Its not costing you any extra time. But I've been over that before. Scroll up or go back a few pages.
You are either:
a member of the party.
or
Not a member of the party.
You choose.
You think the party should stand for you charging htem so you make a profit from the party off your feat? I think the party should leave the thief behind and recruit someone else. Maybe another crafter, maybe a non crafter. But someone who is a team player.
The group does have options aside from "pay full price or let the group mate rob them". Its called "evict the thief from the group, and proceed without them."
You are with the group. Or you aren't. Stealing from the group means you aren't with it.
-S
I'm about done guys.
19 pages is awesome but if all folks are gonna do is come back and post stuff covered a dozen pages ago, they should go back and read the stuff already posted.
I'm done reposting what's already been said before. If something new comes up, I'll be back. I enjoy a discussion as much as anyone, but at this point the new guys to it are just running it in the same ole circle.
Good luck to all and enjoy the game.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not costing you any extra time. But I've been over that before. Scroll up or go back a few pages.
You are either:
a member of the party.or
Not a member of the party.
You choose.
You think the party should stand for you charging htem so you make a profit from the party off your feat? I think the party should leave the thief behind and recruit someone else. Maybe another crafter, maybe a non crafter. But someone who is a team player.
The group does have options aside from "pay full price or let the group mate rob them". Its called "evict the thief from the group, and proceed without them."
You are with the group. Or you aren't. Stealing from the group means you aren't with it.
-S
Right. This is where I usually point out that I find the extreme collectivist approach an unappealing way to spend my fantasy life. We're caught in an infinite loop.
|
And I'd counter by saying: if the PC is going to take a feat to profit from the group rather than help it, he should avoid the feat and that temptation altogether and select something else.
If you just can't help but try to steal from the party when you take feat X, take feat Y. Get maximize or quicken (or whatever) and contribute in a fashion that doesn't require you to stick your hands into your friends pockets and relieve them of their share of the loot.
-S
It sounds to me like you're saying that a character who takes a crafting feat has to craft on demand. I'm sure that's not what you're saying, of course. I mean, a character who takes a crafting feat and then says "I'm going to make myself some stuff, but I'd honestly rather not built items for other people" isn't overchanging anyone. He's just using his feat.
That's like saying, "the barbarian didn't power attack when he could have, so he's a jerk," or "You took "Point Blank Shot, so every shot you make has to be within 30', or you're wasting your feat and it's not doing me any good."
If an PC says, "I think I should get a 1%/5%/10% gratuity," and the party says they don't agree, the PC has to be able to choose not to craft for them. He's not punishing them. He's not antagonizing them. He's agreeing to disagree. He's using his feat to give himself, say, a +2 to saves, which is exactly as selfish as the character who takes Iron Will, Endurance and Lightning Reflexes.
He's building on his downtime, making no extra money, taking nothing from the group. He's not stealing. In your example, he offered to make items, for a little bonus. The group refused, so he chose not to use that feat to directly benefit them, but instead to directly benefit himself and indirectly benefit them (just as all of their feats do for him, making it a fair trade).
If the party says, "you took this feat, so you have to use it to make items for us or you're a jerk," that's telling him what to do with his character, which I know you object to. How is that demand, that requirement, fair to that character? If he doesn't comply, will the group let him die? Will they kick him out? Which action do you really think is more actively cruel: "I use this feat in the way it is intended" or "I don't like how you use your feat, so I kill you/ ostracize you"?
You said yourself that the anti-charging argument is the "non-jerk" argument, so it can't be that what it sounds like you're saying is what you really mean.
this argument illustrates why you work with the group, or you don't.
If you don't, what you are basically saying is "everyone, craft your own stuff and take the feats."
Whereupon everyone in the party wastes their feats to get the same exact benefit they'd get if just ONE person took the feat, but now the party is down 1-2 feats per person, and LESS effective, not more effective.
This whole diorama is why PFS bars item creation. Too many cans o worms.
==Aelryinth
|
|
this argument illustrates why you work with the group, or you don't.
If you don't, what you are basically saying is "everyone, craft your own stuff and take the feats."
Whereupon everyone in the party wastes their feats to get the same exact benefit they'd get if just ONE person took the feat, but now the party is down 1-2 feats per person, and LESS effective, not more effective.
This whole diorama is why PFS bars item creation. Too many cans o worms.
==Aelryinth
Also, PFS has a lot of downtime between adventures and it would be impossible to judge crafting.
I disagree about "wasting" the feat, though. They're not "forced" to spend a feat to craft. They can choose to tip. They can choose to pay full price at the store. They have choices. His crafting feat is no more "wasted" than another character's Toughness feat. All feats benefit the taker first and the party second. Crafting is the only feat where character seem to think that they have the right to put a sword to another character's throat and force him to benefit them directly, monetarily, against his character's design and wishes.
They seem to think that it's okay to say to the crafter: "make our items, or you're out, you jerk," then it's the crafter who doesn't have a choice. If he wants to play, he has to pay.
Some people are fine with that. I'm fine with making items for my party, for myself. What I'm not fine with is forcing another character or player, on pain of banishment, to bend his character's choices to my character's will. That's not cool. It is, to borrow a term from the anti-tipping side, "jerk behavior."
The crafting feat only impacts the crafter's wealth. Everyone else's is adjusted, by RAW.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The crafting feat only impacts the crafter's wealth. Everyone else's is adjusted, by RAW.
By which I mean: if it only impacts the crafter's wealth then the only thing the crafter loses is time and the only thing the other character gains is the ability to choose the perfect item. He doesn't "pay less," because the party treasure (or his share) is reduced to compensate.
In other words, all benefit beyond the crafter and all advantage taken of the crafter (depending on how you look at it) are pure fluff, if the DM is running wealth properly. If the only impact, in either direction, is fluff, then it is a question of who gets to make your character's choices: you or the group? Is it "all for one and one for all," or is it "the needs of the many before the wants of the few," or is it "if you don't do what we ask, we'll kick you to the curb?" Or is it: "play your character in a way that makes sense for you, it will all balance out?"
I prefer the latter. I don't like other people making choices about my character for me, taking my creativity away. And I don't like doing that for other people. Some people do. That's okay.
The crafting feat only impacts the crafter's wealth. Everyone else's is adjusted, by RAW.By which I mean: if it only impacts the crafter's wealth then the only thing the crafter loses is time and the only thing the other character gains is the ability to choose the perfect item. He doesn't "pay less," because the party treasure (or his share) is reduced to compensate.
In other words, all benefit beyond the crafter and all advantage taken of the crafter (depending on how you look at it) are pure fluff, if the DM is running wealth properly. If the only impact, in either direction, is fluff, then it is a question of who gets to make your character's choices: you or the group? Is it "all for one and one for all," or is it "the needs of the many before the wants of the few," or is it "if you don't do what we ask, we'll kick you to the curb?" Or is it: "play your character in a way that makes sense for you, it will all balance out?"
I prefer the latter. I don't like other people making choices about my character for me, taking my creativity away. And I don't like doing that for other people. Some people do. That's okay.
+1: Best commentary I've seen, and NO snark either.
You win the thread in my book.
i don't even know what you're trying to say. you're obviously on the 'pay for time' side, but i don't get where you're getting the argument that the crafter needs to pay 1/2 of the creation cost for all the items your group requests?
I know no one has been saying that the crafter should pay the other characters to make items for them
Hardly. However, if you're of the "craft for the party at zero cost to them" persuasion then a small request compounds quickly into large chunks of your wealth when the entire party expects similar treatment. From the tone I've read in various posts supporting that viewpoint, if you craft for the ranger, the cleric, the rogue and are left with no more money for the fighter then you better kiss your ass goodbye because he's either going to kill you or not look out for you in battle.
Bare minimum a character should expect to pay cost for an item unless they have a very low intelligence score or some other personality trait that lays out they're an entitled jackass. A tip is just being nice. I've seen it posed on here by several people that the crafter is left without time of his own and this is true. Keep in mind not everyone who crafts optimizes to do such. Not everyone will have a ring of sustenance. So, generally speaking, a character who crafts devote their energy, time and money to the process. Even crafting with cost being reimbursed he gains nothing while the party can, at minimum, make profession checks to get something while they wait on their crafting buddy who's making stuff at their behest anyway.
I found the argument that good aligned characters should be compelled to craft for free to be particularly hilarious as well. Good means you respect life. That's it. I consider myself a generally good person and I still expect to be paid by my employer regardless if I came to them already equipped with the skills I have. You can't say that's different because that's my job because I see people supporting the free side of the debate saying that the crafter should just do his job because that's what he signed up for. I hate to break it to everyone but crafting inherently deals with economics. Every other feat allows a character get better at something. Power Attack allows you to get make more powerful attacks. Crafting similarly should enable you to gain economically, which per RAW and enforced by SKRs FAQ it does. You're welcome for that FAQ, by the way. It was very tedious for me helping to drive that thread as long as I did and I almost walked away from it several times. Given that thread, consider me enemy number one to the people who say crafters should do it for free.
But anyway, there are mechanics driven rules for players to gain even more by crafting. Should other PCs expect special treatment and to circumvent these mechanics given abilities that allow the crafter to be more proficient? Hardly. If so, then whenever the fighter or anyone else helps the crafter and opts to not use their abilities to their fullest then the crafter should cry foul every single time. You didn't use Power Attack for that attack bonus when you went after that baddie that was coming after me? I should murder you in your sleep. Sound fair? I don't think it does.
The perception of the problem, and I say such because I don't believe there is a genuine problem, is compounded by the perception of fairness among the various feats. It has been stated clearly by Paizo developers that no two feats are meant to be equal. So, any perception that one feat is in any way equal or balanced compared to another is mistaking correlation and causation. Power Attack is how it is because some designer or developer wanted it that way and not because a rogue can take a similar feat or because a cleric or any other class can do something similar or even because spellcaster can take feats to up their spell DCs. Instead, the feats are there as they are because Paizo felt they enhance the flavor and effectiveness of various ways to mechanically play a game of Pathfinder.
Furthermore, keep in mind, and this is huge when discussing things like this, is that Paizo believes in a game philosophy where it is okay and even encouraged to make sub-optimal builds. Which, to be perfectly honest, not taking crafting is a sub-optimal build because crafting feats let you gain things for half cost and having that ability is optimal for an adventuring character. My character who did not take Power Attack should not be able to game my way to pluses on my attack rolls because I'm jealous of another character who has it. Similarly, other characters shouldn't expect the same gains granted to a crafting character when they didn't choose to take those abilities.
Talk of playing as a team is actually a bit misguided as well. Keep in mind we're talking about a roleplaying game. Every character in the world, including your own, has a unique personality from every other one. The OP was thematically correct to charge for his wares because his choice of lifestyle or deity affected the other and made a reinforcing personality. There should be nothing wrong with this. If you make a character who has a racial hatred against orcs then I would venture to say that should an orc and a goblin show up on the battle field then your character should at least consider going after the orc first. If the goblin has his weapon on your mate's neck, that's one thing, but if they're equal options then he should probably go after the orc.
There are tons of options between the CRB and APG to make a character of quirks and nuance. Do not presume to press upon your peers your lack of creativity. After a long career together you may get the friend discount of getting an item perfectly at cost. However, it's perfectly within the rules to go from level 1 to 20 within a year or even just a couple months. I can't speak for everyone but I've gotten comfortable with people in a year but I don't know if I'd put my professional skills to use for them for absolutely free or let them watch my kid while I go out. The same ebb and flow of personality should be felt and seen in play sessions as your characters grow and get comfortable with another. Just because you have to sit next to Bob for several hours doesn't mean your characters should be instantly the best of pals just because they've been through a couple scrapes together.
Don't worry, i've even go so far as to charge 80% of original value. crafting coast feats, so charging is worth it. it is different from tanking and curing.
Don't worry, i've even go so far as to charge 80% of original value. crafting coast feats, so charging is worth it. it is different from tanking and curing.
How do you feel about a rogue bypassing a door/trap that can not otherwise be bypassed and keeping 20% of the loot before splitting ?
Wether it is a feat or not isn't really relevant much, most class abilities can be swapped out, or the character could have chosen to be a wizard and charge players for crafting..
next the cleric charges you 2,000 gold for bringing you back from the brink of death, sure he didn't actually spend 5,000 gold on raise dead components but if he didnt heal you you most certainly would have !
and so on.. charging a little I can understand especially if that money goes to spellcasting components or 'emergency items' making a sizable profit of your players opens up a bad precedent in my opinion even if without you they would have to pay more or earn less..
hm a new thing and an old thing come again. In reverse order:
1) Whoever is asking for crafting, is paying the cost of the crafting. Not sure why someone would think I mean otherwise- but just in case, I'm saying it plainly here. Whether its a wand or greatsword, the guy wanting it done fronts the cost- not the crafter.
The issue is the crafter tacking on an extra fee. Clearly if the crafter is being required to pay for the crafting he's going to be /way/ behind the group.. and resentful, and pretty mad on top of it. I've not seen anyone actually advocate that the crafter has to pay for the item- but if someone is, that someone is not me.
If barbarian wants a 2k upgrade, he pays 2k for the upgrade.
2) I guess "does the crafter have to craft" sort of depends. I mean obviously, the less down time the group has the fewer things can be crafted. At some point, depending on what the group is doing, the crafter may only have time to craft for themselves. Its their feat afterall, why shouldn't they benefit from what little time there is to craft?
Of course, there is also the possibility that he has more free time than he has the coin, or the desire, to craft with. Maybe he has craft wondrous but is saving to buy a metamagic rod or whatever.
Well, if someone in the group asks for that 2k upgrade for their greataxe- why would the crafter say no? Just to be a jerk?
"What, you won't pay me 200? sorry, I'm not going to help you fight better. Sorry."
Why? You are already benefitting personally from your feat to the extent that you care to at the moment- is there really any good reason not to help your group-mate to get better? No reason but greed. And that isn't really a good reason at all. The fact is- no, you don't ever H A V E to help your group mate out. the barbarian doesn't have to attack the orc charging you, the cleric doesn't have to heal the barbarian if a troll gets a solid hit in, the wizard doesn't have to cast Black Tentacles to help lock down the mooks. The rogue doesn't have to unlock that door, disarm that trap..
Why do they? Why isn't everyone standing there with their hand out saying "Cash up front or go hire an expert to do it"
Why don't they do that? well- two reasons.
1) the group would tell them to go to hell.
2) far more importantly: Because they are a group. The group's working together. The rogue knows going in that he's likelyt o be unlocking doors and disarming traps and I've never met a barbarian yet who thought he wasn't going to be playing whackamole with his weapon of choice. Yet the crafter comes in and expects to.. get paid to .. do what he can to help the group? Clearly some groups are OK with that.
I am just really not ok with it.
The crafter isn't contributing more. He isn't doing extra. he's not the MVP or the best person in the group. He's one person in the group who- like everyone else in it- can do things that the rest can't. And for doing his part for the group, he gets his share of the loot. Of the fame, of the glory, of the down time, of the cold hard gold coins.
Not his share and 10% of everyone else's. Not his share and a little off the top. But his share. Just like everyone else in the group.
Every single person brings things to the group that no one else does.
No one gets to charge the group for the privilege of using those things.
The crafter doesn't either.
I'm not going to force anyone to take a crafting feat. I'm not even going to ask them to. But if someone has, then I very well might ask them to use some group time to make an item for me. Just like I might ask the barbarian to kill the orc charging me, or the cleric to kindly heal me after I've been hit.
-S
So three LG people invite someone to the group. They have a paladin, a cleric, and a rogue.
Guy 4 shows up, talks to the group, and rolles up a Chaotic Evil demon summoning wizard.
The other 3 guys say "hey, we're playing a much more goodly campaign than that. We're really appreciate it if you made something more in line with what we're doing".
Are they being jerks? ruining his concept? not letting him play the way he wants to play? Depriving him of his proper character RP.
Not at all. If you come into a group, you have to fit the group.
Even if its character creation time: If everyone has decided to do X, and you go out and make something directly contrary to X, then you are in the wrong. if 4 people say they want a good campaign and you want to play an evil demon summoner then you probably aren't going to get your way.
Now obviously there can be some give and take. Maybe they come down a lil off LG and you go up a lil off CE and meet somewhere in the not goody two shoes and not evil as hell middle ground. Or maybe they say "hey we really don't like evil characters in the group. Please choose some other option".
At which point, CE dude can either comply with his friends wishes, or walk.
Now:
three guys invite a new guy to the group. He decides to play a crafter. he tells the group that he'll craft for them but only for a 10% cut. They inform him that it isn't acceptable because its self centered and not group oriented. They ask him to alter that character concept to one more in line to something the group agrees with.
he can leave. he can ditch his 10%. he can not be a crafter at all.
But can he just tell them to f'off, he'll do it if he wants to?
he can- but he's doing the same thing as the CE dude in the LG party. He's being a jerk.
Now lets flip the coin over.
3 CE guys have a new guy come in who wants to play a paladin. Now HE's the jerk.
Or 4 people group who already have a crafter and he's charging them 10%. They are ok with it. new guy comes in (me) and doesn't like it. Sits down, chats with the group, discusses the options.
he can:
leave.
make his own crafter and not worry abouut it.
make his own crafter and not charge 10%. (which is kinda border line jerk'ish at least towards the other crafter)
make a character and pay the 10%
make a character and be way behind WBL by paying full price.
The group decides how the group works. Not the one guy who thinks the party should change their methods. its up to the group, as a group, to decide those kinds of things. And whoever is trying to rock the boat is a jerk if they ignore the group- whichever side it is.
If I came into a group with a crafter charging 10%? If it was a bunch of folks i didnt' know I would probably just leave. That 10% would tell me enough to know I wouldn't enjoy that group, and they wouldn't likely enjoy me. I *do* consider it theft. And I would despise the person doing it.
If it was friends, maybe the guys I'm gaming with now, I'd probably just roll another caster, take a crafting feat, and not worry about it. I still wouldn't pay the 10%.. And I doubt anyone else would either for very long. I couldn't refuse to craft someone something if they asked and I had the time, and thre's no way I could make myself charge 'em 10% to do it.
The point though is to not be a jerk. Whichever side of the fence you and your group is on- no one player gets to dictate to the group. We call those people jerks. And we exclude jerks from our games.
-S
The crafting feat only impacts the crafter's wealth. Everyone else's is adjusted, by RAW.By which I mean: if it only impacts the crafter's wealth then the only thing the crafter loses is time and the only thing the other character gains is the ability to choose the perfect item. He doesn't "pay less," because the party treasure (or his share) is reduced to compensate.
In other words, all benefit beyond the crafter and all advantage taken of the crafter (depending on how you look at it) are pure fluff, if the DM is running wealth properly. If the only impact, in either direction, is fluff, then it is a question of who gets to make your character's choices: you or the group? Is it "all for one and one for all," or is it "the needs of the many before the wants of the few," or is it "if you don't do what we ask, we'll kick you to the curb?" Or is it: "play your character in a way that makes sense for you, it will all balance out?"
I prefer the latter. I don't like other people making choices about my character for me, taking my creativity away. And I don't like doing that for other people. Some people do. That's okay.
to be fair, i've had some trouble with the 'play your character' approach. in one game, 2 characters has over 75k worth of wealth each, and the rest of the party had only 10k a pop because they were thieves. while they stole from the party too, they mainly got the treasure from when the fighter and caster were taking care of the bad guys, they were running through taking all the money for themselves.
this is the sort of situation i see with there being a crafter who charges. while it won't be as bad, it will be them building up wealth above the rest of the party.
this is why i advocate figuring out how to do loot and wealth out of game before the game starts. Same with crafting. people should talk with their GM to see how they feel about crafting, how much money they would like to allow to be crafted (or percentage),...
Why did you stay in the game where two had 7x more stuff than anyone else? That just doesnt even seem worth showing up for.
-S
Here's the bottom line as I see it.
If a player builds a PC with the express purpose of taking crafting feats so that he can charge his fellow PCs for his services, that would not sit well with me, or with just about any player I have ever gamed with. I am not adventuring so that you can take my money and get rich while I put my life on the line to protect you.
If a player builds a PC with the express purpose of taking crafting feats to make items for the party so that the party is stronger, then that PC should not have any reason to ask for a surcharge for his services, and so the issue should never come up.
Somewhere in the middle would be the player who builds a PC with crafting feats but expects that his "extra effort" be rewarded by the party. That situation assumes a couple of things. First it assumes that the crafter is doing more effort for the party during "down time" than the other characters. Honestly this has never been the case in any game I've played. During downtime every character has something they are doing. The rogue is sneaking about looking for clues for the next campaign hook. The paladin is schmoozing with royalty trying to find a sponsor. The cleric is volunteering with the local church to build goodwill in case the party needs an expensive spell at some point...
Everyone is contributing.
If one PC is slacking off while the rest of the party is working for the good of the party, then that character needs to be talked to.
The idea that a crafter necessarily invests more of his time and so should get some special gold dispensation for his efforts is almost always untrue. It has never been true in any games I've played in. So that whole argument falls flat on its face. The crafter is doing his part, just like the rogue (who is risking discovery, arrest or murder in the dark) the paladin (who is risking angering powerful movers and shakers) and the cleric (who is risking nothing, but is spending a lot of time with sick and injured people....)
I'd say that's why I'd want some sort of compensation for crafting. While I'm crafting an item for a party member those party members are off doing their own stuff. I don't get to do my own stuff as I'm busy crafting for that other player. So while the Paladin is schmoozing and making valuable contacts I'm not hobnobbing with fellow wizards or tracking a new spell for spell book. The rogue is off looking for adventure hook and profiting but I'm stuck crafting instead of researching the next adventure hook. The cleric is generating good will with the church and it's follower and I'm stuck crafting when I could be writing out scrolls for the next adventure and when do go out I'm weaker for it.
That's how my players view it.
|
A ring of sustenance does not help crafting in any way shape or form. The rules on page 549 are pretty clear. You do anything other than sitting in a 'fairly quiet, comfortable, well lit place to work' and you do NOT get your 8hours a day of crafting. 8hours a day is your maximum thus a ring of sustenance does not help. If the caster is out adventuring he spends 4 hours a day maximum of which 2 hours a day count. Additionally, when not using the adventuring clause you must spend 4 hours in a single block. Ie: your relaxed period of crafting (8hours) can be spent in 2 four hour blocks while your adventuring period of crafting is broken up into whenever you have time.
A crafter does not 'need' any other person. Other persons can supply spells and abilities OTHER than craft feats but the other persons are not required since the DC can be increased by 5 for each ability not present. Note: spell trigger and spell completion items cannot get around the spell requirement. Other people cannot speed up the crafting process though.
In the end you are correct that adventuring slows down item creation. Which is why sandbox adventures where time is not an issue creates problems. - Gauss
ring of sustenance just helps with the limitation of time in a day, which really isn't a limitation, but i just like the extra 6 hours a day i get with the ring because you only need 2hrs of sleep instead of 8 to reprepare spells (though you can do that only 1/24 hours still).
keep reading those item creations rules. a wizard can rush the time it takes to create an item by increasing the DC +5 to turn the 8hrs a day into 4 hours a day for 1000g worth of work. please don't ignore this again, i've specifically typed this for you 3 times, and for other people many more times.
adventuring doesn't slow down item creation if you're a creator worth their salt. the idea that you'll gain wealth faster than you can create items is what i meant as time being a limiting factor, thus the idea of leadership,...
You can't take the +5 to speed up item crafting unless:
- he work for a "uninterrupted 4-hour block" of time- "in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine"
This: "Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster)." preclude using the +5 rule to speed up crafting while working on the road unless:
- you cast mage magnificent mansion every day and work in it (so you get a controlled environment)
- you have a ring of sustenance, so that your 4 hours of work every day don't slow down your group (and that mean giving up a ring slot to do that)
- then you have the small problem that all the spell used to craft during the night aren't available the next day (even if you have a rig of sustenance you can't memorize spell used in the last 8 hours when you recharge you spellcasting slots)
So ring of sustenance and speeding up craft are nice and dandy, but they work only when you are benefiting from downtime or you are level 13+ and willing to spend substantial resources to get the controlled environment.
...fixed.
but i don't understand what your point is?
You know that the "fixed" thing is heavily frowned upon in this forum?
Of course, there is also the possibility that he has more free time than he has the coin, or the desire, to craft with. Maybe he has craft wondrous but is saving to buy a metamagic rod or whatever.
Well, if someone in the group asks for that 2k upgrade for their greataxe- why would the crafter say no? Just to be a jerk?
Snarky Response - He's going to say No because he has Craft Wonderous Item and not Craft Magic Arms and Armor :-)
2) far more importantly: Because they are a group. The group's working together. The rogue knows going in that he's likelyt o be unlocking doors and disarming traps and I've never met a barbarian yet who thought he wasn't going to be playing whackamole with his weapon of choice. Yet the crafter comes in and expects to.. get paid to .. do what he can to help the group? Clearly some groups are OK with that.
I am just really not ok with it.
The crafter isn't contributing more. He isn't doing extra. he's not the MVP or the best person in the group. He's one person in the group who- like everyone else in it- can do things that the rest can't. And for doing his part for the group, he gets his share of the loot. Of the fame, of the glory, of the down time, of the cold hard gold coins.
Not his share and 10% of everyone else's. Not his share and a little off the top. But his share. Just like everyone else in the group.
Every single person brings things to the group that no one else does.
No one gets to charge the group for the privilege of using those things.
The crafter doesn't either.
Attempt at a Non-Snarky Response
I suppose that this does depend on the kind of game you play. Sure, there's the A-Team mentality, where everyone is in it for the team, and everyone splits the reward (BA gets the Milk, Hannibal gets the Cigars....), but that isn't the only type of campaign I've been involved with.
I've been in games where characters get "Side Quests" where Mr Slugworth offers the Rogue money to procure a specific item for him, or the Wizard is contacted by a Professor to make sure to note the glyphs in a tomb, or a Ranger who is paid to make a Map of an area. These are sometimes shared with the party, and sometimes not. It depends on the circumstances. And there's the occasional time where these side quests sometimes run contrary to each other (must procure an item vs make sure the item doesn't get disturbed).
To some, these might be annoyances, to others, it adds another layer to the game at times. Inter-party conflict helps drive storylines. Does this work in all groups? No, but in some it works very well (in the players enjoyment of the game). And I'm not even talking about evil characters. But I am talking about Secret Societies, backroom deals, or Pious Quest types, in addition to the Main "Quest".
Not all groups work as tight knit cohesive units, some work as dysfunctional misfits. And in those, charging for Crafting makes alot more sense. Because those groups are not the "Team" you want your group to be. There's nothing wrong with either type (or anything in between), ultimately, are you and your group having fun.
Strangely enough, when I have crafted in 4E, I never considered Charging for crafting (when it took an hour for 1 item, regardless of power) but in 3E/PF, I have (although I haven't crafted in PF, I'd accept the surcharge proposed to me), and it is because of the time (in days/weeks) to do it in. It might have something to do with it not being a Feat (or Feats) as well (you just need to be a Ritual Caster). <shrugs>
This thread is like crack. I want to stay away... but I just can't!
Yay for post 936!
-S
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
ring of sustenance just helps with the limitation of time in a day, which really isn't a limitation, but i just like the extra 6 hours a day i get with the ring because you only need 2hrs of sleep instead of 8 to reprepare spells (though you can do that only 1/24 hours still).
keep reading those item creations rules. a wizard can rush the time it takes to create an item by increasing the DC +5 to turn the 8hrs a day into 4 hours a day for 1000g worth of work. please don't ignore this again, i've specifically typed this for you 3 times, and for other people many more times.
adventuring doesn't slow down item creation if you're a creator worth their salt. the idea that you'll gain wealth faster than you can create items is what i meant as time being a limiting factor, thus the
a suitable environment involves someplace that you could prepare spells. and portable labs are 500g.The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items.
This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).
A portable laboratory is not the same thing of "a laboratory or shrine", a location where you need to have someone constantly doing guard duty is "a distracting or dangerous environment".
As a minimum you need a sturdy building, protection you from wind, rain and dust, giving you adequate shade from the sun in summer and keeping you reasonably warm in winter, then you need to have a reasonably large workplace (look the requirement for making items: all metal items and the potions require a heat source and metalworking tools if working on metal, leather heat source and leatherworking implements, and so on. You can't use that kind of stuff in a rope trick or secure shelter without disturbing the sleep of all other guys). You can use the 4 hours worth 2 rule, but to do ore than that you need a building or a mage magnificent mansion.
Read the whole set of rules about making magic items, not only selected pieces.
|
|
This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).A portable laboratory is not the same thing of "a laboratory or shrine", a location where you need to have someone constantly doing guard duty is "a distracting or dangerous environment".
As a minimum you need a sturdy building, protection you from wind, rain and dust, giving you adequate shade from the sun in summer and keeping you reasonably warm in winter, then you need to have a reasonably large workplace (look the requirement for making items: all metal items and the potions require a heat source and metalworking tools if working on metal, leather heat source and...
man i'd hate to play in one of your games if you can't prepare spells while someone's on guard duty in the field...
love the condescending btw
yes i did read all the rules, several times today. so what about the portable laboratory isn't a laboratory?
you know shrines can be small boxes right?
EDIT: added in the field
About the condescending tone, take a mirror.
You can memorize spells in the field, you can enchant in the field, what working in the field isn't is "This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster)." so you use the rules for working in a distracting environment: half speed.
Gnomersy:
Dang quote was so long it (the forum) snipped your quote from the post, so I just cut the whole thing rather than quote you quoting me without your post attached.
Alright so.. the group comes to a trapped and locked door. They have a rogue.
The rogue has a high perception, and high ranks in disable device.
Not to quote a bad movie but: POP QUIZ: what do you do?
Do you.. I dunno.. have the rogue remove the trap and unlock the door?
Maybe you don't. I do. He's the best one to do it. My character certainly isn't. The rogue is the best equipped to do so with the least fuss and the most efficiency. can he charge for it? Should he?
For doing for the group what he's able to do for the group?
Nah. course not!
for some reason though the crafter gets a pass to take gold from the group.
I'm not mis using the English language.
There is a difference in me using a word to categorize something in a bad light, and mis using it.
The crafter is stealing money from the group because he is taking money from them that he doesn't deserve. He *knows* he can charge it because he's charging less than the PC's can get it from someone else. So he takes advantage of that fact to rip them off of 10, 20, 30% or whatever it is. if its *one gold piece* more than its costing him to make it then its highway robbery. You don't have to agree with that. I understand that, I really do. But its still my view on it. And i'm going to keep calling it theft. Because its stealing from the party.
it is *no different* than the rogue taking a platinum piece from the dragon hoard and tucking it into his belt and not telling anyone later when they distribute the wealth. Taking money that you haven't earned is stealing.
The crafter *does not earn extra money from the group* just for taking a crafting feat. It just doesn't work that way. *Forcing* them, by virtue of the goofy arsed Wealth rules to come to you and pay that fee to you, doesn't make it any less of a theft.
If I come into your house and tell you that I'm going to twist your arm off at the elbow unless yuo give me your pin number, and then I go empty your bank account: did I just rob you? or did you give me your money freely? I just robbed you, right? Why? You had an option didn't you? You could have let me rip your arm off by the elbow.
Of COURSE NOT. I just robbed you blind. Because your other option /wasn't an option at all/.
If you tell the group that you will charge them 100 to make them something or they can go somewhere else and pay *2000* more- you are twisting their arm. You aren't giving them a choice. You are dictating your terms and telling them to suck it up or to fly a kite. And you expect them to be happy about it! What a crock!
No one is making the crafter craft. I get that. I also don't understand why they wouldn't. There's no reason to cept to just be greedy, unless you are in the rare circumstance where you actually have so much gold that you can't craft it fast enough or that you have such a limited amount of crafting time that you just can't possibly spare the time. In either of those limited cases, sure, craft for yourself. No one expects otherwise.
But if the group is willing to make the extra time for you to do some work for the group why not craft for them? Just greed? Just because you can? "neener neener I can craft and you can't, screw you"?
or "you won't pay my fee so I won't help you, sorry"?
And for some reason you think thats ok? that the group will be cool with that? No harm no foul no bad feelings?
I just call that unreasonable expectations.
You just can't expect to twist people's arms into getting your way and for them to thank you and be happy about it. Maybe they will. Some folks here have said as much. I don't understand why- but they do. And I wish them luck. What works for their group, clearly is good for their group.
But not for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I’ve stated my opinion and thus far it hasn’t changed though this discussion has been very interesting and I have learned a few things that made me think through everything some more. I was going to bow out quietly but I thought I’d throw out some food for thought. Take this for what you will.
@dragonfire8974: I may have missed something somewhere, where is the 50% more wealth then the rest of the party coming from?assuming a party of 4
3 get a -10 percent. so 3 are at 90%
the crafter gets 30% so the crafter is up at 130%. while it isn't exactly 50% more, it is very close. exactly 50% more would be 135%
This didn’t read right to me so I wanted to run some numbers. Please keep in mind that these numbers are not meant to be an accurate representation of how a group spends their money on crafting but rather to give me a better idea of the wealth advantage potentially possessed by characters that craft.
Each of the following is a break down of % magic item wealth and % gold wealth. I then make a few stated assumptions about how the loot is used in the imaginary group simply to look and the resulting discrepancies in the crafters net value vs. the groups net value
<disclaimer>I am tired and the numbers or equations may or may not be correct, I’m generally good with math but as I said I’m tired, if I’ve made errors feel free to correct them, also this post is a bit long</disclaimer>
the crafter could turn his share into 200% value worth of magic items +60% from the gold value gained from the group for a total of 260%worth of magic items.
The rest of the group would net 180% value worth of magic items.
Netting the crafter a 44% increase over the rest of the party, ouch.
100% magic items
The crafter can customize his share but still has 100% wealth, but before continuing we have to make an assumption about how many items are turned over vs kept. Lets say 50%. So he would make +15% theoretically turning it into a total of 130% worth of magic items.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party would have customized gear and be at 95%
Netting the crafter about a 37% increase over the rest of the party, wow still quite a bit higher then I'd have guessed.
50/50 split
The crafter can customize his share and double half of it to 150% wealth, but again before continuing we have to make an assumption about what the party turns over vs keeps. Lets say the 50% gold. So he would make +15% theoretically turning it into a total of 180% worth of magic items.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party would have 50% base +90% customized gear and be at 140%
Netting the crafter about a 29% increase over the rest of the party, better but again still quite a bit higher then I'd have guessed.
80/20 split
The crafter can customize his share and double the 20% giving them 120% wealth, but again before continuing we have to make an assumption about what the party turns over vs keeps. Lets say the 20% gold. So he would make +6% theoretically turning it into a total of 132% worth of magic items.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party would have 80% base +36% customized gear and be at 116%
Netting the crafter about a 14% increase over the rest of the party, the closest to what I usually see in the groups I’ve played with but I realize groups vary greatly. Over all not to bad at all, imo anyway.
*****
Now at this point I was going to stop but then I thought of something. Some have stated that if a crafter wants to craft for themselves that’s fine, it’s just the “exploitation” of taking other characters wealth that they objected to. Most have not but a few did and it got me wondering what the discrepancy was before crafting for the other party members. This was the results:
100% gold
the crafter could turn his share into a total of 200% value worth of magic items.
The rest of the group would purchase 100% value worth of magic items.
Netting the crafter a 100% increase over the rest of the party.
100% magic items
The crafter can customize his share but still has 100% wealth.
As before I will make the assumption that the party turns 50% of their items into gold and purchase more useful equipment. This leave them with 75% of the original wealth.
Netting the crafter about a 25% increase over the rest of the party.
50/50 split
The crafter can customize his share and double half of it to 150% wealth
As before the party spends their gold and keeps their items giving them a total of 100% value worth of magic items.
Netting the crafter a 50% increase over the rest of the party.
80/20 split
The crafter can customize his share and double the 20% giving them 120% wealth.
Here again I’ll assume the rest of the group only uses their gold to purchase items giving them 100% wealth in magic items.
Netting the crafter a 20% increase over the rest of the party.
*****
Of course all of this assumes the crafter makes everything meaning they have a lot of time and all of the necessary feats so this is a worst-case scenario. It also assumes that the party sits still for the entire time waiting for everything to be crafted. Still it is quite a bit more then I expected. Someone want to check my math? I am really tired.
Anyway, from what I am seeing a crafter is normally running between 25% and 100% higher then the party if he only crafts for himself. On the other hand if he charges a 10% fee the difference the difference between his wealth and the parties wealth actually shrinks typically ranging from around 14% to 44%. Naturally if he charged nothing it’d shrink more but I think it’s fair to say he’s not further increasing his power beyond that of the party since overall their net benefit is typically greater then the crafters.
This is not 100% true of course, as you can see there exist corner cases but I believe they would be extremely rare. Understand I’m not saying this is how people should play. For me this has been an exercise in curiosity. I still stand by what I said in my original post, find out the type of group you are in before deciding what to do and avoid any player arguments. In short have fun, as long as you are none of the rest really matters.
...Here's the bottom line as I see it.
If a player builds a PC with the express purpose of taking crafting feats so that he can charge his fellow PCs for his services, that would not sit well with me, or with just about any player I have ever gamed with. I am not adventuring so that you can take my money and get rich while I put my life on the line to protect you.
If a player builds a PC with the express purpose of taking crafting feats to make items for the party so that the party is stronger, then that PC should not have any reason to ask for a surcharge for his services, and so the issue should never come up.
Somewhere in the middle would be the player who builds a PC with crafting feats but expects that his "extra effort" be rewarded by the party. That situation assumes a couple of things. First it assumes that the crafter is doing more effort for the party during "down time" than the other characters. Honestly this has never been the case in any game I've played. During downtime every character has something they are doing. The rogue is sneaking about looking for clues for the next campaign hook. The paladin is schmoozing with royalty trying to find a sponsor. The cleric is volunteering with the local church to build goodwill in case the party needs an expensive spell at some point...
Everyone is contributing.
If one PC is slacking off while the rest of the party is working for the good of the party, then that character needs to be talked to.
The idea that a crafter necessarily invests more of his time and so should get some special gold dispensation for his efforts is almost always untrue. It has never been true in any games I've played in. So that whole argument falls flat on its face. The crafter is doing his part, just like the rogue (who is risking discovery, arrest or murder in the dark) the paladin (who is risking angering powerful movers and shakers) and the cleric (who is risking nothing, but is spending a lot of time with sick and injured people....)
The issue is: I'm crafting while everyone else is off screwing around. I want screw off time too, or I'm charging the group!
Ok. I'll say it. I agree. I don't *actually* (i actually think the solution is to discuss it with the group and solve the problem rather than charge them for it) but i can see charging them as a last resort.But, here's the thing:
The rogue out looking for the next plot hook? he's not screwing around. He's helping the group.
The cleric schmoozing with his temple? Well, he could be doing his own crap. He could also be making valuable group contacts for when you need a divine spell cast that he can't handle.
The fighter might be screwing around. or he could be sitting there in the room with you, making sure someone didn't gank you while you had your head in the books.
the wizard might be screwing off, but he may be in the library looking up the Glabrezu that handed the gruop their arse in that last dungeon so they are better prepared for next time.
The point isn't that no one is screwing around- its that they don't have to be.
The group can very well set aside some time for group work. Some guys do X, some guys do Y, some guys sit and craft stuff. Afterwards, everyone meets up at the bar, shares a pony keg and relaxes for awhile.
If you think that anytime you are crafting for someone else is time you could be doing something else.. Well, i can't really help with that attitude. If you (the character) are gonna look out for yourself first and the group second, thats pretty much your call. Don't expect the group to be terribly impressed with that philosophy though.
-S
You are either:
a member of the party.or
Not a member of the party.
You choose.
You think the party should stand for you charging htem so you make a profit from the party off your feat? I think the party should leave the thief behind and recruit someone else. Maybe another crafter, maybe a non crafter. But someone who is a team player.
Now I feel I have a bead on this "discussion".
@all who are arguing about parity and disparity, free/cost effective and work equals pay: is the point of the game to accrue monetary or fiscal rewards, use them to buy materiel and do away with villains? If so, then your logic can follow on trough all of it's logical paths that equal either your argument, or those who oppose your position. Easy. You've all proved, counter-proved, presented, mathed out, analogised, exampled, rationalised, reduced and counter-reduced to the point where we have a bkx canyon with red on one side and blue on the other.It seems there is a larger point. Selgard, you hit the nail on the head. "Team player".
In my game, a team player is a player whose character is played to the best of it's creative potential. There are no arbitrary common memes such as those I have seen bandied hereabouts: "that kind of behaviour is generally frowned upon" or with regard to one character who charged for his services "he was the most hated... in the game". I hope so too. I hope those characters hated that character for being greedy, but from the tone of the post it seemed the distaste was somewhat attached to the style of play.
If you base the game on wealth by level, assumed materiel to overcome CRs then the game will develop metagaming techniques whereby the game is less about playing together in a shared world, and more about number crunching and accountancy to ensure maximum DPR and parity across the party becomes an issue.
In a very strange way, Selgard, your playstyle, while I'm sure very rational-seeming to you comes across as post modern in the extreme to me where the grand narrative of spectactors in a milieu has been thrown away in favour of a shared entity that must cohere or the unreasonable non-sharer must be ejected. You find the player of such a character anathematic. I find your playstyle anathematic - it appears to my (i admit, failry ignorant) view to be without any shades of gray or interaction beyond a communal all for the greater good party line. Having said that, it necessarily has its place and I both respect and applaud it. Understand however that there is a counter argument for in-character greed that bears absolutely no reflection on any attempt to "farm" other players, gain some type of advantage or in any other way ruin the enjoyment of the game.
Slegard's detractors: the same by association goes for you guys. If you are explaining yourselves with reasoning, spreadsheets of profit and loss over time etc, then you are as caught up as Selgard. Your character has his reasons. They may be honorablemor not. Selgard's character, and the characters in the game of the original post can accept it or not, but those playing those characters can accept that that is what that player has decided their character is going to do in game, and there aint no badwrongfun about that.
In my very honest opinion.
Now back to the levity. Almost 1000 posts of the Stemwind Torpest Controversy! Yay! Current score 438- 424-4. That's right, a new faction has entered the fray. It's still anybody's game folks, as long as they are playing it RIGHT!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo! Ooo! I wanna join in!
Alright, so here is the thing. There is no preconceived notion that if you get an item creation feat you have to use it "for the good of the party" (aka - the good of the player who wants you to make something for his character cheaper than he can buy it for) at cost. There is also no preconcieved notion that it is expected that a when a player has their character take this feat that they are expected to be compensated for their time. There are NO preconceived notions unless it is something that is discussed before the game starts. If it isn't, then the player is free to play his character how he sees fit.
My personal opinion is that to me it seems like an awful lot of metagaming is going on. Metagaming annoys me. There is no way that the other characters would even necessarily know that the character obtained the item creation feat to begin with. For that matter there isn't even necessarily a reason that the other players know. The character could be intent on only using the feat for himself and not making items for the other characters at all. They don't even have to know he is making the items. He could just come back and have new stuff the same way the others do ....they just bought theirs rather than making them.
Aside from that, I can see getting behind the whole theory of if it benefits the party then you shouldn't charge. However, that was not the example that was brought up. It was a +2 Strength belt. That would directly benefit one character. It may indirectly benefit the party by him using it, but so too could an item that the character with the crafting feat could make for himself. So what happens when more than one character wants something made? How is the order in line established for who gets their item first?
To me, in the example provided by the OP, it seems that the players of the rest of the party are the one being selfish. They want their items for their character's regardless of the cost to the character who is making the items. They didn't invest in taking the item creation feat themsleves, they just want the benefit of it. Its a cost, folks. And investment. Not only in character but out of character. Its an investment in time IC and resources (feats) OOC. If they want to leach off the benefit that your character is giving I don't see any problem with being compensated for your time. Now that doesn't necessarily mean in the form of money. It could be in time, favors, donations to a cause, etc. Or if they have a different item creation feat then you could perhaps establish a trade.
I'll tell ya though that I would have a problem with the OOC reaction based on an IC decision. Its metagaming. And making the decision to just drop the item creation feat because they can not act mature and understand any perspective outside of their own paralax will end up hurting the entire party by no one getting their magic items at cut rate.
This was said earlier but think about it in the sense of real life. Special Ops teams have eachother's backs in combat situations but when they go home for the day one team member doesn't expect the other to build his house for him at cost just because he is a master carpenter.
But hey, if they all have such a problem with it then don't take the feat. Then no one benefits from it. Personally, though, I'd take the feat and not have the character tell the other party members. If they get pissed out of character tell them that they are welcome to take the feat for themselves. ...and also point out that their reacting to IC things OOC and you don't appreciate their metagaming.
(...did I mention I strongly dislike metagaming?)