|
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.
==Aelryinth
Exactly!
That was the main reason I came up with that because I assumed Ranks represented the learning aspect. Ever notice how some prereqs are Skill Ranks and not Skill total?
Skill Rank prereqs are a proxy for level. Rank is used instead of skill to prevent someone from qualifying at 1st level by pumping their stat, taking Skill focus, etc. Much like BAB is used instead of Attack Bonus.
Don't read too much into it. The logic is game-design, not world logic.
My idea is actually good game design and makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My idea is actually good game design and makes sense.
Said by everyone ever.
|
|
I would make it 10 ranks which can only be achieved at 10th level.
Ranks are ranks no matter how you obtain them and you can't have more ranks than your level.
Your ranks will never increase or decrease until you gain a level but most other bonuses can accept for bonuses from feats which shows how important ranks are.
so my lvl 8 wizard who can have a spellcraft check of +16 still cant take 10 on a craft check for making a headband of vast intelligence?
bad design
a lot of bad designs can be talked about enough to make sense
taking 10 is a game mechanic, choosing not to let someone take 10 is house rule territory, period
this thread isnt about changing the game design, its about getting clarification
if you dont like it, play it your way, STAHP trying to force your way of playing onto everyone else
why is crafting a magic item such a deal breaker for you anyway? why must it be difficult
not to mention you still havent paid any inkling of attention to NON INT based crafters who actually have to wait til their CL is closer to the CL of the item to actually craft things
seems like you just wanna change things so you can say you changed them
|
|
so my lvl 8 wizard who can have a spellcraft check of +16 still cant take 10 on a craft check for making a headband of vast intelligence?
bad design
a lot of bad designs can be talked about enough to make sense
taking 10 is a game mechanic, choosing not to let someone take 10 is house rule territory, period
this thread isnt about changing the game design, its about getting clarification
if you dont like it, play it your way, STAHP trying to force your way of playing onto everyone else
why is crafting a magic item such a deal breaker for you anyway? why must it be difficult
not to mention you still havent paid any inkling of attention to NON INT based crafters who actually have to wait til their CL is closer to the CL of the item to actually craft things
seems like you just wanna change things so you can say you changed them
Actually it's good design because magic items aren't permanent while ranks are.
Being rewarded for finding ways to jack up your total rating is not always good game design.
|
|
I would make it 10 ranks which can only be achieved at 10th level.
Ranks are ranks no matter how you obtain them and you can't have more ranks than your level.
Your ranks will never increase or decrease until you gain a level but most other bonuses can accept for bonuses from feats which shows how important ranks are.
Why not just remove Take 10 mechanics then? I suspect a significant majority of all game time is spent below 10th level. Almost all of PFS. ~2/3 of APs.
Or is this only for crafting?
I've never been a fan of take 10 but when basing design you can't assume what level games are going to stop at. Since the game goes from level 1 to 20 then that is how you base your design changes.
so my lvl 8 wizard who can have a spellcraft check of +16 still cant take 10 on a craft check for making a headband of vast intelligence?
bad design
a lot of bad designs can be talked about enough to make sense
taking 10 is a game mechanic, choosing not to let someone take 10 is house rule territory, period
this thread isnt about changing the game design, its about getting clarification
if you dont like it, play it your way, STAHP trying to force your way of playing onto everyone else
why is crafting a magic item such a deal breaker for you anyway? why must it be difficult
not to mention you still havent paid any inkling of attention to NON INT based crafters who actually have to wait til their CL is closer to the CL of the item to actually craft things
seems like you just wanna change things so you can say you changed them
Actually it's good design because magic items aren't permanent while ranks are.
Being rewarded for finding ways to jack up your total rating is not always good game design.
punishing players because of something that is possible is not good design either
you are far too concerned with stopping the players from getting nice things, and you are way too afraid of optimizers
they will find away around your system, no matter what you do to make it more difficult for them
but not everyone who plays this game will jack up their score, so we shouldnt design the game assuming that they are
we arent rewarding anybody for doing anything, they are doing the work of designing their character to craft things, and as a result, they are better at crafting things
again, what about the crafters that arent INT based? what about paladins or clerics that dumped INT?
you're going to make the game more difficult for them too? just because someone playing a wizard could have a better spellcraft check and could craft things more easily?
and the notion that those PCs who can craft them better need to be punished really needs justification, because wasting your own characters feats and traits all for the purpose of getting items cheaper doesnt sound like cheating to me, it sounds like someone playing economically
dont punish players for playing smarter
|
|
so my lvl 8 wizard who can have a spellcraft check of +16 still cant take 10 on a craft check for making a headband of vast intelligence?
bad design
a lot of bad designs can be talked about enough to make sense
taking 10 is a game mechanic, choosing not to let someone take 10 is house rule territory, period
this thread isnt about changing the game design, its about getting clarification
if you dont like it, play it your way, STAHP trying to force your way of playing onto everyone else
why is crafting a magic item such a deal breaker for you anyway? why must it be difficult
not to mention you still havent paid any inkling of attention to NON INT based crafters who actually have to wait til their CL is closer to the CL of the item to actually craft things
seems like you just wanna change things so you can say you changed them
Actually it's good design because magic items aren't permanent while ranks are.
Being rewarded for finding ways to jack up your total rating is not always good game design.
punishing players because of something that is possible is not good design either
you are far too concerned with stopping the players from getting nice things, and you are way too afraid of optimizers
they will find away around your system, no matter what you do to make it more difficult for them
but not everyone who plays this game will jack up their score, so we shouldnt design the game assuming that they are
we arent rewarding anybody for doing anything, they are doing the work of designing their character to craft things, and as a result, they are better at crafting things
again, what about the crafters that arent INT based? what about paladins or clerics that dumped INT?
you're going to make the game more difficult for them too? just because someone playing a wizard could have a better spellcraft check and could craft things more easily?and the notion that those PCs who can...
Oh here we go, the old punishing players for actually making them work argument.
Please please please show me where playera have such a hard time in Pathfinder. Boo hoo hoo.
Uh, Sean, I'm missing something. You have to track your Ranks seperately anyways, because they change as you level, and shouldn't Ranks, which represent learning, be more valuable then something that just gives you a bonus?1) When you level up, you can just put 1 rank per skill, and (assuming you didn't mess up your previous level), you won't go over your max. So you don't need to track your ranks, you can just keep adding to them (in the same way that you don't have to track your hit points by level, you just keep adding to them as you level up).
2) And yeah, technically you do need to track them for some feats and prestige classes. Bleh, prestige classes...
One of my minor nits with the game is that a +10 bonus from a magic item is just as good as 10 Ranks in a skill. I find it annoying.And I think that if want to make boots of striding and springing, which requires me to have 5 ranks in Acrobatics and grants a +5 bonus on your Acrobatics skill, and I hand those boots to some idiot bard who has 5 ranks in Acrobatics, I'd damn well expect that the +5 I put into those boots, which cost me 2,750 gp, are just as good as the +5 he has from his ranks.
It also would create dumb situations where, if you're facing a DC 11 check, if you have 1 rank and +7 from other sources, you can't take 10, but if you have 2 ranks and +5 from other sources, you can... even though both give a total of +8, and there's only a 10% chance of failure for either situation.
And that +X/+Y threshold is completely arbitrary, and there are some cases where it's going to only be a difference of 1 rank... and it's going to have to be different breakpoints for DC 11 tasks, DC 16 tasks, DC 21 tasks, and so on.
The point of the take 10 rule is to make the game run faster and more smoothly, not to force you to parse out exactly how many ranks are necessary for it to "count" enough to take 10.
1) that's a misnomer, because you don't always max out every skill, Sean. Some, like acrobatics, you might only ever get to 5 ranks. Others, you just put a point in so you're trained and can Aid Another. Some you will max out, sure, but not all the time.
2) See Point 1. It's more then feats and PrC's...
It also would create dumb situations where, if you're facing a DC 11 check, if you have 1 rank and +7 from other sources, you can't take 10, but if you have 2 ranks and +5 from other sources, you can... even though both give a total of +8, and there's only a 10% chance of failure for either situation.
What have we told you about doing math early in the morning? :)
the 'arbitrary breakpoint' already exists, in stuff as simple as the AC bonus from Acrobatics, which is a holdover from 3E. The synergy bonuses were the same, but admittedly too complex to track. I'd think that universal requirements that 'You can't take 10 on a skill unless you have 2 ranks in it' are anything but complex, and they are only arbitrary as far as you want to push it. Requiring minor skill investments to take 10 on a valuable skill seems to be more a way of increasing the value of Skill Ranks vs just Skill Bonuses. After all, one of the most annoying parts of 3E was being able to purchase +20 Competence items and have a 10th level character be better at a task then a level 20.
Keep in mind that I was not alluding to the fact that +5 from ranks and +5 from boots shouldn't get you to +10. But 10 Ranks should mean something more then 5 ranks & +5, beyond a mere numeric bonus. Right now, all it means is pre-reqs: For magic items, feats, and PrC's. I'd like skill ranks to represent more.
I realize that's not going to happen in this edition of the game, but it should be something you work through and think about for the future, or for introducing variant rules as you work through the Skill System.
==Aelryinth
you've never heard of a casual table have you?
there does exist, a mind set where players and GMs arent concerned with the numbers game and do play for fun
low wealth campaigns, low magic campaigns
its all possible
my table goes through GMs that constantly steal our gp and attack us in our sleep, preventing our casters from getting full rest, and having us lose out on all our loot
we had our bag of holding stolen by a leprechaun, then we were attacked by a demon, as it turned out, defeating the demon meant turning the leprechaun to stone, and with it our bag of holding (which contained all our party's gp as well as gear) and not defeating the demon would mean we die
and that damn leprechaun's stealth check was GM fiated to be unbeatable, so we couldnt prevent our stuff from being stolen
you seem like you enjoy this kind of game, but i dont
we stopped playing with that GM
in fact, that was the campaign that we bailed on 3.5 for and switched to pathfinder
what perfect world do you come from where players need to be nerfed? its like you are designing the game so that one would absolutely need to optimize to be able to do anything effectively
Who are you replying to?
My examples discriminate against magic, not against PC skills. IF anything, PC skills become stronger and more important.
The problem now is that you have to optimize to be effective, if you are a Fighter or a Rogue. I'd like to move away from that.
==Aelryinth
was replying to SS, shoulda quoted
1) that's a misnomer, because you don't always max out every skill, Sean. Some, like acrobatics, you might only ever get to 5 ranks. Others, you just put a point in so you're trained and can Aid Another. Some you will max out, sure, but not all the time.
It's not a misnomer, because whether you are at max ranks or not for a skill, when you level up, your max ranks goes up by 1, so you can put another rank into it. So if you're now level 5, it doesn't matter if you had 1, 2, 3, or 4 ranks in Acrobatics at level 4, you can put 1 rank into it.
? Sean, I have no idea what you are trying to say there. The original argument was not having to track ranks, which was then reversed and became 'yeah, you track ranks anyways.'
Now, it almost looks like you're saying you can only put 1 rank into a skill when you level?
if so, that's a huge suprise to me. I always thought you could put in any number you wanted, up to the maximum possible for your level.
Am I wrong? What are you actually trying to say here?
==Aelryinth
|
|
? Sean, I have no idea what you are trying to say there. The original argument was not having to track ranks, which was then reversed and became 'yeah, you track ranks anyways.'
Now, it almost looks like you're saying you can only put 1 rank into a skill when you level?
if so, that's a huge suprise to me. I always thought you could put in any number you wanted, up to the maximum possible for your level.
Am I wrong? What are you actually trying to say here?
==Aelryinth
I guess he's assuming that everyone has their skills of choice maxed out and when you gain a level that you are only able to put one point in each skill you have maxed.
Some people do change their minds about certain skills along the way and puts all their points into it when they level but that's just me.
@sean
would it be plausible to put an idea on the table for an Advanced Magic Guide that offers different and more complex mechanics for spellcasting, item crafting, and the nature of magic in general?
ive noticed more and more there are numerous discussions about how powerful caster types are by comparison to the other classes, and taxing them more could be an option to helping players who want an official response
the rule sets presented of course would be much like the variant rules from the Advanced Player's Guide, offering different mechanics that would satisfy the players who are displeased with the core system, without having to redesign the core system for the players that do like it
could cover things like tracking spell components, rarity of components by power level of the spell, compounding costs of bulk components
as well as power components, substitution components, and creating components
it could offer a more complex and complete over view of the magic item crafting process that would be otherwise ridiculous to include in the core rule set, but for players who keep bringing it up it may work out, since demand for such products seems high enough to mention
it was just an idea i had
Viscount:
The WBL FAQ does not state everyone can count crafted items at cost. It states that the crafter can count crafted items at cost.
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.[/b]
Ergo, if a PC does not have an item crafting feat the crafted item does NOT count as its cost. This is the entire basis of my point. Everything else follows.
Regarding the fluff of why this occurs a simple rationale fixes the whole 'why' issue. Items crafted cost 1/2 because of attuning. Items crafted at full price are not attuned to the crafter. Viola! Is it without potential problems? No. But it is the basis for an in-game reason to explain the mechanics.
My statements have always been about the mechanics. I have also stated it is up to an individual gaming group to work out the fluff of why it costs full price for a crafter to craft for other people. However, that seems to be an exercise some people are not up to. Oh well. Now you have one. :)
- Gauss
? Sean, I have no idea what you are trying to say there. The original argument was not having to track ranks, which was then reversed and became 'yeah, you track ranks anyways.'
Now, it almost looks like you're saying you can only put 1 rank into a skill when you level?
I'm saying that if, when you level up, you only put 1 rank in each skill, you never have to keep track of where you spent your ranks, because even if you're maxed at 4th level, going to 5th level raises your max by 1, so it's safe to just put 1 rank in it. To put it another way: if you only add 1 rank to a skill when you level up, you won't break the max ranks rule.
|
|
I'm saying that if, when you level up, you only put 1 rank in each skill, you never have to keep track of where you spent your ranks, because even if you're maxed at 4th level, going to 5th level raises your max by 1, so it's safe to just put 1 rank in it. To put it another way: if you only add 1 rank to a skill when you level up, you won't break the max ranks rule.? Sean, I have no idea what you are trying to say there. The original argument was not having to track ranks, which was then reversed and became 'yeah, you track ranks anyways.'
Now, it almost looks like you're saying you can only put 1 rank into a skill when you level?
But that's assuming you are going to stick with same skills all through your career. I've had fighters go spellcaster so my skill selection changes. In one level I may decide to put all my points in Spellcraft to catch up.
Viscount:
Ergo, if a PC does not have an item crafting feat the crafted item does NOT count as its cost. This is the entire basis of my point. Everything else follows.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.[/b]
While the bolded part may be true, it does not follow from your quotation. The FAQ does not say that those without feats do not count at cost - it is silent about those without feats, as it isn't part of the question. The faq doesn't spell it out as an exception either.
So, while I agree that it is a good interpretation of the rules, I do not agree that it's spelled out at all in the FAQ - for those without crafting feats, the FAQ doesn't apply at all and might as well not exist.
Personally, if there comes a PF2, I hope MIC feats are done away with and the cost of crafting items is the same as buying them.
To repeat:
I'm saying that , when you level up...
|
|
Sean could somthing be done about the pricings of staffs? Right now they are far too expensive. With the WBL rules it takes staffsout of any PFS games and most home games below 10th level. Staffs are the most iconic item for wizards and right now Pazio has priced them out of the game,
Would Pazio consider removing the minium caster levelfrom all the crafting feats. I do nt see any reason for minium caster level for crafting feats.
I have now finished beating this hobbie horse.
On a realated question. with the advent of the mythic rules and the inclusion of the archmage ath power metamastery are the devs going to add rules for crafting items using metamagic feats in conjunction with mythic crafting and meta mastery?
Staves: We try to avoid altering rules content in the Core Rulebook.
Caster Level: Thematically, I don't think a 1st-level wet-behind-the-ears wizard should be crafting magic items.
Mythic: I don't understand what you're getting at.
|
|
On my mythic question, Are rules going to be added for crafting wands rods and staffs using meta magic charged spells.
How would the archmage path power endless power effect charging staffs?
For my caster lvel question I come form a somewhat diffrent POV i started paying in the Arduin stting and the wizards in that setting at 1st level learned to craft wands with limited charges right out of their initial guild traing and you also had the basic knowledge of crafting staffs the limiting factor was wealth you had to have the money to pay for the material componets for the staff which were about 1000 gp. This has colored how I view item creation in 3.x and pathfinder. I don't think letting arcane casters crafting limited use magic items wold unbalance the game in any way. But I also respect that The Pathfinder Devs have their own world view on how they want magic items to work in thier setting. I just wish the Pathfinder Devs would lossen up a little and increase the power level of magic items a little.
Diamond, meta'd spells have been in wands and staves since 3E. You can certainly create a wand of Maximized magic missile if you want to...it just counts as a 4th level wand.
==Aelryinth
Ilja:
The FAQ is an exclusion, it is based on the premise that people using WBL are paying price (not cost) for equipment. Thus, it does not need to comment on those people without the feat.
Before the FAQ: All people had price counted against WBL.
After the FAQ: Crafters had equipment they crafted count as cost (not price) against WBL.
Now, did the FAQ alter how non-crafters use WBL? Nope.
Did the FAQ provide an exclusion for non-crafters if they paid less? Nope.
Did the FAQ modify how crafters have the value of equipment count against WBL? Yup
So, if you are not the crafter you are back to the original, your price counts against WBL.
- Gauss
Casters already have the ability to create limited-use items: scrolls only require caster level 1, and they're the second-cheapest item you can create on a per-use basis (wands being the 2nd).
Honestly I'm rather happy with the PF creation mechanics. I like that you don't have to be super optimized to craft stuff, and I find that it's usually impractical to craft most things that are higher in caster level than yourself, while many things actually are pretty mild (the CL for a flaming sword is CL 10th, but a +1 flaming weapon isn't really going to overpower anything at the level you can afford to drop the 4,000 gp + 8 days to craft it yourself).
I like that it allows you to ignore spell prerequisites which means that you don't have to specifically have tons of PC-classed individuals to create magic items, or don't have to be a full-caster to get benefits out of item creation (this goes for bards, paladins, rangers, etc).
I like that it's verisimilitude friendly. I like that you don't have to have a world that is saturated in high level NPCs to produce the sorts of magic items that are expected to be commonplace. I really like that adepts can be professional artisans and the idea that you can create magic items without needing to be a super hero. I like that you don't need high CR villagers to run a well-rounded town in a fantasy world where magic and dragons exist.
I like that you don't need to be a wizard with skill focus to reasonably be able to craft magic items (which is very good for classes who lack Intelligence as a primary ability or don't have much use for spellcraft beyond making magic items; as would be expected for classes like sorcerers).
I gotta hand it to the staff. Good job guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so now that endless debate is finally done with: Taking ten on spellcraft to craft magic items. Allowed!
Good decision, and the right one.
Honestly I'm surprised this needed to be FAQ'd. It has always been there in the core rulebook since day 1.
Spellcraft is a skill. Craft is a skill. Taking 10 applies to skills. I would have thought this would have been a "no feedback required" one as well.
Viscount:
Ergo, if a PC does not have an item crafting feat the crafted item does NOT count as its cost. This is the entire basis of my point. Everything else follows.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.[/b]While the bolded part may be true, it does not follow from your quotation. The FAQ does not say that those without feats do not count at cost - it is silent about those without feats, as it isn't part of the question. The faq doesn't spell it out as an exception either.
So, while I agree that it is a good interpretation of the rules, I do not agree that it's spelled out at all in the FAQ - for those without crafting feats, the FAQ doesn't apply at all and might as well not exist.
This. Seems to me you're inferring more than is trying to be said, Gauss. As for how WBL is calculated - meh, whatever. We've never bothered with WBL at all around the table, except when making brand new higher level folks. Okay, some people do, and good for them I suppose, but I don't feel like examining the rules closely enough to debate them. All I want to establish is whether or not crafters can hand their buddies items they just made, and I do not think the FAQ (or anything else I've read) states they can't, nor do I see where anything that says they have to make items intended for that purpose at full price. I can see that you're probably right about it counting differently for WBL purposes, but that doesn't especially concern me.
I also don't really agree with your interpretation on the fluff, but that's mostly a personal preference, so I don't know if it's worth much of an argument. What I'm not a fan of is the implication that every magic item ever found out in the world was crafted 'non-attuned', or however you want to put it.
Viscount,
As I stated in my next post after the one you quoted, the FAQ is an exception to price being used to calculate WBL. Thus there is no inferring. The normal is that everyone uses price to calculate WBL. Crafters (via the FAQ) use cost if they have crafted it. The FAQ does not provide an exception to non-crafters and so they still must use price.
Yes, crafters can hand crafted items to their buddies. But if they do that the GM must either ignore the newly created wealth disparity or rectify it somehow. As you have stated, you ignore WBL thus you will ignore the wealth disparity. Since you ignore WBL you are also ignoring the FAQ and thus my entire point is meaningless to you.
I do not ignore WBL and thus I have to find some way to rectify what happens when a player gives an item to another player at cost. I can either reduce the future treasure for everyone and then make it up to those who did not receive the extra wealth or or I can state that for 'some reason' the crafter cannot craft at cost for his fellow players. Neither solution is completely satisfactory but the second solution involves less work for me as a GM.
As for the fluff, it is not my interpretation but a suggestion on how to use the FAQ without the question that you and many others seem to have (that being, why you are charging full price to craft for your buddies).
It is certainly a modification in the fluff of D&D and we have either the fluff modification or the problem the FAQ presents us. I choose to modify the fluff slightly in order to abide by the FAQ. Not everyone will make that choice.
- Gauss
Viscount,
As I stated in my next post after the one you quoted, the FAQ is an exception to price being used to calculate WBL. Thus there is no inferring. The normal is that everyone uses price to calculate WBL. Crafters (via the FAQ) use cost if they have crafted it. The FAQ does not provide an exception to non-crafters and so they still must use price.
Yes, crafters can hand crafted items to their buddies. But if they do that the GM must either ignore the newly created wealth disparity or rectify it somehow. As you have stated, you ignore WBL thus you will ignore the wealth disparity. Since you ignore WBL you are also ignoring the FAQ and thus my entire point is meaningless to you.
I do not ignore WBL and thus I have to find some way to rectify what happens when a player gives an item to another player at cost. I can either reduce the future treasure for everyone and then make it up to those who did not receive the extra wealth or or I can state that for 'some reason' the crafter cannot craft at cost for his fellow players. Neither solution is completely satisfactory but the second solution involves less work for me as a GM.
As for the fluff, it is not my interpretation but a suggestion on how to use the FAQ without the question that you and many others seem to have (that being, why you are charging full price to craft for your buddies).
It is certainly a modification in the fluff of D&D and we have either the fluff modification or the problem the FAQ presents us. I choose to modify the fluff slightly in order to abide by the FAQ. Not everyone will make that choice.
- Gauss
I think maybe we're at a disconnect here with the actual question I was originally asking - which is to say, is there an actual rule preventing people from crafting for other party members. I'm not ignoring the FAQ (although you're right, it has no bearing on our games), I'm saying that as written I don't see how it effects PCs being able to hand out their crafting as they choose. You, as a GM, can choose to enforce house rules because you don't want WBL to get confusing for you, but the FAQ, so far as I know, doesn't enforce any actual game rules whatsoever on their actions as players. That's all.
I never said the FAQ forced players to do what my houserule states. In fact I said the players CAN hand out crafted items as they choose. It is the GM that is forced to rebalance things. The players are not involved in that.
Example:
Player A and Player B are both 4th level (6000gp via WBL).
Player A has spent 6000gp to purchase 9000gp worth (by price) of equipment. Player A crafted 6000gp (by price) of that equipment for 3000gp (cost). Since the WBL FAQ provides an exception for Player A his crafted equipment is valued at the cost and not the price. His total equipment is valued at 6000gp.
Player B has spent 6000gp to purchase 9000gp worth (by price) of equipment. Player A crafted 6000gp (by price) of that equipment for 3000gp (cost). Since the WBL FAQ does not provide an exception for Player B (he did not craft it) his total equipment is still valued at 9000gp.
As you can see, there is no house rule involved. Player B has 3000gp more than he is supposed to.
So far, the WBL FAQ has not affected the players choices. But now, the GM sees what the players have done and has a choice. Does he ignore the disparity or does he rectify it?
The GM's main method to rectify this is to hold back enough treasure to settle the imbalance and then give individual treasures to Player A and not Player B until they are balanced with each other and (if desired) with Table 12-4.
So far, no house rule but this is a PITA for the GM. This is a PITA I do not want to deal with. To fix the PITA I can either ban crafting altogether (as many GMs have done) or I can come up with a small house rule to deal with it.
Summary to get back to your original question: No, the WBL FAQ does not alter how your PCs can craft for each other. What it alters is how the GM deals with it. He must either choose to ignore what you have done or he must personally redress the imbalance in wealth.
- Gauss
You're both correct. The FAQ itself does nothing to prevent players crafting items for each other. As Gauss has shown though, after they do, if they do, that then the GM needs to treat their WBL in relation to those crafted items differently.
For the crafter, he gets only the item's cost docked against his WBL but the other guy is treated the same as if he found it in a dungeon.
To make this easier on my GM I mark which items I have crafted on my sheet and only mark down their cost instead of price on my inventory sheet. All my GM needs to do is run down the numbers as normal. If he has a question why something is way cheaper than normal he can simply look to see if it's marked as a crafted item. Only the crafter needs to do this. This is fair as well since it's the crafter that took the feat and introduced this extra complexity to their character.
I still feel that this particular FAQ entry has been handled not in a good way, since it completely misses any rules or in-game rationale to explain why this suddenly has to happen, upsetting a decade of precedent.
Before the FAQ: All people had price counted against WBL.
This isn't explicitly in the rules - it is one possible interpretation, but not the only one*. That's why the discussion that led to the fact was brought up at all. The FAQ specifies this isn't the case for those with crafting feats, but says nothing about the other cases.
*A common interpretation is that it should count at cost value, and that sold stuff should count at sold value so that those even out.
I share your interpretation, I just think it should be noted it's an interpretation among others, not explicit RAW.
Ilja,
I will agree that WBL = Price is not explicitly in the rules. But since it is discussing purchasing things I think it is pretty implicitly stated.
To put it another way: had we asked prior to the FAQ what is counted against WBL I think we would have had a near unanimous opinion that it is Price and not Cost. This is what I believe the FAQ was responding to. It is what I have always understood it to be.
Let me ask you this: Do you count the treasure you hand PCs (based on Table 12-5) as per what they can sell it for or as per what it is priced at? Since 3.X the treasure per encounter table and the wealth by level table have been linked. Unfortunately, as with so much other information, Pathfinder is missing a lot of the 3.X information that tells us the little details about how to use these tables. One of those peices of information explains how you use the WBL table to purchase equipment.
WBL says nothing about purchasing equipment at cost. Unless you normally (when not using the WBL table) allow your players to purchase everything at cost instead of price then WBL is pretty clear. It is used to purchase things at price. If that is how the WBL table is used during high level character creation, why would it suddenly change for characters that are compared to it and not being created from scratch?
- Gauss
To put it another way: had we asked prior to the FAQ what is counted against WBL I think we would have had a near unanimous opinion that it is Price and not Cost. This is what I believe the FAQ was responding to. It is what I have always understood it to be.
There was plenty of threads about it before and it was not an unanimous opinion. And still isn't. I can't namedrop right of the bat but I think there's still a lot of players on the forums interpreting it as always being based on the amount of gold put into it.
Let me ask you this: Do you count the treasure you hand PCs (based on Table 12-5) as per what they can sell it for or as per what it is priced at?
As long as it isn't sold, it always count at market price. This, everyone is in agreement over. However, there are split opinions on what happens when it's sold - whether the wealth drops or not. By mine interpretation (which you seem to share), if you loot a +1 sword your wealth if 4k, and if you sell it your wealth is now 2k. If you give the 2k to the wizard and ze crafts a +1 axe for you out of it, you now again have 4k wealth.
The other interpretation is that wealth counts the wealth that has actually been attained, not how it has been used - in other words, a looted +1 sword means your wealth is 4k, if you sell it that doesn't change anything - you were still given 4k of wealth. If you now give the 2k you recieved for the sword to the party wizard to craft a +1 axe, your wealth is still 4k because you were given a 4k sword at the beginning.
So it works out evenly as long as the party doesn't loot large amount of hard cash compared to the amount of items they don't want to have, and as long as the wizard doesn't take a premium for crafting items.
Granted, I think that interpretation has weird implications (especially for consumables), but it's not against the rules and not an _apparent_ case of being against the RAI.
Still, since I'm not a proponent of the interpretation I might have missed some things - you can probably search and find at least a half-dozen long-winded threads where people argue back and forth over it.
First, where exactly does it say that you can't item craft to benefit other characters? I'm not questioning that it does, just trying to find the actual rule, for context. And yes, I've seen the PC WBL FAQ on Price vs. Cost, I just don't see where anything says we can't craft for other people.
When I asked the original question, it was because I read something or other that someone said that sounded as if there was an official rule prohibiting people from crafting for other party members. Thanks for all the detail, Gauss, but I already understood all that about WBL and power imbalance - I just didn't especially care one way or the other. That's where the argument came from, I guess, is that I was asking a different question then you folks thought I was. I appreciate the effort, though.
To clarify, then: The actual answer to my question would be something like, "No, there is no official rule like that, it's just a choice some GM's have made because they don't like to deal with WBL imbalance." Cool. Sorry about the misunderstanding, moving on.