|
I think it comes down to two separate issues:
1) the unspoken code of treating group members like family, and not making a 'profit' off of them, which only seems smart since one day the fighter may be deciding who to charge, the troll beating on the cleric or the ogre stomping on the wizard. For those of you claiming a 10% surcharge is fine, I'm assuming you are also fine with paying your cleric for restorations and remove curses *after* the adventure is over? With a decent 'friends and family' discount of course? After all, he could be out memorizing different spells in those slots, or casting spells for profit at the local temple. Which leads me to...
Why not? I paid my raise dead and restorations from my pockets. Sure, our oracle hadn't the spells, so there wasn't the option for a friend of family discount, but for out of adventuring spells it is reasonable to pay him for his work. I will not ask "Cast remove disease on my wife for free", or "Cure my flu for free" to a party cleric. And while we will buy several healing items, remove curse scroll, alchemical products and so on with party founds and those items are for use by anyone, I will not ask him to use his personal dose of antitoxin for me. And if he will offer it I will replace it as soon as possible.
(And yes, he will offer it, and I will offer mine if needed. Simply if someone do a favour to me, I will try to return it.)On the other hand, if I was bitten by a diseased animal while adventuring and protecting him I aspect that he will use his spells to try to cure the disease for free.
|
|
And for the "Discounts don't exist" argument, from Magical marketplaces, a recent Paizo product:
Discounts
Optionally, GMs may choose to use the special rules subsystem presented in this book wherein as the PCs patronize a particular store, they unlock access to certain rules options and gain discounts on future purchases. This system also allows PCs to earn store credit or discounts by performing special quests or missions specific to a store.
When they visit a store for the first time, the PCs are treated as strangers and must purchase items there at 120% of the standard price. As the PCs spend money at the shop, the price of future purchases is lowered and character options (or “boons”) become available to PCs who meet the prerequisites. Eventually, PCs who spend enough gold may purchase wares there for less than the standard price.
Depending on the GM’s and players’ preferences, certain elements of the discount system may be implemented while others may be ignored. Players are encouraged to discuss this system with their GM to determine how item prices, character options, and discounts work in their game.
Other Ways to Pay
Most of Thog’s regular customers pay in trade goods and services rather than coins.Exotic Hides: For the hide of a magical beast, Thog offers an amount of store credit equal to the standard treasure value for a creature of that CR. A character must succeed at a Survival check (DC 20 + the creature’s CR) to properly skin a magical beast. Even so, the manner of death may render the hide unsalable at the GM’s discretion.
Guild Members: Thog supports groups that encourage exploration and exploitation of the surrounding region. Members of the Ivory Cross and the Pathfinder Society receive a 5% discount at The Dirty Trap (to a minimum selling price of 90% of standard value).
Discounts at the laughing sword
Peren does not usually negotiate on his prices, claiming to have selected the price that is just right for the object.
However, he takes the time to get to know his customers and provides a 10% discount on an item that he believes is the perfect fit for a customer’s personality or background. Peren’s concept of a suitable match isn’t simply identical alignment or concordant dispositions; in fact, he often pairs customers and items with complementary or contrasting personalities, so they can both learn from one another.
|
|
If crafting time is valuable because it's sweat and toil (assuming there's nothing else going on that you're missing out on), then perhaps the pain the frontliners endure from wounds is worth something extra too?
Those that expose themselves to greater risk deserve larger shares than those that stand in the back then.
Yes, several groups which I have GM or in which I have played, the whole group was paying for the frontliner restorations, raise dead, cures and so on.
Today we buy wand of healing and various buffing spells with party funds. Guess who use most of their charges?Your assumption that the frontliner incur in greater risk it isn't so clear cut. They are at greater risk from bruisers, but spellcasters are the preferred target for people with ranged attacks.
|
|
And your reply show that that you haven't looked the rules in question or what I said.To repeat it again how they work....
Which has absolutely NO Bearing at all in the OP's campaign, where the DM has a different set of houserules. You are making a argument based upon the RAW, which is fine and valid. Your argument has no merit at all in the OP's campaign under the Ops DM who does not play by those rules, but has houserules. Quoting the RAW is meaningless as the DM here does not play by the RAW.
So, to change what you said
" my reply shows that that I haven't read the Ops posts as to how his DM has changed the the rules in question or what other have said over and over""To repeat it again how they work... in other campaigns, but not this one."
I happily conceded several times that if the Op's DM is playing by the RAW, using the Downtime rules, and thus the crafting spellcaster is giving something up- then of course he needs to get something for his efforts. But in the Op's campaign- he's not giving up anything and there's no efforts.
Shifty wasn't speaking of the OP campaign, he was making general statements, I replied to his general statements. You barged in, but the discussion is still about Shifty and co general comments that any crafter asking for compensation is a greedy bastard.
What happen in the OP campaign is only incidental to that comment.
We're hear trying to give the Op advice of what should happen in his game, with his DM's rules.
You can't just come into someones thread and decide his question is "incidental" or that his DM has no right to made a houserule on crafting.
I appreciate your thoughts on how crafting should work in a game played by RAW. This isn't that game.
Why you don't make the same objection to Shifty?
|
|
I'm just absolutely failing to see any logic in someone getting upset because they are receiving a 40% discount on the best items in the game. MSure, so when the cleric gives a 40% discount on healing, not charging the full 60 gps for a Cure Moderate but only 36 gps, then that's fine? That's a 40% discount on some of the best spells in the game. Deal?
All of the party should work as a team. No one charges anyone for anything, beyond actual costs.
As long as his rate is less than a charge of a wand of CLW, why not?
1d8+1 of cures is worth 15 gp. The bard and I can pool our abilities and bring that down to 7.5 gp crafting our wands. Add the 10% surcharge and it become 8.25 gp.Or a wand of infernal healing: 1 hp of cure = 1.5 gp, 0.75 if I have craft wands.
Why you don't make the same objection to Shifty?
possibly because my whole opening argument, and the one I have stuck to (except to argue against the logic of the opposition) is that as 0 time is passing, the cost to the crafter is 0, and as there is no 'downtime' or anything of the sort the crafter should indeed charge 0.
That was the premise of the OP, and that has been my argument - to then come along and try recruit others to have a dig at me because I segued into arguing your argument (and the flaws in it) is just bad sportsmanship. It also underscores that you feel sour your arguments didn't stack up.
And for the "Discounts don't exist" argument, from Magical marketplaces, a recent Paizo product:
Do you suppose the words "Optionally, GMs may choose" mean anything?
Optionally the GM might chose to handwave downtime, declare discounts for the Rogue, or have a pegasus that lays golden eggs for the party.Alternate rules relying on express GM fiat aren't relevant to the discussion.
|
|
Discounts have always been GM territory. You can't really code in something that isn't a optional ruleset with a lot of wiggle room for the GM them as they are totally dependent from the events in his campaign.
If you are best friend of the lord of Freethane, a state with a population of a few hundred people, you can maybe get a discount of a few copper pieces at the local tavern. If you are friend with the commander of the guard of Korvosa you can get a decent discount when purchasing weapon and armors in that city but not when buying jewelery.
If you are friend with Queen Abrogail II of Cheliax you will probably get a discount in most shops of that nation.
|
|
Just to refresh your memory: your fist post.
There is a comment in it about the OP situation, the last row, but you position is very clear: a crafter should never apply a surcharge on the crafting cost.
This thread again?
Went to several hundred posts last time :)
I'll just restate my argument again - "No, you charge cost price".
The 'time' argument is particularly ridiculous in a game where time is abstracted and is handwaved away.
Finally you got something correct.
I'll just restate my argument again - "No, you charge cost price".
The 'time' argument is particularly ridiculous in a game where time is abstracted and is handwaved away.
All of which happens to align neatly to the OP's scenario.
Which part of this strikes you as a discrepancy?
possibly because my whole opening argument, and the one I have stuck to (except to argue against the logic of the opposition) is that as 0 time is passing, the cost to the crafter is 0, and as there is no 'downtime' or anything of the sort the crafter should indeed charge 0.
But if you are actually being totally fair, you should insist that any crafter is paid at least 5% in a 4 person party.
Maths, to repeat myself - hmm, maybe my previous version had a mistake in it, it was late at night for me:
4 person party, one crafter. 3 people each ask for a 1000gp item; if they pay 500gp (strict costs), they have gained a net worth of 500gp each for their characters. If they pay 600gp (+10%), the crafter gains 100gp x 3 = 600gp, but he can double that by crafting for himself =1200gp; if they pay 550gp (+5%), they each gain 450gp-worth, the crafter gains 50gp x 3 = 150, double that by crafting = 300gp. Crafter is still losing out relative to his 'friends', but not by much. Feel free to tweak the exact amount to balance it better.
And it's no use to claim that the crafter is 'ahead because he crafts his own stuff as well' - that is the whole reason to take a feat! To gain a benefit. To make himself be 'better' at what he does. Using a feat to help the rest of the party should not make yourself relatively weaker.
Discounts have always been GM territory. You can't really code in something that isn't a optional ruleset with a lot of wiggle room for the GM them as they are totally dependent from the events in his campaign.
What, like 'crafting magical items for 50% of the usual sale price' sort of discount?
But if you are actually being totally fair, you should insist that any crafter is paid at least 5% in a 4 person party.
Hmmm party of four loots 2000gp from a dungeon, the crafter takes that and makes four items worth 1000gp (retail) each, all four now have the same worth, how is he worse off again?
The crafter has certainly gained a benefit, as have his friends. Its a win/win.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let's restate your position:
- a crafter should newer ask for more that production cost, not only in the OP campaign but in every campaign.
- in the OP situation the amount of downtime needed to craft something is handwaived, so there is no cost.
Exact?
That are 2 different statements, and the first is a general statement, not something limited to the OP situation. I have argued mostly against the first statement, even if my opinion is that for the character the handwaved time has passed, so it matter.
So your replies of "but in the OP situation ..." are worth very little, as I am arguing against your first, general, statement, not the second.
So your replies of "but in the OP situation ..." are worth very little, as I am arguing against your first, general, statement, not the second.
Cool, so by selective editing and picking and chosing half a reply you feel you have a platform?
Look, I can do that too -
a crafter should never apply a surcharge on the crafting cost.
AHA! Defend your claim a crafter should never apply a surcharge on the crafting cost, because thats what YOU wrote!
Amazing how selective editing works isn't it?
Kindly be honest enough to not selectively edit my posts.
Crafting non-vital items is more like helping a buddy move. Sure, I'll do it, but the unspoken obligation is that he gives me free drinks and food as repayment.
A lot of posters here claim that this is not enough. When I proposed that the rest of the party goes hunting, does the crafter'd laundry, cooks and stuff like that they yelled "But I still charge money because".
A lot of posters here claim that this is not enough. When I proposed that the rest of the party goes hunting, does the crafter'd laundry, cooks and stuff like that they yelled "But I still charge money because".
Crafting non-vital items is more like helping a buddy move. Sure, I'll do it, but the unspoken obligation is that he gives me free drinks and food as repayment.
There are situations where an "equality of sweat" applies, and situations where it doesn't. Both of these types of situations can exist within a set of characters or at a table. Often at the same time within a table.
I'm not even sure I can say which would be more appropriate at the OP's table. Not without input from every player there. All that seems like it can truly be stated is that the OP is unhappy with the current paradigm, along with other problems at the table.
I can say that it seems like the GM is showing favoritism(even if only by virtue of laziness) by allowing one character to make use of downtime without allowing the others to do the same.
Ultimately, I think it's up to the GM to keep things more or less even - in spotlight, wealth, etc. - either by talking to the players or making adjustments to the game itself, depending on the nature of the particular problem. In this situation, it would mean keeping an eye on each character's relative wealth and making adjustments so that each remains within a certain percentage of each other.
If the GM's not willing to do that for a party crafter, then it probably really is simpler just to say "You craft at 50% for you and 100% for all others, but the extra money goes to charity or gets stolen by bandits or something". Otherwise, things will end up off.
I continue to hold the position that it's perfectly acceptable, perhaps even preferable, for crafters to charge if it's appropriate for the character s and table.
But if you are actually being totally fair, you should insist that any crafter is paid at least 5% in a 4 person party.Hmmm party of four loots 2000gp from a dungeon, the crafter takes that and makes four items worth 1000gp (retail) each, all four now have the same worth, how is he worse off again?
The crafter has certainly gained a benefit, as have his friends. Its a win/win.
We'll ignore the in character perspective, as I'm tired of bringing it up. Let's look at the player perspective.
The GM later does a tally of character wealth and says "Three players are above where I expected them to be, one is either at or below where he should be. I'll have to cut loot for a while. If it's not too much of a pain in the ass, I'll fix the other one later."
But if you are actually being totally fair, you should insist that any crafter is paid at least 5% in a 4 person party.Hmmm party of four loots 2000gp from a dungeon, the crafter takes that and makes four items worth 1000gp (retail) each, all four now have the same worth, how is he worse off again?
The crafter has certainly gained a benefit, as have his friends. Its a win/win.
Nope, all characters have gained exactly the same amount of loot. But one of them has spent a feat to do so. Relative to the other characters, the crafter is now weaker.
Now, as I have explained in my original rather verbose post, many crafting characters are quite happy with that situation - after all, everyone is better off overall - but, depending on the personalities and circumstances in a particular campaign, some crafters would not be happy about the relative weakness.
The part I am objecting to in your stance is your blanket demand that crafters must not get fair recompense for taking a crafting feat.
Do you, for example, also demand that all bard characters in every campaign must spend their downtime earning money by performing (eg in a tavern) and then demand every bit of that money be handed over to the other characters? It's the same argument as you are making about crafting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just restate my argument again - "No, you charge cost price".
"ar·gu·ment
noun \ˈär-gyə-mənt\:a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
Contrast with...
"state·ment
noun \ˈstāt-mənt\
1: something stated: as
a : a single declaration or remark : assertion
b : a report of facts or opinions"
"1com·mand
verb \kə-ˈmand\
: to give (someone) an order
: to tell (someone) to do something in a forceful and often official way"
|
There's a pretty big difference between healing, which does not require time or feat investments and crafting items, which does. Ya'll are trying to compare monkeys to oranges here; the two concepts are completely unrelated. If I were that wizard, I'd probably tell anyone that had such an unreasonable problem with it to go buy from the price gouging Keleshite down the road instead.
Refusing to heal your party free of charge (at least for the spells that have negligible to no cost; see also: most healing spells) is a far cry from wanting to make some little modicum of gold as you continually sacrifice advancing your own total net worth for that of your party.
|
|
So let's restate your position:
- a crafter should newer ask for more that production cost, not only in the OP campaign but in every campaign.
- in the OP situation the amount of downtime needed to craft something is handwaived, so there is no cost.
Exact?
That are 2 different statements, and the first is a general statement, not something limited to the OP situation. I have argued mostly against the first statement, even if my opinion is that for the character the handwaved time has passed, so it matter.
So your replies of "but in the OP situation ..." are worth very little, as I am arguing against your first, general, statement, not the second.
- * -
So your replies of "but in the OP situation ..." are worth very little, as I am arguing against your first, general, statement, not the second.Cool, so by selective editing and picking and chosing half a reply you feel you have a platform?
Look, I can do that too -
a crafter should never apply a surcharge on the crafting cost.AHA! Defend your claim a crafter should never apply a surcharge on the crafting cost, because thats what YOU wrote!
Amazing how selective editing works isn't it?
Kindly be honest enough to not selectively edit my posts.
- * -
So you are saying that your stance it that only in this specific situation, where downtime is waived, the crafter has no right to ask for compensation?
This thread again?
Went to several hundred posts last time :)
I'll just restate my argument again - "No, you charge cost price".
The 'time' argument is particularly ridiculous in a game where time is abstracted and is handwaved away.
Really mean:
"If the time spent in downtime is hand waived there is no opportunity cost so there is no reason to give compensation, but if the time spent in downtime is not hand waived there is a reason to ask for compensation"?
The GM later does a tally of character wealth and says "Three players are above where I expected them to be, one is either at or below where he should be. I'll have to cut loot for a while. If it's not too much of a pain in the ass, I'll fix the other one later."
This is where I am not seeing where you are coming from.
If four people are holding the exact same amount of items, why is the GM doing an audit of the party and deciding that when everyone is holding the exact same amount of wealth that one is below where they should be?
I can't see that happening in an AP either, where the party is below where they should be almost the entire time, perhaps it's situational.
Nope, all characters have gained exactly the same amount of loot. But one of them has spent a feat to do so. Relative to the other characters, the crafter is now weaker.
Though the crafter himself and the rest of the party are now sporting better gear than they would have before, so he's now better off overall.
The question comes down to whether he would have taken a Crafting feat to make his own gear in the first place, or whether he was badgered into it - if the party was demanding he took a feat then that's one thing, him choosing that feat is another. Item creation is effectively a 'buff' for him and anyone else he uses it on.I guess if you really felt the Feat should be monetised, just how much do you believe a Feat should be worth?
-some copy paste from the internet-
Next its speaking in tongues?
And I really do adore how you ignored the vast majority of my post on the last page laying out quite clearly how if you follow the WBL rules your idea of proper sharing is essentially bald faced theft of 18% of the wizard's wealth.
Oh it's not ignored, it just doesn't add up. Hence why I raised the 2k/4k question above. Something in your explanation must be missing because I am not coming to the same outcome you are. The conversation is still very much alive.
"I like how you and others love to fall back on "roleplaying" when it suits your needs, but when anyone points out that the time investment is character time not player time..."
You might have to illustrate the point here too, because that doesn't seem terribly accurate.
Being a non-spell caster, I cannot take the feat, craft wondrous items.
Not true. Look up the Master Craftsman feat.
Really mean:
"If the time spent in downtime is hand waived there is no opportunity cost so there is no reason to give compensation, but if the time spent in downtime is not hand waived there is a reason to ask for compensation?
Although reason to ask and actually asking, and what 'compensation' might look like are another conversation that will always rely on what the party and campaign dynamics look like, as well as the motives of the parties involved.
Next its speaking in tongues?
-Definition of yet another word Shifty keeps misusing-
I don't even know what you mean by this, but the post was meant as an attempt to educate you just a little bit.
This entire thread is pointless by this point, and has been for a while now, I figured SOME good should come of it.
Also, pretty sure you meant "it's" (short for "it is", as in "Next it is [used in a sense to mean it will be, or you will be] speaking in tongues"?), not "its" as a possessive form ("next, the speaking in tongues of it?").
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM later does a tally of character wealth and says "Three players are above where I expected them to be, one is either at or below where he should be. I'll have to cut loot for a while. If it's not too much of a pain in the ass, I'll fix the other one later."
This is where I am not seeing where you are coming from.
If four people are holding the exact same amount of items, why is the GM doing an audit of the party and deciding that when everyone is holding the exact same amount of wealth that one is below where they should be?
I can't see that happening in an AP either, where the party is below where they should be almost the entire time, perhaps it's situational.
Because the FAQ and the rules in UCamp say that only the crafter should benefit from the feat and that with one feat he should have approximately 125% of the normal WBL..
Let's take a party of 5rd level characters. The expected WBL is 10,500 gp.
If the crafter can take 2500 gp of that money and craft 5,000 gp of items for each member of the party, the situation become:
- 3 guys with 13.000 gp of gear when their WBL for the level should be 10.500
- 1 guy (the crafter) with 13.000 gp of gear when his WBL for the level, adjusted for the effect of his feat should be 13.000.
The party total WBL would be 52,000 gp instead of 44,500 (10,500*3+13,000).
At this point a GM that follow the WBL guidelines would remove loot so that at the next audit at level 6 the total WBL of the party is 68,000. In theory that number should be generated by 3 characters with 16,000 gp of items and 1 character, the crafter with 20,000 gp of items.
But if the crafter work for the other characters at cost, that number would be generated by 4 characters with 17,000 gp of items apiece.
What is the problem? That the crafter isn't receiving any benefit from his feat. The benefit of the feat is split between all party members.
The feat is meant to be primarily a benefit for the crafter, like taking power attack or thoughtfulness is primarily a benefit for the character taking it. If the benefit of the feat is divided equally between all the party members the grafter is not getting any benefit from it.
Only if the GM don't care at all about the party WBL and they have unlimited downtime the crafter isn't losing for working for the other character at cost, and even in that situation he would benefit more from not taking the feat and having another character taking it.
Because the FAQ and the rules in UCamp say that only the crafter should benefit from the feat and that with one feat he should have approximately 125% of the normal WBL.
I have to admit that UCamp is a book rapidly passing the GMG in my level of personal disappointment.
Assuming we run the rules from UCamp, which seeks to arbitrarily punish crafters for being altruistic, then we might hit a wall as you describe, and the end result for the party is that they collectively have their loot throttled - that said, WBL guidelines were about setting a power level anyway, and if your GM is going to adhere so strictly to the wbl guideline (and it is a guideline) you are almost better off NOT crafting but just sitting there and having the GM throw free loot at you any time there's a shortfall - heck spend the gold on booze and hookers and then at level up stick your hand out and point at WBL and have the GM shower you with gifts :P
The last part was a bit cheeky, but I am sure you get the idea.
Assuming we are sticking to the GM having to give you free stuff to keep you to your WBL, then Master Craftsman is the best feat in the game - don't ever bother actually making anything, just ride the mechanic for having 125% WBL for the rest of your career. No party member should be without it. Ever.
I don't even know what you mean by this, but the post was meant as an attempt to cry a bit more about how I have no pants and can't back a position.
Awesome.
See? We can both edit.
So what's your position on crafting though?
Any reason you just want to snipe from the sideline rather than participate in the conversation?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Locked.