WBL with crafted items.

[DLoFunk]

So this total munchkin in my group wants to start his 10th level character with a bunch of gear and only pay (less than, by using restrictions) half price on all the items that he has the appropriate Crafting feats for. This has to be covered somewhere but I can't find anything about it.

There's no way I'm allowing it, but I much prefer my rulings be based on something real rather than a simple "because I said so". If I can't find a rule disallowing it I just know it's gonna cause me a head-ache that I really don't feel like dealing with.

PLEASE HELP

[myancey]

Is this magical equipment or basic equipment?

If it's basic, it shouldn't be a big deal making all of his items masterwork. Yes, he'd be getting a bunch of gold off the product, but for investing heavily in the skill--I'd allow it. Standard crafting rules are here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm

If they are magical items--let him create those too. But dock him for the entirety of the XP cost. Make him a few levels lower in the party. The magic item creation section is here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm

Either way, the items he wants to create have an XP cost--he doesn't get that part for free.

I let my players start at lower levels (due to XP loss)--but they can have those items.

If they don't want to lose levels, they don't get magic items they've 'crafted'.

[HappyBlanket]

If he's willing to pay the cost of feats, exp, gold, etc. for the items, he should be allowed to keep them.

[Big Fau]

I think the key point here is the OP's player is using restricted items (AKA: A set of +6 Gloves of Dex that only function for Elves with 5d6 Sneak Attack).


The DMG has rules for this, and they reduce the costs of crafting items dramatically. It's considered hideously overpowered, so I'm with the OP for not allowing it.

[DLoFunk]

Yeah, I would insist on the xp loss, though he wanted to sneak that past me too. He's making every single item usable only by his specific class and alignment to reduce the costs even further. I told him in my last email that he'd hafta pay full price for his gear, cuz he pissed me off. I was hoping that I overlooked something making it a legit ruling. I told him that crafting costs and reductions only apply to things he creates during play, not in backstory.

[dextercorvia]

I would let him pay half price if he invests the feats and XP, but I wouldn't let him use any of that custom baloney.

[Big Fau]

Yeah, I would insist on the xp loss, though he wanted to sneak that past me too. He's making every single item usable only by his specific class and alignment to reduce the costs even further. I told him in my last email that he'd hafta pay full price for his gear, cuz he pissed me off. I was hoping that I overlooked something making it a legit ruling. I told him that crafting costs and reductions only apply to things he creates during play, not in backstory.

Paying the normal crafting costs is fine for most campaigns, but using those cost reducers in the DMG is not. Trust me, Artificers could get away with murder if those are allowed.


Never allow custom magic items unless you are building them as the DM. They will break the campaign.

[myancey]

Yeah, I would insist on the xp loss, though he wanted to sneak that past me too. He's making every single item usable only by his specific class and alignment to reduce the costs even further. I told him in my last email that he'd hafta pay full price for his gear, cuz he pissed me off. I was hoping that I overlooked something making it a legit ruling. I told him that crafting costs and reductions only apply to things he creates during play, not in backstory.

I had a player try to do this once--somehow had tons of stuff plus a set of mithril full plate by 6th level...it was a good 20k in gear with a 13k WBL. I told him no.

I don't mind the restrictions a person can put on the alignment, provided they use it lightly. One or two items, maybe, but not on everything. That's just abusing the rule--which was created more for DMs in determining an items market value after adding on those restrictions.

In the end, you can't allow most things that come from backstory.

It's akin to the player starting out as a Necropolitan from LM. You could say in your backstory that you were created by a 20th level necromancer with Corpse Crafter and all of the feats in that tree, plus Improved Animation, etc. You'd have a crazy, crazy character with a +0 LA.

You've gotta put your foot down somewhere. And in this instance, the party would definitely be lopsided WBL-wise.

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
The DMG simply states "you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level." So regardless of how a character crafted, purchased, plundered, or stole the items, the only thing that matters is that it is in her possession, right? Or, in other words, even if the character decided to personally craft items before the game has begun, only the equivalent market value of the item is used (thus suffering no XP loss, but receiving no benefits from having access to the feats beforehand).

Anyhow...class and alignment fall under the same modifier type (reduced to 70%) so that shouldn't stack. Though, if an item was specifically for an Artificer who needed a Use Magic Device of 5 or higher for it to be operable, would reduce the total market value to 63%.

[Seerow]

Alternatively you can say "Fine, you have crafted everything to the exact specifications of your class, alignment, and race. You are also crafting everything for your party, so that they have equivalent wealth, but you get to take the exp penalty for it."


After all, fair is fair, you're only asking him to be a team player...

[DLoFunk]

Azazer, that's exactly where my mind was at. Thank You for pointing that out.

[Vent Reynolt]

Yeah, I would insist on the xp loss, though he wanted to sneak that past me too. He's making every single item usable only by his specific class and alignment to reduce the costs even further. I told him in my last email that he'd hafta pay full price for his gear, cuz he pissed me off. I was hoping that I overlooked something making it a legit ruling. I told him that crafting costs and reductions only apply to things he creates during play, not in backstory.

Frankly, custom item creation is one of the privileges that players need to earn by proving that they can roleplay responsibly. Ultimately the game is about a group of people coming together to have fun, and one person trying to abuse the rules to outshine everyone else will lead to several people not having any fun at all.

I think that this is a case where as DM you'll need to just put your foot down and make it clear that such rules abuse will not be tolerated. It might seem harsh, but not being firm about it might simply have the munchkin look for other ways to break the game.

[Coidzor]

So this total munchkin in my group wants to start his 10th level character with a bunch of gear and only pay (less than, by using restrictions) half price on all the items that he has the appropriate Crafting feats for. This has to be covered somewhere but I can't find anything about it.

There's no way I'm allowing it, but I much prefer my rulings be based on something real rather than a simple "because I said so". If I can't find a rule disallowing it I just know it's gonna cause me a head-ache that I really don't feel like dealing with.

PLEASE HELP

Haha. Nope. RAW is as RAW does with item crafting and you're on your own. (edit: that is to say, adjudicating what to do as it is, well, you're on your own there as there's not even some popular houserules onthe subject from what I've been able to gather) If you don't let him craft then let him retake those feats.

[Ashram]

Crafting items is fine, but you shouldn't allow the restrictions; restrictions aren't really restrictions if they don't restrict in a meaningful way. Using them in a mechanical, munchkin way to say "Alright, lower price for items only I can use" is RAW, yes, but the DM should stamp down on it. If he wants lower item costs, take the "____ Artisan" line from Player's Guide to Eberron (With errata, of course).

[Curmudgeon]

You could go along with the restrictions if they include alignment, and then be extremely diligent in determining the character's alignment (which the DM always sets, based on character actions, after character creation) afterward. From page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:
You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the players. If a player says, “My neutral good character becomes chaotic good,” the appropriate response from you is “Prove it.” Actions dictate alignment, not statements of intent by players. Having all the character's cost-reduced magic equipment become mundane for them (until they complete a quest of atonement or similar) should be a valuable lesson for the player.

[marcielle]

Lol I was thinking about to pull that stunt myself. While the loss of a 75% discount is blergh, I guess it really makes more sense when you think about it.

[Baka Nikujaga]

If you don't let him craft then let him retake those feats.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
As an individual it's easy to understand the sentiment of giving him a chance to swap out his feats should be be unable to craft pre-game...but is that really necessary? Item creation feats, regardless of pre-game crafting or not, are still viable so long as the party isn't permanently stuck in combat. I mean, we have Zeroficers who can run around as slightly, more acceptable party buffers than DMM-Persist Clerics.

And since everyone seems to be stuck on the concept of disadvantages for cost reduction...I'll support Curmudgeon and quote Monte Cook:

Avoid the "disadvantage trap." That is to say, don't assume that, because an item has some sort of drawback, its price should go down. For example, say the elf Vexander makes a staff whose spells can be accessed only by elves. That might seem like a limitation. But really, it's not -- it doesn't affect Vexander in any way. In fact, if some non-elf steals it, the thief can't use it against him. It's actually a benefit. And even if an item really does have some true disadvantage, or has a cursed effect as described in the DMG, don't discount the price too much; 10% is probably fine.

As the Dungeon Master, you're in control of what disadvantages are actual "disadvantages" and which are actually beneficial. Sure, having a race-based item might seem like a disadvantage because only those of your race can use it, but it also makes it less likely that someone would want to steal it from you. Further other characters would still be able to easily aid you. But if an item is restricted by class, the rest of your party might not be able to use it to your benefit. Though...at this point I think it's probably fairly obvious to say that I'd think a cursed sword that screams every time it's drawn would probably be more of a boon than a bane. Or that having a Singing Bowl that is mentally audible would be almost asinine.

[Big Fau]

Anyhow...class and alignment fall under the same modifier type (reduced to 70%) so that shouldn't stack. Though, if an item was specifically for an Artificer who needed a Use Magic Device of 5 or higher for it to be operable, would reduce the total market value to 63%.

Never noticed that they had specific categories for that rule.


Still never going to allow that kind of cost reducer though. Bind Elemental and the Legendary X feats are it, and that's only if I allow Item Crafting in the first place.


Word of advice to anyone reading this thread: Never allow custom magic item creation.

[Coidzor]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]As an individual it's easy to understand the sentiment of giving him a chance to swap out his feats should be be unable to craft pre-game...but is that really necessary?

If the DM is not going to allow Item Creation during the game or before the game then the DM should be man enough to not penalize the player for wanting to craft in the first place by setting those feats on fire.

...And why did you post that picture in the thread?


You could go along with the restrictions if they include alignment, and then be extremely diligent in determining the character's alignment (which the DM always sets, based on character actions, after character creation) afterward. From page 134 of the Dungeon Master's Guide: Having all the character's cost-reduced magic equipment become mundane for them (until they complete a quest of atonement or similar) should be a valuable lesson for the player.

No, see, that bit of quoted advice there actually encourages alignment debates, so that's not good advice at all. Responding to something like that aggressively and confrontationally rather than getting to the root cause of the issue is just going to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[The-Mage-King]

...And why did you post that picture in the thread?

I think that's hir "thing" like people ending their posts with



--------------

Name

or anything like that.


Anyway, to weigh in on this...


Let him have the gear, so long as he pays the xp and gp for it. Don't let him use those restrictions, either. Make him work with the whole cost of the stuff.

[Big Fau]

...And why did you post that picture in the thread?


That's what artists would call signature style. Like how JaronK signs his posts instead of putting that in his signature. Or how I like to space my lines more than grammatically necessary.

[Divide by Zero]

Custom items are explicitly by DM approval only. So by RAW (aside from Rule 0, of course), you can just tell him no.

[Baka Nikujaga]

...And why did you post that picture in the thread?

http://i52.tinypic.com/qn1lqa.jpg
Why? Is there a problem with using a picture instead of a smily?
Are you prejudiced against anything that isn't a smily? Are you? Are you?!
If you are, I sincerely hope that I have not insulted you.

On a more serious note...

If the DM is not going to allow Item Creation during the game or before the game then the DM should be man enough to not penalize the player for wanting to craft in the first place by setting those feats on fire.

The purpose of taking an item creation feat shouldn't be restricted to or primarily used for the creation of magical items pre-game. That would be similar to having someone with a few levels in Thrallherd beginning the game with an arbitrarily high amount of wealth because said Thrallherd decided that sacrificing believers was a particularly beneficial thing to do (Note: Does not work with Leadership).


Still never going to allow that kind of cost reducer though. Bind Elemental and the Legendary X feats are it, and that's only if I allow Item Crafting in the first place.

There's also the Apprentice feat and the benefits of being in a magic-based guild as well (with a bonus if it's an Arcane magic guild). In any case you might want to pay a visit to this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7274.0) thread then. It reveals a step-by-step breakdown of item cost reductions and production times.

[marcielle]

You normally have to MAKE homunculli yourself if you one. So the 'normal' price would be the crafting price. If I was starting at say level 8 but wanted some homunculli on me would I pay twice the crafting cost and no xp or would I pay crafting cost and xp as normal? I only ask this because it would make no sense to buy a homuncullus as they would not be obliged to listen to you.

Ps. Azazer, your avatar and colored speech text styles are awesome, mind if I steal the idea?

[Big Fau]

I think that's hir "thing" like people ending their posts with

My grammar textbook is screaming at you right now.


There's also the Apprentice feat and the benefits of being in a magic-based guild as well (with a bonus if it's an Arcane magic guild). In any case you might want to pay a visit to this thread then. It reveals a step-by-step breakdown of item cost reductions and production times.

I'm a lurker over there. I've known about that thread for some time, and actually used it for my current Artificer IRL.

Hypocritical of me to do so, but the party needs all the help it can get (especially with our DM's tendencies).

[The-Mage-King]

My grammar textbook is screaming at you right now.

My Grammar-Fu is stronger than yours. Hir is a gender neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hir#Modern_attempts_at_gender-equity_in_English_pronouns) Possessive Pronoun. Search it.

I used it because of a lack of gender identification on the post. No offense intended, Azazer.

[Bhaakon]

I'd let him to craft items at half price, but I wouldn't allow him to use restrictions to lower the cost further. It's not RAW, but just make the argument that the price recommendations for restrictions are for market value, while the cost of item creation represents the cost of its raw materials. Since the raw materials needed to produce a given magical effect are the same whether the item has a restriction on it or not, the crafting cost of a restricted item is the same as a non-restricted item with the same abilities.

[Baka Nikujaga]

You have to MAKE homunculli yourself if you want them to follow your orders. So the 'normal' price would be the crafting price. If I was starting at say level 8 but wanted some homunculli on me would I pay twice the crafting cost and no xp or would I pay crafting cost and xp as normal?
http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sure that such a decision would be left up to the DM of your game for this type of situation. But when compared to other constructs (such as a golem or shield guardian), it seems logical that the market value of a base homunculi would be equal to two times the value of the crafting price.

Ps. Azazer, your avatar and colored speech text styles are awesome, mind if I steal the idea?

http://i52.tinypic.com/qn1lqa.jpg
So long as you support the coming of Revyatalia, you may!

If you like this style of posting then sure. I don't mind if you use it.

[MeeposFire]

My Grammar-Fu is stronger than yours. Hir is a gender neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hir#Modern_attempts_at_gender-equity_in_English_pronouns) Possessive Pronoun. Search it.

I used it because of a lack of gender identification on the post. No offense intended, Azazer.

Oh geez not this argument again...

[Big Fau]

My Grammar-Fu is stronger than yours. Hir is a gender neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hir#Modern_attempts_at_gender-equity_in_English_pronouns) Possessive Pronoun. Search it.

I used it because of a lack of gender identification on the post. No offense intended, Azazer.

I hate politically correct changes made to linguistics. I really do.


The gender-neutral term will always be masculine when referring to an individual of unknown sex, at least in my book.

[The-Mage-King]

Oh geez not this argument again...

"Again"? Did someone else have the same issue of pronoun use?

EDIT@Swordsage: Ah. I see. I see the use of a gender neutral pronoun as... more polite than defaulting to a male pronoun.

[Curmudgeon]

No, see, that bit of quoted advice there actually encourages alignment debates, so that's not good advice at all. Responding to something like that aggressively and confrontationally rather than getting to the root cause of the issue is just going to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
I wasn't suggesting springing this as a surprise afterward. The player in question has obviously studied the Dungeon Master's Guide diligently to understand the crafting rules. A reminder by the DM of this other part of the DMG, during character creation, should be sufficient. I would hope that such a reminder would make the player re-think their cost reduction strategy. And if the player went ahead anyway, the DM should follow those alignment rules, knowing that the player had ample opportunity to read and understand them.

[Big Fau]

"Again"? Did someone else have the same issue of pronoun use?

EDIT@Swordsage: Ah. I see. I see the use of a gender neutral pronoun as... more polite than defaulting to a male pronoun.

It's something you had to grow up with. The changes didn't really start happening until the last 10 years or so; I was reared with the proper English being beat into me with a sledgehammer (and I still get it wrong enough to irritate my English instructor).


I've also witnessed 5 different English professors rant on why politics and grammar should not mix, all because of this same incident (someone using hir in an essay). It's rather enlightening seeing a 70-year old woman insisting on the by-the-book method instead of the politically correct one.

[RPGuru1331]

Regarding Crafting, this is an extremely important rule for all RPGs, ever:
Never allow a 'disadvantage' to reduce cost if it isn't actually a disadvantage. It holds here; if it can't inconvenience the player at all, there's no reason to consider a cost reducer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't allow the restriction itself; Let them make the elven-only staff Monte Cook mentioned. But don't refund gold for it.

edit; Addendum, very important:

If they didn't get a reduced cost, there's really no need to hammer the restriction in somehow, such as monitoring alignment like a hawk or making sure the only resurrection in town when they die is Reincarnate. Allow it, make a note of it, don't seriously hammer it in.

I hate politically correct changes made to linguistics. I really do.
I hate it when people unironically use the term 'politically correct'



The gender-neutral term will always be masculine when referring to an individual of unknown sex, at least in my book.
Why? That's assuming facts not in evidence. Additionally, that specific form of assumption helps contribute to the atmosphere of unwelcomeness many women find in nerd-dom.

[MeeposFire]

"Again"? Did someone else have the same issue of pronoun use?

EDIT@Swordsage: Ah. I see. I see the use of a gender neutral pronoun as... more polite than defaulting to a male pronoun.

I forget if this was here or at WotC but this exact argument over proper gender neutral pronoun use went for a long time and got kind of nasty.

[Big Fau]

Why? That's assuming facts not in evidence. Additionally, that specific form of assumption helps contribute to the atmosphere of unwelcomeness many women find in nerd-dom.

Because English is based on portions of several languages, and one of the portions excluded (for whatever reason) was gender-neutral terminology. It is proper to not use gender-neutral terminology when communicating in English. It may be offensive to some, but people who post on gaming forums like this one have a strong enough sense of maturity to ignore it and continue the conversation, or at most provide the appropriate gender term if it really bothers that person.

And let's be honest: How many women with no history of gaming are going to find (via Google or what have you) this specific section of the forums, read this thread, and then report it as offensive? I just know someone's going to report it to spite me though.

But this debate is not meant for this thread.

[darksolitaire]

As non-native English speaker, I was taught that if there is room for speculation on the gender, the proper word to use is them.

Example: "Someone called. He or she didn't leave his or hers number."
-> "Someone called. They didn't leave their number."

Is this proper method, or simply offshoot of Finglish? Finnish doesn't care too much for gender specific pronouns.

[Big Fau]

As non-native English speaker, I was taught that if there is room for speculation on the gender, the proper word to use is them.

Example: "Someone called. He or she didn't leave his or hers number."
-> "Someone called. They didn't leave their number."

Is this proper method, or simply offshoot of Finglish? Finnish doesn't care too much for gender specific pronouns.

It's proper for a group of people, but not for a singular person.

[RPGuru1331]

As non-native English speaker, I was taught that if there is room for speculation on the gender, the proper word to use is them.
For everyday speech, this is acceptable. Do not do this in a professional writing or in an academic setting; it is incorrect grammar. However, it is colloquially used incorrect grammar.



Because English is based on portions of several languages, and one of the portions excluded (for whatever reason) was gender-neutral terminology.
Explain to me why I should care what was 'intended', or what it was 'based on'.

Because this is what English was 'supposed' to look like when it was created.

http://islp.di.unipi.it/bifrost/vbd/immagini/vc.jpg

I understand the rules of English. They were set up poorly in this regard. As its my mother tongue, I feel well within my rights to try to change it through alternate use; so too, presumably, does the-mage-king. Knowing the origins of a rule of language doesn't mean caring. A lot of things were set up that were based on wrong ideas, such as ancient (Or victorian, or antebellum...) legal codes. That doesn't mean you shrug your shoulders and say "Welp, it was made with these premises, so that sucks for you I guess, I'm sorry".



And let's be honest: How many women with no history of gaming are going to find (via Google or what have you) this specific section of the forums, read this thread, and then report it as offensive?
"Just this one little time, it's okay", hm? No; if you want an environment that welcomes women, you specifically go out of your way to m ake sure it always is. You don't say things that diminish or erase women just because you think women aren't looking. They could be, right now. They might not be, but that's besides the point; There is not a single thing you gain for saying things that diminish or erase their presence, but they can, and very well may, feel that this spac,e or this RPG system, or this hobby, or the very idea of being a nerd, aren't for them. And it's not like you can blame anyone for coming to that conclusion whenever the occupants of that space, the players of that RPG system, the enthusiasts of the hobby, or nerds make sure they go out of their way to make it clear that women will be treated as others, as people who don't belong in their hobby.

That may seem a lot to place at the feet of one assumption. And it is; but it's not like there's just one assumption at work here. There's a lot of things that contribute to the environment being non-inclusive. That doesn't mean you throw your hands up and say "Welp, can't change it!" It just means there's a lot of things to change.

Further note: It matters little whether they have history in gaming or not. What you said contributes to an environment hostile to them. While it is *even worse* from the standpoint of attracting prospective new nerds, already being a nerd doesn't give you a magical shield that makes all things said by nerds unhurtful; you can drive women out of the hobby by saying these kinds of things, even if they like it, because of the environment created.

[Curmudgeon]

As non-native English speaker, I was taught that if there is room for speculation on the gender, the proper word to use is them.

Example: "Someone called. He or she didn't leave his or hers number."
-> "Someone called. They didn't leave their number."

Is this proper method, or simply offshoot of Finglish? Finnish doesn't care too much for gender specific pronouns.
From the Wikipedia Gender-neutral pronoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun) article:
In casual speech, "they" is often used, but in written works this may not be acceptable, due to its plurality. "One" may be used instead (see below), but is often considered overly bombastic. This forum is a venue of casual (typed) speech, and singular they/them seems to me a better choice than he_or_she/him_or_her, one, or PC amalgams like ze/hir.

[Bhaakon]

As non-native English speaker, I was taught that if there is room for speculation on the gender, the proper word to use is them.

Example: "Someone called. He or she didn't leave his or hers number."
-> "Someone called. They didn't leave their number."

Is this proper method, or simply offshoot of Finglish? Finnish doesn't care too much for gender specific pronouns.

In speech and informal writing (and business writing, for that matter), that is indeed the most common way people deal with gender ambiguity. If you did it on a standardized test or an essay for an English composition class, you'd probably get marked off for it. For some reason it's a popular convention that many strident grammarians refuse to accept.

As for introducing a new term, I'd generally against making things more complicated then they need to be, and sexuality-related euphemisms tend to fall victim to the euphemism treadmill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill) as quickly as they can be invented and promulgated (I know it's not technically a euphemism, but it's in the same family of purposefully constructed non-offensive vocabulary, and being called sexually neuter is at least mildly offensive in many, probably most, English speaking circles). Also, the way "hir" is pronounced isn't sufficiently different from "her" among the English speakers I know (your mileage may very, particularly depending on regional accents, but a single vowel difference-particularly between "i" and "e"--is bound to fall somewhere between subtle and hopelessly ambiguous).

As I see it, just assume your own gender pronoun until proven otherwise, it's easier and doesn't require explanation.

[marcielle]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
So long as you support the coming of Revyatalia, you may![/center][/spoiler]

I can't find Revyatalia on Google OR Yahoo but if you'll tell me what it is I'll be sure ot support it.
:smallbiggrin:

[JaronK]

So this total munchkin in my group wants to start his 10th level character with a bunch of gear and only pay (less than, by using restrictions) half price on all the items that he has the appropriate Crafting feats for. This has to be covered somewhere but I can't find anything about it.

Perfectly legal. Note that it would be necessary to spend some experience if we're talking about magic items.

If it's mundane, it's 1/3 cost.

Of course, either way the player have to have spent the appropriate feats and/or craft skill points so that this could be done. What the player is doing is not munchkining at all... it's just using item crafting.


There's no way I'm allowing it, but I much prefer my rulings be based on something real rather than a simple "because I said so". If I can't find a rule disallowing it I just know it's gonna cause me a head-ache that I really don't feel like dealing with.

PLEASE HELP

Your rulings are based on your own opinion only. So yes, it's going to have to be because you said so, because what the player is doing is RAW.

And you might want to consider that there's a deeper issue if you're calling this player a total munchkin over this. Have you considered, instead of trying to claim rules advantage, simply asking your player to tone down the power level to better fit with the sort of game you'd like to run?

JaronK

[Feriority]

I'm not terribly familiar with the rules for restrictions changing item prices, but here's how I'd treat it: the restrictions don't make crafting easier, they just impact market value. The cost to buy an Elves-only fireball staff will be lower anywhere that isn't almost exclusively Elves, because it's less useful (though in a community mostly composed of Elves, it can even be sold as a feature - as mentioned earlier in the thread, now that human thief can't use your own staff against you). The effective cost for crafting comes from the base item, though, unless the restriction isn't just a user-lockout but actual cutting corners on the item's capabilities ("I didn't want to spend the money on making the staff fully functional, so it can only work at dusk, dawn, and noon", for example).

Yeah, that gets subjective fast, but it both prevents abuse of restrictions that don't actually effect the player, while allowing benefits for meaningful restrictions and letting you generate restricted items with the full set of rules, since market value will be more relevant for those items than effective crafting value.

This will probably work better if your game's economy isn't too attached to the exact numbers in the sourcebooks to begin with (those are base prices, but regionally numbers can change based on scarcity, etc). Otherwise, this will probably feel a little arbitrary, in which case you can just fall back on personally ruling whether a restriction is allowed for player crafting or banning restrictions from player crafting entirely.

[CTrees]

I'm actually with JaronK, here... half price, with feat and XP investment? I don't see a problem with that. If there are rolls to be made for the crafting, force him to make them, in front of you, or lose thr investment for that item. Considering what else he could be taking instead, and the potential for starting a level lower... doesn't seem gamebreaking, SO LONG AS ALL THE MATH IS PROPERLY DONE. If he tries to stack alignment and class restrictions, no, that's bad. Though I'm sure the system can be broekn in have w/ full splat support-don't allow that (ex., if you're not playing in Eberron, why allow Eberron specific tricks?).

I did this with my current wizard. Some things I couldn't craft, so I bought. I made sure my skills were high enough to take ten and auto-pass the checks, as opposed to risking failing the rolls. Made sure I got the math right. And so on. Really not breaking anything, and I've been able to craft some stuff for the party, too, which everyone appreciates.

EDIT: On hir, I support it, in text. He or she and similar are clunky, flow-breaking constructs, they is plural, one has the wrong feel for some forms of writing and use of neutral nouns ('the poster,' 'CTrees, 'the technician,' whatever) isn't always possible. Also, like it or not, LANGUAGE EVOLVES (I still think 'forte' should only be two syllables when talking about music, but I'll concede common usage, for example). In the US, at least, adoption of gender neutral, singular pronouns seems like a natural progression.

HOWEVER, 'hir,' specifically, is not differentiated enough in speech from 'her' to be usable. Given the intended usage, that's a *huge* problem. Thus, it seems reasonable, to me, only in text.

Just my thoughts, at any rate. That discussion is way, way, waaaaayyyyyyyy off topic, and potentially heated. *shrug* if it starts to get toasty, I'm outa here, on that subject.

[Coidzor]

http://i52.tinypic.com/qn1lqa.jpg
Why? Is there a problem with using a picture instead of a smily?
Are you prejudiced against anything that isn't a smily? Are you? Are you?!
If you are, I sincerely hope that I have not insulted you.

No, I just found it to be rather a lot of negativity for my voicing the opinion that if the DM were not going to let the character use the crafting feats before play started and was not going to let the character use the crafting feats while the game is being played, then it is unfairly penalizing the player to force him to continue to have those feats that he's not allowed to use.

I don't really get what would have been so upsetting about it.


The purpose of taking an item creation feat shouldn't be restricted to or primarily used for the creation of magical items pre-game. That would be similar to having someone with a few levels in Thrallherd beginning the game with an arbitrarily high amount of wealth because said Thrallherd decided that sacrificing believers was a particularly beneficial thing to do (Note: Does not work with Leadership).

I believe this example situation would be similar to forcing someone to take the Thrallherd prerequisites and continue leveling in the PrC until running out of Thrallherd levels after they asked about it and were told in advance they weren't going to get any of the class features of Thrallherd. I was not limiting my discussion of crafting pre-game and I saw no indication that the OP did either.

[Zylle]

Just my 2 cents... don't let players use the DMG. After all, I might be wrong about this, but it's the DM Guide. As in, these are rules intended for DMs to use when creating their campaigns, and players don't get to use it except by special permission. Of course that doesn't stop them from reading it and wanting to use it, and 9 out of 10 times I don't think there's any reason to say no. But they shouldn't assume that they can automatically use whatever they want out of there, to the point of rules abuse, and then get bent out of shape when the DM says no :P

[shadow_archmagi]

This is how I'd rule:

1. HOUSERULE: Making an item usable-only does not decrease its base cost, only its market price. In effect, an elves-only sword is just as hard to make as a regular sword, but no one wants it because it's worthless to non-elves.

2. RULES INTERPRETATION: Wealth By Level is exactly that: Your total starting wealth. A 6th level character starts with 13,000 gold VALUE. What you, personally, could acquire it for is irrelevant. A 6th level character starts with items that, if sold, would be worth 13,000.

If you want to start with 13,000 gold and then spend the first week ingame crafting, okay, but don't expect to have that much free time. If you get a dedicated wright, fine. I'm okay with a player receiving his WBL over the course of six years.

[RPGuru1331]

Just my 2 cents... don't let players use the DMG. After all, I might be wrong about this, but it's the DM Guide. As in, these are rules intended for DMs to use when creating their campaigns, and players don't get to use it except by special permission. Of course that doesn't stop them from reading it and wanting to use it, and 9 out of 10 times I don't think there's any reason to say no. But they shouldn't assume that they can automatically use whatever they want out of there, to the point of rules abuse, and then get bent out of shape when the DM says no :P

That is not the DMG's sole purpose. Treating it as such is doing both player and DM a disservice. It contains a number of rules players really should know, and is the only DnD 3.5 core book to contain at least some useful advice regarding roleplaying as a practical matter (The player's handbook gives some tips on how to do it, itself, but the DMG contains at least SOME advice regarding potential social problems that arise through RP, and this is advice players are entitled to as it's sort of their social problems). Of course you should be firm if players are trying to do stuff that'll wreck the game, but that doesn't mean the DMG should be off limits entirely.

[Baka Nikujaga]

No, I just found it to be rather a lot of negativity for my voicing the opinion that if the DM were not going to let the character use the crafting feats before play started and was not going to let the character use the crafting feats while the game is being played, then it is unfairly penalizing the player to force him to continue to have those feats that he's not allowed to use.

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
To be honest the wording of your original post was a bit vague and left me with the impression that "if you don't let him craft then let him retake those feats," was referring directly towards pre-game crafting only. If I misinterpreted this, then I apologize, but that was what framed my response.


I believe this example situation would be similar to forcing someone to take the Thrallherd prerequisites and continue leveling in the PrC until running out of Thrallherd levels after they asked about it and were told in advance they weren't going to get any of the class features of Thrallherd.

Given that we've had no indication that DLoFunk was not going allow item creation in-game, it seems a bit difficult to accept that counter example.

[Hecuba]

Because English is based on portions of several languages, and one of the portions excluded (for whatever reason) was gender-neutral terminology. It is proper to not use gender-neutral terminology when communicating in English. It may be offensive to some, but people who post on gaming forums like this one have a strong enough sense of maturity to ignore it and continue the conversation, or at most provide the appropriate gender term if it really bothers that person.

Ahh, by the book prescriptivism. How... quaint.

Historically, English did have a gender neutral pronoun as late as the 14th century ("ou")-- and honestly, while 14th century spelling is difficult to recognize at first glance, it is discernibly the same language. If a native English speaker can't read Wycliffe's Bible, at least after it's been transcribed into modern typeface, I'm concerned.

[Coidzor]

Given that we've had no indication that DLoFunk was not going allow item creation in-game, it seems a bit difficult to accept that counter example.

Then there's no point in replying to me if you cannot take my word when clarifying what I meant when I said something.

[NNescio]

It's proper for a group of people, but not for a singular person.

There is some precedent for use of it as such, including by Chaucer and Shakespeare, and it's frankly far more palatable than the horrendous "hir". Or 'sie', 'ey', and 'zie', for that matter.

'though personally I much prefer "his" for a person of unknown gender. Grew up using it and had it hammered into my mind by teachers. That said, English is not my first language.

[DLoFunk]

Yes, he would be allowed to craft during the game, of course. Yes, I'd let him reselect the feats if he wanted to due to not being able to start with pre-crafted items.

Moot point though as he hasn't started playing the character yet. He's actually missed 2 sessions because he wasn't done perfecting his character yet.

I like the Total wbl arguement. Makes perfect sense to me.

[DLoFunk]

I was not limiting my discussion of crafting pre-game and I saw no indication that the OP did either.

Sorry, that was exactly, and only, what I was referring to.

[RPGuru1331]

Just keep in mind that restrictions are no more palatable to drive down the production cost *After* game start as well; unless those restrictions meaningfully restrict the player, they should offer no points back.

To be honest, I actually hate the idea of disadvantages as cost reducers to begin with, because it incentivizes dropping the matter as much as possible. Much better to allow drawbacks, disadvantages, et al, to grant points when they meaningfully restrict a character, so their inclusion is generally done more as a matter of plot or amusement. But that's just me.


If a native English speaker can't read Wycliffe's Bible, at least after it's been transcribed into modern typeface, I'm concerned.
Middle English only needs a facelift, Old English is a separate language, IIRC.

Regarding "Ou", "Man" also used to be gender neutral, but sexist customs caused it to begin to drift; originally, the modern term "Man" had a prefix I can't quite recall, similar to "Woman".

NNescio: Interesting, I always found hir to legitimately look better, once the initial shock wore. Different strokes, I suppose.

[shadow_archmagi]

I like the Total wbl arguement. Makes perfect sense to me.

It's what I always end up working out with my DM when I play artificers. It's also important to remember that NPCs almost never let you sell equipment at full price, so your crafter really only comes out ahead if the party finds lots and lots of coins.

[Hecuba]

Middle English only needs a facelift, Old English is a separate language, IIRC.

For practical purposes, yes. If you spend enough time in middle English though, you'll eventually be able to muddle through.


Regarding "Ou", "Man" also used to be gender neutral, but sexist customs caused it to begin to drift; originally, the modern term "Man" had a prefix I can't quite recall, similar to "Woman".

Not exactly. "Mann/menn" had a default of male, but could cover abstracted people of non-specified gender. To my knowlege, there was not a directly derived strict gender version for males; instead, "werr/were" or "goma." were used.

[Taelas]

It's proper for a group of people, but not for a singular person.

It is accepted as a gender-neutral singular pronoun by most standards of English. The Chicago Manual of Style is neutral on the issue (and recommends rebuilding the sentence to avoid a singular pronoun), noting that generic 'he' is offensive to some readers. While I personally do not find it offensive, I avoid it and prefer to use singular 'they' as the generic pronoun.

'Hir', on the other hand, is not correct English under any standard, and I find it (along with any other similar constructions) as horrendous as NNescio does.

[olentu]

I like the Total wbl arguement. Makes perfect sense to me.

Would you be increasing treasure if a character falls below the recommended amount as well as reducing treasure if a character goes above by crafting.

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Do keep in mind that DLoFunk is talking about events that have happened pre-game (which in this case is character creation). It's a bit difficult pre-game to fall below the WBL (sans VoP).

[olentu]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Do keep in mind that DLoFunk is talking about events that have happened pre-game (which in this case is character creation). It's a bit difficult pre-game to fall below the WBL (sans VoP).

Yes but should "total WBL" by which I assume that all the gear is priced without the discount is enforced both above and below the crafting feat is less worthwhile. One can not gain advantage as crafting at a discount merely means that treasure is decreased and selling items for half and then crafting to avoid the hit for selling the item is not so great as selling the item for half without crafting merely means that treasure is increased. It is something one might want to inform the player about before hand.

[RPGuru1331]

"Total WBL" isn't intended as a permanent rule, it seems to me. It's a guide at *character creation*. Once character creation is done, and the game proper has started, he can start to pay XP, and use whatever his split of a normal treasure drop works out to to start paying for items. It does weaken the feats somewhat relative to more traditional feat allocations, but you could argue that it should; Precious few other feats retroactively provide a bonus when you start above first level, no?

[olentu]

"Total WBL" isn't intended as a permanent rule, it seems to me. It's a guide at *character creation*. Once character creation is done, and the game proper has started, he can start to pay XP, and use whatever his split of a normal treasure drop works out to to start paying for items. It does weaken the feats somewhat relative to more traditional feat allocations, but you could argue that it should; Precious few other feats retroactively provide a bonus when you start above first level, no?

Well it depends on the DM. Some would extend total WBL into the game and some would not. Hence the question.

[Coidzor]

It does weaken the feats somewhat relative to more traditional feat allocations, but you could argue that it should; Precious few other feats retroactively provide a bonus when you start above first level, no?

Unless your character is an artificer in which case there's no real retroactively about it since from what I can recall of their rules they can take the most basic form of permanent item crafting feat at first level. And any caster can just take it at 3rd.

So if "retroactive" benefit were the actual concern... easily dealt with as part of the basic math of crafting items in the first place

[RPGuru1331]

Okay, let's try and remember the context here. The thread is by a DM. He is starting people off at 10th level. Permitting the player to craft up 100k or whatever the WBL for a character is at 10th, instead of giving them 100k in market price, is a retroactive benefit as far as character creation is concerned.

The DM has not, apparently, considered Total WBL to be the permanent guide, I *think*. they seem to just be saying that, for purposes of character creation, that's what they're going to do.

[Baka Nikujaga]

Well it depends on the DM. Some would extend total WBL into the game and some would not. Hence the question.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
While I am not sure how DLoFunk would address the idea of "balancing out WBL over the course of a campaign" or even his style of DMing, I can say that this question probably can be answered by the first part of the post you quoted:

"Yes, he would be allowed to craft during the game, of course. Yes, I'd let him reselect the feats if he wanted to due to not being able to start with pre-crafted items."

From what DLoFunk has written and responded with throughout the course of this thread, it seems that his primary concern is the issue of how far a player can take advantage of a system pre-game and how to address that issue.

[olentu]

Okay, let's try and remember the context here. The thread is by a DM. He is starting people off at 10th level. Permitting the player to craft up 100k or whatever the WBL for a character is at 10th, instead of giving them 100k in market price, is a retroactive benefit as far as character creation is concerned.

The DM has not, apparently, considered Total WBL to be the permanent guide, I *think*. they seem to just be saying that, for purposes of character creation, that's what they're going to do.


http://i54.tinypic.com/2nsz4av.jpg
While I am not sure how DLoFunk would address the idea of "balancing out WBL over the course of a campaign" or even his style of DMing, I can say that this question probably can be answered by the first part of the post you quoted:

"Yes, he would be allowed to craft during the game, of course. Yes, I'd let him reselect the feats if he wanted to due to not being able to start with pre-crafted items."

From what DLoFunk has written and responded with throughout the course of this thread, it seems that his primary concern is the issue of how far a player can take advantage of a system pre-game and how to address that issue.



Oh there certainly may be no problem but I don't know that and sentiments presented in this thread can certainly lead to unfortunate happenings. But I suppose if you two don't want to try to possible keep problems from occurring that is your choice. However considering the situation I felt it might be best to offer a bit of advice now and possibly help someone avoid a problem later.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, and the discussion within the thread has touched upon the general case several times as well as linguistics and the morality of gendered pronouns and alternatives to them.

[LordBlades]

I agree with what JaronK said in the previous page: talk to the player, explain him what kind of power level you're aiming for, and what you deem acceptable and what not. What he does is perfectly RAW, but if it's too strong for your game you're perfectly entitled to say so.

Being passive-aggressive and/or confrontational about it (along the lines of some suggestions in this thread) won't solve your problem, it will most likely aggravate it.

Not allowing him to start with precrafted items but then not allowing him to swap feats would be kind of a douche move IMHO, especially if your game is paced fast enough that crafting downtime is rarely available.

[shadow_archmagi]

"Total WBL" isn't intended as a permanent rule, it seems to me. It's a guide at *character creation*. Once character creation is done, and the game proper has started, he can start to pay XP, and use whatever his split of a normal treasure drop works out to to start paying for items. It does weaken the feats somewhat relative to more traditional feat allocations, but you could argue that it should; Precious few other feats retroactively provide a bonus when you start above first level, no?

Yeah. Crafting feats should not allow you to start with double (or triple, if you've got the cost reducers and such) wealth.

[darksolitaire]

Taking crafting feats and using xp to craft items is effectively a trade off. If DM thinks that the trade is too good, he should change the rules of crafting in his campaign and let the players know about this. This is best done before players come about with their ubercrafter build, so no-one gets frustrated. As rules go, players are allowed to craft items pre-game (DMG p. 199). Every DM can and should modify the rules to suit himself, but if you're going to do that, you should explain your purpose behind these modifications before hand.

As for myself, I actually consider crafting to be better done outside game table.

Magic item cost reducers in the DMG should not be used by players as they are written, IMO. Neutral human wizard crafting a rod usable only by neutral human wizards with spellcraft skill at reduced cost? Yeah, we can all see what's wrong with that.

[DLoFunk]

As rules go, players are allowed to craft items pre-game (DMG p. 199).

Not the official ruling I was hoping for but is definitely clear-cut. Ok, book says yes, I'll go with yes then. I'll let him pre-craft with no reducers if he pays the XP for it.

That's what I was looking for, an official answer. Thanks Dark.