I did not read ALL the posts, so sorry if it was brought up before.
If you want to make money with crafting you could learn the hedge magician trait in addition to the craft feat and not tell anyone.
So you craft the stuff for the normal price and get 5% for your own good.
That said I don't think it's a good trait but it could work.
I don't see why this has to be one way or the other. Some character might be generous and craft for cost while others might be more greedy and charge. It really depends on the concept of the character.
Like I'm playing in evil campaign right now and personally I wouldn't trust the wizard to craft a thing for me. Sure he's useful in the party and I'm willing tolerate that but I definitely don't trust him. If this character offered to craft me something for cost there would strings attached that come back to bite me in the end.
I disagree with 8. There is one type of feat. Feat.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.
That seemed to be the attitude of several people on the free crafting side of the table. Comments like "gimped" character because a crafting feat was chosen, or statements where the only feat choices that were mentioned are metamagic, combat or crafting feats.
I don't recall you having that attitude/approach, but several others seemed to have had it.
I have on several occasions, asked what their reaction would be if the potential crafter took Skill Focus Craft Poetry (yes, I had a character that did do that), but haven't had a response from them.
Some of your list is weird too but I'll largely go with it just to avoid more pointless arguing. lol :)
Hey now, how are we going to get to 2000+ posts if you are going to take a reasonable attitude like that?
Sheesh
:)
I did not read ALL the posts, so sorry if it was brought up before.
If you want to make money with crafting you could learn the hedge magician trait in addition to the craft feat and not tell anyone.So you craft the stuff for the normal price and get 5% for your own good.
That said I don't think it's a good trait but it could work.
This has been brought up before, and if I recall correctly, it was still considered "stealing" from the group.
I disagree with 8. There is one type of feat. Feat.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.
That seemed to be the attitude of several people on the free crafting side of the table. Comments like "gimped" character because a crafting feat was chosen, or statements where the only feat choices that were mentioned are metamagic, combat or crafting feats.
I don't recall you having that attitude/approach, but several others seemed to have had it.
I have on several occasions, asked what their reaction would be if the potential crafter took Skill Focus Craft Poetry (yes, I had a character that did do that), but haven't had a response from them.
Of course, then the issue becomes..
If the group needs a poem written or read, will you charge them for it?:)
(sorry, couldn't help myself lol)
-S
Some of your list is weird too but I'll largely go with it just to avoid more pointless arguing. lol :)
Seriously thought, was it just the way I phrased it, or did you have a problem with some of the statements?
I based the list on what I was getting from both main sides of the discussion.
If you want to make money with crafting you could learn the hedge magician trait in addition to the craft feat and not tell anyone.
Speaking for the Wizard in my game, I don't think he set out to "make money". Rather I think he took the crafting feat to make magic items for himself at cost. Additionally, he elected to craft for the party (albeit at a 25% discount off retail.)
Again, he wasn't trying to screw the party and nobody looked at it as such.
Of course, then the issue becomes..
If the group needs a poem written or read, will you charge them for it?
:)(sorry, couldn't help myself lol)
-S
If I can make it into a dirty limrick, preferable getting the most bashful player to blush (YES!), free of charge.
If it only takes an hour or two, and if the ale (hmm, if it is poetry, better make that wine) is provided, no problem.
:)
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.
You have a point. Must. hit. 2k. post! :p
so just to argue for the sake of typing words on the post!If you are going by uber strict WBL stuff (who does? but anyway)
#2 is irrelevant. Any adjust in WBL will be promptly squished out by the DM. Must, Preserve. WBL! :P
#7 is true for both arguments actually. If the group gets screwed up with wonky WBL the DM should fix it. .
-S, doing his part to get 2k posts!
I don't see why this has to be one way or the other. Some character might be generous and craft for cost while others might be more greedy and charge. It really depends on the concept of the character.
You lost me at "greedy". That adjective simply is not applicable here. It is not greedy to charge less then the going rate.
Free crafting crowd:
2. Fees make the crafter richer, more powerful than the rest of the party.
7. The GM should modify loot found to correct any WBL issues.You have a point. Must. hit. 2k. post! :p
so just to argue for the sake of typing words on the post!If you are going by uber strict WBL stuff (who does? but anyway)
#2 is irrelevant. Any adjust in WBL will be promptly squished out by the DM. Must, Preserve. WBL! :P
#7 is true for both arguments actually. If the group gets screwed up with wonky WBL the DM should fix it. .-S, doing his part to get 2k posts!
Hmm, if you are taking that approach for number two, what difference does it make if the crafter charges or not? The GM will adjust the loot to keep everyone close to WBL (assuming WBL is followed).
As for number seven, That was supposed to indicate that your side had said that if WBL is unbalanced for the crafter (due to SKR's ruling), then the GM would fix it. - as opposed to the fee crafter side's argument that the GM wouldn't need to fix anything if a 20% (or so) was charged.
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.
*All* clerics are designed to be healbots. She doesn't *want* to be a healbot. My example is not of them forcing her to do something she isn't designed to do, my example is of them forcing her to do something she doesn't *want* to do. The difference is quite important, because it leads to this:
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.
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.
Okay, I choose to take a crafting feat and only craft things for me. I choose to never craft anything for you at all. How is that any different for you, than me choosing to take the Combat Expertise feat instead? It's not. It's no different. There's no difference to you.
And this is, if I'm keeping track, the third time you've dodged the whole point. Here's the whole point:
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 Communism kills the golden goose?
When you demand the workers give you stuff with no reward, the workers quit working. This is why communism fails.
I'm still not clear on something... Let's say that the crafter makes a Headband for himself, a quiver for the Ranger, a Belt for the Monk and a suit of armor for the Fighter. Well, each of his part party members just saved 40% of their given wealth, while the crafter made a collective 30% from total sales.
I'm not seeing the problem. I mean, chances are good that he folded his profits into a bigger and better Headband anyway.
Also - everyone in the group benefits by having better equipment.
I did not read ALL the posts, so sorry if it was brought up before.
If you want to make money with crafting you could learn the hedge magician trait in addition to the craft feat and not tell anyone.So you craft the stuff for the normal price and get 5% for your own good.
That said I don't think it's a good trait but it could work.
I brought it up and I was ACCUSED OF STEALING FROM MY FRIENDS.
Lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not clear on something... Let's say that the crafter makes a Headband for himself, a quiver for the Ranger, a Belt for the Monk and a suit of armor for the Fighter. Well, each of his part party members just saved 40% of their given wealth, while the crafter made a collective 30% from total sales.
I'm not seeing the problem.
The problem is class envy, and greed by the noncrafters, who want to gain every bit of benefit from the crafting that the crafter gets, but without ever having to spend a feat.
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
Except the assumption with every feat in the game is that it directly affects your character. Feat X makes YOU heal harder, Feat Y makes YOU hit harder, Feat S makes YOU better at a skill, Feat C(crafting) gives YOU more wealth. Now these all help the party because you have become stronger.
But there are very few feats which are solely applicable to your allies maybe some of the less desirable teamwork feats but even those are usually taken because the personal benefits are very high if they are taken at all(by people who aren't inquisitors).
I'm not sure what your point is?
I agree that there are, with the possible exception of some crappy teamwork feats, very few that are "solely applicable to your allies".But then I haven't been advancing that idea either, that I recall?
The crafting feats are certainly beneficial to the one who takes them. Unless they aren't using them for themselves anyway- in which case they (the crafter) are utterly daft. I can honestly say i've never met a crafter who never crafted for themselves- excepting classes who get thrown some feat for free that they never intended to use anyway.
(my wizards rarely scribe scrolls. I'm not terribly keen on wadding up gold pieces and throwing them at the bad guys). For the most part I think it can be assumed that people who take crafting feats intend to craft for themselves.
The only exception mentioned I can think of is Cindy the Slave who is forced to toil hour in and hour out for the party and not allowed out of her shoe box except to fork over the last item she made. And she shouldn't be so much worried about a crafting fee as getting the heck away from those jerks.
I'm still not sure what's so unreasonable though about asking someone to make an item for their party member- either in the general free time or more specifically if the group sets aside time for it.
Everyone says "he deserves more money" instead of saying why its a problem helping a group mate out.
I get the whole "he's an elf and I hate elves bit" (whether I agree with it or not is another issue) but all else being equal I guess I just don't share that general mindset.
If i was a crafter and I had the time and someone in teh group needed something that I could craft, I really see no reason to not say "if you have the money, you bet. Glad I can help". To do otherwise just seems foreign to me. Why would I charge him money? Why would I tell him no?
Either way I'm just pointing a cannon at my foot and blowing my whole leg off for the promise of a bandaid afterwards.
Even if I was completely selfish and self serving (not saying any of you are) I can still see the direct benefit to myself of having a much stronger party, than in solely having a more stronger me.
No matter which direction you come at it from, the crafter is still 100% best off crafting things for himself and his buddies so they can roll more monsters for less cost so everyone reaps more reward/loot faster than he is just saying no or draining their money to fund himself.
-S
The problem is class envy, and greed by the noncrafters, who want to gain every bit of benefit from the crafting that the crafter gets, but without ever having to spend a feat.I'm still not clear on something... Let's say that the crafter makes a Headband for himself, a quiver for the Ranger, a Belt for the Monk and a suit of armor for the Fighter. Well, each of his part party members just saved 40% of their given wealth, while the crafter made a collective 30% from total sales.
I'm not seeing the problem.
Heaven forbid someone gets a benefit from a group mate taking a feat!
Once again it rolls back to, lets just everyone charge the group for everything.No one is allowed to reap any benefit from any other party member doing *anything* without paying for it. If you expect to have something done you dang well better have the ability/skill/feat to do it yourself. Otherwise you are just an envious person who expects to get everything at the expense of those who actually bothered to gain the ability for themselves.
Yanno what? to heck with this. Why bother with a group at all? Just go do it all yourself and leave them all at home. Clearly no one can be expected to help each other so what's the point of going with anyone else?
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heaven forbid someone gets a benefit from a group mate taking a feat!
Why is forty percent benefit not enough? Why would you rather get zero benefit than forty percent benefit? Why do you keep avoiding my other questions?
Free crafting crowd:
2. Fees make the crafter richer, more powerful than the rest of the party.
7. The GM should modify loot found to correct any WBL issues.You have a point. Must. hit. 2k. post! :p
so just to argue for the sake of typing words on the post!If you are going by uber strict WBL stuff (who does? but anyway)
#2 is irrelevant. Any adjust in WBL will be promptly squished out by the DM. Must, Preserve. WBL! :P
#7 is true for both arguments actually. If the group gets screwed up with wonky WBL the DM should fix it. .-S, doing his part to get 2k posts!
Hmm, if you are taking that approach for number two, what difference does it make if the crafter charges or not? The GM will adjust the loot to keep everyone close to WBL (assuming WBL is followed).
As for number seven, That was supposed to indicate that your side had said that if WBL is unbalanced for the crafter (due to SKR's ruling), then the GM would fix it. - as opposed to the fee crafter side's argument that the GM wouldn't need to fix anything if a 20% (or so) was charged.
Well two things. I've never met someone so absolutely strictly enamored and wedded to WBL to actually do this. So for me, it doesn't work.
two, and really more importantly:it fails the "in character" test.
If you say it doesn't matter because WBL makes it a washm, then i still prefer my method if only because it would raise fewer eyebrows.
lets assume that its a 100% wash WBL/metagame wise.
IC: 5 guys group up to go dungeon hunting. 1 guy says he's going to charge for his contribution.
vs
5 guys group up to go dungeon hunting, all get rewarded equally.
IC, the 2nd method works far better than the first.
(granted, not everyone agrees- it is just my POV afterall).
to me it just makes more sense than having one guy- even if he's a stranger- coming up saying "I'll only help you guys if you pay me" when everyone else is expected to get paid solely by the loot you bring back.
It becomes "You owe me an even share of what we bring back plus mroe cuz i'm worth more than you" which just doesn't work for me.
-S
Heaven forbid someone gets a benefit from a group mate taking a feat!Why is forty percent benefit not enough? Why would you rather get zero benefit than forty percent benefit? Why do you keep avoiding my other questions?
It has nothing to do with "being enough". It has nothing to do with the amount.
The crafter can charge 1 gold piece over what it costs to make and its just as bad as them charging the full 50% extra.
You are getting hung up on the cash while ignoring the principle.
It has nothing to do with "but CC will end up with X amount of cash than me!"
It has far more to do with "No One's contribution is worth more than anyone else's. Not 1 copper not 1 silver not 1 gold not 10% of an item not 50% of all the items they craft, period."
If any one person can pick a part of their contribution and decide to charge extra for it then every single other person can too. And they can set the rates.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage involved or the actual amount of coin trading hands. No coin should be trading hands. One person in the group has no need to be paying someone else and no one in the group has any business charging anyone else in the group for something. (clearly if someone *wanted* to tip, that would be their business, but thats not what this discussion has been about.)
The crafter taking X coin for their work and refusing to craft without it is telling the group
"I am worth more than my share of the loot and if you refuse to pay me more than my share I am not going to do my share of the work- I'm only going to do part of it until you pay me more."
Just. No.
-That- is my answer to it. I have said it before you just don't agree with it.
I fully understand the point of view you have. I just flat out disagree with it.
The amount you are 'saving me' is irrelevant to the discussion.
You are either demanding to get more than your fair share of the loot to contribute to the group, or you are not.
-S
I'm not sure what your point is?
I agree that there are, with the possible exception of some crappy teamwork feats, very few that are "solely applicable to your allies".But then I haven't been advancing that idea either, that I recall?
The crafting feats are certainly beneficial to the one who takes them. Unless they aren't using them for themselves anyway- in which case they (the crafter) are utterly daft. I can honestly say i've never met a crafter who never crafted for themselves- excepting classes who get thrown some feat for free that they never intended to use anyway.
(my wizards rarely scribe scrolls. I'm not terribly keen on wadding up gold pieces and throwing them at...Except that isn't how the game ends up working. If you craft for your friends for free and for yourself they have double their WBL and you have normal so the GM (because he's busy and doesn't want to figure out what mobs you can handle by trial and error) halves your loot from now on. So now everyone is at 100% of WBL and the crafter is at half WBL. Now the DM can drop specific loot but only if the party lets the crafter have it, since the feat essentially lets you switch items around without any loss in money, that is fairly unlikely unless you do it OOC.
The fact is that under ordinary playing conditions the crafter will never get the benefit he's supposed to get from his feat if he shares, and this is not true of any other feat in the game. Now if you have unusual playing conditions it works these conditions can vary from charging for the crafted items to the DM constantly dropping big bags of gold in your lap to a sudden deluge in items tailored for the crafter in question.
Then talk to the DM about it.
"but the DM isn't doing his job"- the solution is to talk to the DM.Not to decide to start charging your group for the work.
Talk to him about it. Maybe he wants it to work that way. Maybe he doesn't realize he's making a mistake. But talk to -him- about it rather than trying to piece-meal fix it yourself ingame.
-S
I'm not sure what your point is?
I agree that there are, with the possible exception of some crappy teamwork feats, very few that are "solely applicable to your allies".But then I haven't been advancing that idea either, that I recall?
The crafting feats are certainly beneficial to the one who takes them. Unless they aren't using them for themselves anyway- in which case they (the crafter) are utterly daft. I can honestly say i've never met a crafter who never crafted for themselves- excepting classes who get thrown some feat for free that they never intended to use anyway.
(my wizards rarely scribe scrolls. I'm not terribly keen on wadding up gold pieces and throwing them at...Except that isn't how the game ends up working. If you craft for your friends for free and for yourself they have double their WBL and you have normal so the GM (because he's busy and doesn't want to figure out what mobs you can handle by trial and error) halves your loot from now on. So now everyone is at 100% of WBL and the crafter is at half WBL. Now the DM can drop specific loot but only if the party lets the crafter have it, since the feat essentially lets you switch items around without any loss in money, that is fairly unlikely unless you do it OOC.
The fact is that under ordinary playing conditions the crafter will never get the benefit he's supposed to get from his feat if he shares, and this is not true of any other feat in the game. Now if you have unusual playing conditions it works these conditions can vary from charging for the crafted items to the DM constantly dropping big bags of gold in your lap to a sudden deluge in items tailored for the crafter in question.
(yes, I replied twice because I have two different answers. lol :p )
I mean, my *real* answer is to can most of the crap they've written about it, to be honest.
WBL is a number that allows them to balance the group relative to CR and to allow new characters into the party with a relative sameness in gear.
The DM should just simply ignore it in favor of watching the group and making sure things are staying relatively even power wise, inrelation to each other and to the group.
He should also make the decision about how to treat crafting and such and how he's going to deal with wealth generally and all that, and then apply it consistently.
I've already said before- our current Dm ignores WBL completely. We're at around half right now with the two arcane spell casters having technically "the correcT" amount while really only having about half of it usable. (spellbook costs are stupid lol)
As a portion of their usable wealth and inter-party power though we're more or less all even. We contribute equally though with great differences.
"How I would deal with it" would be to look at part strength/weakness as a whole not just at WBL. WBl is a tool and somethign to look at but hardly something to adhere to like the game will fall to pieces without it.
Now that is my opinion and its from moderately house ruling WBL and how it relates to crafting (and SKR's opinion and all that) and as such isn't generally applicable- but it does have the saving grace of working wonderfully while avoiding most of the blatant issues.
(it doesn't solve the crap about "you can't sell an item for more than 50% but all the vendors can" but that would involve more of a rules re-write than we care to do to run an AP rather than a total home brew world.)
-S
By the by I am wondering about what the various sides think regarding whether characters own their items or not.
Thats an interesting question. I've only ever seen it come up once, and that was in a campaign years ago.
A very very expensive ring was found and the group decided a particular person should get it- due to them always taking alot of damage. (ring of regen, 3.5 I think).
The person promptly decided he'd rather have the cash and went to sell it instead. This didn't go over very well in the party. Of course, several other of the guys would have loved to have it (like the barbarian), and alot of heated discussion ensued.
Though it wasn't anyones intention, it eventually lead the guy who'd originally won the ring to leave the game.
It didn't come up again in that game and hadn't before, and has never since then with other groups.
So I dunno. I can see both sides of it, myself.
On the one hand- if you have an item you suddenly don't need (because of getting an upgrade) you could see if smoeoen else needed it. Thats what our group currently does. If you get an upgrade and no one needs the old one, it gets tossed into the loot pile like anything else found.
On the other hand though, if you have an Axe +1 and are that much short cash to buy an axe +2- shouldn't you just be able to sell it and buy the second?
Its an interesting discussion though, and one that I'm not sure has a "right/wrong" answer.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
The funny part was someone was called a Fascist communist which is an oxymoron because fascist aren't communist (more like extreme capitalist).
Fascist believe in private ownership, Nationalism, Paramilitarism, Economic self-sufficiency, etc that are contrary to communism.
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."
I unapologetically dropped my conjurer for a samurai because I wasn't having fun with it (more an indictment on me than on the class) and our healer cleric is now a ranger for the exact same reason. Our group is now sans healing except for a druid and a witch and I'm completely fine with it - the point of the game is to have fun and for us that doesn't necessarily mean "winning" the scenario every time. For other people fun involves running an optimized party or distributing wealth exactly equally. That's fine too.
Although I will still refer to those people as communist pinkos so that we can keep this thread aggro-ed until we reach at least 2000 posts. 10000 if we're all lucky and have nothing better to do.
-S, doing his part to get 2k posts!
By my count you're only doing 22% of the work.
I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
The funny part was someone was called a Fascist communist which is an oxymoron because fascist aren't communist (more like extreme capitalist).
Fascist believe in private ownership, Nationalism, Paramilitarism, Economic self-sufficiency, etc that are contrary to communism.
That was beej67 - I've been much more civilized and have been referring to Selgard as Khmer Rouge-like but only for his willingness to force the players of fee-based crafters out of his gaming group. WHICH IS SOMETHING THE KHMER ROUGE WOULD TOTALLY DO!!!
|
I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
The funny part was someone was called a Fascist communist which is an oxymoron because fascist aren't communist (more like extreme capitalist).
Fascist believe in private ownership, Nationalism, Paramilitarism, Economic self-sufficiency, etc that are contrary to communism.
I'm surprised nobody has been called a Conservative Marxist.
-S, doing his part to get 2k posts!By my count you're only doing 22% of the work.
I deeply apologize for only doing slightly over 1/5 of the work. in the future I'll limit myself to one word per post.
at least until the mods ban me.
-S
p.s. ok not really :p
That was beej67 - I've been much more civilized and have been referring to Selgard as Khmer Rouge-like but only for his willingness to force the players of fee-based crafters out of his gaming group. WHICH IS SOMETHING THE KHMER ROUGE WOULD TOTALLY DO!!!I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
The funny part was someone was called a Fascist communist which is an oxymoron because fascist aren't communist (more like extreme capitalist).
Fascist believe in private ownership, Nationalism, Paramilitarism, Economic self-sufficiency, etc that are contrary to communism.
In my (limited) defense I have moved on from that slightly, suggesting that if someone who preffered the fee came into a gruop where the fee wasn't allowed, that he should fit in or find a group to fit into better. And that the guy who didn't think the 10% was ok (me) should likewise fit into the group that does, or find a new one.
By and large the "I deserve 10% because you suck and I rock" is the person I'd kick just because.. well, thats pretty much a jerk.
Most of the people have dropped that rubbish and have moved onto the "but x% is the only way I can maintain WBL" which is at least a tenable stance to take.
But pure mr greedy? He'll have so many issues at the table ya might as well kick him now before it starts to make the headache any worse.
-S
By the by I am wondering about what the various sides think regarding whether characters own their items or not.
In our games.. to avoid jacking up the groups effective WBL. Characters Items are buried with the char. If a 4 member party has one member who dies, then the rest of the party ends up with a jacked up WBL by 25%. Sure, the new guy could come in at 25% more to balance it out, but we like the idea of being buried with our gear.
This means that you own your items.. They are not the property of the group. Our games are not played in the groupthink style that Selgard uses.
|
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
how did you get a dc 35? its 3 times the max enchantment up to +5. you take the generic or named bonuses , which ever is highest, then multiply that number by 3.
That was beej67 - I've been much more civilized and have been referring to Selgard as Khmer Rouge-like but only for his willingness to force the players of fee-based crafters out of his gaming group. WHICH IS SOMETHING THE KHMER ROUGE WOULD TOTALLY DO!!!I find it hilarious that communism is being demonized in this thread. Sorry, it's not the 1950's anymore, Ayn Rand was as poor a philosopher as she was a novelist, and a communist nation currently owns 10 trillion or our nation's 13 trillion dollar debt.
I know, I'm a dirty, dirty communist (or a terrorist, or whatever sensationalist word you want to choose to belittle my position without actually addressing it) for disagreeing with the practice of charging teammates for providing services for them. Within reason. If everyone agrees with that.
Good God, there are a lot of people in this thread I'm glad I've never played D&D with.
I know, the feeling is mutual. And I'm a communist.
The funny part was someone was called a Fascist communist which is an oxymoron because fascist aren't communist (more like extreme capitalist).
Fascist believe in private ownership, Nationalism, Paramilitarism, Economic self-sufficiency, etc that are contrary to communism.
In my (limited) defense I have moved on from that slightly, suggesting that if someone who preffered the fee came into a gruop where the fee wasn't allowed, that he should fit in or find a group to fit into better. And that the guy who didn't think the 10% was ok (me) should likewise fit into the group that does, or find a new one.
By and large the "I deserve 10% because you suck and I rock" is the person I'd kick just because.. well, thats pretty much a jerk.
Most of the people have dropped that rubbish and have moved onto the "but x% is the only way I can maintain WBL" which is at least a tenable stance to take.
But pure mr greedy? He'll have so many issues at the table ya...
Mechanically, I like the idea of a crafting fee in that it encourages PCs to get important items crafted by their friend but they're less inclined to get things they don't really need. It works especially well when the crafter is proficient at wasting money, either by crafting lots of disposable items or just blowing wads of cash at the local tavern, since people get the items they enjoy but the dynamic tension of the game remains. I wouldn't want my samurai to be any stronger mechanically then he already is because there should be room in the game for other players to shine and for my character to be humbled occasionally.
* I'd never argue that a character who willfully crafts for free for his friends is a jerk. Forcing a crafter to craft for free (via coercion in character or out of character) isn't something I'd allow at my table either as a player or GM, except possibly in evil parties (if I were into that kind of thing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to reiterate the point I brought up earlier that got lost in the later sea of posts and flame.
-----
Honestly, if the party Wizard who takes a lot of the Crafting feats, want's to charge 10% to party members for time expended, then by all means he is free to do so. In fact, I would say that the party should be encouraged to do so. Allow me to explain why....
That extra gold can very easily go to expanding his spell book. These are all spells that will inevitably benefit the party, weather through more combat spells, or utility spells. Even more spells to craft a wider range of magic items. Not only that, but that is all gold that could be going to wands, scrolls, and potions. Even the Wizard saving the extra gold to buy a magic item for himself whilst he crafts magic items for others is a good idea, because it keeps the Wizard viable in this games ever scaling requirement of +s. Oh, and if it's another class, like the cleric, that extra gold can go to CLW wands, for example.
Seriously though. It all really boils down to players perception on the game. If they view it as a game to 'win', then any form of a player gaining an advantage over them, no matter how small, are going to find the above idea abhorrent. Those who are more into it for the joy of the game, do more role playing and thus do things from an IC perspective, or just generally don't care, those are the ones who'll enjoy the above idea.
In either case, it's something that should be discussed before taking said feats.
YMMV, really.
Also, I'd like to add that if anything, a crafter can craft items on credit, either for gold, favors, or other things to occur later. Or they can even waive the fee if situation calls for it.
What would really put a problem on things is a notion of interest, which is what my old playgroup used to do when loaning gold to people for magic items... THAT is a jerk move. One person even had compound interest (and yet people still borrowed gold from him), every character.
------
And yes, I've skimmed a few pages afterwords to see if anyone commented, or even read it. Only to see more flame and hot temper.
I'll have to go back and read everything else, curious how the whole 'communist' thing got started, lol.
Hoping I didn't reinitiate a war of napalm?
It works especially well when the crafter is proficient at wasting money, either by crafting lots of disposable items or just blowing wads of cash at the local tavern,
I have to say, as much as I dislike the idea of them taking any money from me for doing their part anyway.. the "they can increase their spellbook" or "well its off setting WBL' and all that is a MUCH much more compelling reason than.. well.. what you said.
Taking my hard earned money just because he's proficient at pissing it away? that sounds really, really odd to me.
If someone is going to piss my money away I'd really rather prefer that it be me that some dude who thinks he's more deserving of it than I am.
(i generally try to avoid pissing much money away.. but your comment made it seem like the guy's job was to basically take cash from the group and roll it right into the drain).
Like I said, I disagree with it entirely. but especially the way you phrased it. The other arguments are generally far more compelling, and far less insulting to one such as I.
(I mean ingame- not that the discussion insults me either way).
-S
I'd like to reiterate the point I brought up earlier that got lost in the later sea of posts and flame.
-----Honestly, if the party Wizard who takes a lot of the Crafting feats, want's to charge 10% to party members for time expended, then by all means he is free to do so. In fact, I would say that the party should be encouraged to do so. Allow me to explain why....
That extra gold can very easily go to expanding his spell book. These are all spells that will inevitably benefit the party, weather through more combat spells, or utility spells. Even more spells to craft a wider range of magic items. Not only that, but that is all gold that could be going to wands, scrolls, and potions. Even the Wizard saving the extra gold to buy a magic item for himself whilst he crafts magic items for others is a good idea, because it keeps the Wizard viable in this games ever scaling requirement of +s. Oh, and if it's another class, like the cleric, that extra gold can go to CLW wands, for example.
Seriously though. It all really boils down to players perception on the game. If they view it as a game to 'win', then any form of a player gaining an advantage over them, no matter how small, are going to find the above idea abhorrent. Those who are more into it for the joy of the game, do more role playing and thus do things from an IC perspective, or just generally don't care, those are the ones who'll enjoy the above idea.
In either case, it's something that should be discussed before taking said feats.
YMMV, really.
Also, I'd like to add that if anything, a crafter can craft items on credit, either for gold, favors, or other things to occur later. Or they can even waive the fee if situation calls for it.
What would really put a problem on things is a notion of interest, which is what my old playgroup used to do when loaning gold to people for magic items... THAT is a jerk move. One person even had compound interest (and yet people still borrowed gold from him), every character.
------And yes, I've...
In principle, your argument basically comes down to the wizard needing more gold to compensate for the WBL. (thats really the "he needs more spells in his spellbook argument. he needs more cash because he can never catch up to his WBL).
Even going by strict WBL I still prefer the DM to be handling the "extra wealth" issue than for any given player.
It makes more sense IC and can actually work out more evenly.
If the wizard needs some extra spell, he should just talk to the group about it. People like to call me a D&D communist apparently but seriously:
The Wizard tells the party he's out of cash but that X spell would really be useful where they are going.
is the party going to say no? "sorry pal, that spell does sound useful but.. tough cookies. You spent your gold, you are screwed".
Maybe its just us, I dunno, but we're far more likely to each toss in some coins and get the guy the scroll to learn the spell with. (or barter with another wizard or whatever)
I understand it comes downto a difference in playstyle.. and I'm fine with that.
You'll get no flames from me, nor from most of the others I suspect. :)
-S
p.s.
the communist thing comes from me saying repeatedly that the group works as a group for the group and that no part of the group is greater or deserves more of the loot than any other member, and therefore the crafter doesn't get x% more than anyone else.
-S
It works especially well when the crafter is proficient at wasting money, either by crafting lots of disposable items or just blowing wads of cash at the local tavern,I have to say, as much as I dislike the idea of them taking any money from me for doing their part anyway.. the "they can increase their spellbook" or "well its off setting WBL' and all that is a MUCH much more compelling reason than.. well.. what you said.
Taking my hard earned money just because he's proficient at pissing it away? that sounds really, really odd to me.
If someone is going to piss my money away I'd really rather prefer that it be me that some dude who thinks he's more deserving of it than I am.
(i generally try to avoid pissing much money away.. but your comment made it seem like the guy's job was to basically take cash from the group and roll it right into the drain).Like I said, I disagree with it entirely. but especially the way you phrased it. The other arguments are generally far more compelling, and far less insulting to one such as I.
(I mean ingame- not that the discussion insults me either way).
-S
The crafter as an excess wealth-dump is a meta-gaming notion that comes from the fact that crafting items for the party essential is creating wealth that otherwise wouldn't be there. Most GMs will adjust for deviations from WBL in one way or another IMO having a big spending crafter is as entertaining a mechanism for this as any. If it doesn't fit your roleplaying concept then the crafter can run an orphanage or a school for aspiring barbarians.
And, as always, you can your group can play however you see fit. I'm just explaining other groups can have fun playing differently than you guys.
|
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.
You can confront it with inventing something and getting the patent while you are in a partnership owning a industry.
You work during work time, with the industry resources and in the industry premises? It is property of the industry.You do it in your own time with your resources? It is your property.
The problem is that you guys don't seem to have a "your time" option. Never getting time for yourself is called slavery.
Even in AP with a frantic pace, like Crimson Throne, you have some time to dedicate to yourself and your loved ones. From your word on this thread you are playing the peer pressure card to the hilt (and then push even some of the hilt in) to force people to conform to the party desires. Awfull.
...
Honestly, I'm a firm believer in party wealth and loot going where they need to go, and whoever can use it. A bad example of this would be that in a randomly generated dungeon, the DM rolled god on one room's loot and we netted ourselves, at level 5, a +5 vorpal scimitar. It went to the ranger, since he had no magic items, despite the fact that my fighter was heavily dex-crit focused (was building specifically for crit feats) with focus/specialization/twf rapier and scimitar, because I had bought myself two +1 weapons. This particular situation I feel was a bad usage of the idea our group usually went by, but the ranger was the group's usual DM and one of the players that usually gives him problems (beyond the game even) was the GM of that one, so they were trying to keep him interested in his character, so eh...
Snagged yourself a ring of armor +4? Give it to the poor sorcerer who is trying to be a melee fighter with his bloodline and spell choices, gods know he needs it so he doesn't die in two turns. That kinda thing. In many regards I could be considered a "loot communist" myself.
At the same time, however, I'm a firm believer in crafters getting reimbursed through some means. A favor, gold, whatever. Just in some way, make that in game time they spent doing it, worth giving up their own crafting projects. Sure it'll benefit the group, but the main question there is how much is the time worth?
Also... My group(s) have never adhered strictly to WBL. We have only used WBL when starting games at levels higher than one, or bringing in a new character. Even my post on wizard spell books is more based on concern over what could be considered "party communism" in that it lets the book caster cast more spells for the part for free, or allow them to craft more items for the aid of the party (weather they ask for cash back or not is their issue).
In either case, I suppose it all boils down to how groups, players, and GMs handle WBL.
Also... You dirty communist :p.
(If you're going to "insult"* me back, I'm just a dirty transhumanist xD)
On players owning items:
If they buy something off money they get when loot is sold and shared out, it's their own.
If the get to use some loot it's not their own and they have to give it back to the group if they don't need it any more.
If the group decides to sell it then every one get's their share of the money gained by selling it.
On charging a fee for crafting:
Having a crafter in the party benefits everyone very much. yet it seldom happens because most ppl want to be combat effective or such things.
So by allowing to charge a small fee parties could encourage ploayers to take crafting feats for their PCs and thereby strengthening the party (that's if the GM doesn't take away the saved money by giving less loot).
That said I don't know if the wondrous item crafter in our Kingmaker party has the hedge magician trait but I really don't care.
I woudn't have my pearl of power without her and others would not have other great stuff because we are rather broken most of the time.
Having to bring my PC back to life after killing the stag lord cost the party much of their funds.
Going by the greedy "I will not giove you my hard earned money" approach I guess I would now play another guy because nobody would have paid for bringing me back.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.This analogy has a small flaw in it's implementation. Now Guy 3 is indeed saving the partnership money by doing design work "for the partnership". The destinction is that what if Guy 1 decides he would like Guy 3 to do a design for his personal use. Does Guy 3 not deserve the right to charge for this kind of side work.
I tend to look at creating an item for an individual party member in this manner. Sure, it makes him better. Indirectly when he is better, it also helps the group. However, it's still the individuals personal property and not that of the groups.
Does the payback have to be gold? Not necessarily. I'll do web design work for my friends sometimes for a case of beer (depending on the scope of the job of course). However, that case of beer has a market value that could also be attributed to gold.
The difference is that I see them as very different things.
When guy comes to the GD and askes for something to be made for his kid's school project, GD gets *nothing* out of it. Not one dang thing except possible good will. Now if Guy is honest, he'll offer to pay- even if GD isn't asking him to.
The guy in the group though is getting something out of it. He's making the group better. Making the barbarian's +1 into a +3 (or whatever) is directly boosting the effectiveness of the party just...
Fine (apparently), so if the crafter come and beg you to buy his product you will condescend and pay it the production price. In my experience that never happen. it is always the "client" going to the crafter and saying "I have a defence hole, ST weakness and need X or Y, can you make it for me".
But then you say "the time he s using is a party property" and "helping some other guy will make him stronger indirectly", so he should work for free the same.It boil down to making someone stronger at your expense and getting the other guy saying "what is good for the group is good for you too, even if you get nothing". Exactly Animal Farm that was cited several pages ago.
You constantly speak as if the group had a lifetime and beyond contract. All you do is a group property and you will never leave the group. I suppose that if some of your characters die a final death all is properties got to the group too, never to the family, church or other institution he wish t support.
How do you see spending money for things that don't make you stronger or can even make you weaker, like buying lands, houses and so on?
Still stealing from the party as that money hasn't gone into making you a better combatant?
Your characters are prohibited from getting loved ones that aren't adventurers as they can become a liability?
Or it is only a crafter problem this kind of share everything rule?