How Much Wealth Should Be Crafted?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

My two cents.

I see the WBL Table as a metric for power in pathfinder.

I see the crafting feats as the means to acquire specific items, not additional items.

As an example, technically there is a cap beyond which buying magic items becomes very difficult. This is usually between +2 and +3 weapons. Now if a player wants to guarantee that they will have a +4 Bane *Weapon of Choice* then the only way to do that using only their own power is to take crafting feats.

I am not saying that questing is bad or placing items for specific PC's is bad, however it is Fiat plain and simple. Fiat is not always bad, however as Fiat there are no hard and fast rules for it, it is what you and your GM agree on. Some people prefer a rule set rather than having to renegotiate every time they want an item.

Some people say that the limits in the CRB for buying magic items are only guidelines. I say to them fine, however they are the only provided guidelines in the CRB and they combined with the WBL tables nicely dovetail to allow continued use of the CR system.

I do not allow crafting to let you grow beyond your normally allotted WBL. To those who say that my players will be weaker than those who choose feats that directly amplify their power I will respectfully disagree, due to the following. If a wizard has a bag of scrolls, and pearls of power along with all of the rods he wants, I would argue that he is more powerful and versatile than a wizard who only has random treasure and both spell focus feats.

I agree that I see crafting as a customization tool and not a money making tool. Unless your campaign has absolutely no downtime I believe crafting is still useful. Especially as level increases due to things like ring of sustenance, traveling labs, rope trick, and when you are really tough create demiplane.

Anyway just my opinion, and I am aware that not allowing crafting to inflate your WBL is a houserule, however I have been playing this way since before the FAQ about crafting came out, and when my players showed me the FAQ, I simply shrugged and said "Fine, rather than a point of RAW we argue about now, its a houserule."

I have run games where crafters are allowed to inflate WBL and I will never do so again due to the fact that unless the PC's live their lives against a quickly ticking clock, intelligent PC's will quickly grow out of control and will be able to easily defeat CR + 3 - CR + 6 encounters. This becomes obvious past level 10 in my experience. Inflating WBL is not that bad for levels 1-4/5, and starts becoming a problem at about levels 7-9, and is a problem past about level 10. Please understand that all of the above is my opinion based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience, along with my interpretation of the rules.


Covent, interestingly enough, the FAQ did not change anything for me. I have been using 'the price you pay for it' as what counts against WBL since 3rd edition. I have had a different experience regarding crafting. I see it as a bit more than 1 feat yes. But that is all. The power increase is about +1attack/damage and +2AC for CM&A and +1ability score mod and +1 resistance bonus for CWI.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Covent, interestingly enough, the FAQ did not change anything for me. I have been using 'the price you pay for it' as what counts against WBL since 3rd edition. I have had a different experience regarding crafting. I see it as a bit more than 1 feat yes. But that is all. The power increase is about +1attack/damage and +2AC for CM&A and +1ability score mod and +1 resistance bonus for CWI.

- Gauss

@Guass

I saw quite a bit more power growth than that through CWI and allowing WBL growth but the majority of it is confined to levels 14+ where your wealth is so large that allowing a multiplication factor on it is more pronounced.

I would agree at lower levels it is less of a problem.

@ Everyone

I also do not allow my players to exceed the cap for purchases in towns however. I do roll the random amount of minor, medium, and major magic items in the towns, however this means that getting what you want can be difficult and I usually offer the following options.

1: Quest for it: Item is rumored to be in Scary Cave A, Guarded by Scary Monster A which you must slay... (Not guaranteed available)

2: Develop NPC friendships: Have spent substantial time and effort cultivating different NPC's as friends/allies so that they are willing to take the time and effort to craft for you. (Not guaranteed available)

3: Get lucky on the random rolls. (Not guaranteed available)

4: Craft it yourselves: Take the crafting feats and be able to make the specific items you want. (Guaranteed available)

That is where I see the value in crafting, in its reliability.

On the subject of selling for more than what you crafted it for this is my line of logic.

A magic item is an incredibly large investment for the majority of individuals and even some organizations. When a normal lifestyle is 10 GP per month a 2,316 GP +1 magic sword is 232 months or over 19 years worth of lifestyle for most people.

For a noble with with a 1,000 gp per month lifestyle this is still two months of investment. This is two months of saving rather than maintaining your castle and servants.

I would argue that the demand for powerful and expensive magic items is very, very vanishingly small, and grows smaller with any increase in price or decrease in usability.

What this means is that for any magic items beyond the most basic, a shop owner may not see any profit for months or years, due to the relative rarity of buyers with sufficient cash and want for that specific item.

So there is no way a savvy merchant will pay you anywhere close to what he plans to make on it as he will have to sacrifice liquidity for a long period simply to have a large pay-off at the end.

Now a PC could do the same thing, but then they would do very little adventuring, and a lot of shopping, haggling, networking, traveling to visit locales with exotic goods, monitoring investments, and so on.

This means that players will of course pay substantially more for that special item that fits them exactly, this further means that when they wish to sell unwanted items they will receive less.

For cheaper more easily made items well that is what I see city purchase limits as for, they represent cash flow in the city and ease of liquidating large ticket items.

Anyway just my ruminations.

Thanks to everyone who is taking part this is an interesting discussion.


Gauss wrote:

Littlehewy:

Strictly speaking I do not give them 'more' wealth. I use the WBL table to ensure that they are close to where they should be (WBL + about 15% in consumables to represent that Table 12-5 which gives out about 30-40% more than WBL does). My houserule just makes that job easier on the GM by not having to keep giving 'extra' to cover the value of equipment sold for half price.

If I give out 20,000gp worth of treasure I see no reason that it should become 10,000gp of treasure. Then I have to give them another 10,000gp which becomes 5,000gp. Then I have to give them another 5,000gp which becomes another 2,500gp...... All in an effort to give them the 20,000gp I was trying to hand out to begin with. Either I just hand them a lump sum of gold equaling 20,000gp OR I use this houserule. My houserule is less realistic but at least I can give them shinys and not worry about whether or not they will like it and subsequently sell it.

- Gauss

Yep, fair enough. What I essentially meant was, more cash for stuff they decide to sell, but I was on a coffee break :)

My overall point was, though, I don't see why that dude (CuttinCurt?) was railing so much against your houserule and suggesting you're a nasty control freak GM that wants to keep his players firmly under his thumb... Didn't make sense to me.


Covent: Do you allow the crafter to craft for others at cost? I usually find that is the reason crafting breaks things.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Covent: Do you allow the crafter to craft for others at cost? I usually find that is the reason crafting breaks things.

- Gauss

Yes I allow crafters to craft anything that they want at the normal cost. I do not see how I can reasonably say that there would be a difference in cost between what is crafted for personal use and what is crafted for another party member without using a houserule, such as item attunement.

Just to be clear I am very strict on any home-brew/custom items, as I feel they need to be watched closely. I do however allow for slot swapping as there are no slot affinity rules in pathfinder. I have allowed vests of resistance to be created for example which allowed my crafters to create cloaks of etheralness for those who wanted them.


Covent wrote:

My two cents.

I see the WBL Table as a metric for power in pathfinder.

I see the crafting feats as the means to acquire specific items, not additional items.

As an example, technically there is a cap beyond which buying magic items becomes very difficult. This is usually between +2 and +3 weapons. Now if a player wants to guarantee that they will have a +4 Bane *Weapon of Choice* then the only way to do that using only their own power is to take crafting feats.

I am not saying that questing is bad or placing items for specific PC's is bad, however it is Fiat plain and simple. Fiat is not always bad, however as Fiat there are no hard and fast rules for it, it is what you and your GM agree on. Some people prefer a rule set rather than having to renegotiate every time they want an item.

Some people say that the limits in the CRB for buying magic items are only guidelines. I say to them fine, however they are the only provided guidelines in the CRB and they combined with the WBL tables nicely dovetail to allow continued use of the CR system.

I do not allow crafting to let you grow beyond your normally allotted WBL. To those who say that my players will be weaker than those who choose feats that directly amplify their power I will respectfully disagree, due to the following. If a wizard has a bag of scrolls, and pearls of power along with all of the rods he wants, I would argue that he is more powerful and versatile than a wizard who only has random treasure and both spell focus feats.

I agree that I see crafting as a customization tool and not a money making tool. Unless your campaign has absolutely no downtime I believe crafting is still useful. Especially as level increases due to things like ring of sustenance, traveling labs, rope trick, and when you are really tough create demiplane.

Anyway just my opinion, and I am aware that not allowing crafting to inflate your WBL is a houserule, however I have been playing this way since before the FAQ about crafting came out, and when my players...

While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)


johnlocke90 wrote:
While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)

I do not understand why it hurts the martials more, could you please explain.

My only idea would be perhaps because it is more difficult for martials to craft due to the restrictions on master craftsman?

I am not trying to argue or be difficult I am honestly curious.


Covent, allowing others to benefit from the caster spending a feat is what is the problem with crafting in your games and is why you are forced to houserule it. Does it make RP sense to prevent non-crafters from benefitting from the crafter? No. Does it make mechanical sense? Yes.

A houserule-RP way someone could do it is that if you wear it or wield it and you crafted it you craft it work for only you. That is why it has a cost reduction. Others have to pay the full price to 'allow it to work for them'.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Covent, allowing others to benefit from the caster spending a feat is what is the problem with crafting in your games and is why you are forced to houserule it. Does it make RP sense to prevent non-crafters from benefitting from the crafter? No. Does it make mechanical sense? Yes.

A houserule-RP way someone could do it is that if you wear it or wield it and you crafted it you craft it work for only you. That is why it has a cost reduction. Others have to pay the full price to 'allow it to work for them'.

- Gauss

I see what you are saying.

I did consider something like this, however I and my group have found it more to our taste to run it differently.

Going to eat lunch now, will post more later.

Thank you all for the conversation.


DeusTerran wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Well there is the random treasure, which may contain items more powerful than you can craft (but which won't lead to wealth being converted to all body slots being filled). There is also the hobgoblin equipment as treasure, which will be very useful for melee classes by default, ranged classes if they had archers and crossbowmen, and spellcaster loot if they had spellcasters. The default loot for "heroic" enemies with character levels can cover the upgrading bases pretty easily. See the equipment for a level 8 fighter.

I don't allow weapon, armour or wondrous item crafting and it works really well. Sometimes their foes don't give them exactly what they could use, but there is nifty stuff there, a chance to use items they have never used before, items they could not craft if they only took some of the item creation feats, or items which are great for npcs (they are close to running a kingmaker like game) or bribes. Mmmm, yes bribes. Using loot less useful to the party, which you didn't have to craft to aid negotiations and friendship.

Friendship! Friendship!

Mundane and minor magic loot from the hobgoblins is stuff that they either already have and won't use (converted to gold) stuff they can't use (converted to gold) or stuff that will be useful in a later and rare situation (most likely sold for gold at a later date) Using a magic item to bribe or negotiate is basically using the item AS gold.

Why do you hate your players by giving them vast amounts of wealth that they can't really use?

Well I don't actually give them vast amounts of wealth. So I guess I hate them for that reason as well?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

Covent, allowing others to benefit from the caster spending a feat is what is the problem with crafting in your games and is why you are forced to houserule it. Does it make RP sense to prevent non-crafters from benefitting from the crafter? No. Does it make mechanical sense? Yes.

A houserule-RP way someone could do it is that if you wear it or wield it and you crafted it you craft it work for only you. That is why it has a cost reduction. Others have to pay the full price to 'allow it to work for them'.

- Gauss

Oh, so crafting is broken, unless you houserule it. Hmm. How is that different in your solution than in mine, outside of my solution keeping internal logical consistency? ^^


Magnuskn:

I did not state it was broken unless you houserule it. I stated that when a GM allows others to financially benefit from the crafter (which is a house rule in and of itself) then that houserule is broken and it requires another houserule to fix it (ie: Covent's solution was to allow crafting but at full price instead of at cost).

I do not houserule crafting. I use it as both the rules and the FAQ state. Ie: That no player may financially benefit from the crafter's crafting feat. This is as per the FAQ.

That FAQ and rule, while sound mechanically, creates a roleplay inconsistency which is: if Player A asks Player B to craft for him a +1 sword, where does the extra 1,000gp go? My answer: donate it, buy a house, anything that is not WBL. Does it solve the RP reason? Not to everyone's satisfaction.

However, as an alternate houserule to maintain RP consistency you could state that due to the vagaries of magic, nobody may use a worn or wielded magic item that was specifically designed for the creator of that magic item. A magic item that was not made for anyone to use (ie: half price) requires upgrading to being able to be used for everyone (in other words: pay the difference).

Now, that is just an idea to satisfy those who want to follow the WBL FAQ and still have an adequate RP reason for following it.

Summary: Crafting is not broken if the rules are followed. However, if you follow the rules you may not like the RP issues it creates. Thus, you may have to figure out a way to deal with them.

- Gauss


Covent wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)

I do not understand why it hurts the martials more, could you please explain.

My only idea would be perhaps because it is more difficult for martials to craft due to the restrictions on master craftsman?

I am not trying to argue or be difficult I am honestly curious.

Because casters are less item dependent than martial classes. They don't need weapons and they have spells that can replace armor and shields. A +5 weapon makes a huge difference for a martial character(especially a monk or rogue). Plus, many magic items are simply replicating spells. A martial character is going to run into trouble later on without things like boots of flying. Additionally, the martial classes often need very specific weapons. There are 20+ weapons, yet a fighter only has weapon specialization for 1.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gauss wrote:

Magnuskn:

I did not state it was broken unless you houserule it. I stated that when a GM allows others to financially benefit from the crafter (which is a house rule in and of itself) then that houserule is broken and it requires another houserule to fix it (ie: Covent's solution was to allow crafting but at full price instead of at cost).

I do not houserule crafting. I use it as both the rules and the FAQ state. Ie: That no player may financially benefit from the crafter's crafting feat. This is as per the FAQ.

That FAQ and rule, while sound mechanically, creates a roleplay inconsistency which is: if Player A asks Player B to craft for him a +1 sword, where does the extra 1,000gp go? My answer: donate it, buy a house, anything that is not WBL. Does it solve the RP reason? Not to everyone's satisfaction.

However, as an alternate houserule to maintain RP consistency you could state that due to the vagaries of magic, nobody may use a worn or wielded magic item that was specifically designed for the creator of that magic item. A magic item that was not made for anyone to use (ie: half price) requires upgrading to being able to be used for everyone (in other words: pay the difference).

Now, that is just an idea to satisfy those who want to follow the WBL FAQ and still have an adequate RP reason for following it.

Summary: Crafting is not broken if the rules are followed. However, if you follow the rules you may not like the RP issues it creates. Thus, you may have to figure out a way to deal with them.

- Gauss

The inconsistency is in how the whole magic item crafting process is presented. There is no rule in-game which states in any shape or form that crafters cannot craft for their companions. As such, a highly arbitrary FAQ ruling was issued ( without any explanation as to why this should mechanically apply ), leaving GM's to either ignore it for their in-universe mechanical and flavor consistency or issue a just-as-arbitrary house-ruling that crafters can only craft for themselves, because of magical chakras, or some other stuff which is directly pulled from our collective behinds.

If crafting is supposed to only benefit the crafter, put it in the core rules.


Gauss wrote:


If I give out 20,000gp worth of treasure I see no reason that it should become 10,000gp of treasure. Then I have to give them another 10,000gp which becomes 5,000gp. Then I have to give them another 5,000gp which becomes another 2,500gp...... All in an effort to give them the 20,000gp I was trying to hand out to begin with. Either I just hand them a lump sum of gold equaling 20,000gp OR I use this houserule. My houserule is less realistic but at least I can give them shinys and not worry about whether or not they will like it and subsequently sell it.

- Gauss

This is the part I don't get, not that I ever gave the WBL table more than a passing glance when I ran my games (never any issues, old school GM)

You give out 20000 gp in treasure. What they do is their choice. If they penalize themselves, well, it's their decision.

Caveat 1: Useless magic items should be considered at 1/2 in the first place, or even 0. If the party has a paladin and the treasure is a +1 intelligent chaotic evil vampiric sword, it's even most likely to get sundered than sold.

Caveat 2: Items better sold than kept. In ROTRL, we got the +1 returning cold iron dagger. Trip to Magnimar, sold it, equipped the whole group. Realistically, no one was ever going to use it, even though anyone could. We figured it was better to use part to deck the fighter out in full plate with a cold iron bastard sword (his weapon of choice), have the alchemist make some potions, and upgrade the rest of the party. 1/2 price spread out was a better investment than the dagger.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Covent wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)

I do not understand why it hurts the martials more, could you please explain.

My only idea would be perhaps because it is more difficult for martials to craft due to the restrictions on master craftsman?

I am not trying to argue or be difficult I am honestly curious.

Because casters are less item dependent than martial classes. They don't need weapons and they have spells that can replace armor and shields. A +5 weapon makes a huge difference for a martial character(especially a monk or rogue). Plus, many magic items are simply replicating spells. A martial character is going to run into trouble later on without things like boots of flying. Additionally, the martial classes often need very specific weapons. There are 20+ weapons, yet a fighter only has weapon specialization for 1.

The thing is spells and buffs take TIME to apply and cost slots to do so. Overland Flight? that's one less fifth level spell for you. No Pearls of Power? those are slots that don't get reclaimed then. And there are very few spells that grant AC bonuses that will last for more than one combat.

Lots of assumptions go out the window when the 15 minute day is abolished.


Abolishing the 15 minute day is so fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

darkwarriorkarg:

WBL is one metric for player power. As most metrics in 3.5/PF it is not an absolute. But, when players have too much or too little the enemies they face will need to be adjusted up or down accordingly.

Back in 2nd edition and earlier a GM handed out treasure and the players were grateful. Then 3rd edition came along and married equipment levels to PC power levels. Tables were created that told a GM how much treasure per level a player should acquire and how much per encounter a player should acquire. It clearly rubs many people wrong but that is the design of the game now.

In 3.5/PF if the GM hands out treasure the players cannot or do not wish to use then the GM is, in effect, reducing their power because they must now sell that equipment for half value. Now the GM, has a choice. Does he balance out the loss to bring them back up to the games expected power levels or does he say tough and let the players suffer?

In 3.5/PF one Gold Piece is really another way of saying: one Equipment Power Point. Does this reduce the treasure aspect of the game to mere numbers? Yes. Is that a good thing? Probably not, but that IS the game we are playing. It is how the game has been designed since the year 2000.

Bringing them back up to power levels is a pain in the butt. Eventually you will come close. I for one, am tired of doing that. So from now on I will call a spade a spade and treat GP as they are currently used: equipment power points. Now, I can stop stressing over do I have to tone monsters down, bring them up, hand out less treasure, hand out more treasure etc. It just makes my job vastly simpler.

Note: I usually roll my dice in front of the players. If I rolled hidden dice I could use GM fudging to compensate for too much or too little treasure. But, I do not do that because if I get a run of 'good luck' via hidden dice that could look like I am out to kill the PCs.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there is a specific % of crafted items that will work for every group, and I think perhaps that is why the developers haven't ever thrown out specific numbers.

The problem is that wizards (and other full casters) become the characters most capable to break the game through PC choices. Crafting allows them to customize their equipment AND have more then other characters. However, there is no rule that you must craft items just for yourself, or that the items you craft be detrimental to game balance.

If a player is going to unbalance the game in favor of his own character, or a specific rules exploit, it is up to the GM to prevent that. If the player is going to help the group enjoy the game more with his crafting, it is up to the GM to facilitate that.

Note: The other problem with crafting is the Craft Wondrous Item feat being far more versatile then all the other crafting feats, and the Master Craftsman feat being so limited.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem I have with the current rate exchanges can be illustrated.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC for defeating the BBEG the following can happen:

Player 1 is wizard with craft wondrous items; this player can create the equivalent of 40k worth of items bought on the open market

Player 2 is a fighter with no craft feats; this player can either get the wizard to craft for him or he can buy 20k worth of items on the open market.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC in the form of 1 magic item the following can happen:

Player 1 is a wizard who can either use the item he looted or he can sale the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to create a new item worth 20k.

Player 2 is a fighter who can either use the item he looted or he can sell the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to get the wizard to craft for him or purchase on the open market something worth a retail value of 10k.

This creates a situation where uneven distribution of wealth across the PCs is pretty much a given unless the DM gives the PCs the level appropriate items for his/her class. Even then this has issues because the warrior classes are more gear dependent.

Whenever you have big discounts like this the possibility for arbitrage situations exists but not all the PC classes are equipped to take advantage of the crafting system equally.

I personally feel this is a bad design that has been accentuated in the shift to PF with the elimination of XP costs because now there really is no disincentive to craft whenever possible.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Yosarian wrote:

I really hate that kind of reasoning. It's just unfair to players who take crafting feats.

Take two wizards. One wizard takes a few crafting feats, the other instead takes a few feats to make their magic more effective instead (spell perfection, metamagic feats, whatever.) Which one is better off? It's tough to say; the second wizard is better and more flexible with his own magic, but the first wizard has more wands and toys to play with. They're probably pretty balanced.

Unless the DM then goes and deliberately unbalances the first wizard by giving him less gold for no reason. Then the second wizard without crafting feats is clearly better off; he just buys the stuff instead of making it with the extra gold the DM is giving him for no reason, and just ends up being more powerful.

If a player wants to use his feats/skills/traits to get more gold (crafting, professions, the traits that let you start with money), then that's fine. He then has less feats and skills and traits to use during the adventure, but that's balanced with the fact that he probably has slightly better equipment to compensate. If you take that away, then that's just unfairly treating one play-style worse then a different playstyle.

Hey, if you really don't want your players to be crafters, then just don't let them be crafters. Don't let them use their feats for that and then cripple them to a point where it does them no good.

Sorry this is so late... the dot on this thread vanished for a while.

Anyway, I disagree for a couple reasons. One: consumed consumables aren't part of WBL. You don't have them, so they don't count. I expect WBL to mean that when you hit 10th level, you have - at that moment - the wealth that a 10th level PC should have. I don't care if you've crafted a bunch of wands and used them. Good for you, good job. If you made 10kgp worth of wands and blew them out, I'll make sure you still hit WBL despite that expense.

My goal is to ensure that no player (or party) can end up at double WBL for the price of a feat. A wizard who spends his feats on metamagic gets more powerful magic. A wizard who crafts gets more magic. Sounds fair. But the second guy shouldn't end up with twice as much stuff.

I hope that clears things up.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

If the PCs keep everything they find they have twice the wealth of PCs that sell everything?

Maybe technically, but then you realize they have NO USE for a lot of that and so technically have more wealth but practically have a lot less.

Or are you trying to assume they can use everything they have? In which case, you're saying you're going to go out of your way to screw PCs who got really lucky on the random loot tables?

Mechanically yes, players who keep stuff would end up with double wealth relative to those who sell everything. My point was that it's not fair. So people who sell things I top up the wealth to make sure they've got WBL. If a party doesn't ever sell things that are useless to them, well... that's suboptimal use of WBL but player choice. In practice it hasn't happened in any game I've played or been DM for.


LazarX wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Covent wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)

I do not understand why it hurts the martials more, could you please explain.

My only idea would be perhaps because it is more difficult for martials to craft due to the restrictions on master craftsman?

I am not trying to argue or be difficult I am honestly curious.

Because casters are less item dependent than martial classes. They don't need weapons and they have spells that can replace armor and shields. A +5 weapon makes a huge difference for a martial character(especially a monk or rogue). Plus, many magic items are simply replicating spells. A martial character is going to run into trouble later on without things like boots of flying. Additionally, the martial classes often need very specific weapons. There are 20+ weapons, yet a fighter only has weapon specialization for 1.

The thing is spells and buffs take TIME to apply and cost slots to do so. Overland Flight? that's one less fifth level spell for you. No Pearls of Power? those are slots that don't get reclaimed then. And there are very few spells that grant AC bonuses that will last for more than one combat.

Lots of assumptions go out the window when the 15 minute day is abolished.

Which is fine, but having overland flight or fly is better than being a Fighter who can never fly. Items take time too(generally standard action to activate). Granted, this can be solved by a GM simply giving those items to the players in loot tables when needed.

It won't solve the problem of the fighter who really needs a specific weapon or one of the several items that really benefit martial characters(most martials needs specific gloves, monk needs a few specific items, etc).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Gauss wrote:

3.5 Loyalist:

It was 3.0 that added magic item creation to the game. This was in response to what I think was people asking for rules to make magic items. How were magic items created? Why can a high level 2nd edition wizard not make them? Why was it always 'old lost knowledge' magic items? Why cant I make scrolls? Etc etc.

- Gauss

In fact i like more the method of crafting in 2.0. there were not "rules" per se, but crafting required a miniquest for it.

Want a cloak of protection against fire? sure, go recolect silk from fire worms.

Cool idea. A legendary journey. Less, I've got the feat and the gold, you must let me craft it, and more this is important and needs a quest.

It does not have to be legndary, even small quest works.


Worst split I've seen. Two pc game, one dm. One pc wanted to be the crafting merchant in kingmaker, another wanted to heroically save the region. *Groans*


vuron wrote:

The problem I have with the current rate exchanges can be illustrated.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC for defeating the BBEG the following can happen:

Player 1 is wizard with craft wondrous items; this player can create the equivalent of 40k worth of items bought on the open market

It'll only take the GM giving him 40 peaceful days in town or 80 days on the road to accomplish this...

vuron wrote:

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC in the form of 1 magic item the following can happen:

Player 1 is a wizard who can either use the item he looted or he can sale the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to create a new item worth 20k.

Also only if the GM allows 20 days worth of peaceful crafting or 40 days of crafting on the road.

vuron wrote:
because now there really is no disincentive to craft whenever possible.

except that its only 1000gp worth of progress a day and the gm is free to limit how much downtime the party experiences without the world intruding upon them.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tennengar wrote:

Shopkeep! I wish to sell my ring! It appears to be what is referred to as a 'One ring'. The inscription says that its magical effect is to 'rule them all'...

It's a used magic item?

I presume so. There was some finger chopping involved in its aquisition...

What's this part here about the 'and in the darkness bind them?'

Yes I'm afraid it doesnt read 'and in the darkness bind them if you know. you feel like it' so I presume that part's not optional... I know. What can ya do right? Thems the rules.

Well i like the idea of ruling them all and i've got nothing against binding them in darkness either... But man... Its just used... I'm afraid I can't give ya full price for something like that.

PC: "Shopkeeper, I have this magic ring to sell, it give better protection against attacks [deflection +1] and it is worth 2.000 gp."

Shopkeeper: "I will pay 1.000 gp for it."

PC: "No, it is worth 2.000 gp. I want at least 1.800."

Shopkeeper: "Hear me boy, you have 2 options if you want to sell it: you take 1.000 gp now or you leave the ring to me to sell on commission. I will take only a 10% commission on the sale price and give you the 1.800 gp you want. Your problem is that it could take months before I sell your ring. If in the meantime someone come and sell to me the same kind of ring for 1.000 gp your ring will go on the back shelf and mine will be sell first.
So what you prefer, 1.000 gp now or 1.800 in a few months?"

That is what should happen.

If the PC want to sell at full price he would have to pen a shop or find a buyer that want exactly that item.
The shop owner is gambling that he will be capable to sell that +3 sword you want to unload to him fast enough to make it a worthwhile investment.
It isn't a granted thing.
The local captain of the guard could want to buy a +1 weapon and he could have enough money. The local king can chose to equip a special unit with magical weapons. But that are rare occasions and permanent magic items last forever.
A shopkeeper would be much more interested in a wand or a scroll with a useful spell in it that a +5 holy avenger that he will have big troubles selling. Paying half price up front for something that will stay unsold on my shelves for years is a big investment.

A crafter can make money crafting stuff, but he need to open a shop or spread the word around that he is willing to craft on commission and take orders. He can't craft something because "it is easy to craft" and "it cost exactly a multiple of 1.000 gp, so I would use my day in the most efficient way." he will have to produce what the market want.

I am GM a Kingmaker campaign and that is exactly what the players are doing with the abundant downtime, opening a shop or some other activity and making money with it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Covent wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
While I understand your reasoning. This is going to hurt martial classes more than casters(whcih is ironic, as the casters are the ones who can craft)

I do not understand why it hurts the martials more, could you please explain.

My only idea would be perhaps because it is more difficult for martials to craft due to the restrictions on master craftsman?

I am not trying to argue or be difficult I am honestly curious.

Because casters are less item dependent than martial classes. They don't need weapons and they have spells that can replace armor and shields. A +5 weapon makes a huge difference for a martial character(especially a monk or rogue). Plus, many magic items are simply replicating spells. A martial character is going to run into trouble later on without things like boots of flying. Additionally, the martial classes often need very specific weapons. There are 20+ weapons, yet a fighter only has weapon specialization for 1.

The usual, wonderful, caster that now, without magic items, can use his magic for defence, offence and solving problems all at the same time without ever suffering from lack of the right spell. [roll eyes]

A fighter without magical equipment is still capable to dish out a reasonable amount of damage for a long time and is capable to fight both at long range and hand to hand.
A wizard without magical equipment will use half of his spells to get a reasonable AC for a few minutes, use his offensive spells in 2 fights at most and then use his reliable crossbow as his attack option. Terrific.


Diego I like your solution not only for the fact that you're leaving the option open for the character to make a profit, which is more generous than some others on the forum, and also because it introduces the notion of a conversational dynamic which some people will really enjoy.

Of course if your players *don't* really enjoy the dynamic but still want to turn a profit I like to have a mechanic in place that doesnt get in the way of the fun instead of just outright denying them profits. Diplomacy rolls to barter the cost up and down... Splitting the profits (selling for 75% of sale price).

We see in the RAW that a city's spending limit means places like sandpoint (800gp limit) means that if you're trying to find something worth 800gp theres a 75% chance you'll have no trouble finding it for that market price.

Although in the strictest sense it is not inherently logical that the opposite is true, our table tends to use the same philosophy in the other direction... In a town like sandpoint you should have a 75% chance of finding a buyer for your 800gp item and maybe losing a diplomacy roll would mean you take a hit on market price. Of course as the seller you're fully entitled not to take the lower negotiated price. All you have to do is wait a week and try your 75% chance to find another buyer roll and hope for better luck next week.

The way we handle it means the town limit is a 'sales limit' as well. You will never find anyone in sandpoint who has enough cash to throw around to buy an item worth even 1000gp. So that +1 horsechopper you found won't be sellable unless you take it to a town with better spending limits ('resources'). Or you're willing to part with it for 800gp the town can afford instead of the 1000 that its worth... ^_^

The point is to have at least some mechanic in place (i wont say 'thats fair' since some peoples idea of fair is somewhat stalinist) that allows for the possibility of profit where (again in my interpretation of RAW) it is due.

Hats off to you for at least being mindful of the possibilities!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Anguish wrote:
Anyway, I disagree for a couple reasons. One: consumed consumables aren't part of WBL. You don't have them, so they don't count. I expect WBL to mean that when you hit 10th level, you have - at that moment - the wealth that a 10th level PC should have. I don't care if you've crafted a bunch of wands and used them. Good for you, good job. If you made 10kgp worth of wands and blew them out, I'll make sure you still hit WBL despite that expense.

I always find interesting when a GM say that he will keep the WBL of all players on par regardless of how they use their wealth.

So if I (the player) quaff before every battle a potions of Shield of faith +5 a potion of extended Bull strength, a potion of flight, a potion of magic circle against evil (against those pesky evil wizard that try to dominate me [oh wait, they can be lawful, chaotic or good, better quaffing the potions for the other 3 alignments]) and so on, consuming several thousand gp of potions to get better AC, saves and special abilities than a guy using permanent items, I will get rewarded by finding enough stuff to replace what I consumed while the guy with the permanent items will find a masterwork dagger?

I know, it is an exaggerated example, but managing the WBL that way seem to benefit the guy that use consumable above the guy that use permanent items.
A permanent item capable to cast a cure spell 3 times a day cost several thousand gp, for the same sum it is possible to buy a lot of potions of cure light wound. If the potions are constantly replenished using them is much more convenient than buying the permanent item.


tennengar wrote:
vuron wrote:

The problem I have with the current rate exchanges can be illustrated.

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC for defeating the BBEG the following can happen:

Player 1 is wizard with craft wondrous items; this player can create the equivalent of 40k worth of items bought on the open market

It'll only take the GM giving him 40 peaceful days in town or 80 days on the road to accomplish this...

vuron wrote:

If I give the PCs 20k gp a PC in the form of 1 magic item the following can happen:

Player 1 is a wizard who can either use the item he looted or he can sale the 20k item for 10k and use the cash to create a new item worth 20k.

Also only if the GM allows 20 days worth of peaceful crafting or 40 days of crafting on the road.

vuron wrote:
because now there really is no disincentive to craft whenever possible.
except that its only 1000gp worth of progress a day and the gm is free to limit how much downtime the party experiences without the world intruding upon them.

In my campaigns we generally get a fair amount of downtime. Our characters are freelancers who take jobs when they want. I don't consider this is a good argument when the specifics of the campaign are going to vary greatly.


I think it comes down to this.
Largely this argument is about 'control' of the economy.
City spending limits are already in place for this purpose.
The adventurer having to save up his pennies to craft is already in place for this purpose.
The idea that you can fail a craft roll so bad that it destroys your investment is a built in (if infrequent) money sink already in place for this purpose.
The idea that one can make a profit is a valid interpretation of RAW even if PFS doesnt let you.
There are players who want to be crafters and have the expectation that profit is possible... This is who they want to be. What they want to play. And is a valid playstyle.
The most powerful wizard ever in the most affluent town on the planet still cant make more than 500gp per day crafting no matter what he's making.
He can only make this if you give him a day where he's got nothing better to do, so you still have all the 'control'.

If a player who has
- wasted a feat on crafting
- saved up his pennies
- risked losing them to a failed crafting check
- truly enjoys crafting and wants to craft for himself, his friends, and for profit
- a maximum possible profit of 500gp per day no matter how powerful they are
- only the ability to make items if you give them enough time to do it
- clearly is aware of all of these roadblocks and still...
- ....wants to do it... and your only reason for not letting him is 'its too powerful?'

If making 500gp per day crafting is enough to 'break your campaign' then it's probably already broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jhidurievdrioshka:

Because you can take 10 on crafting PCs should just about never fail a craft roll unless they are trying to craft something with a very very high DC (usually due to skipping prerequisites and accelerated crafting).

- Gauss


Thats why I said 'if infrequent'

The idea that the GM still controls your downtime and your starting capital makes them 'hard controls' that outweighs any possible roadblock that the 'soft control' of a crafting failure could possibly present.

The idea that a GM would want to throw in one more almighty roadblock to profit thats titled 'because I said so' seems to indicate a fear of losing control in a world where they have all the power.


Maybe i should start a thread titled 'In a world entirely controlled by you, just exactly which magic items are you worried that your players are going to have the time and money to craft'


With create greater demiplane most of the time issues associated with crafting can be safely avoided.

A scroll of Create Greater Demiplane is 3825 gp + 500 gp for the focus which shouldn't be that ridiculous to find. Scroll of permanency is 1125 gp + 22,500 gp for the permanent effect.

Granted this isn't something that is going to come into the average campaign until roughly mid-level unless the PCs save for the scrolls as a group but once you can develop a secure demiplane for crafting most of your "I need to downtime to craft this new item" pretty much go away if you set the time to 1 day per 1 round of real time.

Set up the minor positive energy trait as well and you also never have to worry about spending money on wands of CLW as the accelerate time fast healing will basically restore your body to it's pristine shape.

Not to mention casters basically can go Nova every encounter.

All it really takes is having the ability to cast plane shift which clerics get at 9th level.

Honestly it's kinda surprising that all high level casters don't have their own person demiplane to abuse the rules.


If you're spending 26000 to even have the ability to craft?
26000gp before spending a dime on your crafting materials...?
And the idea that you'll get the x14400 time scroll is what?
10 percent? I don't see anywhere where you can choose which form of erratic time you get.
It also doesnt explicitly state that the caster would be able to detect what kind of time he gets.
So say you make it permanent and its the wrong kind of time...
I mean you'd have to leave it to test it, which unless you make it permanent first makes it go away...
And if its wrong?
Time to go buy 26000 more in scrolls i guess.
Lets say we got lucky and got it right the first time.
If we spend another 26000 in materials we'll make a maximum profit of the 26000 that it cost to come in here in the first place?

DM's are afraid of this?


Ah I see. once its permanent if the time is wrong all you'd have to do is apply another casting of the greater demiplane and see if the new erratic time is better than before... so only 4200ish per attempt. average of 5 attempts to succeed.

All told about a 46000gp investment to create your crafter haven...

Then any crafting you want to make can be done in 1:14400th time as long as youve got the initial capital? Yeah. You could make 7.2 million gold in a day with that...

Thats definitely something to be afraid of... Then again, which part of that equation is more broken?

Why undo all those crafting rules when all you really have to do is make it so the time options on the demiplane don't exist... Much easier answer that doesnt break crafting, and definitely an understandable GM-grade houserule to specifically quench an obtuse munchkining...


Jhidurievdrioshka: I missed the 'if infrequent' part. :)

Vuron: Greater Create Demiplane does not create erratic time. Its fast time is limited to x2. It requires TWO castings of Greater Create Demiplane to do this.

With Plane Shift on the other hand you can find a fast time plane. It may not be safe but at least you can get there reliably (once you find it).

- Gauss


Gotta admit anything that messes with time on a 14400 to 1 ratio seems a little broken to me. Who needs that kinda time. 1 day of real time gets you 40 years in the pandimensional happy hovel? why would anyone bother coming back once they had a place like that... Even the rather tame 24 to 1 seems inappropriate for any purpose...

If the create greater demiplane spell didn't exist and I went up to my GM and said I'd like to use a wish spell to give me a private pandimensional residence where 40 years is as a day I don't think they'd approve the wish...


Vuron is right though... according to the PRD

Time: By default, time passes at the normal rate in your demiplane. By selecting this feature, you may make your plane have the erratic time, flowing time (half or double normal time), or timeless trait...

So you really could make a crazy supertime crafting pocket. It wouldnt be cheap but it would be 'relatively cheap' compared to the profit it produces... If this is why gm's are so against crafting then I say fix the time problem more than fix the crafting problem...

Messing with time is too much power. To say a spell is more powerful than wish is saying something.


Yeah erratic time is ridiculously broken especially since the GM guide random chart is "an example" so it could be argued that you can set your erratic time when you create the plane.

Honestly I don't care for time differential shenanigans, I didn't like them in 1e and I don't like the in PF so I would definitely caution GMs from incorporating the time trait into their planar designs even in a divinely morphic realm because the potential for gamebreaking shenanigans is too great.

At least Create Greater Demiplane is a 9th level spell so you can't abuse Efreet binding.


vuron wrote:

With create greater demiplane most of the time issues associated with crafting can be safely avoided.

A scroll of Create Greater Demiplane is 3825 gp + 500 gp for the focus which shouldn't be that ridiculous to find. Scroll of permanency is 1125 gp + 22,500 gp for the permanent effect.

Granted this isn't something that is going to come into the average campaign until roughly mid-level unless the PCs save for the scrolls as a group but once you can develop a secure demiplane for crafting most of your "I need to downtime to craft this new item" pretty much go away if you set the time to 1 day per 1 round of real time.

Set up the minor positive energy trait as well and you also never have to worry about spending money on wands of CLW as the accelerate time fast healing will basically restore your body to it's pristine shape.

Not to mention casters basically can go Nova every encounter.

All it really takes is having the ability to cast plane shift which clerics get at 9th level.

Honestly it's kinda surprising that all high level casters don't have their own person demiplane to abuse the rules.

This won't work. You can at most slow time by half. It sounds like the problem is you aren't reading the rules correctly.


Jhidurievdrioshka wrote:

Thats why I said 'if infrequent'

The idea that the GM still controls your downtime and your starting capital makes them 'hard controls' that outweighs any possible roadblock that the 'soft control' of a crafting failure could possibly present.

The idea that a GM would want to throw in one more almighty roadblock to profit thats titled 'because I said so' seems to indicate a fear of losing control in a world where they have all the power.

What if I play in a campaign where there is lots of downtime? I don't think its fair to expect the GM to rewrite the campaign because somoene took 1 feat.


If you hate the players having so much money, the town could be flooded with magical items and not buying. Maybe the town ran out of money because they are selling so much stuff. Maybe the town ran out of the magic ju-ju used to make magical items that the players need to craft them. I have a rule where the players have to tell me what they are crafting - to make sure they do not cheat and that magical items do not appear in game without my knowledge. I also am pretty strict about creation time.

As a GM, I would not allow the 'different planes that flow at different speeds (time), so your crafting time is hurried' b$77@%!t.


johnlocke90 wrote:


This won't work. You can at most slow time by half. It sounds like the problem is you aren't reading the rules correctly.

You can also give it the erratic time setting which allows for 1 round = 1 day settings.


vuron wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


This won't work. You can at most slow time by half. It sounds like the problem is you aren't reading the rules correctly.

You can also give it the erratic time setting which allows for 1 round = 1 day settings.

Well an erratic plane changes. Although I suppose with high level divination magic you could figure out the rate of time relative to the material plane.


johnlocke90 wrote:
vuron wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:


This won't work. You can at most slow time by half. It sounds like the problem is you aren't reading the rules correctly.

You can also give it the erratic time setting which allows for 1 round = 1 day settings.
Well an erratic plane changes. Although I suppose with high level divination magic you could figure out the rate of time relative to the material plane.

There is really no indication that the time relative to the prime material time changes once set within the gamemaster guide.

While a variable time demiplane might be interesting it seems most people either set the time once. Being that the time traits can actually be set by the the demiplane creator it can reasonably be conjectured that the actual time setting on a plane with erratic time can be set and that the random chart represents a method of determining randomly selected planes might function vis-a-vis the prime material.

It's not like planes with dramatically different flows of time aren't common in literature (think something like Rip Van Winkle) or even D&D (1e astral plane for instance).

Honestly it's unlikely to come up in most games because variable time breaks more than just crafting and most GMs are going to come down hard on the time trait but it definitely is something to be aware of.


Mapleswitch: Is it really that unreasonable that a level 17 spellcaster creates a fast time demiplane?

- Gauss

101 to 150 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How Much Wealth Should Be Crafted? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.