@Tacticslion
Your argument sum up to: "the crafter is spending time off stage so his time is worth nothing".
Great reason to avoid the crafting feats like the plague.
... wow. Way to completely misread my argument in its entirety, Diego. That's... really a hard stretch to make.
My arguments sum up to: "If the other characters die, it's worse for the crafter, thus it's in the crafter's best interest to craft for the rest of the party.
EDIT: also, how on earth is your (improperly) summed argument invalid, in the face of:
This way the penniless bard with a great charisma can write an epic on a faith hero. Pricing that can be done on the basis of the earning from profession and perform check, possibly with some synergy between the two. It will require a lot of time to pay the church, but it could be done "off stage" from the main game, with the bard working at his poem in his free time.
?
They shouldn't get a share of the experience / treasure from an adventure they weren't on.and I actually agree with that, but the example was my counter to a point that was made earlier, which was that it was inconsiderate or greedy to charge party members to craft for the party, because the crafter benefits from the rest of the party having better gear.
Therefore, my counter argument was that if the craft is stuck crafting while the rest of the party is out leveling and gathering loot, which they aren't going to share with the crafter, then the crafter should be compensated for their services. It's not fair to force the crafter to craft loot for the party while the rest of the party gains experience and loot and then argue that they shouldn't have to compensate the crafter for the lost opportunity that he gave up to make loot for others.
See, to me that doesn't really make much sense. I know, I know the crafter doesn't get the XP for the stuff he wasn't there for... but that's just asking for an XP differential.
I think the other group was kind of being jerks in demanding things. There are certain elements that you handwave for the sake of fun for everyone. Having the player of a crafter sit out an adventure (thus penalizing him while others have fun), cost him money (thus penalizing him while others gain benefits), and not gain XP (thus penalizing him while others have fun and gain benefits) means that Crafting is a poor choice for anyone, and not fun.
When we have downtime, we have downtime. As a GM I don't force people to continue crafting while others go adventuring. You can even craft while you're adventuring! I also allow them to stop a project and 'come back to it later', if need be, and so far all the GMs I've ever played under have as well.
Otherwise, that's rather onerous. I can see why there'd be an upcharge and/or balance problems in others' games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To recap, for those who didn't follow "that other thread," the basic question is whether characters with Crafting feats should craft for other party members at cost. One side says that it increases the effectiveness of the whole party and thus benefits the crafter who would be selfish to charge his friends for gear; the other says (I think) it's unfair for anyone other than the crafter to benefit from the feat he chose and while he's crafting the rest of the party is out having fun so he should take a page from the Little Red Hen. ;D
I thought this post by Weirdo was germane:
The WBL FAQ is to prevent non-crafters from benefiting from the crafter's feats. Prior to that FAQ a crafter's fellow PCs could tell the crafter to craft for them. Thus benefiting the party with a bonus feat that they did not earn, do not have, and should not have.
Crafting is INTENDED to increase the power of the crafter's magic items relative to the rest of the party. After all, he spent a feat on it didn't he? They did not.
This line of thought feels really weird to me. Crafting feats are not the only scenario in which the character taking the feat is not the only character who directly benefits. Fearless Aura, Lucky Halfling, and Bodyguard all benefit allies without benefiting the feat holder at all. In Harm's Way actually benefits allies at the expense of the feat holder, and the Intimidate form of Antagonize may have a similar effect. The argument that Craft feats shouldn't benefit party members who haven't taken the feat doesn't hold water given that there are non-Crafting feats that do exactly that.
Crafters should be allowed to benefit their party members by making cheap items. Parties should be able to sort out for themselves whether it actually makes sense for the crafter to make cheap items for other members, just like parties currently sort out for themselves where the money for healing items (or that 5K diamond) is coming from.
Joana, Weirdo's post is a direct and meaningful rebuttal of the concept that crafters should benefit and other party members should not just because the crafter took a feat.
Besides the argument that a very large percentage of feats benefit other party members directly (some at the expense of the feat taker themselves) there is also the argument that virtually every feat benefits other party members indirectly by making the feat taker more survivable, more powerful or more versatile.
My other problem with this whole crafter argument is that it boils down to some of the most egregious meta-gaming I've ever seen in the game. I am a role player. If my character has an ability, what he does with that ability will be based on what his own ambitions, desires and moral compass are, not on what some messageboard says he should do with that ability. So if my character is able to make magic weapons, how he dispenses the magic weapons he makes is entirely up to him, unless there is some mechanical restriction.
I doubt there will ever be agreement on this subject though. People have invested too much emotion in their own interpretation of how it should work.
|
@Tacticslion
Your argument sum up to: "the crafter is spending time off stage so his time is worth nothing".
Great reason to avoid the crafting feats like the plague.... wow. Way to completely misread my argument in its entirety, Diego. That's... really a hard stretch to make.
My arguments sum up to: "If the other characters die, it's worse for the crafter, thus it's in the crafter's best interest to craft for the rest of the party.
EDIT: also, how on earth is your (improperly) summed argument invalid, in the face of:
This way the penniless bard with a great charisma can write an epic on a faith hero. Pricing that can be done on the basis of the earning from profession and perform check, possibly with some synergy between the two. It will require a lot of time to pay the church, but it could be done "off stage" from the main game, with the bard working at his poem in his free time.?
Perfect post to make it incomprehensible to all people not involved in that discussion.
For those interested the posts are here (the face clasping a few hands at the Mayor party is equivalent to working a couple of weeks on the fighter sword), here (it work only if you live as a commune and share everything), here (no, no, 2 hours of work of the others guys are worth as much as a few weeks of work for the enchanter), and here (Your argument sum up to: "the crafter is spending time off stage so his time is worth nothing").The totally unrelated post, about paying a raise dead to the church with alternate methods is here and the bard paying with his profession earning crafts will take forever to pay for that unless his skill is very high.
|
|
the other says (I think) it's unfair for anyone other than the crafter to benefit from the feat he chose and while he's crafting the rest of the party is out having fun so he should take a page from the Little Red Hen. ;D
No. The other party position is that it is unfair to ask to the crafter to work 8 hour a day for weeks of downtime for other characters while the other characters are spending at most a few hours of that time for group related matters.
The face shaking hands with the right people will do that a few evening and in a way more pleasant environment than a crafting shop;
the ranger going to buy provisions, mounts and maps for the next expedition will be spending at most a few days;
the rogue going out to do his roguish things .... they share that with the party?
the only guy spending the same amount of time is the one crafting mundane equipment at the forge or alchemical lab, i.e. another crafter, even if not one making magic items.
Tactilson position is that all even out, but it has accurately refrained from explaining why 8 hours of work is the equivalent of 2 or 0.
Diego, you're completely misrepresenting my arguments and posts.
Also, unlike you insinuated, I linked to the other thread (in the OP): people are fully capable of checking out and looking for themselves (in fact I kind of expected them to). Mostly this thread was created quickly in an attempt to end the derail of the other one (thus the title, "from that other thread"), because no one else was doing so, despite several people (myself included) asking that it be brought elsewhere.
The reason I quoted your other post (about raise dead) is because it's entirely relevant:
In one you say that my argument is that off-screen work time is "worth nothing" and imply that it's a weak position to have. In the other, you directly advocated off-screen work time. Either off-screen work time is valuable, or it isn't. Take your pick, but you can't have both.
You're also being disingenuous with my points. If you want, I can do that to.
"The crafter, tooling around in his garage, has it far easier than the face who has to cater and bend over backwards to play to various NPCs. At least the crafter doesn't have to suck up to people."
See? Totally disingenuous. It gives the wrong impression and everything!
Some characters like crafting and spending time alone. Some don't.
Some characters like going out, dealing with people, and spending lots of time in the company of others. Some don't.
You can't say, "You're not playing your character, ergo you're metagaming." because you don't even know what my character(s) (not to mention those of the people I've played with) prefer.
As I've said in many other threads, "to each their own." I also noted, "My groups have always done it this way, and I'm thankful." because, frankly, it eliminates many potential arguments and frustrations that others who were espousing your view came up with when dealing with crafters (making crafters more powerful by proxy, causing inter-party strife, etc).
the only guy spending the same amount of time is the one crafting mundane equipment at the forge or alchemical lab, i.e. another crafter, even if not one making magic items
This is also very wrong, at least in our games. Usually everyone has some sort of mundane crafting (EDIT: or other labor/profession/perform) they can (and usually do) work at.
And yeah, the rogue actually shares with the party. Strange how people who absolutely rely on each other to stay alive each day out there are willing to give a little to get a lot, isn't it?
Tactilson position is that all even out, but it has accurately refrained from explaining why 8 hours of work is the equivalent of 2 or 0.
No, I haven't. Thanks for trying to attack my character, though, since you don't seem interested in directly tackling points in this discussion.
I've explained before: everyone has stuff they do. Everyone.
Some people do unskilled labor. Some people do skilled labor. Some people craft mundane stuff. Some people craft magic stuff. Some people rogue-it-up. Some people do face-type things. Some people cast magic. Some people provide other services.
How much time a particular project takes is of no particular consequence, because there are always other projects.
So one person's job takes a total of two hours? Hey, suddenly they do the job four times. Done.
Diego, please stop arguing this same point. I'm actually rather annoyed with you right now (honestly, I seriously am), because you're not making good arguments, but rather nit-picking and attacking word choices that we've long since gone beyond in conversation. You're highly capable of making good, reasonable arguments. These are not those, these are arguments made to discredit others.
EDIT: kind of ninja'd by Cheeseweasel. (But we do things in-character anyway.)
EDIT2: mistyped. I do that sometimes. Also reducing the aggression. My bad. :)
|
|
Your system work only if you play a commune. Every character give based on his abilities and every character take based on his needs.
How many character concepts are you edging out with that approach?
And no, spending my off screen time to pay a personal debt isn't the same thing as spending my off screen time working for the group. Again your version work only if you share everything.
My characters have a private life, they don't live and breath for the party only.
You can be as annoyed as you wish, but that is exactly how i read your posts.
And:
Really the rogue is sharing his troubles for his roguish activities? Or he is never noticed?
You may read them how you wish, but you're reading them improperly.
You asked (repeatedly) how eight hours of work compares to two hours. You asked what the other party members were doing. I threw out a few examples, and you jumped all over them and went, "No, that's not the same amount of work!"
So I added more examples, "but not everyone plays that way!"
So I added more examples, "but none of that on it's own is eight hours!" (completely missing the large amounts of time that things can take, and ignoring the first example).
There's got to be a point, Diego, when you need to realize that "people doing stuff" applies to a large amount of activities, and that stuff they do can be valuable for the group at large, and it can even out in terms of work time. Hey, it's done so for us.
And not "everything" is a commune all the time. And, uh, thanks for letting me know that our system hasn't worked for us, we really didn't know that before, what with usually being successful and all.
Obviously, as I've said, "in our group", so, you know, it doesn't have to apply to yours.
Some rogues aren't going to be generous. No surprise, really. Some bards are going to be lazy. Also no surprise. Some barbarians won't be able to get a job. Still no shock. But strangely, that's never actually harmed our group dynamic, and somehow (whether it's going out hunting, gathering berries, working on products to sell, shilling a crowd, using craft, profession, or perform skills, or just plain untrained labor) all of us have managed to contribute to the party during down time, make ourselves valuable to a community, and usually end up with gold left over to give to the community making us even more valuable.
Yet you take all that and sum it up as me saying, "The off-screen time isn't valuable." That's... really annoying, and clearly they're not the same things.
The short version. There is a pool. From that pool people give and take things to increase the value of the pool over all. That pool is meant to keep everyone alive. Each of the others gets to have their own funds and their own time as well. There is a certain amount of communalism, yes. That's because that communalism saves lives. It's not out of character, it's not metagame, it's complete practicality that people and creatures would want to invest in the thing that helps everyone survive better.
On the one hand, you've got a number of people saying, "Crafters are broken, they empower themselves first, they do things for themselves first, and during time-crunches, they are the only ones that benefit OR they get substantially more powerful by charging the group stuff."
My response was, "Not in our groups." I called it selfish because it seemed that way, compared to how we play. (Selfish =/= evil, by the way, but rather only an excess selfishness leads to evil.) Frankly, if someone's relying on my skills and talents to empower their skills and talents for the survival of us all, and I use those to increase myself instead, while simply expecting them to 'keep up'... that's kind of not a good idea on my part. Dumb, really. And if I charge them for it, it's not going to be a surprise to me if they say, "Why?" since we're all working just as hard.
It becomes even more of an issue (or it can, at least reading the other posts) if you charge stuff... either way, the crafter's WBL is increasing dramatically compared to the others, causing inter-party balance issues metagame.
Our solution just enables us to resolve any crafting conflict within game and without it.
If you want to go for a solution that, in fact, allows for interparty conflict, the crafter (of anything) to be marginalized or left alone, reduced in XP, wealthier than the others, or any of the other problems so-mentioned... okay. If that works for your groups and you have work-arounds (specified or not*)... that's great!
If you want, you can think of it like and adventuring group's charter.
For us, our party works together for the good of us all.
* I literally have never really thought about it until these threads. It was entirely in-character and entirely practical for said characters to function that way.
And no, spending my off screen time to pay a personal debt isn't the same thing as spending my off screen time working for the group.
And why not? What did the raise dead do for the group, but bring you back from the dead, so you could benefit the group. The reason it's a group in the first place is because you rely on each other and your unique skills to survive.
In one case they're not paying anything for a group benefit (having you back) and in the other case they're not paying anything for a group benefit (having more powerful stuff that let's them harm the bad guys). Either way it's an "off screen debt" that has to be paid for the purpose of benefiting an individual/group.
|
|
And not "everything" is a commune all the time. And, uh, thanks for letting me know that our system hasn't worked for us, we really didn't know that before, what with usually being successful and all.
Interesting, you accuse me of not reading your posts and then go and invent this.
I never said that your system don't work for your group. I said that it require to work as a commune.My experience is that if there is time the crafter get request for stuff, and stuff and other stuff as any character has something they want.
Rarely it work the other way.
Sure, the ranger can war train an horse. The crafter can buy one for 100 gp more than the untrained horse.
In the same period the magic crafter can upgrade the ranger weapon from +5 to +6.
After the ranger has trained a horse for each character there is little he can do, beside earning a few gold pieces working for other people.
The crafter is still upgrading magic items at a rate of 1.000 gp/day.
In your system the work of everyone is worth the same (even assuming they spend the same time, something that I still find doubtful) independently from what they do. If that isn't a commune I don't know what is it.
Maybe with "And, uh, thanks for letting me know that our system hasn't worked for us, " you mean the comment about "How many character concepts are you edging out with that approach?", so I would make a few examples of character concepts that your system is edging out:
- followers of Adabar and anyone following the prophecies of Druma;
- anyone wishing to develop a life outside the party when not adventuring;
- any character based on Han Solo.
Plenty of character can thrive in your system but it is not for all.
Yesterday I was leaning toward the "What do you mean you charge your friends?!" camp. Today, I am starting to see the other side of the argument.
All I can say is they need to fix crafting. Maybe create 'recipes' the way MORPGs do, and then if someone wants the crafter to make something, they have to get that recipe (pay oodles of money for it, or go on some epic quest, etc). Then the crafter can learn the recipe (and benefit form that in the future), and also derive experience from crafting a new recipe (which is a great payment in-and-of itself, since leveling pretty much IS the goal of the game).
The point someone made about "its like the whole party got a free feat" really hit home, and does make sense. Something is badly broken.
I think crafting arguments are almost as bad as paladin arguments.
The crafting rules are a mess. Among the things that are a mess are the insane amounts of time it takes to make some things, and the extreme difficulty and cost of attempting to reduce that time.
Especially since there are spells that can reproduce literally MONTHS of effort in six seconds.
All in the name of "balance" I suppose.
Still, in most games the extreme amounts of time spent crafting aren't a huge issue since they are "downtime" activities not "game time", and few players are actually so dedicated to full role playing that they think much about what their characters would do during lunch on day five of a long crafting effort.
Using the crafting rules as written, and role playing every single day of downtime, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a character would find it a bit of an imposition to make, say, +3 ethereal armor for a party member.
Especially if the party member the armor is being made for is spending their time gambling up a fortune or performing some professional job for pay.
My groups tend to do this downtime activity over email between sessions. On occasion we'll have a crafter who will bring some of these issues up. But it's rarely ever created any actual game play issues or hard feelings.
Something is badly broken.
Indeed. In fact as far as I am concerned there is almost nothing about magic item rules in Pathfinder that doesn't qualify as "badly broken".
First: sorry, I got frustrated. And aggressive! Myself, my baby, and most recently my wife have been sick and tired lately... leads to a short fuse. My apologies for that.
Second: I didn't invent anything.
And in our party fund, not all always give equally, and we don't put all our money in it. Those who are likely to benefit more from the fund are the ones who put more in. But unless someone really abuses it (something we've only had happen once... and it actually worked out really well in said game for story reasons, so no one was upset) I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain from either side of the screen.
That can be right if the whole group live as a commune and they share everything, but if you don't do that, exactly how working 8 hours for several days compare to going to the town banquet and shaking hands with the Mayor? Or spending a few hours going in town to buy the equipment for the next expedition?
And not "everything" is a commune all the time. And, uh, thanks for letting me know that our system hasn't worked for us, we really didn't know that before, what with usually being successful and all.
See that first part where I said we don't all put all our money it? See the second part where you said if the whole group lives as a commune and shares everything? See the part right below that where I again noted that we didn't do that? The clear corollary is that, since we didn't have everything in a commune, it couldn't have worked for us. Obviously that's not true. Ergo, you're letting us know that it only works if we do something that we don't do. Either we're living a miracle because it can't happen, or you're wrong, man.
I agreed that not all could do it. Read that post again, the one you quoted one line from. I noted that it doesn't work for all groups. See that part? Here, I'll quote the relevant line.
Some rogues aren't going to be generous. No surprise, really. Some bards are going to be lazy. Also no surprise. Some barbarians won't be able to get a job. Still no shock. But strangely, that's never actually harmed our group dynamic, and somehow (whether it's going out hunting, gathering berries, working on products to sell, shilling a crowd, using craft, profession, or perform skills, or just plain untrained labor) all of us have managed to contribute to the party during down time, make ourselves valuable to a community, and usually end up with gold left over to give to the community making us even more valuable.
See that?
But again, what you're saying is, "it obviously doesn't work since it can't work for any group" and what I'm saying is, "obviously it does work, in many cases".
Incidentally, any character based on Han Solo will, if they follow his arc, give up huge amounts of money/their own personal gain for the sake of their close-knit group of adventuring friends. (As is evidenced by the fact that he's still with the Rebellion in Empire Strikes Back, and by Return of the Jedi he still hasn't paid his debts that he's been trying to since A New Hope*)
It can work well for anyone who wishes to develop a life outside the party when not adventuring. I've said that it has in our campaigns, so that's a false argument. Perfect example: my king in Kingmaker. He's a king. A very busy one. He doesn't adventure much, personally, and is very busy creating a kingdom, but he sure does craft stuff for his loyal friends and comrades. "But Kingmaker's known to be a mage's paradise for crafting!" you might say. Okay, what about the four other long-term (home brew) campaigns that we've run that aren't Kingmaker in which I've had a crafter who was usually busy trying to integrate himself into a society, a city, or some other group outside of adventuring who still finds time to do this? Obviously it works for him. Obviously it doesn't work for everyone. But it can work in the generic situation you described.
Followers of Adabar are excluded why? They're not out to make gold, necessarily. They're out for civilization, law, and order. Plus, if it's part of a charter they'll definitely be up for it, as, you know, law.
Druma... sure, I'll roll with that, presuming they're profit-obsessed Prophets. Those guys don't make the best adventurers anyway (there are ways of making it work, but, eh, it's rare).
One out of four of your examples stuck... not bad, really, not bad.
The fact is, there's literally an infinite variety of players, GMs, and styles out there. I'm not saying it works for all of them, by any means (refer to my quote of myself above). But I am saying it works for many of them, and it resolves a huge number of disputes that arose on the other thread about the imbalance (for good or ill) that crafting creates, and it can be done in-character.
* I'm going with the new names to be clear. I still think of it as just "Star Wars" :)
I'll put my general thoughts on the current system magic item crafting down once more:
It's very obviously severely flawed, because it unbalances the system, no matter how you interpret the current rules.
The extent to which it is unbalancing depends highly on how easily an individual GM is able and willing to adjust his campaign. But the problems are numerous.
1.) Magic item crafting (MIC for purposes of this post, to not have to write it out so often ) makes it difficult to adhere to WBL, a balancing factor in the game which I personally think is still very underestimated.
2.) If left unchecked, a power oriented player using MIC can much easier make himself the dominant factor in a campaign, overshadowing other players and bringing strife to the group. Also, if one player character dominates, a lot of GMs will try to challenge that overpowered character, in the process unduly endangering his less powerful companions. That opens a whole other can of worms, with accusations of "grudge monsters" and other stuff a lot of GMs should be familiar with.
3.) Likewise, if spread around to the entire party, the power level of a party can fastly outstrip the expected challenge they should face at their level. This is less of a problem for experienced GMs in a homebrewn campaign, but it presents a problem for, say, GMs trying to run APs with the intended encounters, who are not content to let their players just steamroll everything for six modules.
4.) The only balancing factors for the MIC feats are the factors time and money influx, which the GM can control. But that control comes at a cost.
Shortening a campaign internally brings its own set of issues, in essence bringing about the "from 1 to 20 in six months" factor. I've heard less and less about GMs complaining about that in the last years, though, so newer players may simply never have experienced campaigns in which player characters spend a decade slowly leveling up and building up their legacy.
Controlling the money influx is once again less of an issue for homebrewn campaigns than for pre-written APs. But if the situation is of one player gaming the system by crafting mostly for himself and at a 75% market price for his companions, it is difficult for a GM to redirect the money influx specifically away from that player, at least in my experience.
5.) Lastly, MIC makes the fantasy economy under which the game have e even less verisimilitude. If you sell a "used" magic sword to a merchant, you get 50% market price. However, if you craft a "new" magic sword yourself and try to sell it, you get also only 50%? Huh?
In essence, the MIC feats are money making machines it is difficult to balance against. I personally find them in their current form highly disruptive to a smooth game experience and I think they MIC rules should be revised extensively, although a real adjustment can probably only happen with the next edition of Pathfinder.
A revised system should, IMO, turn off the money making aspect of MIC almost completely and focus on making the feats a tool for customization Since that would turn off the more, ah, power-gamey segment of the gaming population from taking the feats, it would result in the advantage of bringing back a bit of the randomness of aquiring magic items which was usual in former editions of the game (i.e. before player driven MIC was commonly available). It could look like this:
a.) Crafting price is 95% of the market price, allowing a slight but constant profit for magic item crafters. Essentially 50-100 gp/day, which still is, in terms of making money in the current fantasy settings, a very good deal, while not being as insanely good as the current 500-1000 gp/day. And of course one can sell newly crafted items at 100% market price, while used items are still going for 50%.
b.) MIC feats should be consolidated. Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Arms and Armor should stay their own feats, because they cover a variety of highly coveted items, but as for the rest, crafting scrolls, potions and wands should be turned into one feat, as should crafting staves, rods and rings.
c.) I'm still iffy on that part, but crafting times should probably be quickened. Since the profit motive is mostly gone, the whole process should also not make it difficult to get the desired customization done, also leaving crafting player characters more time to do other stuff than being the partys lab monkey.
Well, that is how I imagine a much better system would function, removing factors of possible inter-player friction and balance problems, while leaving player power to choose their own character equipment advancement intact. I know there are players who will say "I'd never take a crafting feat if it is like that!", but then again about those same players would say the same if another hyper-powerful feat was nerfed into being merely good.
|
|
Followers of Adabar are excluded why? They're not out to make gold, necessarily. They're out for civilization, law, and order. Plus, if it's part of a charter they'll definitely be up for it, as, you know, law.
You mean the guys that can't perform a healing without being paid [not for the party, but for the common people]? Adabar require his followers to always ask for a honest payment and never work for free.
- * -
So not all work done go in the common pool. At that point we return to square one.
How much work is the crafter doing against the work done by each of the other guys?
My experience is that the PC would always have some request for the crafter while there will be rarely requests for the other characters.
Your experience is different? The other characters devolve as many hours to the party benefit? Or it is that is simple to say "the crafter will work for 2 week enchanting X and Y and the ranger will buy the provisions for the next expedition [time required - a couple of days at most]."
Define "honest payment".
So not all work done go in the common pool. At that point we return to square one.
How much work is the crafter doing against all the work done by the other guys?
My experience is that the PC would always have some request for the crafter while there will be rarely requests for the other characters.
Your experience is different? The other characters devolve as many hours to the party benefit? Or it is that is simple to say "the crafter will work for 2 week enchanting X and Y and the ranger will buy the provisions for the next expedition [time required - a couple of days at most]."
No, we're not at "square one" at all.
"How much" is a strange question. You mean each and every time? Because, you know, life happens and it varies from time to time and game to game. Or do you mean over all? Because as I've explained, over all (and usually at the same time, but not always), there are multiple things a party can do. MULTIPLE things. If all else fails, untrained labor. It's piddling, it's small, but it's still doing work and still giving to the pool. So, yeah, hours are used in roughly equal measure, and people don't quibble whether it was eight hours or seven and a half.
The thing about your experience? It sounds presumptuous (and annoying). I don't think anyone in our groups was ever 'pushy' to any crafter. We pretty much accept what we get, enjoy and use it, and the crafter does stuff for the party.
The crafter also does stuff for himself, but usually that's the last priority, because his stuff is the least important to keep them all alive.
On the other hand, if there's vast amounts of time... who cares? It all depends on the character type.
|
|
Define "honest payment".
For a cleric of Adabar:
Spellcasting Caster level × spell level × 10 gpfor mundane healing:
"You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work." That divided for the number of working hours in a week (56 or so) and multiplied for the numbers of hours he is treating the patient.
and so on.
It is one of the basic assumption in Curse of the Crimson Throne second adventure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5.) Lastly, MIC makes the fantasy economy under which the game have e even less verisimilitude. If you sell a "used" magic sword to a merchant, you get 50% market price. However, if you craft a "new" magic sword yourself and try to sell it, you get also only 50%? Huh?
The reply for that is the usual one: you can open a shop and sell it for full price in a few months.
If we're being so rules-specific, then a cleric of Adabar sucks as an adventurer companion, because he charges for every fight.
Also, none of that includes costs for crafting stuff.
|
|
The thing about your experience? It sounds presumptuous (and annoying). I don't think anyone in our groups was ever 'pushy' to any crafter. We pretty much accept what we get, enjoy and use it, and the crafter does stuff for the party.
Citing my experience is annoying and presumptuous while citing yours is a example of fairness.
Perfect.The crafter also does stuff for himself, but usually that's the last priority, because his stuff is the least important to keep them all alive.
I don't think anyone in our groups was ever 'pushy' to any crafter.
Put side by side those phrases are enlightening.
I'd say just get rid of the feats if you assume most people are level 1 and 2 then you can just use the number of ranks in a relavent skill to determine what is craftable i.e with 5 ranks in craft weapons you can make magical ones as if you were a 5th level caster and use the crafting skill as the spell craft check.
Personally using this method i would set the item caster level as a minimum number of ranks required to be able to craft the item (a few items may need some adjustment for this but it should be ok in general).
As to crafting items to make money you need to ask youself who can afford to buy them at those prices? It's not like there is enough demand to be able to sell a +1 sword ever other day therefore you ould just fall back on the earning gold with skill checks rules.
Note: If you were to do this i would also advise greatly speeding up the mundain item crafting rules.
The thing about your experience? It sounds presumptuous (and annoying). I don't think anyone in our groups was ever 'pushy' to any crafter. We pretty much accept what we get, enjoy and use it, and the crafter does stuff for the party.Citing my experience is annoying and presumptuous while citing yours is a example of fairness.
Perfect.The crafter also does stuff for himself, but usually that's the last priority, because his stuff is the least important to keep them all alive.I don't think anyone in our groups was ever 'pushy' to any crafter.Put side by side those phrases are enlightening.
Sure is! No one forced anything on the caster! He did it because it made sense to keep them all alive!
Citing my experience is perfectly good, if you cite it in context and don't draw incorrect presumptions about it. If you'd at all said, "it doesn't sound fun" or "I don't see how" as opposed to "it can't work" and "it must be X".
That's why I said yours "sounds", not yours "is". I was not attempting to tell you "urdoinitrong", though I can see how it came off that way, for which I apologize honestly. I was explaining it from my perspective.
EDIT: also, to be clear, I find it strange that "honest payment" is only gold available by RAW, and it seems like it would cause all sorts of problems. That's a bizarre definition and a bad idea to my way of thinking. I would define "honest payment" as "payment of equal value relative to a standard create by the two people in advance", whether that's time, money, effort, or something else altogether. Two people working in concord can come to an understanding of what "honest" means between the two of them.
Cheeseweasel: I'll be glad to put it in spoilers, unless it directly relates to crafting. :)
(Technically, though, I did create this thread to continue that conversation, of which this is a part... ;P)
Reference craft as a skill... hm.
Interesting idea, but it sounds a little too easy, and there's quite a large number of ways of boosting skills subtly, so it might get broken quickly with high enough checks (if I understand what you're saying, which I might not). It might be workable, though I'd likely suggest both spellcraft and the other relevant craft skill.
Cheeseweasel, I don't think he's saying that craft staves, craft wands, and craft rings are all "the same thing", I think he'd require "craft ring", "craft wand", "craft stave", and "craft <insert item type here>" in order to craft the specific item type.
EDIT: You know what? I thought you were responding to Bertious when you typed maguskun's name in your post. Hahahahah... whoops. Totally my bad. :)
EDIT 2: really, to be clear, I just somehow missed the first line of your post (probably because I was distracted by a whiny baby at the time), but I left my above statement in just in case someone else read Berious' post and misunderstood. I don't think they would, but, hey, just in case (and sometimes, if they're distracted, it helps having it spelled out a bit more... at least it does for me on occasion!).
So... maguskun!
I'll put my general thoughts on the current system magic item crafting down once more:
It's very obviously severely flawed, because it unbalances the system, no matter how you interpret the current rules.
The extent to which it is unbalancing depends highly on how easily an individual GM is able and willing to adjust his campaign. But the problems are numerous.
See, again, I can see all the potential flawed places, and there are potential abuses, but if you poke holes in crafting the way you do, you need to turn an equally critical eye on, say, wizards, barbarians, and other super-classes in general.
It can be unbalancing, but you're pointing out one part in the midst of an entire system.
1.) Magic item crafting (MIC for purposes of this post, to not have to write it out so often ) makes it difficult to adhere to WBL, a balancing factor in the game which I personally think is still very underestimated.
WBL can increase a lot, but APs have an extra dose of money dropped in them already... if just run 'as is', the players already get more funds than 'normal', which mostly makes me question the WBL rather than the APs or the crafting system.
2.) If left unchecked, a power oriented player using MIC can much easier make himself the dominant factor in a campaign, overshadowing other players and bringing strife to the group. Also, if one player character dominates, a lot of GMs will try to challenge that overpowered character, in the process unduly endangering his less powerful companions. That opens a whole other can of worms, with accusations of "grudge monsters" and other stuff a lot of GMs should be familiar with.
"If left unchecked" is a pretty key statement here.
Equally valid problems compared to the crafting system and unbalancing are super-wizards (which I've played on accident before... sans crafting), AMBARBARIAN builds, and extremely focused diplomancers. Again, if you're going to poke the crafting rules, you've got to poke the other things, too.
3.) Likewise, if spread around to the entire party, the power level of a party can fastly outstrip the expected challenge they should face at their level. This is less of a problem for experienced GMs in a homebrewn campaign, but it presents a problem for, say, GMs trying to run APs with the intended encounters, who are not content to let their players just steamroll everything for six modules.
One thing to keep in mind, though, maguskun, is that a "CR" challenge... isn't a fair fight. It's stacked in favor of the PCs. I don't remember which developer said it recently, but that's pretty close to a quote from them. I'll see if I can find it unless someone beats me too it (please do!). :)
The other part of that, I'll get into below (dealing with funds and crafting time in an AP).
4.) The only balancing factors for the MIC feats are the factors time and money influx, which the GM can control. But that control comes at a cost.
Shortening a campaign internally brings its own set of issues, in essence bringing about the "from 1 to 20 in six months" factor. I've heard less and less about GMs complaining about that in the last years, though, so newer players may simply never have experienced campaigns in which player characters spend a decade slowly leveling up and building up their legacy.
Controlling the money influx is once again less of an issue for homebrewn campaigns than for pre-written APs. But if the situation is of one player gaming the system by crafting mostly for himself and at a 75% market price for his companions, it is difficult for a GM to redirect the money influx specifically away from that player, at least in my experience.
I can see both of your issues here, however the first really is a kind of legacy of the new gaming style that entered with 3.0. The amount of XP that it took to gain a level was remarkably small. PF actually adjusted away from that, to a point, by increasing the XP requirement for a "medium" track, but it's still part of the system. I think it's thirteen CR encounters to level? Something like that? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, please! Anyway, it means that a character isn't going to spend too terribly long at a single level, at least compared to the old style. That's what "slow XP progression" is for, though that only mildly mitigates things. Incidentally, I believe the slow XP progression also slows the wealth gain per encounter.
For the second, I went into that a bit above, but mostly mentioned I'd go into it here. So let's do so!
Outside of Kingmaker, the APs I've looked at and the information I've gotten on the AP's I haven't seems to indicate that there's little "relative" time for crafting. There aren't too terribly many points for a character to just sit and craft when there's big doins out there.
(DISCLAIMER: I've not run as many as I'd like, so far, and obviously GMing style brings great differences to how an AP is run.)
Now crafting "on the go" is an option, but it's incredibly inefficient in terms of getting things complete. Looking at a typical game taking about six months (the presumption of an AP subscription), and theoretically taking as long in-game (something that certain APs, such as Kingmaker, handily ignore, I admit) means that a character has, on average, I'm guestimating close to 540 hours craft time ()... presupposing the crafter used almost every day of their campaign time crafting. Most probably won't due to mitigating circumstances, but sure, that's possible (and I could be way off, I'm purely guestimating based on a completely 'average' idea of subscription presumes you're playing). Looking at the Magic Item Creation Rules, that means a grand total of (roughly) 67,500 gold worth of items (). Popping over to the wealth by level rules, presuming the PCs get up to about 15th level (some go higher, but I'm using the lower level range because it's the smallest maximum increment) we can see a given character is expected to have around 240,000 total. So, at most, a crafter can create about a third of their own total wealth-by-level at their highest level... at least given those presumptions.
Bear in mind, this analysis has made presumptions, and I admit that. But supposing a group has a subscription to the APs, and runs them, it seems to follow that they'd go through them at about a rate of once per month.
The really big "if" here, is if each entry in an AP is supposed to take a month in-game (or roughly even out to such). I already noted that some APs definitively don't run that way (Kingmaker being the "big" example), but, as I understand it, most kind of do, subject entirely to GM discretion and play style.
5.) Lastly, MIC makes the fantasy economy under which the game have e even less verisimilitude. If you sell a "used" magic sword to a merchant, you get 50% market price. However, if you craft a "new" magic sword yourself and try to sell it, you get also only 50%? Huh?
... this is pretty much exactly a balance factor against...
In essence, the MIC feats are money making machines it is difficult to balance against.
... so I'm not exactly understanding what your point is here. I admit I'm just not getting it. I'd love to hear it explained more, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you're making two complaints that are the opposite of each other. Please, please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you!
For the first one, I'd point to the fact that not everything is simulated perfectly, but it averages out over time. Basically Diego said it correctly above: open up a shop and sell it for full price when someone comes to buy it, once you're a "merchant". Of course, there are large expenses in buying and setting up a new shop, and there's the time issue to take into account as well.
For the second, if my presumptions are correct (and I admit that's a big "if") the money-making aspect isn't nearly as difficult as you've presented.
I personally find them in their current form highly disruptive to a smooth game experience and I think they MIC rules should be revised extensively, although a real adjustment can probably only happen with the next edition of Pathfinder.
While your experience is totally valid, we've really not run into too much of a problem with them ourselves. They can be abused, certainly, and I'm not denying that at all, but (again in my experience, and, from what I can tell from the boards, in the experience of many others) no more than any other large number of much-easier-to-attain 'loopholes' that various classes can use to completely dominate a game.
I agree that we're unlikely to see a substantial craft over-haul until PF 2nd.
A revised system should, IMO, turn off the money making aspect of MIC almost completely and focus on making the feats a tool for customization Since that would turn off the more, ah, power-gamey segment of the gaming population from taking the feats, it would result in the advantage of bringing back a bit of the randomness of aquiring magic items which was usual in former editions of the game (i.e. before player driven MIC was commonly available). It could look like this:
So, let's take a look!
I would like to note, however, that I, for one, enjoy the player-driven elements of crafting, and like how it plays out for us.
a.) Crafting price is 95% of the market price, allowing a slight but constant profit for magic item crafters. Essentially 50-100 gp/day, which still is, in terms of making money in the current fantasy settings, a very good deal, while not being as insanely good as the current 500-1000 gp/day. And of course one can sell newly crafted items at 100% market price, while used items are still going for 50%.
Ugh, no, please! 95%? No merchant in the world would turn around and sell stuff for 95% of the creation price. To me, that would kill verisimilitude in terms of active mercantilism. With the current rules, a double-the-cost mark up makes total sense: the original crafter gets paid, any exchanging-of-hands people get paid, and the merchant makes a profit. With a 95% cost, the actual merchants would need to be powerful wizards (or high level people who invested in crafting feats and still somehow survived long enough to get high level) just to be able to turn a minor profit. In which case... why not just go adventuring? It makes you more money much faster, and the merchant is obviously quite capable on their own.
I say this as both GM and as a player.
b.) MIC feats should be consolidated. Craft Wondrous Items and Craft Arms and Armor should stay their own feats, because they cover a variety of highly coveted items, but as for the rest, crafting scrolls, potions and wands should be turned into one feat, as should crafting staves, rods and rings.
I can see staves, rods, and wands being a thing (with a whole "magic stick" type theme.
I understand dropping wands into potions and scrolls ("crafting consumables") but I'd much rather see consumable wondrous items be dropped into the same category of potions and scrolls, and see the more aesthetically similar (and, to a point, more magically-similar) staves and wands be together (rods being present because... well, mostly it's just the "magic stick" phenomena).
Rings don't really work, I think, with staves at all. I could see them being brought (maybe) into the same category of rods, but you'd have to fluff it in a certain way. Perhaps something about creating "rounds" or "cricles" of magic or something about applying specific designs (which rods would have by virtue of being what they are, but staves, being much more varied, sometimes 'naturalistic' in individual appearances might be separated from) or maybe it's the idea of granting feats/special abilities and not-exactly-spells-but-kind-of-spells that both rings and rods create/allow?
Still, I could see something like this. It might be really neat, too!
c.) I'm still iffy on that part, but crafting times should probably be quickened. Since the profit motive is mostly gone, the whole process should also not make it difficult to get the desired customization done, also leaving crafting player characters more time to do other stuff than being the partys lab monkey.
I would greatly agree to this.
One possible option is to keep the longer times for less expense, but be able to hasten it by expending more money? (But requiring them to make the decision of how fast they want to craft it first: as with all things, impatience and haste has its cost.)
That would be kind of an interesting pay-off mechanic, and allow versimilitude with a Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and player creation to typically cost more, based on the rushed nature of the campaign.
If the profit margin is only 5%, absolutely crafting faster is a must.
Well, that is how I imagine a much better system would function, removing factors of possible inter-player friction and balance problems, while leaving player power to choose their own character equipment advancement intact. I know there are players who will say "I'd never take a crafting feat if it is like that!", but then again about those same players would say the same if another hyper-powerful feat was nerfed into being merely good.
As a GM, going strictly by the "it costs 95% rule" I'd not allow my players to take it (unless they really wanted it and gave a convincing reason) because... it won't do them any good!
If they could craft more quickly, on the other hand... sure, I could definitely see myself allowing it under certain circumstances.
As a player, I'd say the same.
I really like the idea of being able to vary costs in order to speed up crafting by selecting a "mode": slow, moderate, or fast. Economy would still work because (magic items being what they are) you can't really create multiple items at the same time, so you'd either be working for a long time on a single item (and make a big profit once) or you'd churn out item after item after item... and not make much profit at all (kind of similar to some authors I know, actually).
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not saying "your system's bad and you should feel bad", I'm saying "I don't like making it strictly your system, as either GM or player, and here's my reasons (for verisimilitude and for utility), but using your system as a basis for altering and expanding the possibilities... that I like."
So, you know, I'm attempting to critique rather than criticize. I realize written words can come off as more harsh than intended, so I'm editing. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reference craft as a skill... hm.
Interesting idea, but it sounds a little too easy, and there's quite a large number of ways of boosting skills subtly, so it might get broken quickly with high enough checks (if I understand what you're saying, which I might not). It might be workable, though I'd likely suggest both spellcraft and the other relevant craft skill.
I think the idea is to make all crafting work like Master Craftsman. Your ranks in the appropriate craft skill acts as your caster level. You are treated as having the relevant crafting feat as soon as you have enough ranks, but cannot make any type of item before you qualify. Ranks, unlike skill modifier, have a hard cap equal to your HD, so you still won't see anyone making staves until level 11 (and they'd need 11 ranks in Craft:jewelry, Craft:sculpture, or Profession:woodcutting).
What I'd like to know is whether crafting from Spellcraft would be allowed in this system, since crafting would be much easier if you can max out one skill and craft anything you want without taking feats.
You'd also see Wizards taking a lot more metamagic feats as bonus feats since crafting feats won't take those slots. And maybe replace Scribe Scroll with Skill Focus (Scribe or Calligraphy).
Joana, Weirdo's post is a direct and meaningful rebuttal of the concept that crafters should benefit and other party members should not just because the crafter took a feat.
Besides the argument that a very large percentage of feats benefit other party members directly (some at the expense of the feat taker themselves) there is also the argument that virtually every feat benefits other party members indirectly by making the feat taker more survivable, more powerful or more versatile.
My other problem with this whole crafter argument is that it boils down to some of the most egregious meta-gaming I've ever seen in the game. I am a role player. If my character has an ability, what he does with that ability will be based on what his own ambitions, desires and moral compass are, not on what some messageboard says he should do with that ability. So if my character is able to make magic weapons, how he dispenses the magic weapons he makes is entirely up to him, unless there is some mechanical restriction.
That's where I stand on this. It's the crafter's decision what he wants to do with his crafting ability. In some groups it works for crafters to make items for their friends either for free or at a steep discount. I've had characters altruistic enough to want to work for free for the benefit of friends and community. One character crafted for free because she benefited from the rest of the party being better at killing their mutual enemies - she was a squishy support caster and felt safer when backed up by well-equipped martials. If some non-crafters have special resources (such as a comfortable keep for the crafter to stay in) or if there are multiple characters with different crafting feats who make items for each other, the exchange evens out more easily. There are however characters who would insist on getting a significant payment for their crafting or would otherwise keep a more careful tally of "mine vs yours."
But those are more roleplaying and party dynamics considerations than mechanical ones.
There are plenty of issues in dealing with group resources. Is all treasure split evenly by gold value, or does it go to those who need it more / can use it better? Is there a party fund? What can that be used to purchase? Do healing wands come out of the party fund, or are they purchased by the characters that use them (on others or for themselves)? What about the cost of Raise Dead - is that the party's responsibility, or the dead character's?
These issues are resolved by the individual group/party based on what works for them and what makes sense in-character, not by the rules. Some groups share a lot, some don't, and neither is necessarily wrong. Crafting for other party members can be resoled similarly. Since as I established there are feats that benefit characters other than the one who took the feat, there is no reason for the rules rather than the group to determine who benefits from item crafting feats.
What Weirdo said.
|
Typically how I handle crafting:
1st: I will craft essential items at cost. Typically these are things like +1 Cloaks, +1 Weapons, +1 Armor, +2 Headbands/Belts.
2nd: I will also craft items for the party at cost as well. This is because these items are paid for by party funds and benefit me as well. This is usually things like Wands of Cure Light Wounds, Bags of Holding, ect.
3rd: Anything crafted in a day, I will make at cost, provided that it isn't a constant occurrence.
4th: If you want something crafted that isn't in any of the above categories listed above, I charge 10% for the craft, bringing the total to 60%.
My reasoning for this:
I have played many games with crafters and I have found multiple problems with it. Some campaigns just aren't amenable to crafting and it's just impossible to find the time to do so or you rarely have opportunity to obtain raw materials. Furthermore, the purpose of the feat is to increase the power of the character who takes it. If I spend a week crafting items for someone else, that is a week of my time that I can't craft for myself. Finally, I have played in many campaigns where while I have been stuck crafting in town, the party has gone off adventuring, gathering experience and loot, in which I wasn't able to share in, because I didn't participate in the adventure. Therefore, my choice was to either A: Forgo my crafting or B: Forgo a level's worth of experience and loot.
|
|
EDIT: also, to be clear, I find it strange that "honest payment" is only gold available by RAW, and it seems like it would cause all sorts of problems. That's a bizarre definition and a bad idea to my way of thinking. I would define "honest payment" as "payment of equal value relative to a standard create by the two people in advance", whether that's time, money, effort, or something else altogether. Two people working in concord can come to an understanding of what "honest" means between the two of them.
To return to the cleric of Adabar, honest payment from a fellow party member, while adventuring, is what the other party member do to keep you alive and the fact that the spoils are divided equally.
Probably a well played cleric of Adabar would be the first to propose to have 1 o 2 extra shares that should be doled at the end of a adventure to the more deserving party member, based on a vote from all the party members and he would vote in all honesty the guy he thik was the more deserving.
Out of adventuring his deity will require him to ask for payment, independently from who is asking.
The wizard wife is sick? he need to pay for the casting of remove disease.
The fighter is suffering from malaise while at home? he need to pay.
You can pay that cleric with non monetary mans, but the value of those services should be equal to the gold value normally requested for the spell.
- * -
One of the problems is that people assume crafter = wizard and say "wizards are the last characters to need a equipment boos, he should prioritize the other classes".
But that not true in my experience. List of the crafters in the last adventures:
Witch (that has a limited number of defensive spells)
Wizard
Summoner (and his eidolon is always in the tick of combat)
Ranger (two handed weapon style)
Cleric (a melee cleric)
Wizard (same player of the other wizard, BTW)
Sorcerer
Most of those character need the magic items to boost themselves, their eidolon or to cover for the spells that they don't know.
In Pathfinder anyone can take up crafting feats and the cheek is so easy that a low intelligence fighter could do it (granted, he would have no skill for other uses, but he can do that).
A headband of intelligence +2 with the spellcraft skill would make almost any class master crafter for 1 class of item.
From what I read in these boards the guys that argue that crafting should be done for free never take Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor even if they are playing a fighter with a large number of feats and that can benefit greatly for those feats.
It is always the spellcaster that should spend the feat for them.
|
|
WBL can increase a lot, but APs have an extra dose of money dropped in them already... if just run 'as is', the players already get more funds than 'normal', which mostly makes me question the WBL rather than the APs or the crafting system.
The AP have more money that needed to reach the WBL on purpose as:
a) some of it will be expended in the course of the adventure;b) there is no guaranteed that the players will find all the stuff.
and
c) some of the stuff is of little use but people will keep it for other reasons.
To cite a few examples: statues of the entwined succubus, ancient elvish water clock, brass spirit planchette [great for a player interested in role playing a researcher in the divinatory arts, bad as a 4.000 gp item for a 4th level character].
One thing to keep in mind, though, maguskun, is that a "CR" challenge... isn't a fair fight. It's stacked in favor of the PCs. I don't remember which developer said it recently, but that's pretty close to a quote from them. I'll see if I can find it unless someone beats me too it (please do!). :)
SKR
Bear in mind, this analysis has made presumptions, and I admit that. But supposing a group has a subscription to the APs, and runs them, it seems to follow that they'd go through them at about a rate of once per month.
4 sessions to end a AP? Not in my experience, but that can depend from me having a big group.
On the other hand, 180 days of in game time to get from level 1 to level 15? Hmm, we have already spent 60 days to complete the first installment of Carrion Crown e travel to Lepistad, we must hurry.At least until your group get teleport traveling time is a factor. Generally it is handwaved and not played out, but it is factored in the time spent in the adventure.
Even with teleport you need to get to a location by feet first to teleport there again.
From what I read most AP require around 2 years of character time to complete.
Curse of the crimson throne is a fast one, but it has some long traveling time
Legacy of fire has a 1 year gap between the first and second installment
Kingmaker ... well, it is Kingmaker
Carrion crown require you to spend at least 1 month in the starting location.
Jade regent: it a long overland voyage
Even Second darkness has a 1 year gap between the first and secon installment.
While your experience is totally valid, we've really not run into too much of a problem with them ourselves. They can be abused, certainly, and I'm not denying that at all, but (again in my experience, and, from what I can tell from the boards, in the experience of many others) no more than any other large number of much-easier-to-attain 'loopholes' that various classes can use to completely dominate a game.
What make the crafting rules abusable is the capacity to overcast, i. e. making objects for which you don't have the caster level.
A 3rd level caster making wondrous items mimicking a fireball cast at level 5+ can be disruptive.A 4th level wizard with high intelligence and about 1.5 millions gp being capable to make a wish granting gem with unlimited uses without a chance to fail is disruptive (it can be done, so it escape me why all the big kingdoms don't have them).
But those problems can easily be solved limiting the ability to overcast.
Ugh, no, please! 95%? No merchant in the world would turn around and sell stuff for 95% of the creation price. To me, that would kill verisimilitude in terms of active mercantilism. With the current rules, a double-the-cost mark up makes total sense: the original crafter gets paid, any exchanging-of-hands people get paid, and the merchant makes a profit. With a 95% cost, the actual merchants would need to be powerful wizards (or high level people who invested in crafting feats and still somehow survived long enough to get high level) just to be able to turn a minor profit. In which case... why not just go adventuring? It makes you more money much faster, and the merchant is obviously quite capable on their own.
I say this as both GM and as a player.
Exactly.
A crafter wishing to make money with his feat would get an agreement with the merchant and produce what the merchant want, not what he want.At that point he could get more than the 50% pawnshop price.
Probably he would end producing low value items like campfire beads, healing wands and so on and rarely use the capacity to produce 1,000 gp of stuff every day but he would get 60-75% of the sale price instead of 50%.
c.) I'm still iffy on that part, but crafting times should probably be quickened. Since the profit motive is mostly gone, the whole process should also not make it difficult to get the desired customization done, also leaving crafting player characters more time to do other stuff than being the partys lab monkey.I would greatly agree to this.
One possible option is to keep the longer times for less expense, but be able to hasten it by expending more money? (But requiring them to make the decision of how fast they want to craft it first: as with all things, impatience and haste has its cost.)
There are already rules to craft at double speed for a paltry +5 to teh DC.
@magnuskn:
I can see wands, scrolls, even potions, fitting under a blanket feat; rings, however, getting bundled into rods and staves? Not feelin' it.
Well, I can totally see Rings and Staves under one feat from the perspective of flavor, given how important they are in Lord of the Rings, Rods were a harder sell for me. But my idea primarily was driven by a "How to keep those feats interesting for the less used magic items?" perspective.
|
|
@Diego
Skulls and Shackles is also pretty loose with the time constraints.
However, I don't remember a 1 year gap between the 1st and 2nd modules of Second Darkness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elamdri, your crafting sounds perfectly fair, even generous. If you have limited craft time and crafting risks loss of adventuring benefits it makes sense that you should be able to benefit from your own crafting. Generous crafting for other party members makes most sense if the crafter has generous amounts of downtime in which to work.
Honestly, it seems quite harsh to me that you would be left in town while others adventure. My group will usually wait for a crafter if they need a day or two to finish an item, and if the quest is urgent you can always leave an item in-progress without penalty, or bring it with you and make slower progress. I hope at least that this adventuring happens when you can't make a session rather than you having to sit out a session while your character crafts.
|
|
@Diego
Skulls and Shackles is also pretty loose with the time constraints.
However, I don't remember a 1 year gap between the 1st and 2nd modules of Second Darkness.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes, you are right, I was misremembering. Several weeks pass during the first module, while you are help managing the gambling hall. How many depend on the GM and players tastes.
There is no gap between the end of that adventure and the next. Second darkness is fast paced after that.|
|
That's where I stand on this. It's the crafter's decision what he wants to do with his crafting ability.
That. My problem is when it sound as "he can, so he should".
Reading the posts in these boards (not only this thread) there is a lot of peer pressure into working for free and for people that will avoid the crafting feats even if they can take them.Typically how I handle crafting:
1st: I will craft essential items at cost. Typically these are things like +1 Cloaks, +1 Weapons, +1 Armor, +2 Headbands/Belts.
2nd: I will also craft items for the party at cost as well. This is because these items are paid for by party funds and benefit me as well. This is usually things like Wands of Cure Light Wounds, Bags of Holding, ect.
3rd: Anything crafted in a day, I will make at cost, provided that it isn't a constant occurrence.
4th: If you want something crafted that isn't in any of the above categories listed above, I charge 10% for the craft, bringing the total to 60%.
My reasoning for this:
I have played many games with crafters and I have found multiple problems with it. Some campaigns just aren't amenable to crafting and it's just impossible to find the time to do so or you rarely have opportunity to obtain raw materials. Furthermore, the purpose of the feat is to increase the power of the character who takes it. If I spend a week crafting items for someone else, that is a week of my time that I can't craft for myself. Finally, I have played in many campaigns where while I have been stuck crafting in town, the party has gone off adventuring, gathering experience and loot, in which I wasn't able to share in, because I didn't participate in the adventure. Therefore, my choice was to either A: Forgo my crafting or B: Forgo a level's worth of experience and loot.
Good breakdown of how it can be managed.
The idea of the group going away on a adventure and leaving the crafter at home, especially if he is crafting something for them, is horrid, especially in Pathfinder where you can't recover the lost experience like in the 3.x version of the game.
See, again, I can see all the potential flawed places, and there are potential abuses, but if you poke holes in crafting the way you do, you need to turn an equally critical eye on, say, wizards, barbarians, and other super-classes in general.
It can be unbalancing, but you're pointing out one part in the midst of an entire system.
Individual classes have their own complaints, true, but those flaws normally come down to the combination of disparate abilities from a variety of subsystems ( feats + class features + combat rules ). The magic item crafting system is one closed loop, which interacts only with WBL and market prices and then spews out bonuses on top of the entire rest of the game system. The problem is that, if manipulated, it does so at a highly accelerated and specialized rate, which, as I said, creates an imbalance.
WBL can increase a lot, but APs have an extra dose of money dropped in them already... if just run 'as is', the players already get more funds than 'normal', which mostly makes me question the WBL rather than the APs or the crafting system.
That WBL in APs is higher is a factor which results from the designers expecting some treasure to be missed by the party, as far as I understood James Jacobs. The MIC system worsens that problem, though, because it further accelerates the disparity.
"If left unchecked" is a pretty key statement here.
I adressed that in my original post. Different GMs will feel the problems of the MIC system to different degrees, because some will either cope by adjusting their challenges or turning off the money spigot or whatnot. What I am saying is that removing the whole imbalance factor will make for much smoother play ( while still not making the game as homogenic as the dreaded fourth edition ).
Equally valid problems compared to the crafting system and unbalancing are super-wizards (which I've played on accident before... sans crafting), AMBARBARIAN builds, and extremely focused diplomancers. Again, if you're going to poke the crafting rules, you've got to poke the other things, too.
As addressed above. Those are different subsystems interacting with each other. The current MIC system just makes those problems worse by ladling bonuses on top much earlier than the offending player(s) should have them. Super Wizards, for example, will count on cranking their DCs through the roof by crafting themselves as soon as possible their INT enhancer and later their +5 INT book.
One thing to keep in mind, though, maguskun, is that a "CR" challenge... isn't a fair fight. It's stacked in favor of the PCs. I don't remember which developer said it recently, but that's pretty close to a quote from them. I'll see if I can find it unless someone beats me too it (please do!). :)
The other part of that, I'll get into below (dealing with funds and crafting time in an AP).
It's from SKR, as Diego pointed out already. And, yes, the party is expected to beat up the encounter and move on, otherwise the campaign can be over quite quickly. However, that doesn't mean that an encounter is not supposed to have the illusion of a challenge. If that illusion is not there anymore, because opponents cannot even hit the party or can only save on a 20 against spells, then the whole affair is a waste of time for everybody. Players might enjoy beating up hapless opponents once in a while, but can you seriously tell me that they'd enjoy that for two years, every week, every encounter? Maybe the local bully association does that, but not the people I know.
I can see both of your issues here, however the first really is a kind of legacy of the new gaming style that entered with 3.0. The amount of XP that it took to gain a level was remarkably small. PF actually adjusted away from that, to a point, by increasing the XP requirement for a "medium" track, but it's still part of the system. I think it's thirteen CR encounters to level? Something like that? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, please! Anyway, it means that a character isn't going to spend too terribly long at a single level, at least compared to the old style. That's what "slow XP progression" is for, though that only mildly mitigates things. Incidentally, I believe the slow XP progression also slows the wealth gain per encounter.
For the second, I went into that a bit above, but mostly mentioned I'd go into it here. So let's do so!
Outside of Kingmaker, the APs I've looked at and the information I've gotten on the AP's I haven't seems to indicate that there's little "relative" time for crafting. There aren't too terribly many points for a character to just sit and craft when there's big doins out there.
(DISCLAIMER: I've not run as many as I'd like, so far, and obviously GMing style brings great differences to how an AP is run.)Now crafting "on the go" is an option, but it's incredibly inefficient in terms of getting things complete. Looking at a typical game taking about six months (the presumption of an AP subscription), and theoretically taking as long in-game (something that certain APs, such as Kingmaker, handily ignore, I admit) means that a character has, on average, I'm guestimating close to 540 hours craft time ((6 months x 30 days each x 2 hours progress per day [4 hours work, but half that in progress]) x roughly 150% for unaccounted for "downtime")... presupposing the crafter used almost every day of their campaign time crafting. Most probably won't due to mitigating circumstances, but sure, that's possible (and I could be way off, I'm purely guestimating based on a completely 'average' idea of subscription presumes you're playing). Looking at the Magic Item Creation Rules, that means a grand total of (roughly) 67,500 gold worth of items (540 crafting hours divided by 8 hours of crafting times 1,000 gold value). Popping over to the wealth by level rules, presuming the PCs get up to about 15th level (some go higher, but I'm using the lower level range because it's the smallest maximum increment) we can see a given character is expected to have around 240,000 total. So, at most, a crafter can create about a third of their own total wealth-by-level at their highest level... at least given those presumptions.
Bear in mind, this analysis has made presumptions, and I admit that. But supposing a group has a subscription to the APs, and runs them, it seems to follow that they'd go through them at about a rate of once per month.
The really big "if" here, is if each entry in an AP is supposed to take a month in-game (or roughly even out to such). I already noted that some APs definitively don't run that way (Kingmaker being the "big" example), but, as I understand it, most kind of do, subject entirely to GM discretion and play style.
In my experience, craftig time is up to the GM. Of the APs I own ( all from Kingmaker forward and Curse of the Crimson Throne ), only Carrion Crown is on such a tight schedule that crafting is pretty senseless. The others assume ( by James Jacobs words ) that there is a floating time-scale to events in the module and one can expect weeks or even multiple months of downtime between the individual modules. That, of course, varies from GM to GM.
Don't forget that most APs weigh the distribution of loot heavily on the end, when the party storms the stronghold of the villain-du-jour, so the aquisition of loot coincides heavily with the best periods of downtime.
Crafting "on the go" is inefficient, but depending on the permissivness of the GM, it still can get a lot of stuff done. The discussions on how the Ring of Sustenance interacts with MIC are long and varied.
... this is pretty much exactly a balance factor against...
The point I am trying to make is that it adds to the lack of verisimilitude of a fantasy setting. If that is an issue for other people depends on how much suspension of disbelief they can live with.
.. so I'm not exactly understanding what your point is here. I admit I'm just not getting it. I'd love to hear it explained more, and I'm sorry, but it looks like you're making two complaints that are the opposite of each other. Please, please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you!
For the first one, I'd point to the fact that not everything is simulated perfectly, but it averages out over time. Basically Diego said it correctly above: open up a shop and sell it for full price when someone comes to buy it, once you're a "merchant". Of course, there are large expenses in buying and setting up a new shop, and there's the time issue to take into account as well.
For the second, if my presumptions are correct (and I admit that's a big "if") the money-making aspect isn't nearly as difficult as you've presented.
The whole "why does a new item sell only at 50%" is a pet peeve of mine, which does not have much to do with the other problems. As said above, it is an issue of verisimilitude. And one which can be explained away pretty easily, as you and Diego pointed out correctly.
While your experience is totally valid, we've really not run into too much of a problem with them ourselves. They can be abused, certainly, and I'm not denying that at all, but (again in my experience, and, from what I can tell from the boards, in the experience of many others) no more than any other large number of much-easier-to-attain 'loopholes' that various classes can use to completely dominate a game.
"Ourselves" is only yourself and maybe Diego, please remember that. I am far from the only person who has complained about the problems of MIC on this board, I only am trying to summarize them up. I've seen lots of complaints in their own threads ( often unrelated to the main topic ) of how those problems I mentioned crop up in their games. And, forgive me for pointing that out, I have been here for a few more years than you.
So, let's take a look!
I would like to note, however, that I, for one, enjoy the player-driven elements of crafting, and like how it plays out for us.
I do so, too, however I also miss the randomness factor from earlier editions a bit.
Ugh, no, please! 95%? No merchant in the world would turn around and sell stuff for 95% of the creation price. To me, that would kill verisimilitude in terms of active mercantilism. With the current rules, a double-the-cost mark up makes total sense: the original crafter gets paid, any exchanging-of-hands people get paid, and the merchant makes a profit. With a 95% cost, the actual merchants would need to be powerful wizards (or high level people who invested in crafting feats and still somehow survived long enough to get high level) just to be able to turn a minor profit. In which case... why not just go adventuring? It makes you more money much faster, and the merchant is obviously quite capable on their own.
I say this as both GM and as a player.
Okay. Let's look at this a bit closer. How much are 50 gp/day worth to the average, non-adventuring citizen of a fantasy world? 2 copper pieces will get you a live chicken or one pound of potatoes ( Ultimate Equipment, p.93 ). So, 50 gold pieces would be worth 2500 live chickens or 1,25 tons of potatoes.
Sure, luxus articles will cost a lot more, but basic goods are really inexpensive.Making ten to twenty times as much per day is an insane amount of profitability. As a player, you just don't notice that because adventurers deal with insane amounts of wealth, compared to the average citizen of a fantasy world.
Mercantilism works just fine under my system, but with more verisimilitude, instead of those insane amounts of money being slung around. And lets not forget that buying used magic items still works with the 50%/100% motive. Why would people then craft new magic items, you ask? Because it still creates a more modest, yet still very much existing profit and lots of magic items get lost with all those adventuring parties which do not return from the local dungeon.
Which, realistically speaking, should be the vast majority.
As for the factor "the merchant would be better of being an adventurer!", see above. Most adventurers eventually die via claw to the face, it is a high-risk profession which is not for everybody. Crafting magic items, however, is actually not that difficult. You need a smidgen of magical talent ( i.e. an advancing caster level, so you can be an adept, an expert with the Magical Talent trait or even only "a gnome", need a good Spellcraft skill check and be at least level three to get Craft Wondrous Item and Skill Focus: Spellcraft, with a Spellcraft check of, say, +11. That way you can craft a lot of things, everything with a caster level of 11, without even knowing the spell you need to have to craft your item.
I can see staves, rods, and wands being a thing (with a whole "magic stick" type theme.
I understand dropping wands into potions and scrolls ("crafting consumables") but I'd much rather see consumable wondrous items be dropped into the same category of potions and scrolls, and see the more aesthetically similar (and, to a point, more magically-similar) staves and wands be together (rods being present because... well, mostly it's just the "magic stick" phenomena).
Rings don't really work, I think, with staves at all. I could see them being brought (maybe) into the same category of rods, but you'd have to fluff it in a certain way. Perhaps something about creating "rounds" or "cricles" of magic or something about applying specific designs (which rods would have by virtue of being what they are, but staves, being much more varied, sometimes 'naturalistic' in individual appearances might be separated from) or maybe it's the idea of granting feats/special abilities and not-exactly-spells-but-kind-of-spells that both rings and rods create/allow?
Still, I could see something like this. It might be really neat, too!
It was mostly a balance idea, to get magic item crafting feats one would still want to take without the profit motive. If the themes work out together was not too much of a concern. Still, Rings and Staves go together more than with the Rods, IMO, see Lord of the Rings, where every important magic non-weapon/armor is either a staff ( Gandalf, Saruman ) or a Ring ( Sauron, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and so on ).
I would greatly agree to this.
One possible option is to keep the longer times for less expense, but be able to hasten it by expending more money? (But requiring them to make the decision of how fast they want to craft it first: as with all things, impatience and haste has its cost.)
That would be kind of an interesting pay-off mechanic, and allow versimilitude with a Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and player creation to typically cost more, based on the rushed nature of the campaign.
If the profit margin is only 5%, absolutely crafting faster is a must.
Well, given that MIC is not crafting the item itself, but just imbueing an existing mastercrafted item with magical energies, I don't see how hastening up the process would make it feel any less "epic". When I think of a master smith crafting a magical hammer ( see Bruenor Battlehammer and Aegis-Fang ), I think of him crafting the entire hammer and imbueing the magical energies in it in that process. Since that isn't happening most of the times anyway, I would not see the harm of shortening it, if the money factor is removed.
As a GM, going strictly by the "it costs 95% rule" I'd not allow my players to take it (unless they really wanted it and gave a convincing reason) because... it won't do them any good!
Sorry, but not seeing that. They still make some money, the still get to choose how their equipment progresses... there are distinct advantages. Would you not permit them taking some of the many, many weaksauce feats from Ultimate Combat/Magic/APG either? And, no, I don't think my changes would make the magic item crafting feats weaksauce, only transform them from "must take overpowered" to "optional, if it works for what I want my character to do".
If they could craft more quickly, on the other hand... sure, I could definitely see myself allowing it under certain circumstances.
As a player, I'd say the same.
I really like the idea of being able to vary costs in order to speed up crafting by selecting a "mode": slow, moderate, or fast. Economy would still work because (magic items being what they are) you can't really create multiple items at the same time, so you'd either be working for a long time on a single item (and make a big profit once) or you'd churn out item after item after item... and not make much profit at all (kind of similar to some authors I know, actually).
My main problem is that the high profit motive distorts a campaign on a multitude of levels, so I would take that out, as elaborated above, no matter what.
|
|
Elamdri, your crafting sounds perfectly fair, even generous. If you have limited craft time and crafting risks loss of adventuring benefits it makes sense that you should be able to benefit from your own crafting. Generous crafting for other party members makes most sense if the crafter has generous amounts of downtime in which to work.
Well, the way I look at it is this:
Making most of the items that I consider "Essential" takes 1-2 days. Usually time that the party is willing to wait.
Likewise, the same applies to the Party gear.
After all, we all benefit from +1 weapons, +1 Cloaks, Bags of Holding, those types of things.
However, if someone wants me to spend three weeks of my time making them a ring of invisibility, then I'm going to ask to be reasonably compensated for the time spent doing that.
Honestly, it seems quite harsh to me that you would be left in town while others adventure. My group will usually wait for a crafter if they need a day or two to finish an item, and if the quest is urgent you can always leave an item in-progress without penalty, or bring it with you and make slower progress. I hope at least that this adventuring happens when you can't make a session rather than you having to sit out a session while your character crafts.
It depends. I will be honest, this doesn't happen as much as it used to. And it's not like the party did this without my knowledge or anything.
The first time it happened, I wanted to craft a headband of intellect +4 to increase my saves, and the party said "We will leave you here if you decide to do that" and I made my decision to stay. Didn't think they'd really do it since we were playing Kingmaker so there wasn't really anything pressing happening and didn't think they'd be successful without me in the group. Was somewhat a humbling experience, but I learned my lesson.
Nowadays, I ask the GM ahead of time if there will be downtime in the game to allow for crafting, which solves a lot of the problems.
Reference craft as a skill... hm.
Interesting idea, but it sounds a little too easy, and there's quite a large number of ways of boosting skills subtly, so it might get broken quickly with high enough checks (if I understand what you're saying, which I might not). It might be workable, though I'd likely suggest both spellcraft and the other relevant craft skill.
I think the idea is to make all crafting work like Master Craftsman. Your ranks in the appropriate craft skill acts as your caster level. You are treated as having the relevant crafting feat as soon as you have enough ranks, but cannot make any type of item before you qualify. Ranks, unlike skill modifier, have a hard cap equal to your HD, so you still won't see anyone making staves until level 11 (and they'd need 11 ranks in Craft:jewelry, Craft:sculpture, or Profession:woodcutting).
What I'd like to know is whether crafting from Spellcraft would be allowed in this system, since crafting would be much easier if you can max out one skill and craft anything you want without taking feats.
You'd also see Wizards taking a lot more metamagic feats as bonus feats since crafting feats won't take those slots. And maybe replace Scribe Scroll with Skill Focus (Scribe or Calligraphy).
You have the gist of it yes although i wouldn't allow spell craft to make items as anyone can take it therefore no-one would take anything else and spellcraft has way more uses than any other skill already (you would also have to be careful with craft alchemy as otherwise it could be used for almost everything too).
Ideally i would also put in a special material component (i.e essence of fire elemental for a flaming sword ect.) as it brings back the adventureing aspect of the game but the idea is to simplify not make it more effort.
In an attempt to join the rest of the conversation the 50% sales concept makes sense to me as the merchant can travel around looking for people to buy his wares and/or has the right contacts to move the goods (although as i said above unless rich adventurers are common then selling items that cost thousands of gold is going to be a long drawn out process unless it's commision work) so 50% seems to be a reasonable way to stop easy cash flow and simulate how difficult it would be to find buyers.
|
|
"Ourselves" is only yourself and maybe Diego, please remember that. I am far from the only person who has complained about the problems of MIC on this board, I only am trying to summarize them up. I've seen lots of complaints in their own threads ( often unrelated to the main topic ) of how those problems I mentioned crop up in their games. And, forgive me for pointing that out, I have been here for a few more years than you.
While your experience is totally valid, we've really not run into too much of a problem with them ourselves. They can be abused, certainly, and I'm not denying that at all, but (again in my experience, and, from what I can tell from the boards, in the experience of many others) no more than any other large number of much-easier-to-attain 'loopholes' that various classes can use to completely dominate a game.
I have few problems with crafting but my group use 2 rules that a lot of players will feel are heavy handed:
a) no overcasting. You either have the caster level (or equivalent with the master craftman feat) to cast a spell or you can't make an item based on that spell;
b) no metamagic rods. We have introduced a different item that give access to the metamagic feats (and several feats have been banned) but you need to use a higher level spell slot like you had taken the feat.
and
c) we always compare the item to existing items. if he do something that another item with a higher cost do, it cost like that item.
IMO, see Lord of the Rings, where every important magic non-weapon/armor is either a staff ( Gandalf, Saruman ) or a Ring ( Sauron, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and so on )
Elven cloaks, Galadriel light vial, the Ent-draught, The Palantirs, the horn of Rohan.
|
|
b) no metamagic rods. We have introduced a different item that give access to the metamagic feats (and several feats have been banned) but you need to use a higher level spell slot like you had taken the feat.
OUCH. Christ, I feel like every caster I have ever played was just kicked in the tender bits.
Elven cloaks, Galadriel light vial, the Ent-draught, The Palantirs, the horn of Rohan.
So, wondrous items. ^^
Ah... my snark filter is failing... please don't take it personally.
Crafting Feats are not about flavor. They're about mechanics.
And Paizo doesn't publish the Lord of the Rings game; that's "Middle Earth Role Playing" by -- I think -- Iron Crown Enterprises.
Argh.
Yeah, and I was just pointing that out, because people say "Staves and Rings don't go together", not because I am a LOTR fanatic. In any case I grouped those crafting feats together in my "version", because I wanted to consolidate them. And "consumables" and "non-consumables" go together better than other combinations, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I read in these boards the guys that argue that crafting should be done for free never take Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor even if they are playing a fighter with a large number of feats and that can benefit greatly for those feats.
It is always the spellcaster that should spend the feat for them.
Actually, in the one campaign I personally saw in which players took Crafting feats, while they were all involved, it was the fighter who was the main crafter. His story was that during downtime he operated an arms and armor shop, and the party members helped him out with it. He crafted magical arms and armor; the ranger made bows; and the cleric cast spells for them as needed and made wondrous items too, I think.
Granted, this was a homebrew 3.5 campaign with unlimited downtime between adventures so they could make exactly what they wanted. I can't even imagine party dynamics in which they'd leave the crafter behind while going adventuring unless it was to cover sessions the player wasn't there, especially since you can craft at half-speed while adventuring anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I admit it's a bit of a leftover from 2E, I've always ran it so that when the wizard takes a week of downtime to craft, the cleric does the same, as does any other PC with a crafting feat, while the tank, the rogue and so on take a training course to practize the new abilities they mastered at last level-up, or want to take next time.
Or sometimes they do a stint as caravan guard, or escort for a wealthy prince or elderly wizard -despite what some people seem to think, amazingly enough, such jobs often DON'T involve fighting off big bands of brigands or marauding dragons, and when the PC's return home 3 weeks later, they may have gained a few coins and a nice tan, but certainly nothing the stay-at-home crafters need to feel jealous about.
At higher level, while Lady Startree is crafting a headband +6/+6/+6, Lord McGreatsword is setting the affairs of his keep in order, dealing with all those decisions his scheneschal lacks the power to make.
In short, as others have said, while the crafters craft, the non-crafters do other non-adventuring things.
Regarding crafting time: It's not come up so far in my gaming, but I could see having a properly equiped lab reduce crafting time. I could also see it as a nice money sink for those worried about WBL, if handled well.
I dislike that the current system creates winners and losers in terms of PC wealth due to the presence of treasure bundles in suboptimal configurations.
In order to get wealth (largely in the form of magic items for PCs) into a more desirable format you can do the following:
1) Keep found item
2) Sell found item for cash (x 0.5)
3) Use cash to fuel NPC (x1) or PC crafting (x2)
For PCs with crafting feats this typically means that found wealth equals PC wealth (you either find useful items or you convert them into cash in order to fuel an equal amount of wealth).
However the key problem is that not everyone has crafting feats and not every crafting feat is taken so you have some people trading wealth for 50% of it's true WBL value.
If PCs craft at cost for their friends then most of the key feats (wondrous item, wands, scrolls, arms and armor) are covered eventually (Rings are some of the key outliers).
The problem with crafting for teammates at actual value instead of cost is it creates 2 transactions.
PC 1 sells item at cost = 50% reduction of value (lets say 10,000gp item becomes 5000gp cash)
PC 1 gives 5000gp to PC 2 in order to get a 5000gp item that only costs PC 2 2500 GP to make. PC2 pockets 2500 gp in value for his own uses.
This creates a difficult issue because if we assume that PC 1 got an even share of the treasure and there is 4 PCs then PC 1 has increased his WBL by 5000 whereas PC 2 has presumably increased his WBL by 10,000 + 2500 for each PC he crafts for.
This obviously can lead to massive discrepancies in terms of total wealth for the party and can make adhering to WBL very difficult. Considering the primary crafting classes are already more powerful than the martial classes this further increases the power discrepancy.
In my mind the only tenable solution is to assume that allied NPC crafters are willing to trade items at a roughly 1=1 ratio of value. Non-allied NPC crafters will trade but at a slightly cost to the PC (normally 10%) . Selling items for cash still occurs at 50% (not many people have 10,000 gp lying around) which means PC crafting can still be fueled.
This undercuts more mercenary applications of PC crafting feats because NPCs will typically cover most crafting. PC crafting is useful for handling items on a quick turn around or items that it's difficult to find an allied crafter willing to craft.
Net effect is that WBL stays relatively constant throughout the party.