FAQ addressed that directly.
Anyway, continue the show. Two pages in one afternoon is quite entertaining. :)
Fergie,
Personally, I'd say no more than 20%. Thast will provide a boost but is not likely to massively overshadow everyone else Also let them know that they can't do as one of my players asked and spend 81% of their WBL on crafting a Robe of the Archmagi for a new character. Bonus geek points for the first non-developer to know which level they were trying to get in on.
37,500 = .81X
x= 46,296
9th level.
Well I was at least half correct in my stance on WBL. It works In-Game as it should, allowing the crafter to exceed WBL. I am a little like a fish out of water on pregame crafting however. I used to simply ban it's use pregame as the time part of the cost couldn't accurately be spent. But NOW my position sounds like a bit like one of those arbitrary GM house rules. So now I have a though decision to make... Do I open up pregame crafting as it was intended (but restrict it as suggested by the pg400 percentages) OR Do I risk seeming like a bad GM by using the ban hammer on pregame crafting? I am lost...
|
|
Fergie,
Personally, I'd say no more than 20%. Thast will provide a boost but is not likely to massively overshadow everyone else Also let them know that they can't do as one of my players asked and spend 81% of their WBL on crafting a Robe of the Archmagi for a new character. Bonus geek points for the first non-developer to know which level they were trying to get in on.37,500 = .81X
x= 46,296
9th level.
You win the geek points. Congratulations.
I removed some posts. Be civil.
|
Okay, I've kind of relaxed my stance.
I originally said, "No craft priced items at character creation."
You're all X level, you all get X level GP to spend according to WBL. Since there was no game time before character generation, noone can use their feats to influence character generation.
However, that's because as a GM I'd try and let everyone use their feats once the game started.
But, if there is no downtime once the game starts, then all the craft magic feats become useless. In a 20 level dungeon hack, the wiz gets little time to craft magic.
So my new ruling works like this-
If there will be downtime in the future, the PC starts with WBL.
If there will be no/little downtime in future then Craft Magic will kick in pre game. By 0-100%. :-D
QED
Buri,
I am assuming you are misconstruing my argument. I will reiterrate it one more time.
Crafting in game requires time in game, which can be short of supply, and generally you're selling item A (value 10K) for 5K and then making another 10K item. No increase in WBL.
The only problem I have, that I have ever had, is with the idea that if you are bringing in a 10th level character to a game to replace a dead character for example, that you can get 128K of items by taking one feat, rather than the 64K that's indicated by the WBL table.
The faq is handy, basicly just gm fiat. I agree with the above post though, as a gm i give you out a certain amount of treasure lets call it the right amount just for sake of clarity. If i give you items you don't want but you can sell at half price for items you do want over time you could end up with as little has half the right amount of treasure as a result of bring picky. CWI lets you bypass that issue.
However at character creation all the pc's should start out equally, letting someone double their wbl independantly of the rest of the party is unfair even if it costs a feat. I have no issue with pc's with double or even triple the wealth by level as long as all the pc's are on about even footing, upping the challenge i can do but if one persons sitting on a throne of gold carried by adamantium golems while the rest of the party follow behind for scraps then the game fails at its basic premise. Fun.
I happen to know many Jews who'll eat ham, so I'm not sure what your point is.
And really, if the crafter is going to craft stuff only for himself and ignore the rest of the party, you probably don't wanna play with that guy anyway.
Which brings up another tangential issue.
Under this ruling, if everyone is starting at the same level, or there's two or more people coming in, then it's equally valid to say 'Oh, Billy over there crafts everyone's wondrous items, and Tommy crafts all the magical armor and weapons, and Sally crafts all the rings, so everyone is starting at 190% of WBL'.
EDIT : And before someone says 'How can they do that', the Players simply say that all their characters have been adventuring for the last N years before game start. Done.
I happen to know many Jews who'll eat ham, so I'm not sure what your point is.So, you've never heard of kosher?
Here's another analogy since you're having trouble understanding that one.
"It's another rule that is going over like a lead balloon."
I happen to know many Jews who'll eat ham, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Anchovies, man, anchovies!
(I can't believe you went kosher on us :P)
So, you've never heard of kosher?
You can't live in NYC for two years and not know what kosher is. I'm just wondering how often you're going to use that silly Jewish joke just because you don't like the FAQ.
I happen to know many Jews who'll eat ham, so I'm not sure what your point is.So, you've never heard of kosher?
Here's another analogy since you're having trouble understanding that one.
"It's another rule that is going over like a lead balloon."
You could say the exact same thing about the absolute worst game system.
I aim for a little higher than the absolute worst game system.
Good thing that Pathfinder is a pretty good system. However, I have never played any system that didn't require some real work from the GM. I've only been gaming for 3 decades though so there may be some that I've missed. Some rules just require more work than others. It's part and parcel of being the GM. The good news is that neither you nor I need to follow the FAQ. I know that I don't in this case. My game isn't going to suffer for it either because it wasn't suffering before.
Thanks Bob. That was awesome.
Who doesn't like a little Mythbusters? I know they aren't perfect, but they are certainly fun especially when they do "the impossible."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I guess, the takeaway is that if a player actually has an item creation feat, or maybe a few, the GM should discuss with the player, if not the whole party, what would be fair for the campaign, and decide what's appropriate?
That reeks of sensibility, and I, for one, won't have it!
So, you've never heard of kosher?
Here's another analogy since you're having trouble understanding that one.
"It's another rule that is going over like a lead balloon."
Customers should always post feedback. However, after the feedback is given you gotta let it go. Paizo is going to publish the game system they want to publish, rules and all. I'm not going to say "I'm sorry you don't like it," because I'm not. I admire your passion. However, at this point at least, it's obvious how they want crafting to work in relation to WBL. You don't have to like it but it is what it is.
Thanks Bob. That was awesome.Who doesn't like a little Mythbusters? I know they aren't perfect, but they are certainly fun especially when they do "the impossible."I had a good laugh at the episode on trying to walk on water. The one where they tried to mimic the internet video of people running on water (liquid mountaineering), and not the one where they did non-newtonian fluids as well.
There's another science show that runs some cool experiments on it as well. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of it at the moment. The last experiment I saw was dealing with non newtonian fluids and how you can walk on them. Was a corn starch solution. And trying to mimic how a fireball would look.
There's been so many episodes that I've liked. There were certainly some that were a waste of time (curving bullet comes immediately to mind). I think I really like the ones where they manage to surprise everyone with the results. Oh, and any episode with Kari is worth watching, even if the myth is a waste of time.
Pathfinder's oldest fans are people who didn't just accept what their game publishers (WotC) were doing (4e).
And? Each is going to have it's own fans and detractors. Just because Wizards did something that people don't like doesn't make Paizo beholden to do the exact opposite.
|
|
EDIT : And before someone says 'How can they do that', the Players simply say that all their characters have been adventuring for the last N years before game start. Done.
Actually, I'd allow extra WBL for that. Finally, some incentive to have a higher level party that have already adventured together. Of course, in my game, nothing's for free and they'd also need to have vaguely cohesive backstory and have worked out the prisoner dilemma and other typical party issues already.
And if it was only a few new players in a pre-existing game then WBL goes out the window and they start with wealth equal to or less than the poorest pre existing character (excepting vow of poverty and such stuff of course). After all, why should anew player have more stuff than those who started the campaign.
Unless it's a pre-existing player with a new character, in which case you just get same value as old stuff.
But ultimately, my players and I respect each other and after I've made a decision after taking on board their advice, they follow it.
SKR knows something about that. He was one of the guys who worked to create the WotC 3e bloat years.
When were those "3e bloat years," in your opinion?
Sean, I like the answers I have gotten from other posters, and would like to ask you as well.
How many of a new characters items would you let them craft at cost, rather then pay market price, if you were running a baseline game that started at higher level?
Every version of DnD has reached a point where the game designers just stopped caring about game balance and started caring more about selling bloat. When I see Paizo game designers making ludicrous FAQ entries like this one (which further unbalances the system, but encouraging the Christmas tree effect (ie. bloat), its time to start worrying if that time has come for Pathfinder as well.
If you're already concerned about bloat, then I don't know what to tell you. As for the Christmas Tree Effect, it exists regardless of this FAQ. That is a problem with any system that incorporates magic items into the expectation of the game. I don't see it as a problem though. I see magic items as toys for the players but they can also figure out how to deal with many challenges on their own. If you are having a problem with magic items, then simply use your GM power to reduce the amount of wealth available and then use lower CR opponents.
SKR knows something about that. He was one of the guys who worked to create the WotC 3e bloat years.
Well, at least it's confirmed that SKR actually worked on DnD. Now to see if we can convince him that SKR worked for TSR too.
Bloat is only a problem for GMs that can't say "no."
Sean, I like the answers I have gotten from other posters, and would like to ask you as well.
How many of a new characters items would you let them craft at cost, rather then pay market price, if you were running a baseline game that started at higher level?
I'd go with about 1.5x the suggested percentages on page 400.
Translation : This feat has no way of interpreting it without using Rule 0 for WBL above 1st level. The official guidance is to allow it to give benefit above and beyond WBL, possibly at 50% above the guidelines suggest by equipment type. But oh, remember that the guidelines say that certain classes should ignore this guideline or have different ones, made up by the GM.
Further Translation : We want you to ignore WBL if they have this feat. How much you ignore it is pretty much a SWAG and you'll need to adjust on the fly based on the character build.
Further Further Translation : Ignore WBL if they have a crafting feat. If it unbalances your campaign that's your problem to fix it, we're not helping.
EDIT : In case someone thinks this is another 'I don't like your ruling post', it's not. I accept that the Dev's have ruled that WBL is modified by the item creation feats. What I am posting about is the fact that a system designed to allow balanced character creation via CR/WBL has been altered, but the Dev's didn't give any guidelines in the FAQ about how to try to keep it balanced. It's basically a 'We do not know how to balance it, so you balance it' at this point.
The core rules should not require the GM to balance a core mechanic like this. No other feat, with the possible exception of Leadership, requires the GM to balance without guidance. And even that feat has really heavy guidance on how to balance it, or at least on how it works. With the FAQ, there's no official guidance on what is unbalancing, other than a post by the dev saying '+100% is wrong' and presumeably +1% is wrong as well.
He then attempted to clarify it by using existing guidelines, but those guidelines further incorporate more confusion because the ones used require rule 0. A feat should be a concrete, it does A and gives benefit A. With the FAQ lacking guidelines on what exactly the feat should allow, we now have a chain of feats with no concrete rules on exactly how they affect the system, since they could double WBL or not affect it at all.
Basically, I would like to see the FAQ updated with a set of guidelines that have been tested for balance, with some thought put into the fact that CWI is vastly more powerful than BP or SS. With some hard numbers (I'd suggest breaking it down the way the GMG does with 'poor' vs 'average' vs 'rich' games) for guidelines on what should be allowed. So something like...
If you have a low magic game, then the crafting feats should probably not increase WBL by more than 10% to 15%, no matter how many are taken. The easiest way to simulate this is to grant the crafter an extra 10% or 15% starting gold, but that gold can only be spent on items that could be crafted with his crafting feats. Note that the items are bought at cost using this extra money. Any unspent GP from this 'bonus pool' is lost after character creation.
If you have a medium magic game, then the crafting feats shoudl probably not increase WBL by more than 50%, no matter how many are taken. Finally, high magic games could go as high as +100% of WBL.
And then a reference to the GMG entry on the PRD about increasing wealth and what effects it will have on the game, that way GMs will have some idea what is reasonable, and have something to back them up at the table.
This may not be brain surgery for those of us who have been running games for 20+ years, but someone new to the system is not going to know anything about how badly a game can be skewed by doubling WBL, and as it is, the FAQ is going to lead them into a nasty trap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further translation: It's been like this since 3.0 and it hasn't destroyed any campaigns, and there isn't any room in the Core Rulebook to add yet another paragraph reiterating, "hey, GM, remember that you're in charge of your campaign and should set limits you feel are appropriate."
Page 400 already says the WBL table is an estimate, and that a low-fantasy campaign may only have half this amount and a high-fantasy campaign may have double that amount. It's already up to the GM to decide what's an appropriate amount of WBL for each character, from half to double the listed value or an even wider range. This is nothing new. Crafting magic items lets a player tweak these ranges... but the ranges are still decided by the GM. That's what I do when I start a higher-level campaign. That's what Jacobs does. That's how it's done.
I'm sorry that the GM has to make decisions about the campaign. I'm sorry that's sometimes hard. But that's the GM's job.
Further translation: It's been like this since 3.0 and it hasn't destroyed any campaigns, and there isn't any room in the Core Rulebook to add yet another paragraph reiterating, "hey, GM, remember that you're in charge of your campaign and should set limits you feel are appropriate."
I'm sure the people new to PF will be grateful to be told they should use their inexperience to figure out how to balance it. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 messed up games to figure it out. *sigh*
I'm sure the people new to PF will be grateful to be told they should use their inexperience to figure out how to balance it. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 messed up games to figure it out. *sigh*
And how many campaigns have the crafting feats messed up? Show of hands?
I'm sure the people new to PF will be grateful to be told they should use their inexperience to figure out how to balance it. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 messed up games to figure it out. *sigh*
In my experience new players starting at higher levels are already asking for a world of issues and trouble. With that said, even if we were to have incredibly exact rules for specific amounts based on every concievable variance of initial wealth and how it should be split up I think most GMs are going to have to play around a bit to find the numbers they prefer.
Which brings me to the best point, given the malleability of the rules for home play why does the Paizo official stance detract from your rulings? If you see this as an issue than you are free to correct it in games you run. If you don't see it as an issue it still neither detracts nor adds to the games you run.
I'm not always pleased with the results of FAQs, but i fail to see how debate escalated to argument and mudslinging is beneficial. Points were presented, counter points presented. Why try and be the "winner" in an arguement that ultimately doesn't have to be?
My apologies as I may come off a bit ranty, and I apologize mdt as I quoted you to segue into my rant. Please realize i wasn't intending to implicate you or any one person by the rest of my post.
I'm sure the people new to PF will be grateful to be told they should use their inexperience to figure out how to balance it. It shouldn't take more than 3 or 4 messed up games to figure it out. *sigh*And how many campaigns have the crafting feats messed up? Show of hands?
In my experience new players starting at higher levels are already asking for a world of issues and trouble. With that said, even if we were to have incredibly exact rules for specific amounts based on every concievable variance of initial wealth and how it should be split up I think most GMs are going to have to play around a bit to find the numbers they prefer.
I never asked for incredibly exact rules. I asked for rules of thumb, rather than 'Uh, duh, do whatever you want'. There's a gigantic difference between 'Idunno' and 'Here's a good rule of thumb'.
As to it being a mistake to start people at higher levels, in my experience, new GMs make all sorts of mistakes. But even if they start them off at 1 and advance, we know new characters are going to get made at higher levels for those new GMs, unless no character ever dies. And if that GM is already having trouble, and doesn't realize that letting that 5th level guy start with 2x the items as everyone else currently has is going to throw things off, a game that might already be making it difficult for him is going to become that much harder for him to control.
Which brings me to the best point, given the malleability of the rules for home play why does the Paizo official stance detract from your rulings? If you see this as an issue than you are free to correct it in games you run. If you don't see it as an issue it still neither detracts nor adds to the games you run.
It doesn't. It is simply my feeling that if you're going to FAQ something to allow something that the Core Rules do not cover, then you should do more than say 'Oh, yeah you can do that' if there's a lot of vagueness about it. The DEV who posted the decision got confused about his own FAQ, so I don't think that saying that the vagueness can cause confusion is a lot of random noise.
I'm not always pleased with the results of FAQs, but i fail to see how debate escalated to argument and mudslinging is beneficial. Points were presented, counter points presented. Why try and be the "winner" in an arguement that ultimately doesn't have to be?
The mudslinging started way before the FAQ. My post was to draw attention to the fact that the FAQ caused as many, if not more, issues than it addressed.
My apologies as I may come off a bit ranty, and I apologize mdt as I quoted you to segue into my rant. Please realize i wasn't intending to implicate you or any one person by the rest of my post.
No problem. Don't take any of the above as personal either. I just believe in actually addressing the issue, not half addressing it and handwaving the rest of it because you don't feel like addressing it.
I do understand there was a clashing of different philosophies prior to the FAQ. I also believe regardless of which side the FAQ validated it would have created ripples. That aside, I don't argue against the effort you are making for clarity, in fact I watch this thread aptly to see explanations and reasonings by both parties.
I can certainly agree that SKR's slip up caused a fair amount of confusion, but he owned up to it, and at the same time it appears that he had been fending of attacks for quite some time. Given that, I don't know if it is fair to say that he was simply confused because of vagueness inherent in the FAQ.
I do agree, without more to go on in the FAQ it does leave the crafting feats interaction with suggested WBL as possibly one of the most difficult to properly delegate for those who have low-moderate experience GMing. The rules, as they stand, make starting any character above level 1 into a veritable guessing game that may never truly be mastered. Fortune forbid that the crafter replacement sitting at 150% wbl (or higher) dies only to be replaced by another crafter. Given that often gear doesn't simply fade away with a death, you may now have a vastly increased group wealth level.
With that said I also don't believe that the fault lies within the FAQ. For those who had always seen the rules as supporting what is now written out a solid venue now exists from which they can come forward with a position of legitimacy in asklng the questions that (to them) would have always needed asking.
Honestly though, as i was saying before: a return to civility would benefit all. Antagonistic, and snide exchanges don't contribute positively to a thread that is of such value to many. As they say, "if you poison a lake to catch fish you simply get poisoned fish."
Let's work out these issues together.