Crafting for Profit

[Lucy_Valentine]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Lucky, why you guys that argue about requiring some compensation use that false argument where you equate time spent while adventuring to time spent during downtime?

Why are you drawing a difference between the two? The players are the same people playing the same game, so if the arrangement between players is collectivist play then there's no reason for it to change just because they're interacting with the downtime rules.

Also: you don't own your wife. And that's all I have to say to you.

[Leitner]

Diego Rossi wrote:

How many APs beside Kingmaker give you 65-80 free days at 10th level? Or even calculating all the free time with access to the needed materials between level 3 and 10?

Pretty much none that I am aware of. And if you are playing an AP where you have a total of 1 month downtime throughout 6 books of adventuring it probably would never come up. I even said as much in the post you are quoting:

"If your GM is pretty strict with downtime and you can't manage a whole lot of crafting, it would probably never be an issue."

But the OP, for the thread we are currently responding to, is asking about a hypothetical situation in which the downtime is just sort of handwaved away. Is that realistic? Not for my table, but apparently for the OPs table it is.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Meirril wrote:

The GM has a responsibility to look after the interests of his players. If a character has abilities but you NEVER give them an opportunity to use them, they might as well have gotten something else.

I can't second this strongly enough. If a barbarian takes Cleave and Great Cleave but every fight scene features singular brute monsters on the melee side with ranged support well spaced across the battle map, these Feats are a wasted choice ending up with a peeved player. Several GMs find it easy to manufacture scenarios where these Feats are suddenly relevant and its easy enough to do.

So why should crafting feats or others get the shaft?

If a Wizard begins at level 1 with Scribe Scroll and doesn't trade it away, there's even ways in total wilderness settings for them to find the materials to craft with, provided they have the time. You as GM have an obligation to allow that time.

Now all of that being said, the burden doesn't ALL rest on the GM. If the crafting PC wants to make a half-dozen Magic Weapons and Wondrous Items amounting to, say, 2 months worth of crafting time, then they need to at least voice this to their fellow players and make the case for delaying the adventure while they craft. If the player(s) won't advocate for themselves it shouldn't be solely on the GM to MAKE them wait.

To that end in my own home games I've allowed small (items whose Market Value, not Crafting Cost, are 500 GP or less) to be crafted alongside other larger magic items. So, for example if you've got an Inquisitor 5/Wizard (Universalist)3 who has both Craft Wondrous Item and Scribe Scroll and the party has decided to take a week of Downtime so that a new Circlet of Intelligence +2 can be crafted for another PC's Familiar, said Inquisitor/Wizard has every right to also make a handful of scrolls using the rules governing Scribing Scrolls while performing other actions during the day.

TL/DR: I guess all I'm trying to say is I agree that we need to provide situations and scenarios that validate our players' choices with their characters. If a players is willing to take niche abilities or non-combat Feats and so on, and they make it known to the group that they WANT to use these abilities, we as GMs have a responsibility to engineer the space in the campaign.

[Diego Rossi]

Meirril wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Having played crafters in three different campaigns with different GMs and mastered several other campaigns with crafters, I know fairly well what they really can do if the GM doesn't handwave the time and equipment requirements.

So, lets talk about the RotRL AP I ran. If you read the AP it says to give the players a few weeks of downtime between each chapter. It also gives clues in each section about the start of the next chapter, and ways to get the party moving by using NPCs to point them in the correct direction when you want them to leave.

But that makes the huge assumption that the players won't be impatient and rush to the next section on the flimsiest of clues. We had two characters that insisted on moving on as soon as there was a hint of anything going on anywhere. So if they found a note, the party would be traveling. Which very much upset the person that wanted to craft.

I literally forbid them from traveling for 2 months because the roads were snowed in. Just so the characters would have some time to do character stuff.

The GM has a responsibility to look after the interests of his players. If a character has abilities but you NEVER give them an opportunity to use them, they might as well have gotten something else. Its like if a player works with your to develop a revenge background for his character and you never insert it into the game. Or a player is actively working on becoming a Living Monolith and you never introduce a NPC that can help him meet the requirements. If a player takes crafting feats you need to give them a reasonable amount of downtime. That reasonable amount of time might not be long enough to satisfy them, but 1 week here, 3 days there, and 10 days between chapters isn't too hard to work into a story.

Even when my crafting player got 2 months, he still wanted more time. His plan was crafting items for the entire party, using all of their spare cash. He didn't get everything he wanted, but he did appreciate that I made time for him. Before that he was very, very frustrated.

EDIT: also it isn't an equipment requirement. It is a workshop requirement. Then it goes on to talk about crafting while adventuring, the complete opposite of a quiet and secure workshop.

I am Gming RotRL, so it is easy to check it.

Between chapter 1 and 2 you can insert as much time you want. On the other hand, the characters are level 4. There is little that they can make with the cash at hand.

Between chapter two and three there is some time pressure. Winter is coming, the hints you have shown that something is going to happen within a brief time span, and you have to reach a location several hundred miles away. My group traveled for something like 20 days, so 1/4 crafting speed during that period. They are 7th level, so there is not the "Teleport" option. Generally, they should have a good cash reserve and they start their voyage in a big city, so the supplies aren't a problem.

At the end of chapter three, they discover that their home city is in danger from an invasion and that the attackers are already moving. They are level 11, so they can teleport (most groups will have someone with that spell). They have the cash and not so much time, but 1-2 weeks are fully acceptable.
And they are at level 11, above our target level.

So, the end result:
- plenty of time at level 4, but little cash. A PCs can't make weapons and armors but can make belts, cloaks, and circlets.
Probably he will make a +1 cloak and a belt or circlet for each of them (if they haven't found any resist cloak and any stat enhancement item).
Asking 70% of the market price he has raked off 1,500 gp. Enough to bring his cloak of resistance to +2.
At double crafting speed, he has spent 3 days for each of the other characters, 4 for himself.
Time used 13 days.

- at level 7 (end of book 2) they have to travel and get to their destination when the plot is already in motion. 20 days of travel that count as 5 actual days. At best he can make items worth 10,000 gp in total. Making a 10K gp item for another character he get 2K in cash, but he hasn't the time to make a magic item for himself.
Alternatively, he has the time to make an item for himself, but he doesn't get extra cash.

- level 11 (end of book 3). The PCs have the money, they can travel fast and they have a bit of time. Let's be generous: they get 3 full weeks of crafting time. That means that hour guy can make 42K of magic items for other characters and get 8,400 gp from them. But then he has no time to make stuff for himself.
Or he can make items from himself but then he gets no extra cash.
Probably he will do a mix of the two, let's say 26K of stuff for the others and 16K for himself. That means that he will receive 5,200 gp from the others.

Let's sum up: at level 11 our crafter, asking 70% of the sale price, has received 8,700 gp from the other characters and crafted a total of 21,000 gp from himself, saving 11,500 gp. He is 20,200 above WBL, mostly in cash.

A level 11 character has a WBL of 82,000. The suggested effect of a crafting feat is to increase the WBL by 25%. Fun, our guy is exactly where he should be.

More fun, if he had spent the whole time crafting for himself only:
- at level 4 he would have crafted 5,000 gp of stuff, saving 2,500 gp;
- at level 7 he would have crafted 10,000 gp of stuff, saving 5,000 gp;
- at level 11 he would have crafted 42,000 gp of stuff, saving 21,000 gp.
End result, he would have been 28,500 gp above WBL, all in equipment.

What is the unbalancing result?

[Diego Rossi]

Meirril wrote:

EDIT: also it isn't an equipment requirement. It is a workshop requirement. Then it goes on to talk about crafting while adventuring, the complete opposite of a quiet and secure workshop.

The equipment requirements are under each magic item crafting section, starting at pag. 550.

CRB wrote:

Creating Magic Armor

To create magic armor, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. He also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the armor or the pieces of the armor to be assembled.

Similar text for all other categories.

The workshop requirement is for getting the full benefit of the 8 hours of work. While traveling and adventuring a crafter work 4 hours and get only the benefit of 2 hours of work.

[Diego Rossi]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Meirril wrote:

The GM has a responsibility to look after the interests of his players. If a character has abilities but you NEVER give them an opportunity to use them, they might as well have gotten something else.

I can't second this strongly enough. If a barbarian takes Cleave and Great Cleave but every fight scene features singular brute monsters on the melee side with ranged support well spaced across the battle map, these Feats are a wasted choice ending up with a peeved player. Several GMs find it easy to manufacture scenarios where these Feats are suddenly relevant and its easy enough to do.

You really think that the enemies should play stupid because a character has taken a feat that benefits him if they play stupid?

Depending on their intelligence and combat stile some creature will work in packs and try to gang up on a single character, while other will disperse and use maneuvers.
Seeing how magic works, most intelligent adversaries will try to stay dispersed to avoid the effect of area of effect spells. A single confusion on a packed group can be more destructive than a barbarian with great cleave.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

So why should crafting feats or others get the shaft?

If a Wizard begins at level 1 with Scribe Scroll and doesn't trade it away, there's even ways in total wilderness settings for them to find the materials to craft with, provided they have the time. You as GM have an obligation to allow that time.

Now all of that being said, the burden doesn't ALL rest on the GM. If the crafting PC wants to make a half-dozen Magic Weapons and Wondrous Items amounting to, say, 2 months worth of crafting time, then they need to at least voice this to their fellow players and make the case for delaying the adventure while they craft. If the player(s) won't advocate for themselves it shouldn't be solely on the GM to MAKE them wait.

To that end in my own home games I've allowed small (items whose Market Value, not Crafting Cost, are 500 GP or less) to be crafted alongside other larger magic items. So, for example if you've got an Inquisitor 5/Wizard (Universalist)3 who has both Craft Wondrous Item and Scribe Scroll and the party has decided to take a week of Downtime so that a new Circlet of Intelligence +2 can be crafted for another PC's Familiar, said Inquisitor/Wizard has every right to also make a handful of scrolls using the rules governing Scribing Scrolls while performing other actions during the day.

TL/DR: I guess all I'm trying to say is I agree that we need to provide situations and scenarios...

Yes, if you change the rules crafting becomes way easier.

But it is not different from saying that you barbarian with Great cleave can move to reach new opponents between the attacks granted by the feat.

[Kayerloth]

Haven't been thoroughly keeping up with thread but I'm quite sure Mark and others aren't saying the foes need to act like idiots. They are saying if a PC has a feat or skill the DM should make some effort towards creating encounters or opportunities where they benefit from having those skills. It will increase the fun factor for that player. Maybe our lone brutes ranged support would spread out but for any of a very large number of reasons can't allowing the cleave, great cleave PC an opportunity to use his feats. Maybe in the next encounter they'll be all spread out and hard to get in a melee attack much less cleaving opportunities but some other PCs will have abilities to shine in the encounter.

[Meirril]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You really think that the enemies should play stupid because a character has taken a feat that benefits him if they play stupid?
Depending on their intelligence and combat stile some creature will work in packs and try to gang up on a single character, while other will disperse and use maneuvers.
Seeing how magic works, most intelligent adversaries will try to stay dispersed to avoid the effect of area of effect spells. A single confusion on a packed group can be more destructive than a barbarian with great cleave.

I think there are a variety of encounters with opponents of various intelligence levels. If you play them all the same, then you're turning the game away from being a group story telling session into the players vs the GM. The GM isn't the player's opponent, the GM is telling a story the players get to interact with.

Enemies shouldn't be omnipotent. Enemies should act true to their character. Stereotypical unless given a reason not to fit into their nitch. Enemies should react to player tactics, after they are given a REASON to take a new tactic. And that exact tactic each opponent takes to a situation shouldn't be universal. It should be tailored to the abilities of the opponent and their own tactics.

As much as some people feel that tactical combat is the heart of Pathfinder, I disagree. Pathfinder is about story, and having the world be boisterous and impactful is more important that having each and every creature eek out as many resources from the party as possible.

[Diego Rossi]

If you read my post, it is exactly what I said. But intelligent creatures adapt to the environment. Human wave attacks have almost totally disappeared in the face of firearms and line formation is a tactic that died more than a century ago. Same thing for cavalry and most personal armor.

In the face of magic close formations are dangerous, so, unless you are a group of adventurers that can mitigate that danger and benefit from teamwork feats or flanking attacks, intelligent creatures will avoid them.

The requirement for cleave and great cleave is particularly stringent, as the targets should be adjacent to you and adjacent to each other. While the first thing is common, the second isn't, as most enemies, even animal intelligent ones will try to get flanking attacks.

With all that in mind, I find that your and Kayerloth arguments sound more as "you must change the tactics of the enemies in a way that favor the players" than "you most use the typical tactics of than kind of enemy".

[Meirril]

Diego Rossi wrote:

If you read my post, it is exactly what I said. But intelligent creatures adapt to the environment. Human wave attacks have almost totally disappeared in the face of firearms and line formation is a tactic that died more than a century ago. Same thing for cavalry and most personal armor.

In the face of magic close formations are dangerous, so, unless you are a group of adventurers that can mitigate that danger and benefit from teamwork feats or flanking attacks, intelligent creatures will avoid them.

The requirement for cleave and great cleave is particularly stringent, as the targets should be adjacent to you and adjacent to each other. While the first thing is common, the second isn't, as most enemies, even animal intelligent ones will try to get flanking attacks.

With all that in mind, I find that your and Kayerloth arguments sound more as "you must change the tactics of the enemies in a way that favor the players" than "you most use the typical tactics of than kind of enemy".

And I find your viewpoint to be 'ivory tower' and inexperienced. Maybe rather than say inexperienced I should say Diego wants to talk about everything in a hypothetical open space when a good 80% of encounters happen in a narrow space?

There are tons of fights where moving out to get flanking is the same as announcing your intent to be torn to shreds. A lot of occasions have the party form a defensive line because the terrain dictates the tactics. Trying to dictate that monsters shouldn't ever use line tactics ignores the specific for some idealized set of rules of war. Guess what? If you really act like that players can take advantage of that too. But I guess that is what you want. You want the players to conform to your idea of how they should act, not to play a character they develop. Or am I wrong?

If I'm trying to favor the players (and to some extent, GMs are suppose to), then Diago is trying to 'win'. This is a RPG, there is no winning. Players don't beat the GM. If the GM insists a creature can only die the way the GM wants it to, that is the way it goes. Which sounds incredibly stupid and like a horrible way to run a game, but it is what it is.

RPGs are stories. They are experiences. We use combat to drive dramatic tension. If the players expect to win constantly, there is no dramatic tension. If players die, that is part of the story. That is just part of the game. But killing players isn't a goal, and it doesn't serve some greater purpose.

Having an unruly mob act like untrained idiots is correct for the story. Having a group of Orcs act like trained soldiers...well, are they trained soldiers? I don't expect a high level of precision out of tribal raiders. I certainly don't expect them to point at a guy in robes and then spread themselves out 35' apart and switch to longbows for the rest of the combat. What kind of game is that? What kind of terrain are you even in where that is possible? Does your entire campaign happen in a plain? Or the ruins of a Titan constructed city? Maybe you only have single monster encounters so you don't have to worry about cleave, or positioning, or a dozen other minor concerns that will most certainly be of the utmost importance, I'm sure. And certainly your players will appreciate all of your efforts to have every creature approach them as experts in pathfinder tactics.

[Kayerloth]

Diego Rossi wrote:

...<snip>... With all that in mind, I find that your and Kayerloth arguments sound more as "you must change the tactics of the enemies in a way that favor the players" than "you most use the typical tactics of than kind of than kind of enemy"

In a word no. The enemy just like the PCs will have to adjust their tactics to fit the terrain and foes present based on their knowledge of the situation and own capabilities. Intelligent foes will deal with it better than not so bright ones. Just like tactical players might be less likely to engage in a frontal assault than ones with a tendency to zerg rush everything.

And this thread has definitely derailed from the op.

[Diego Rossi]

Kayerloth wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

...<snip>... With all that in mind, I find that your and Kayerloth arguments sound more as "you must change the tactics of the enemies in a way that favor the players" than "you most use the typical tactics of than kind of than kind of enemy"

In a word no. The enemy just like the PCs will have to adjust their tactics to fit the terrain and foes present based on their knowledge of the situation and own capabilities. Intelligent foes will deal with it better than not so bright ones. Just like tactical players might be less likely to engage in a frontal assault than ones with a tendency to zerg rush everything.

Exactly. But Meirril seems to have a very different opinion.

Kayerloth wrote:

And this thread has definitely derailed from the op.

True. But if we consider only the op scenario, the primary problem isn't someone asking compensation for magic items, it is the characters having virtually unlimited wealth. With unlimited time it is possible to use the downtime rules to make cash and then use that to buy whatever you want. At that point, the guy with the crafting feats has no advantage, as the cash flow will be outside his control.

If the GM doesn't allow to use the downtime rules to make money but stay outside the discussion about the compensation for magic item crafting, he is actually increasing the disparity. In that situation, there is little to discuss. So the discussion has immediately moved to more common scenarios.

The Devs have given a clear limit for the benefit of crafting feats.

Ultimate magic wrote:

As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.

If you are creating items for other characters in the party, the increased wealth for the other characters should come out of your increased allotment.

So the problem isn't the cash flow between the characters. If the GM wants to control it, he should control the time and the availability of the needed materials.