One of my current parties is a pirate band. We revised this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code
..and signed it in blood.
And yeah, I had let the thieving slide to some extent, but it came back when I started getting called head of the "slavery" party.
If you are my slave, then you are stealing from me.. sorry :) Its just the other side of the same cookie.
I do not believe that I have refered to your side of the argument as the slavery party. I have been careful to use neutral terms, like the free crafter crowd and the fee crafter crowd.
If we start using less inflamatory tones, neutral tones, then perhaps the others will follow suit (probably not, but one can always hope).
Ok, here's a question for the Cindy Crafter's fee is stealing from the group.
Why is it assumed that Cindy is stealing from the group rather that that Mark Merchant is ripping Cindy off by only paying her half of what he'll make when he sells the brand- new +1 sword she just made?
I'll buy the stealing idea when you find a used item shop that will sell that sword to you at the price Mark gave Cindy for it.
[Edit]When you thin k about it, what does happen to all those used +1 swords?
Looks to me like Mark Merchant turns around and sells them for full price.
One of my current parties is a pirate band. We revised this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code
..and signed it in blood.
hahaha thats totally awesome.
-S
To go back to the "business partnership" example:
You have 5 guys in business for themselves. They need alot of graphic design done. They hire RD to come do the work. yay RD. Guy 3 realizes taht its cutting into the profit of the partnership and talks to the group. He goes and learns graphic design. The group pays for the parts equipmenta nd whatnot and guy 3 starts doing GD for the partnership. They quit using RD. (or use RD less)Does guy 3 get to start charging the partnership part of the price difference of what the partnership is saving? No- he doesn't.
He does however get to enjoy the benefit of a more effective partnership.
Well, to reflect the fee crafters point of view, the example should be changed to:
Now that Guy 3 has the required skills, not only does he have to do his regular job for the business, but he is also required to stay late every night and come in on days off to do the graphics that RD used to do.
In that case, shouldn't he be recompensed for the extra time and hours that he is putting in?
What are the other three owners doing during this time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As more and more people seem to be skipping a lot of posts, going straight to the last page or so (can’t imagine why :)), I will attempt to recap the arguments presented so far from the two main viewpoints involved in the discussion:
Free crafting crowd:
1. It is “stealing” from fellow PCs. Getting paid twice for adventuring (once from loot, once from fellow PCs).
2. Fees make the crafter richer, more powerful than the rest of the party.
3. It is what is best fo the team, making the team stronger.
4. Crafting time is trivial (crafters should have a Ring of Substance and maxed ranks in Spellcraft)
5. If a crafter will not craft for free for the group, then they should be dumped or killed or etc.
6. If a crafter will not craft for free, the group should start charging for in combat actions such as healing, using Power Attack, etc..
7. The GM should modify loot found to correct any WBL issues.
8. The only two types of feats are combat feats or craft feats, PCs choose one or the other and if the choose craft, they had better craft for the group.
Fee crafting crowd:
1. The crafters are providing a large discount on what the other PCs would normally pay.
2. Downtime is not adventuring time, so the crafters should be compensated for it. And crafting time is not trivial.
3. They contribute as much as any other member of the group in combat or the aftermath of combat. Many also consider the opposite argument from the free crafting crowd to be a strawman argument
4. SKR’s ruling on crafting feats and it’s effect support their arguments (they should be charging 20% or so to keep everyone in line with WBL - without the GM having to modify loot or do anything more than run the adventure/AP), in effect if the crafter crafts for free, they are losing ground vs the other PCs in relation to WBL levels.
5. Metagame information should not be used by other PCs to what it costs to enchant an item.
6. The crafter is not a “slave” to the other PCs and has the right to decide what they are doing during down time.
7. The other players should not have a say in what magic items, feats and skills the crafter takes.
8. Not taking a crafting feat does not equal taking a combat feat, other feats are available.
9. That free crafting makes the feat a wasted feat, because if everyone benefits from it, the GM will adjust loot to take that into consideration, so the crafter will be behind on feats when compared to the other PCs.
Did I miss any arguments?
Ok, here's a question for the Cindy Crafter's fee is stealing from the group.
Why is it assumed that Cindy is stealing from the group rather that that Mark Merchant is ripping Cindy off by only paying her half of what he'll make when he sells the brand- new +1 sword she just made?
I'll buy the stealing idea when you find a used item shop that will sell that sword to you at the price Mark gave Cindy for it.
[Edit]When you thin k about it, what does happen to all those used +1 swords?
Looks to me like Mark Merchant turns around and sells them for full price.
I deleted my prior reply to this because I had in fact misread it.
If your PC's want to take issue with Mark the Merchant feel free.
The RAW is quite clear though that
1) you can't buy from them for less than 100%
2) that crafting costs 50%
The fact that she crafts it for 1000 has no bearing on the fact that you can also buy it for 2000. All this proves is that the crafting rules are stupid because they are designed *to prevent crafters from selling their things at a profit* rather than to emulate a real economy.
By RAW every item you every find in a shop is actually something an adventurer brought in because crafters aren't allowed to sell for more than 50%.
I don't think anyone here is really arguing that RAW isn't stupid.. just that its RAW.
The argument against CC taking cash from me when I ask her to make me something has nothing to do with savings gained or with the FMV of the item.
It has to do with someone inside the party partnership charging another person inside that party partnership for doing part of their share of the party partnership work. Some folks agree, others disagree, but thats really *the thing* going on with the thread.
Some say: Bob gets a 50% discount, so getting a 40% while CC takes 10% isn't unreasonable.
Others say, taxing Bob because yuo chose Character Creation Selection X instead of Character Creation Selection Y is wrong.
-S
1300+? I mean, this is every bit as hot as the Pal-assassin...
/ revisited this topic with my group. Yep - crafters still get paid. To a man, they all felt like cost + 10% was stellar value.
One of my current parties is a pirate band. We revised this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code
..and signed it in blood.
Did the players or PCs sign in blood?
:)
Did I miss any arguments?
You missed the ever so popular: "The fee crafters are profiteers because I said so!" argument :)
Did I miss any arguments?You missed the ever so popular: "The fee crafters are profiteers because I said so!" argument :)
Waves his finger at Dr Grecko.
I am trying to reduce the inflamatory comments, not increase them.
Behave yourself!!!
:)
...made two lists
Yeah - I think that pretty much sums it up.
What it comes down to is play-style and group-think.
Did I miss any arguments?You missed the ever so popular: "The fee crafters are profiteers because I said so!" argument :)Waves his finger at Dr Grecko.
I am trying to reduce the inflamatory comments, not increase them.
Behave yourself!!!:)
Absolutely, not! What fun is a 1300+ thread if you can't fan the flames from time to time. hehe.
In all seriousness though, it was a pretty common argument. The profiteer / theft / slavery, comments are still out there, and still get used from time to time. Perhaps you're right in that avoiding those terms would lead to more civil discourse. But, it may be hard to stop when people are so passionate about the subject.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Do not use the word 'rape' that way.
I also removed some posts that directly attacked Paizo staff.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Do not use the word 'rape' that way.
I apologize if I inadvertently fell into that. It was not my intention.
<comments about RAW>
Of course, if you go by RAW in and of itself, then the only person who should be benifiting from the feat is the feat taker themself.
Waves his finger at Dr Grecko.
I am trying to reduce the inflamatory comments, not increase them.
Behave yourself!!!:)
Absolutely, not! What fun is a 1300+ thread if you can't fan the flames from time to time. hehe.
In all seriousness though, it was a pretty common argument. The profiteer / theft / slavery, comments are still out there, and still get used from time to time. Perhaps you're right in that avoiding those terms would lead to more civil discourse. But, it may be hard to stop when people are so passionate about the subject.
I know that they are often used, some of them incorrectly (looking at profiteer), but I am still trying to bring the intensity down.
We should all strive to have a more civil discourse, if for no other reason that to save Ross some work. :)
P.S. trying to make up for all those deleted posts, to get us to 2000+ posts.
PS 2: Hey, since I am doing all this extra work post wise, the rest of you guys should be paying me extra (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
:)
One point that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong is the selling of loot for 50%.
RAW states that this generaly what happens, which means that there are times that it doesn't happen.
I have nothing "new" to contribute, other than I agree with the fee-crafters. I would rather pay my party wizard 60% of cost than pay the shopkeeper 100%, but I'd ask for the following:
If the wizard fails his spellcraft check, he is covering the lost resources himself, and he will continue trying until he makes the item correctly. If he was crafting for no profit, I would take the liability upon myself.
Just a thought.
Our groups crafting vs cash agreements are simple. You take the feat, you craft the items you want, if you have time, you craft the items other players want. Players can decide which of them gets what first, sometimes resulting in a bidding war. They can also bribe the crafter to put aside his own needs to craft their items first. Otherwise, it's up to the crafter how he wants to spend his time. During he opportunities when we have both cash and time, the crafter usually has items they want to craft for themselves, it doesn't leave much time for the other party members. That's just the way it works. You took the feat, you get to use it.
I have nothing "new" to contribute, other than I agree with the fee-crafters. I would rather pay my party wizard 60% of cost than pay the shopkeeper 100%, but I'd ask for the following:
If the wizard fails his spellcraft check, he is covering the lost resources himself, and he will continue trying until he makes the item correctly. If he was crafting for no profit, I would take the liability upon myself.
Just a thought.
If I were to craft the item and fail without informing them of the dangers, I would certainly accept the losses. However, I generally inform my party of the risk of certain higher level items. Sometimes they accept the fail chance and risk it (in which case I usually let them roll the D20 for my spellcraft check which adds to the suspense). Most times, they scrap thier plans and order up a less powerful item where success is guarenteed.
If I were to craft the item and fail without informing them of the dangers, I would certainly accept the losses. However, I generally inform my party of the risk of certain higher level items. Sometimes they accept the fail chance and risk it (in which case I usually let them roll the D20 for my spellcraft check which adds to the suspense). Most times, they scrap thier plans and order up a less powerful item where success is guarenteed.
Doing things on a case-by-case basis is always going to be the best way to handle things, I agree. But if I had to establish a hard rule on things, there has to be a tradeoff. If the chance for failure is high enough, then the crafter would simply turn down the request.
One point that a lot of people seem to be getting wrong is the selling of loot for 50%.
RAW states that this generaly what happens, which means that there are times that it doesn't happen.
I think that's a generally missed point. The following paragraph "Trade goods are the exception ti the half-price rule" is what generally is used to instill the first line as "a general statement" into a "Rules as Written statement".
Very few campaigns I've been in have left it as a "Hard and Fast" rule (selling 50 longswords for instance would flood the market and not sell for 1/2 price or goblin shortswords might not be worth 1/2 price to start with).
Doing things on a case-by-case basis is always going to be the best way to handle things, I agree. But if I had to establish a hard rule on things, there has to be a tradeoff. If the chance for failure is high enough, then the crafter would simply turn down the request.
If I were to craft the item and fail without informing them of the dangers, I would certainly accept the losses. However, I generally inform my party of the risk of certain higher level items. Sometimes they accept the fail chance and risk it (in which case I usually let them roll the D20 for my spellcraft check which adds to the suspense). Most times, they scrap thier plans and order up a less powerful item where success is guarenteed.
Of course I could see this as the ultimate petty revenge for the crafter.
-Barbarian: "Make me a +5 vorpal sword!"
Crafter: "I'll give it a shot, but its risky, and my fee is 10%"
Barbarian: "No! not going to pay the fee, now make my sword anyway"
Crafter: "Fine, give me the gold at cost and I'll make you a sword"
Barbarian: "Glad you see it my way, heres the gold"
Crafter intentionally fails his roll and creates an opposite effect cursed item. Crafter snickers as he gives the sword to barbarian.
I have nothing "new" to contribute, other than I agree with the fee-crafters. I would rather pay my party wizard 60% of cost than pay the shopkeeper 100%, but I'd ask for the following:
If the wizard fails his spellcraft check, he is covering the lost resources himself, and he will continue trying until he makes the item correctly. If he was crafting for no profit, I would take the liability upon myself.
Just a thought.
Works for me.
Also: hands Mistwalker 130 e-gold for his efforts. ;)
Also: hands Mistwalker 130 e-gold for his efforts. ;)
Great! Thanks!
As for the rest of you, where is that gold?
Also: hands Mistwalker 130 e-gold for his efforts. ;)Great! Thanks!
As for the rest of you, where is that gold?
I created the e-gold for you, but then charged you 130 e-gold for it.
So I guess that means we're about even then ;-)
Sorry, I had to ;-)
I have nothing "new" to contribute, other than I agree with the fee-crafters. I would rather pay my party wizard 60% of cost than pay the shopkeeper 100%, but I'd ask for the following:
If the wizard fails his spellcraft check, he is covering the lost resources himself, and he will continue trying until he makes the item correctly. If he was crafting for no profit, I would take the liability upon myself.
Just a thought.
This would be a fantastic way to answer the argument if Paizo hadn't "clarified" (grumble) that you can take 10 on the check, so basically nobody ever fails it ever.
The argument against CC taking cash from me when I ask her to make me something has nothing to do with savings gained or with the FMV of the item.
It has to do with someone inside the party partnership charging another person inside that party partnership for doing part of their share of the party partnership work. Some folks agree, others disagree, but thats really *the thing* going on with the thread.
Lets try this again.
Cindy: "My name is Cindy Crafter, and I can save you 40% over buying something at the store."
Group: "FORTY PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH I DEMAND FIFTY PERCENT."
Cindy: "...."
next session:
Cindy's Player: "I have dumped Cindy and rolled up a Barbarian. I demand that you guys craft things for me at 50% off."
Now nobody gets their 50% off items. See how aggressively overbearing Communism kills the golden goose?
It works for other situations too.
Cindy: "My name is Cindy Cleric, and I worship the God of Love. I can charm things."
Group: "STOP CHARMING THINGS AND BE MY HEALBOT."
Cindy: "...."
next session:
Cindy's Player: "I have dumped Cindy and rolled up a Barbarian. I demand that you guys heal me for a change."
Now nobody gets healing or charms. See how aggressively overbearing Communism kills the golden goose?
What too many people fail to understand, is MMO guilds and PF parties alike are volunteer organizations. You can't force them to do what you want them to do - you take em or leave em. You may think this is about the "party partnership," but really it's about whether you get to tell someone else how to play their character because it benefits you better if they do something different.
Do you get to tell them what feats to take too, in the name of the "party partnership?" Do you get to tell them what spells to learn and/or memorize?
I have nothing "new" to contribute, other than I agree with the fee-crafters. I would rather pay my party wizard 60% of cost than pay the shopkeeper 100%, but I'd ask for the following:
If the wizard fails his spellcraft check, he is covering the lost resources himself, and he will continue trying until he makes the item correctly. If he was crafting for no profit, I would take the liability upon myself.
Just a thought.
This would be a fantastic way to answer the argument if Paizo hadn't "clarified" (grumble) that you can take 10 on the check, so basically nobody ever fails it ever.
Well, the DC isn't 5 though
It's 5 + CL, so a +5 Vorpal Weapon has a DC of 35 to make
40 if its rushed
45 if you say the Caster isn't 30th level
Taking "10" means you need a Modded 35 Skill to do, which will take some work to get to. To Fail by 5 or more would be a 30 Skill or less.
Chances are you're wearing Stat Increase Item that could be removed. So yeah, it could be quite possible to intentionally fail a roll (of a High enough level item of course).
Of course, the fighter can always wait until the middle of a tough fight, walk away, and yell back that they'll come back and help if you pay them X gold.
While the golum is beating the living feces out of your puny spellcaster.
If your caster is getting the poop beat out of him, in melee, then I submit, sir, that you're do'n it wrong.
Just say'n.
And really, the combat tit-for-assumed-tat shtick is getting tiresome. If your Fighter doesn't do his job in combat, then what good is he anyway? And no, it is not the crafty Wizard's job to make stuff for you in combat.
|
That's why I suggested a golum, since they just walk through most of what a spellcaster can do.
And if the spellcaster, who took crafting feats, isn't willing to help contribute to the success of a group as a whole, then why should the fighter be willing to do so? If the Wizard didn't want to make stuff for him in combat, why did he take Craft Magic Arms and Armor? You just don't save enough on your "oh s%+&, I'm out of real spells, it's acid splash or my magical dagger" to make it worth the feat, unless you're going to also help outfit the rest of the party.
That's why I suggested a golum, since they just walk through most of what a spellcaster can do.
My statement stands. What kind of caster allows himself to get the poop beat out of him in melee combat? The answer is none, of course. If the rest of the party won't do their jobs, then you leave 'em in the lurch.
And if the spellcaster, who took crafting feats, isn't willing to help contribute to the success...
This is patently false. And you know it, too. You're getting custom-ordered magic items at LESS than retail. It doesn't get anymore plain than that. Anything else is you controlling my character. And I won't have that.
That's why I suggested a golum, since they just walk through most of what a spellcaster can do.
And if the spellcaster, who took crafting feats, isn't willing to help contribute to the success of a group as a whole, then why should the fighter be willing to do so? If the Wizard didn't want to make stuff for him in combat, why did he take Craft Magic Arms and Armor? You just don't save enough on your "oh s$&+, I'm out of real spells, it's acid splash or my magical dagger" to make it worth the feat, unless you're going to also help outfit the rest of the party.
Shakes his head.
This argument has been raised more than once. I don't recall seeing a solid rationale for the counter argument - can you provide one?
The fighter has a role in combat, as does the crafter. If the fighter steps aside, to let the golem attack the crafter, he is abandoning his role (and as you pointed out, most spells do not affect a golem, so basically you are murdering the crafter), so not a team player, but insisting that the crafter be more than one? Is that it?
So, how is not willing to craft for free linked to combat, when the crafter does fully participate in combat?
A new question for you, what does the crafter running out of spells have to do with feats?
Or are you saying that you have a right to dictate feat choices to other players?
Edit: clarification
Time limitations could turn around those who object to paying a crafter extra for making magic items for the party. Let's take a typical case where multiple party members want something that the crafter can make. How does he decide which item to make first? A very logical approach would be an auction -- whoever offers him the most money over and above the cost of materials for the item gets his item first. NPC crafters would drive a hard upper limit on the price -- at some point it makes sense to just wait until the party gets to a city and buy the desired item "off the shelf" from an NPC crafter.
If the Wizard didn't want to make stuff for him in combat, why did he take Craft Magic Arms and Armor?
To take craft construct to protect him from the shortsighted fighter.
One thing to think about, about considerations of the group is what happens if a character leaves the party. Do they get to take their stuff or do they have to turn it all over to the rest of the group. Basically does a character own their equipment or does the group own their equipment.
That's the rub, now isn't it? I'm guessing group-think is only invoked while the group is together. However, once a character decides to leave, I imagine group-think goes right out the window. lol
Of course, the fighter can always wait until the middle of a tough fight, walk away, and yell back that they'll come back and help if you pay them X gold.
While the golum is beating the living feces out of your puny spellcaster.
Yes, perfect, thank you for engaging in this example. I love this example because it proves the opposite point you're trying to make.
The fighter was angry that he was only getting a 40% discount instead of a 50% discount, so he steps aside and lets the golem kill the spellcaster. So the spellcaster DIES, and the player rerolls a BARBARIAN and then NOBODY gets their items at 50% off.
See?
The fighter had a chance to get his items at 40% off, and now he pays 100% for his items because 40% just wasn't good enough for him. Communism killed the golden goose.
Time limitations could turn around those who object to paying a crafter extra for making magic items for the party. Let's take a typical case where multiple party members want something that the crafter can make. How does he decide which item to make first? A very logical approach would be an auction -- whoever offers him the most money over and above the cost of materials for the item gets his item first. NPC crafters would drive a hard upper limit on the price -- at some point it makes sense to just wait until the party gets to a city and buy the desired item "off the shelf" from an NPC crafter.
I typically look and see what's available first, how much it is etc. Once I know that, I can then approach the crafter and ask what his plans are. We go from there. Everyone else in the party operates in much the same way.
That's why I suggested a golum, since they just walk through most of what a spellcaster can do.
And if the spellcaster, who took crafting feats, isn't willing to help contribute to the success of a group as a whole, then why should the fighter be willing to do so? If the Wizard didn't want to make stuff for him in combat, why did he take Craft Magic Arms and Armor? You just don't save enough on your "oh s@++, I'm out of real spells, it's acid splash or my magical dagger" to make it worth the feat, unless you're going to also help outfit the rest of the party.
How is offering to craft things for cheaper than market value NOT helping contribute to the success of the group? I would argue that it is, in fact, useful. The gold isn't going anywhere, either. It's still in the party, being put towards useful things like scrolls that the wizard is hoping will make up for the fact that he couldn't take Empower Spell. You know why he couldn't take Empower Spell? He spent that feat slot on a crafting feat so that he could get you your Magical Arms and Armor for cheaper (which feat he probably won't even use for himself).
Also, using a golem vs a spellcaster as an example is like pointing out how useless a mounted combat focused paladin who's forced off his mount when raiding the castle of the CN anarchist rogue/ninja gunner snipers is. He's useless. The point? Not everyone is good in every situation.
I will have to track down what this "SKR's ruling" means.
To save you a bit of trouble, it is in the FAQ for the core book
Link.
PC Wealth By Level (page 399): If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?
1. It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).
If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.
—Sean K Reynolds, 01/13/12
As more and more people seem to be skipping a lot of posts, going straight to the last page or so (can’t imagine why :)), I will attempt to recap the arguments presented so far from the two main viewpoints involved in the discussion:
Free crafting crowd:
1. It is “stealing” from fellow PCs. Getting paid twice for adventuring (once from loot, once from fellow PCs).
2. Fees make the crafter richer, more powerful than the rest of the party.
3. It is what is best fo the team, making the team stronger.
4. Crafting time is trivial (crafters should have a Ring of Substance and maxed ranks in Spellcraft)
5. If a crafter will not craft for free for the group, then they should be dumped or killed or etc.
6. If a crafter will not craft for free, the group should start charging for in combat actions such as healing, using Power Attack, etc..
7. The GM should modify loot found to correct any WBL issues.
8. The only two types of feats are combat feats or craft feats, PCs choose one or the other and if the choose craft, they had better craft for the group.
I disagree with 8. There is one type of feat. Feat. All feats are used for the benefit of the group. What benefits yuo, benefits them, and vice versa. Assuming you are taking something thats some benefit to you (rather than say, skill focus: skill you don't have any ranks in, or something silly like that). I don't differentiate between the crafting feats and every other feat at all, personally. Its a slot (feat slot) that you chose to use for X rather than Y.
the fact that X is craft arms/armor and Y is Maximize is largely irrevant. You could no more charge for using any one feat than you should any other.Some of your list is weird too but I'll largely go with it just to avoid more pointless arguing. lol :)
-S
The argument against CC taking cash from me when I ask her to make me something has nothing to do with savings gained or with the FMV of the item.
It has to do with someone inside the party partnership charging another person inside that party partnership for doing part of their share of the party partnership work. Some folks agree, others disagree, but thats really *the thing* going on with the thread.
Lets try this again.
Cindy: "My name is Cindy Crafter, and I can save you 40% over buying something at the store."
Group: "FORTY PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH I DEMAND FIFTY PERCENT."
Cindy: "...."
next session:
Cindy's Player: "I have dumped Cindy and rolled up a Barbarian. I demand that you guys craft things for me at 50% off."
Now nobody gets their 50% off items. See how aggressively overbearing Communism kills the golden goose?
It works for other situations too.
Cindy: "My name is Cindy Cleric, and I worship the God of Love. I can charm things."
Group: "STOP CHARMING THINGS AND BE MY HEALBOT."
Cindy: "...."
next session:
Cindy's Player: "I have dumped Cindy and rolled up a Barbarian. I demand that you guys heal me for a change."
Now nobody gets healing or charms. See how aggressively overbearing Communism kills the golden goose?
What too many people fail to understand, is MMO guilds and PF parties alike are volunteer organizations. You can't force them to do what you want them to do - you take em or leave em. You may think this is about the "party partnership," but really it's about whether you get to tell someone else how to play their character because it benefits you better if they do something different.
Do you get to tell them what feats to take too, in the name of the "party partnership?" Do you get to tell them what spells to learn and/or memorize?
Except that in your example the group is making them do something they chose not to design themselves to do. i.e. she chose to make an enchanteress(sp?) cleric and they are *making* her be a healbot.
If the group is *forcing* you to take crafting feats and use them on their behalf then by all means, charge them! (or better yet, leave the group. They have clearly showed themselves to be jerks. You can do better than to hang with them. Its likely to just get worse from there.)
I/we don't tell anyone what feats to take. Or what class to be. Or what specialization (if any) to go into. All we ask is that if you Do choose something (presumably everyone chooses -something-), that you use that something to benefit the group.
That may mean healing if you are healer, fighting if you are a fighter, using spells if you are a spell caster, using whatever feats skills and abilities you have to best help assure the group succeeds.
Its not about "You WILL take this feat or you are out!"
Its about "oh neat you took Craft Arms/Armor. When you have some spare time, would you mind upgrading my sword? I have the cash."
They can say sure. they can say no- but had best have some reason for just saying he won't help the party. he can even say he'll charge.
In your group, charging is fine. In mine- not so much.
Which is why folks are saying consult your group and act accordingly.
The group dictates whether or not its acceptable to charge them, not any one person.
-S
How is offering to craft things for cheaper than market value NOT helping contribute to the success of the group? I would argue that it is, in fact, useful. The gold isn't going anywhere, either. It's still in the party.....
No one ever said it isn't staying in the party. But it is taking someone's share of the loot and taking it away from them in order to help them with an item.
Which is another way of saying "I'll only help you if you pay me."You spent the feat on crafting. It was your choice and your decision. Quit trying to make the group give you a disproportionate share due to your own decision.
-S
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Do not use the word 'rape' that way.I apologize if I inadvertently fell into that. It was not my intention.
Ditto, no offense meant, I won't use it that way again.
And same with insulting Paizo staff. I don't think I did. but if I did, then I apologize.
-S
I typically look and see what's available first, how much it is etc. Once I know that, I can then approach the crafter and ask what his plans are. We go from there. Everyone else in the party operates in much the same way.Time limitations could turn around those who object to paying a crafter extra for making magic items for the party. Let's take a typical case where multiple party members want something that the crafter can make. How does he decide which item to make first? A very logical approach would be an auction -- whoever offers him the most money over and above the cost of materials for the item gets his item first. NPC crafters would drive a hard upper limit on the price -- at some point it makes sense to just wait until the party gets to a city and buy the desired item "off the shelf" from an NPC crafter.
Not "the right" way or anything, just how it's been done for us.
first come first serve, but if one guy keeps asking for something made and then someone else asks, generally the guy without several crafting items in his possession will be moved to the front of the que.
Of course, the crafter himself can adjust it to put himself first as needed.. and though it hasn't happened yet I could see the group saying "we need X, please do that next" or something.
Everyone at the table pretty much on the same page, and we just work it out.. so far no dice rolling or arm wrestlings have been the result.
(though the arm wrestling bit would have been interesting to see, given the two players involved. :p )
I could even conceivably concede that if you have an extremly, extremely tight time table that someone could pay the crafter to make him something instead of the crafter making something for himself. But I haven't yet seen a time table so tight that it was an issue for anyone. (anyone of us, I mean)
-S