Crafting with Other Player's XP

[Turk Mannion]

Quick question: I have a player who has taken Craft Miscellaneous Magic Items. He is starting to craft his own items, but is concerned that other characters in the party are going to ask him to do the same for them. He does not want to lose any more xp and fall behind, but he also wants to help the party and not turn them down.

He asked if I could adjust the rules and have the player sacrifice the xp instead of him. There is still an xp payment (as well as materials).

My initial response is no and just stick to the rules. But has anyone tried anything like this? I am worried that it seems simple now, but that I am missing something earth-shattering in later levels (level 3 right now). I am also inclined in some part since we are playing The Savage Tide AP and there is a long period of time with little access to items to purchase.

Thanks.

[Zanos]

You can do it by the rules. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a)

[weckar]

Any chance of a quick blurb, Zanos, for those of us behind a strict firewall?

[Zanos]

Essentially, there's a 1st level bard/wiz/sor/druid spell, a feat, and a magic item that all allow you to transfer xp costs for the purposes of crafting only. There are some caveats, such as all parties being willing (dominate doesn't count), and the xp only works for the agreed upon magic item.

[weckar]

Fascinating. Fits like a glove for OPs problem :)

I wonder if a similar thing exists for casting Wish spells on another's behalf...

[Willie the Duck]

My initial response is no and just stick to the rules. But has anyone tried anything like this? I am worried that it seems simple now, but that I am missing something earth-shattering in later levels (level 3 right now). I am also inclined in some part since we are playing The Savage Tide AP and there is a long period of time with little access to items to purchase.

The earth-shattering thing (if there is one) is pretty much straight-forward: it makes the item crafting option strictly better than it otherwise would be. Doubling the gp value of the magic items (of the category they have feats in) moves from things you absolutely need to things that people are willing to spend the xp on. Is that a problem? That's up to you and your players to decide. I haven't read The Savage Tide AP, but if not being able to buy a lot of items is part of the handicap of the AP, then this change could circumvent that handicap a bit.

All in all, I think that the fear that item crafting would overrun 3e (like I believe the designers feared, given that they split it up into 7 separate feats) did not come to fruition. Lots of people use magic marts of some level or another. Given how rarely I see anyone list item creation feats in any of their OP/high-power builds, I'd say that people don't consider them 'too good.'

I will point out that, over the course of 20 levels, for the rest of the party to slide into 20th level while this player is just sliding into 19th, they'd have to craft nearly half a million gp worth of items. End-game metrics aren't exactly all that important, but for most of the game, he'd almost always be no more than one gaming session behind everyone else on leveling up. Assuming that he's a tier 1 class, that wouldn't destroy the character. However, for fairness's sake, I understand the why.

[weckar]

Willie, I see your point regarding value. Still, it is not so far-fetched that the one benefitting of the item should be able to somehow pay the price for the provided item instead of bleeding the crafter dry. Have that Fighter pay experience for his enchanted blade. Value wise, nothing changes; just who paid the price.

[Sliver]

Pathfinder has gone away with the XP price entirely and earth did not seem to shatter, so I doubt allowing someone else to pay the XP cost would...

[AnachroNinja]

It's actually better for the campaign if they can use the other players XP because the party will stay on a relatively even keel to each other and all level slightly slower, leading to slightly increased challenges if you don't lower the encounters for them.

If only the crafter pays XP, he can craft everyone's stuff, fall behind a level, and then gain extra experience for being lower level and catch up relatively quickly and negate the whole cost of crafting. But that's just my thoughts.

[ryu]

It's actually better for the campaign if they can use the other players XP because the party will stay on a relatively even keel to each other and all level slightly slower, leading to slightly increased challenges if you don't lower the encounters for them.

If only the crafter pays XP, he can craft everyone's stuff, fall behind a level, and then gain extra experience for being lower level and catch up relatively quickly and negate the whole cost of crafting. But that's just my thoughts.

But if you aren't weakening the encounters when they are ''behind'' they ALL get more XP than normal and catch up just as before. The only difference is that now you don't have a baseline to measure against.

[BowStreetRunner]

My parties have never encountered this problem since first discovering the Thought Bottle from Complete Arcane. In fact I've alongside both a Warlock built for crafting as well as a Chameleon built for crafting and both generated a ridiculous number of custom magic items for the party without the XP problem troubling them. So I really don't think your solution is going to break the game.

[Willie the Duck]

Willie, I see your point regarding value. Still, it is not so far-fetched that the one benefitting of the item should be able to somehow pay the price for the provided item instead of bleeding the crafter dry. Have that Fighter pay experience for his enchanted blade. Value wise, nothing changes; just who paid the price.

I did mention the fairness aspect. That's clear. Letting them pay the xp for stuff made for them is more fair, for whatever value that has. I also addressed how it's not exactly bleeding the crafter dry (maybe more like having them donate plasma. A little orange juice and you'll feel better). 40 xp per 1000 gp value is just enough to make you think twice about making something you don't really need, but you would really have to be cranking out items to actually fall significantly behind. My primary point was that this change makes item crafting strictly better, and it's up to the DM or the gaming group as a whole to decide if that's a positive or not. As it stands (by which I mean the PHB rules), the fact that all of the xp burden falls on the crafters shoulders is a limiting factor. It means that the party member really has to convince their associate that this magic do-dad is really that important that it has to be made. Maybe they will have to pay their party member through the nose to get it made--maybe as much as full list price, the only advantage being that they get to purchase it even though none are available through magic marts (but hey, who would you rather have profit, your buddy or some stranger?). If you take this limiter off, the amount of magic items the group has could definitely rise. I'm not advocating one way or another, simply suggesting that one recognize the potential for changing one's campaign and its relationship with money and with magic items.

Now Zanos pointed out that there is this spell from a WotC web enhancement. That's something. The designers thought it a good enough idea to suggest it. Of course, as the spell-to-power Erudite makes clear, WotC was never afraid of throwing thoroughly game-changing changes around in their web enhancements. I'm generally in favor of that. I prefer the idea of the game rules being an open incubator of ideas rather than any form of caution-induced restricting of tinkering. Still, if I had a suggestion, I'd say that the OP and their group should try this rule change, but be ready to say, "okay, that went in a strange direction, let's not do that again" if it disrupts the game.

[weckar]

My primary point was that this change makes item crafting strictly better, and it's up to the DM or the gaming group as a whole to decide if that's a positive or not. You mention that before yes. What you failed to mention was: strictly better than what? Buying? Because crafting time, need to provide prerequisites (the spells) and the feats alone are quite the investments that people would like to have a long-term return on -- ESPECIALLY if crafting consumables. And yeah, that 40xp/1000 GP doesn't start out as a lot, until your Paladin starts eyeing those +6 Bracers of strength that you really can't deny him after you made the Cleric that +6 Periapt of wisdom...

[Turk Mannion]

You can do it by the rules. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a)

OP here: This FTW, at least so I can try to stick to some established rules. They are simple solutions, very straight-forward, and will be acceptable to the crafter and the other characters.

Greatly appreciated, Zanos, as well as to everyone else. I am still reviewing the rest of the debate, which has been thought-provoking.

Turk

[AnachroNinja]

The same amount of crafting XP cost spread out over the whole party is much less likely to leave them truly under leveled. They'll fall a bit behind and face a couple of harder fights and then catch back up.

One player spending his entire levels worth well create much less notable weakness for the party and catch up just as quickly.

[Willie the Duck]

You mention that before yes. What you failed to mention was: strictly better than what? Buying?

No. Item crafting where people other than the crafter get to contribute the xp cost is better (within this context meaning more advantageous) than the base state of the crafter having to pony up the xp. Whether this is better for the game is the question I am trying to discuss.

[weckar]

Agreed, but you also have to agree that in the 'pony up' experience, more magic items would be bought rather than crafted - making the guy who specced for crafting of less value to the group unless he explicitly makes himself weaker than the mean?

[ryu]

No. Item crafting where people other than the crafter get to contribute the xp cost is better (within this context meaning more advantageous) than the base state of the crafter having to pony up the xp. Whether this is better for the game is the question I am trying to discuss.

Also it makes SENSE for someone who went out of their way to learn the skills to produce in-demand things to gain significant advantage over normal market procedure in exchange for time. A world where crafting over buying items you're capable of isn't immediately superior to buying just doesn't make sense. It all comes down to opportunity cost and economics. If you don't generate some sort of positive value for your time and resources there's no reason to practice the activity.

[BowStreetRunner]

If you don't generate some sort of positive value for your time and resources there's no reason to practice the activity.

Which would actually promote rarity and scarcity of magic items - something desirable in certain campaign settings, but undesirable in others...

[ryu]

Which would actually promote rarity and scarcity of magic items - something desirable in certain campaign settings, but undesirable in others...

Every magic item bought was first made by someone. Making it easier to craft these things will only increase the number of people willing to do it for money which in turn means more items for sale. Probably cheaper too if supply and demand were to exist.

[Willie the Duck]

Agreed, but you also have to agree that in the 'pony up' experience, more magic items would be bought rather than crafted - making the guy who specced for crafting of less value to the group unless he explicitly makes himself weaker than the mean?

That or less magic items are gotten. Or the magic items are less tailored to the party (since they aren't trading in their semi-useful horn of blasting for the gp they need to have a cloak of resistance crafted). Yes, the guy who has to make himself weaker than the mean is less useful than the guy who can have anyone who wants a new ____ spend their own xp on it. I don't think we're disagreeing on any salient point. If you were the player thinking of getting the crafting feat, you would want the DM to choose to allow the xp sharing--it would make you more valuable to the team, and it would give them the option of paying you instead of a merchant. Whether you as the DM want this increase in the party getting magic items specified to their needs more easily is what I am trying to unpack.


Also it makes SENSE for someone who went out of their way to learn the skills to produce in-demand things to gain significant advantage over normal market procedure in exchange for time. A world where crafting over buying items you're capable of isn't immediately superior to buying just doesn't make sense. It all comes down to opportunity cost and economics. If you don't generate some sort of positive value for your time and resources there's no reason to practice the activity.

If I can spend 10 days to turn 5,000 gp into 10,000 gp at the cost of 400 xp, then it makes practical sense when 5,000 gp in profit is worth 400 xp and 10 days to me. A world where crafting vs. buying items doesn't exist -- someone has to be making the items. Assuming we aren't living in a comedic reality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html), xp must be worth somewhere under 12.5 gp apiece.


Not in response to any one person, but just a general observation:

What's also not being mentioned is there is a very significant benefit to the feat over buying--the items do not have to be available for purchase. The base rules are completely agnostic on how likely you are to be able to find that +X Bracers of strength (as an example). I know as a DM I try hard to make just enough but not too muchmagic items that my party would be interested in purchasing available, and certainly not everything they want. Taking this feat allows the party to circumvent that limitation.

[ryu]

That or less magic items are gotten. Or the magic items are less tailored to the party (since they aren't trading in their semi-useful horn of blasting for the gp they need to have a cloak of resistance crafted). Yes, the guy who has to make himself weaker than the mean is less useful than the guy who can have anyone who wants a new ____ spend their own xp on it. I don't think we're disagreeing on any salient point. If you were the player thinking of getting the crafting feat, you would want the DM to choose to allow the xp sharing--it would make you more valuable to the team, and it would give them the option of paying you instead of a merchant. Whether you as the DM want this increase in the party getting magic items specified to their needs more easily is what I am trying to unpack.



If I can spend 10 days to turn 5,000 gp into 10,000 gp at the cost of 400 xp, then it makes practical sense when 5,000 gp in profit is worth 400 xp and 10 days to me. A world where crafting vs. buying items doesn't exist -- someone has to be making the items. Assuming we aren't living in a comedic reality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html), xp must be worth somewhere under 12.5 gp apiece.


Not in response to any one person, but just a general observation:

What's also not being mentioned is there is a very significant benefit to the feat over buying--the items do not have to be available for purchase. The base rules are completely agnostic on how likely you are to be able to find that +X Bracers of strength (as an example). I know as a DM I try hard to make just enough but not too muchmagic items that my party would be interested in purchasing available, and certainly not everything they want. Taking this feat allows the party to circumvent that limitation.

Wrong. The rule is based on the size and general wealth of the city. It also comes with default assumptions about NPC class and level spread throughout the populace.

[Willie the Duck]

Wrong. The rule is based on the size and general wealth of the city. It also comes with default assumptions about NPC class and level spread throughout the populace.

Can you explain to which rule you are referring?

[ryu]

Can you explain to which rule you are referring?

There's a table in DMG page 137 showing the expected value of the most valuable thing in the town as a hard GP limit on what you can buy price-wise. It goes on to state that the total amount of trade-ready goods in the town equivalent as being the towns GP limit/20*population. This is in turn based on the fact that there actually demographics for who's expected to live in towns of certain sizes. The basic assumption for just how common magic items are is far FAR different in 3.5 than it was in older editions.

Now you can argue that for some particular reason a town won't carry an item well below its GP cap for trade items for coincidence or somesuch. That really stops mattering once the party has access to teleport and plane shift to re-roll town or even go to towns so huge the item they want is a bauble.

[Willie the Duck]

That's a good point about the gp cap, but I'm talking about the availability of any given specific item. If the party wants a +1 acidic burst, axiomatic, throwing scythe, that gp limit is pretty uninformative. It's going to take a lot of teleporting and a whole lot of gather information checks to find and figure out where to even go to spend their money for one (perhaps an adventure in itself). The crafting feats obviates that issue.

[ryu]

That's a good point about the gp cap, but I'm talking about the availability of any given specific item. If the party wants a +1 acidic burst, axiomatic, throwing scythe, that gp limit is pretty uninformative. It's going to take a lot of teleporting and a whole lot of gather information checks to find and figure out where to even go to spend their money for one (perhaps an adventure in itself). The crafting feats obviates that issue.

Just go to a big enough town put out an offer to pay market to buy one that hasn't been made yet. Simple. Also really obscure weapons are, like, the least valuable thing you can buy or make and the least likely thing to come up. Who specifically NEEDS a an acidic bursting, axiomatic, throwing scythe? That's something I'd expect to find as a random loot drop, not a specially crafted weapon.

[Willie the Duck]

I chose the example specifically for its obscurity.

Look, if the DM makes all magic items you could conceivably want readily available at convenient magic item shops, then the utility of these feats is significantly diminished. There is no question about that. The simple fact is that not all D&D games are played that way.

[ryu]

I chose the example specifically for its obscurity.

Look, if the DM makes all magic items you could conceivably want readily available at convenient magic item shops, then the utility of these feats is significantly diminished. There is no question about that. The simple fact is that not all D&D games are played that way.

Are you kidding? The real reason you get these feats is to more efficiently use WBL. It's not about getting specific magic items. It's about getting more. MOAR!

[Segev]

While I think, for the OP, that the web enhancement is probably the right solution, I will add that the rules for 3.5 make it such that, if the wizard is losing XP to item-creation, he's also gaining XP faster than his fellows when he's lower level than they are.

My personal preferred means of handling this is to simply charge party members 75% of the market price, rather than doing it "at cost." I may be behind on XP, but I have a greater portion of gold to use to buy materials for my own magic items, and to expand my spellbook.

[Willie the Duck]

Are you kidding? The real reason you get these feats is to more efficiently use WBL. It's not about getting specific magic items. It's about getting more. MOAR!

It's about all these things. It's a gold mine of options. That's why I'm suggesting thinking carefully about taking the opportunity cost off (or at least generalizing it) by letting someone other than the crafter pay the xp cost.

[Calthropstu]

Pathfinder has gone away with the XP price entirely and earth did not seem to shatter, so I doubt allowing someone else to pay the XP cost would...

Actually, I have seen a lot of people go to the gm in pathfinder and, after taking leadership, say "I look for an item crafter to recruit as my cohort."
The reason it isn't exactly game breaking is time.

Crafting is SLOW. It takes weeks, sometimes months, to craft high powered items. It would take the better part of 8 months to craft say a ring of elemental command... 250 days. Are you going to say "Hey mr bbeg, can you hold off on summoning the apocalypse for a few months while we try to nake an item to kill you?"
Not to mention the fact you can outright fail, burning a good amount of gold in the process.
Yeah, no. Crafting is a fantastic way to mitigate costs, but ultimately needs to be relegated to making low to mid powered items. Which is why it isn't broken to ignore xp costs entirely.