| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you have been paying attention to this thread
"Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?"
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5i8n&page=40?Creating-magical-item-for-the- party-small-fee#1982
One of the arguments I brought up, is that the following FAQ,
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?
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, 01/14/12
is intended that all items created by a crafter are counted at Cost for the purposes of WBL.
I based this on the placement of punctuation.
The question is written, "If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"
You will note, there is a comma between feat and does. Now, this comma, in my opinion, drastically alters the context of the sentence. Meaning that all crafted items are counted as their cost, rather than price, for WBL.
For instance, if the sentence wrote. "If, a PC has an item crafting feat does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"
The the FAQ would be interpreted to say that, only for item crafters, are crafted items counted at cost rather than price.
The relevance of course being, that if crafters make items for their party members, then (if according to the second interpretation) that the party's WBL is increased due to calculating at Price rather than Cost; while the crafter's falls behind.
As an example, I provided the following link, a story on the fate of a criminal,
http://www.emwa.org/PastTWS/FatalcommaClark.pdf
How the position of a comma drastically changed this mans fate. Thus, the position of the comma in this FAQ is in my opinion, of great import. Since it is separating "If a PC has an item crafting feat" and "does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?"
In particular, I also examined this sentence.
If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost.
Which to me, implies the meaning of the FAQ to be that all party members count their crafted items at Cost.
The follow quote supports my interpretation
if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level
If the crafter sells his items at their material cost to the other players, and they count their magic items at Price (not Cost) to determine their WBL. They are directly contradicting the sentiment expressed in the FAQ, that crafted items should not increase WBL disproportionately according to character's wealth.
In addition, the FAQ clearly states that crafters and non-crafters should have equal gear value.
eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.
If non-crafters count crafted items at Price for WBL they are gaining an advantage over the crafter. Which seems to be contradictory to the former quote.
And NO I am not a troll.
Your opinions?
If teh FAQ states that crafters and non-crafters should have equal gear VALUE, then you'd have to go by price rather than cost for both. If you go by COST, the crafters would have roughly double the gear of the non-crafters. Also, the value of the gear for the party is balanced by level based on cost, not price. Just mho, of course, YMMV.
Item crafting feats are illegal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is the only place where GM fiat does not rule. So, I don't really see an issue here. If your GM wishes the party to have greater wealth than the WBL, then it is so. If not, he/she will find ways to keep you within WBL, such as awarding less gear from adventuring.
Yes, there's a comma issue, but it's not the one you're thinking of. Here's the paragraph that I think is tripping you up:
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.
... you're taking this to mean:
You have to do A. Otherwise, B and C. D.
... really, it's:
You have to do A. Otherwise, B, C, and D.
Here's that same paragraph with better/different phrasing:
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; this would be a problem because the GM would have to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character - an act which would eventually mean that the character would have the same gear value as a non-crafting character (in effect, neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.)
aka, if +1 Sword is crafted, it only counts as 1k in regards to the wealth table.
My advice: don't treat the WBL tables as strict gospel. If a fighter buys a +1 longsword, sells it, and buys it again, they're down 1k. It's not the DM's job to drop wealth to counteract that decision. It's just a guideline for DMs to know if they're being too treasure heavy/light, and a good way to know how much money to use for new character generation.
Item crafting feats are illegal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is the only place where GM fiat does not rule. So, I don't really see an issue here. If your GM wishes the party to have greater wealth than the WBL, then it is so. If not, he/she will find ways to keep you within WBL, such as awarding less gear from adventuring.
Well, the DM has prerogative in any homegame to alter the rules as the players see fit.
I am trying to determine by RAW which this FAQ supports. As I see it, the intent is pretty clear that all crafted items are counted for WBL at Cost rather than at Price. The DM could make a definitive ruling one way or the other, but what if the DM only wants to play by RAW? The FAQ looks open to interpretation to either way without a definite stance.
aka, if +1 Sword is crafted, it only counts as 1k in regards to the wealth table.
The main issue is how this affects crafters selling their items to other players. If magic items are counted at Price rather than Cost, then it inflates the other player's WBL, leaving the crafter behind.
Item crafting feats are illegal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is the only place where GM fiat does not rule. So, I don't really see an issue here. If your GM wishes the party to have greater wealth than the WBL, then it is so. If not, he/she will find ways to keep you within WBL, such as awarding less gear from adventuring.Well, the DM has prerogative in any homegame to alter the rules as the players see fit.
I am trying to determine by RAW which this FAQ supports. As I see it, the intent is pretty clear that all crafted items are counted for WBL at Cost rather than at Price. The DM could make a definitive ruling one way or the other, but what if the DM only wants to play by RAW? The FAQ looks open to interpretation to either way without a definite stance.
aka, if +1 Sword is crafted, it only counts as 1k in regards to the wealth table.The main issue is how this affects crafters selling their items to other players. If magic items are counted at Price rather than Cost, then it inflates the other player's WBL, leaving the crafter behind.
That WBL table gets bent by the item creation feats no matter how you work it. By cost, it potentially doubles in a party with a crafter. By value, it potentially doubles in a party without a crafter that later takes a craft feat.
Let's say a wizard, cleric, and fighter (none with a craft feat) are adventuring. They find 20k worth of gold. They later level up, and the cleric is thinking about "Craft Wondrous Item." If they don't take it, the WBL value stays the same; if they do take it, the WBL goes up by 10k.
And honestly, doing it by cost is much cleaner. Otherwise, weird metagame issues can crop up. For instance, if a Wizard starts out with 23.5k worth of gold at level 7:
A) If he crafts items with it, it raises his Wealth (if you're going by Price, not Cost) which would reduce the amount of treasure the party would get (if the DM is strictly following WBL tables)
B) If he tucks it under his mattress, his Wealth is still 23.5k. The party gets a larger amount of gold. He then waits a level, getting up to 33k in Wealth, then crafts something after that.
Metagaming at its worst... the amount of gold that pops out of monster carcasses shouldn't change based on when the wizard crafts his INT headband.
Let's say a wizard, cleric, and fighter (none with a craft feat) are adventuring. They find 20k worth of gold. They later level up, and the cleric is thinking about "Craft Wondrous Item." If they don't take it, the WBL value stays the same; if they do take it, the WBL goes up by 10k.
Their WBL actually stays the same, (if all crafted items are counted at cost). Since the Cost of a magic item is factored, rather than the Price.
Technically you could say their "value" is going up because they have a 2kgp item that they bought at 1k, but that isn't factored into loot tables.
Let's say a wizard, cleric, and fighter (none with a craft feat) are adventuring. They find 20k worth of gold. They later level up, and the cleric is thinking about "Craft Wondrous Item." If they don't take it, the WBL value stays the same; if they do take it, the WBL goes up by 10k.Their WBL actually stays the same, (if all crafted items are counted at cost). Since the Cost of a magic item is factored, rather than the Price.
Technically you could say their "value" is going up because they have a 2kgp item that they bought at 1k, but that isn't factored into loot tables.
No, no, I agree. I was just using that as an example of *why* they chose Cost instead of Value when determining how it applied to WBL.
Item crafting feats are illegal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is the only place where GM fiat does not rule. So, I don't really see an issue here. If your GM wishes the party to have greater wealth than the WBL, then it is so. If not, he/she will find ways to keep you within WBL, such as awarding less gear from adventuring.Well, the DM has prerogative in any homegame to alter the rules as the players see fit.
I am trying to determine by RAW which this FAQ supports. As I see it, the intent is pretty clear that all crafted items are counted for WBL at Cost rather than at Price. The DM could make a definitive ruling one way or the other, but what if the DM only wants to play by RAW? The FAQ looks open to interpretation to either way without a definite stance.
aka, if +1 Sword is crafted, it only counts as 1k in regards to the wealth table.The main issue is how this affects crafters selling their items to other players. If magic items are counted at Price rather than Cost, then it inflates the other player's WBL, leaving the crafter behind.
There is no RAW on the subject, because both Item Creation and WBL are chock-full of "guidelines", as opposed to strict rules. You can't get obsessed about RAW on everything, because there are some parts of the rule books that are not meant to be anything other than advice to a GM.
There is no RAW on the subject, because both Item Creation and WBL are chock-full of "guidelines", as opposed to strict rules. You can't get obsessed about RAW on everything, because there are some parts of the rule books that are not meant to be anything other than advice to a GM.Item crafting feats are illegal in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, which is the only place where GM fiat does not rule. So, I don't really see an issue here. If your GM wishes the party to have greater wealth than the WBL, then it is so. If not, he/she will find ways to keep you within WBL, such as awarding less gear from adventuring.Well, the DM has prerogative in any homegame to alter the rules as the players see fit.
I am trying to determine by RAW which this FAQ supports. As I see it, the intent is pretty clear that all crafted items are counted for WBL at Cost rather than at Price. The DM could make a definitive ruling one way or the other, but what if the DM only wants to play by RAW? The FAQ looks open to interpretation to either way without a definite stance.
aka, if +1 Sword is crafted, it only counts as 1k in regards to the wealth table.The main issue is how this affects crafters selling their items to other players. If magic items are counted at Price rather than Cost, then it inflates the other player's WBL, leaving the crafter behind.
Yes, well, tell that to the guys in "Creating magical item for the party + small fee on the work = players uprorar?" because most of them remain utterly convinced that only crafters get the WBL penalty.
Of course, when I tried to argue otherwise, I was promptly called a 'Troll'
(Owait, you probably have been there, considering its 2000 posts long)
Of course, when I tried to argue otherwise, I was promptly called a 'Troll'
Actually, CommandoDude, I said that you appeared to be trolling because you either didn't answer the questions being posed, and often dismissed what others were saying, stating that it was irrelevant, or simply said that you were right.
Tossing off insults from the get-go didn't help much either.
I have avoided posting on that thread, because it is not interesting to me. Players trying to make a profit off each other would never happen in any of the groups I play with, and I'm not interested in getting into debates with people who are so dedicated to have a bad time playing a game. I'm certainly not interested in getting into debates about RAW on a part of the game where there is no RAW.
Well, to answer your opening post:
My answer is that crafted items count at cost only for the crafter.
Even before the FAQ came out on this I treated crafters as counting thier crafted items at cost while non-crafters equipment counted at price even if crafted by a group member. Any other way and the non-crafters wind up way overpowered due to a feat they do not possess. As a result of this our group has a simple way of dealing with it: A non-crafter donates the difference between cost and price when receiving a crafted item.
Example: Crafter makes a Belt of Strength +2 (4000gp price, 2000gp cost). If he keeps it it counts 2000gp towards his WBL. If he gives it to the party fighter the fighter just gained a 4000gp item. To maintain WBL the group has agreed to donate the extra 2000gp to a non-WBL expense (such as building a castle or temple). Thus WBL is maintained and the GM doesn't have a headache trying to balance it out.
Note: I am not our group's only GM, we take turns for different adventures but our houserules/clarifications apply equally to all GMs in the group. To accomplish this we vote on the rules issues.
- Gauss
Actually, CommandoDude, I said that you appeared to be trolling because you either didn't answer the questions being posed
Prove it. Quote one question I didn't answer.
Not to mention, I was replying to at some point as many as three individuals at once, and you're complaining I didn't answer some questions?
and often dismissed what others were saying, stating that it was irrelevant
You'll note that I didn't SAY it was irrelevant, I said, that I didn't see HOW it was relevant
It's not my fault that you didn't elaborate the relevance so I could make a proper reply. Stop trying to shift the blame.
or simply said that you were right.
Quote me. I explained my positions and argued for them, but I never said "I'm right. You're wrong. Tough."
Although, I did get quite a bit of that tossed at ME.
Tossing off insults from the get-go didn't help much either.
While I may have gotten heated in my arguments, I never insulted anyone and there's nothing you can quote to say that I did.
To ImperatorK's credit, he at least did not resort to personal attacks.
While I may have gotten heated in my arguments, I never insulted anyone and there's nothing you can quote to say that I did.
I don't know HOW that math suddenly finds the crafter having a WBL lower than the party. All I can conclude is that the math is made up.
The above is what I consider the first insult. It may not have been your intention, but it came across as one.
You appear to be saying that because you didn't understand something, that I must be lying.
Quote me. I explained my positions and argued for them, but I never said "I'm right. You're wrong. Tough."
Again, wrong. You are reading the sentence wrong
..................
Wrong. According to my interpretation, the crafter does not become weaker or stronger than his teammates.
Perhaps I am reading the above incorrectly, but it appears that you are indeed saying that you are right and that they are wrong.
You'll note that I didn't SAY it was irrelevant, I said, that I didn't see HOW it was relevant
It's not my fault that you didn't elaborate the relevance so I could make a proper reply. Stop trying to shift the blame
I don't even see the relevance
Again, perhaps I am getting things wrong, but if you tell me that you don't see the relevance to my argument, does that not indicate that you feel that my argument is irrelevant?
Perhaps I was taught differently, but when I don't understand, I asks questions. Especially if several people are saying similar things and I am not seeing the links or understanding.
Prove it. Quote one question I didn't answer.
Not to mention, I was replying to at some point as many as three individuals at once, and you're complaining I didn't answer some questions?
Could you please explain why the words "in general" are included in this phrase?
I am aware that the next paragraph goes on to talk about the exception to the rule being trade goods, but again, why did the add in "in general" to the preceeding paragraph - it wasn't needed if their intention was to only ever allow goods to be sold for half price.
You may also want to note that trade goods are not the only exception to the rule, there is the rule about the town being able to afford to buy the item at half price - i.e. you can't sell a 30 000 gp item in a small town with a gold piece limit of 500 gp. To me, this re-inforces that the words "in general" were put in place for a reason.
Your response was:
The text VERY CLEARLY makes no distinction between NPCs and Players
I am not seeing how this answers the question.
Another question was:
Please take a look at what I bolded. SKR, to me at least, is saying that only for the crafting character does the items they crafted count at cost rather than the retail price.
If you are reading that differently, please indicate what is leading you to that conclusion and explain how the bolded sections are affected.
What is the point of taking crafting feats for the crafter?
Your response was:
All magic items are counted for WBL purposes at their COST. The price of cost is what the crafter is paying to MAKE the item. The PRICE is the amount PCs would be buying from NPCs.
If the COST of the item is the price that crafters are creating the item, then PCs who are paying an additional fee not related to the cost are having their WBL being reduced.
WBL is based on cost not price. And because cost is usually half of price, WBL is determined by half the item's store price
Again, I don't see how what you responded answers any of the questions that I posed. You appear to be simply re-stating what you had previously stated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are having a very heated argument about something which is not a rule. The whole section of the CRB which this comes from is the Game Mastering section, which is entirely filled with guidelines for GMs to help them adjudicate areas of the game which intentionally don't have hard-and-fast rules.
Perhaps you both just have hard feelings against each other and are looking to exorcise your anger. Why not just let go of the anger, because there is no way for either of you to be right or wrong.
While I may have gotten heated in my arguments, I never insulted anyone and there's nothing you can quote to say that I did.
I don't know HOW that math suddenly finds the crafter having a WBL lower than the party. All I can conclude is that the math is made up.The above is what I consider the first insult. It may not have been your intention, but it came across as one.
You appear to be saying that because you didn't understand something, that I must be lying.
If the math doesn't add up, then what was my conclusion suppose to be? Note that I did not SAY the math was made up, nor did I call ANYONE a liar. I simply stated, that was the only conclusion I could conceive.
I did not make any personal attacks.
Quote me. I explained my positions and argued for them, but I never said "I'm right. You're wrong. Tough."Perhaps I am reading the above incorrectly, but it appears that you are indeed saying that you are right and that they are wrong.Again, wrong. You are reading the sentence wrong
..................
Wrong. According to my interpretation, the crafter does not become weaker or stronger than his teammates.
Stop taking things out of context by only partially quoting my words.
In the first quote I immediately followed up my assertion with an analysis of the error.
In my second quote, I did the same. In fact, in the second quote, that was a direct response to someone dictating my original position as a strawman, meaning I'd have full authority to say "you're deliberately misrepresenting my position." Which I then further clarified.
You'll note that I didn't SAY it was irrelevant, I said, that I didn't see HOW it was relevant
It's not my fault that you didn't elaborate the relevance so I could make a proper reply. Stop trying to shift the blame
I don't even see the relevanceAgain, perhaps I am getting things wrong, but if you tell me that you don't see the relevance to my argument, does that not indicate that you feel that my argument is irrelevant?
Perhaps I was taught differently, but when I don't understand, I asks questions. Especially if several people are saying similar things and I am not seeing the links or understanding.
Actually, you're the only one I saw that brought up the 'relevance' of the question. But when I said I didn't see any relevance, you immediately dropped the issue and started saying I never answered it. When I DID in fact answer it, just not to your liking. Several people kept talking about how I was 'Not answering questions' When I WAS continuously making a best effort to explain my positions and arguments, which were all ignored in favor of me being labeled a 'troll'
I assumed that answer would be enough for you to explain your question. If I said I didn't see a relevance, what argument or question is their to make? It's YOUR job to make your points clear, not mine.
Prove it. Quote one question I didn't answer.
Not to mention, I was replying to at some point as many as three individuals at once, and you're complaining I didn't answer some questions?
Could you please explain why the words "in general" are included in this phrase? Could you please explain why the words "in general" are included in this phrase?
I am aware that the next paragraph goes on to talk about the exception to the rule being trade goods, but again, why did the add in "in general" to the preceeding paragraph - it wasn't needed if their intention was to only ever allow goods to be sold for half price.
You may also want to note that trade goods are not the only exception to the rule, there is the rule about the town being able to afford to buy the item at half price - i.e. you can't sell a 30 000 gp item in a small town with a gold piece limit of 500 gp. To me, this re-inforces that the words "in general" were put in place for a reason.
Your answer was
The text VERY CLEARLY makes no distinction between NPCs and Players
That answer wasn't even directed at you. No where in that reply had you been in anyway quoted. That question I later answered after more badgering. But as you might remember, I was having a difficult time keeping up with 2-3 different discussions, so I 'apologize' for getting to your question slowly, but I felt there were other points more important to address.
I am not seeing how this answers the question.
Another question was:
-snip-
Again, I don't see how what you responded answers any of the questions that I posed. You appear to be simply re-stating what you had previously stated.
I thought you hadn't understood the reasoning of my point, so I decided to elaborate my point further. I did not "restate" my point, I had expanded it.
I will admit that my explanation did not adequately make the connection to the FAQ in that post. However, I DID very soon follow up with ANOTHER response that answered that question in full.
CommandoDude, how about we both take the approach that both of us were/are ernest, passionate and did not mean to insult anyone (we can blame it on the internet :), as we can't tell tone without tags), and put the past posts behind us and start a fresh?
PS, it may be an idea that when you respond to several items and have several quotes, that you make sure that you insert the name of the person being quoted in all of the quotes, to avoid confusion in the futur. Please don't take this as an attack, I was confused over some of your quotes and wasn't sure if the response was directed at me or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All crafted items. That's how it was always intended.
CommandoDude, how about we both take the approach that both of us were/are ernest, passionate and did not mean to insult anyone (we can blame it on the internet :), as we can't tell tone without tags), and put the past posts behind us and start a fresh?
I can agree to this.
Seriously... 2000+ posts on an argument that's already been FAQ'd. Now you all want to do this again. Where's the reading comprehension you'd expect of people that play d20 games.
Err, what? Are you referring to the referenced thread? Because that thread was not FAQ'd. Are you referring to some other thread about the FAQ? I'm not aware of one.
In my opinion, the reading is quite clear (and makes more sense). But there have been people who disagreed with me. Is it the player's fault that Paizo did not specifically address the issue of player bought player crafted items?
|
Seriously... 2000+ posts on an argument that's already been FAQ'd. Now you all want to do this again. Where's the reading comprehension you'd expect of people that play d20 games.
That thread is in the advice section for a reason. The FAQ has little bearing on it. The main argument of the thread is about the crafter asking some kind of compensation for the time spent crafting from the other guys in his group.
One side thinks that when you are crafting for another party member you are using group time and so the you should get no compensation, the other thinks that you are using your character time and so you should get some form of compensation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Item Creation Feats are undervalued and therefore any benefit you can get from them, you should be able to take it. Caster classes get very few feats (at 6th level, you have 3). Melee combat classes get a lot of choices and bonus feats (at 6th level, you could have as many as 9). A crafter (armor) brought in at 6th level should have been able to craft thier own armor using cost by WBL.
But when starting a campaign, the caster should get the benefits, not the rest of the table. They didn't take the feat.
I had a post on that other thread that I finished just as it got stopped. I think the point I was trying to make fits here as well.
Let me propose a scenario: a group consists of Carla Crafter, Fred Fighter, and Roger Rogue. All three have items with a price of 4k.
Carla made all of her own items, so, by this ruling, she has a WBL of 2k.
Fred has one item he bought for 2k and one item Carla made for him with a price of 2k, so, by this ruling his WBL is 3k.
Roger claimed looted items with a price of 4k, he has no crafted items so his WBL is 4k.
So how does Danny DM resolve that? Drop 3k so that Carla gets 2k, Fred 1k, and Roger none? No wonder folks ban crafting.
This is part of the why of fee crafting. It's easier for the group to solve internally that poor Danny doing it artificially.
The imbalance gets worse the higher the price of the items involved.
And just to be provocative, if a normally 4k crafted item's cost is 2k, then shouldn't it sell for 1k?
Stynkk's Opinion: Your item should "count" for whatever the full value is, not the crafted value. In my game, you don't have access to all magic items all the time, so the advantage of crafting is the guarantee of making your desired items.
Although I also agree with Mabven that this is a lot of guidelines suggesting how to run things rather than hard and fast rules.
I'm with Cheapy. The main response says Items, not crafter.
The paragraph in question doesn't have any real context, so it can be referring to character creation at higher levels.
This is my first post on a Paizo forum.
Something about this thread and its predecessor caught my attention. Perhaps it is seeing so many people passionately striving to frame truths that are intuitively clear to them in irrefutable logic and language. On the off chance that this thread is still active, I will toss my hat in the ring. I wonder how I will fare...
One character-centric and pivotal difference (not the only one, just the first and perhaps only one I aim to tackle) in the positions I've read seems to hinge on whether the character shopping for an item believes a quoted price from a crafter in their party that is greater then .5 * price but less then full price is a discount or an overcharge.
1) If the character thinks the quote they receive is a discount, an outside observer might be confused by a character who did not hold some gratitude for a quote of less then full price if their personal motivation is based on a desire to get that discount. Ranging from complete gratitude (or suspicion) if given for free, to dismissive neutrality over a meager 10% discount below market price.
2) If the character thinks the quoted price is overcharging, I have followup questions. Is that position derived from a belief that a) they are owed the lower price / discount by their fellow adventurer or b) the item's "worth" and rightful cost is .5 times price.
Questions for those arguing from position 2a:
1) What prior experience in receiving discounts from fellow adventurer's informs the character's expectations as to the set point of the discount? Have they ever received such discounts in their past? In other words, why 50% off and not a 30% or 70% discount? Why not free? Example: Would they expect to be asked to pay the cost of consumable spell components or other consumables used on their specific behalf while adventuring?
2) Does context matter? Example: free help while adventuring, "at cost" help while out of danger but mutually working towards party goals, and "at discount" the rest of the time because we are friends.
3) Do they feel it appropriate to ask if there is anything they could do for the creator in return if offered at a cost equal or below their expectations for a personal item?
Questions for those arguing from position 2b:
1) What prior experience informs the character's belief that the appropriate cost to them for the item is .5 * price? (..perhaps based on their experience of selling items at .5 * price).
2) How does their belief regarding the items worth to a buyer like themself stand up under a context in which it is only available locally (or distantly) at full price (providing a price comparison) and no one else (besides the crafter) in their lives is willing to sell it to them for less then full price?
3) Is their relationship with the full price vendors one of antagonism ("price gouging so and sos"), neutral, or gratitude (thanks for making this available to me)?
4) For those character's whose position is based on their character adopting the "I'm not looking for a discount" worldview; why else are they approaching the crafter to do the work in the first place? Would getting it elsewhere would require travel and use up their time instead of the crafter's? If so, how to weigh which character spends the time.
Note: I believe that this position (2b) doesn't apply if the item is unique or completely unavailable as there would be no comparative basis for evaluating worth in the communal context.
My point with separating out this argument is to disentangle the rhetoric associated with the arguments I have read (into their basis on character feelings vs game balance issues vs social contracts between players) ..and this set of positions seemed an easy first target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, how does a thread, which is about a section of the CRB which is guidelines (not rules) for GM's to handle character wealth, spawn wall-of-text posts full of algebraic formulas. I am quite gifted at all sorts of mathematics, but you couldn't pay me to pay the least bit of attention to formulas about such an imaginary subject.
The subject of the discussion is, at best, an ethical one. The way a GM handles the decision is going to vary from group to group, depending on the GM's own preference for PC competition/cooperation, and depending on how the PC's feel about economic competition. Math simply does not have anything to do with it.
In short, no one is going to "win" this debate, no matter how much math or philosophy one concocts to support ones arguments. This is intentionally not covered by the rules.
@Krinn: I may be missing something. Your equation seem skewed to consider only those involved in the crafting. Do you need adjustments to the WBL of uninvolved party members to account for / offset their relative lack of gain? (say 4 member party where the crafter works only for himself and 1-2 others)
Why are people debating WBL and crafting fees? This is not the right thread for that, there is already a 2k long threadnought talking about the ethical qualms of fee/not fee.
This thread is only asking for an FAQ on whether crafted items count cost for WBL purposes for ALL characters, and not just the crafter.
If the crafter crafts more for a fighter than a paladin, it's in essense no different than saying the fighter is getting more of the found magical items (or the Paladin is, and the crafter is crafting more for the fighter to compensate). Breaking out formulas is useless because the party decides who gets items based on who needs them, this will lead to imbalanced WBL regardless of crafting.