Assertions about Crafting Cost Reduction

[AvatarVecna]

Got into a bit of an argument about crafting magic items, and decided to present the two sides here in an attempt to see if (and if so, where) each person's logic is flawed. Keep in mind that this is largely about the RAW of the matter.


The Main Issue, Which Other Assertions Are Being Made In Support Of
Side A Assertion
Side B Assertion


1. Do Crafting Cost Reductions Stack Additively or Multiplicatively?
Additively
Multiplicatively







Other Assertions Made In Support Of The Main Issue
Side A Assertion
Side B Assertion


2. What do the general rules about stacking multipliers indicate the answer is?
Gold pieces and their economy are not a real-world value, and are thus as much of a pure mechanic as Hit Points and Damage, and should thus have their multipliers stack the same way damage multipliers do (additively). Since the XP and Time costs are derived from this mechanical value, they too are determined additively.
Monetary Value is a real-world measurement even if gold pieces and their economy are not, and should thus have their multipliers stack as real-world measurements like Range Increment do (multiplicatively). XP and Time costs are derived from this real-world value, and should thus also be determined additively. Even if you don't think XP and Time are fully derived from the GP value, Time is still a real-world value in and of itself (measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, and so on that are equivalent to real-world time measurements), meaning that the only crafting cost that could potentially be determined additively should be XP, since it is a pure game mechanic with no real-world equivalent.


3. How do the costs of crafting an item yourself play into it?
The costs of crafting an item yourself (50% of the base price in GP cost, 4% of the base price in XP cost, and 0.1% of the base price in Days cost) are not themselves a multiplier, but rather set the "100%" for that particular cost. 100% of the time cost is 0.1% of the base cost, so combining a 25% time reduction and a 50% time reduction result in 25% of 0.1%, not 0.1% -75%.
The costs of crafting an item yourself (50% of the base price in GP cost, 4% of the base price in XP cost, and 0.1% of the base price in Days cost) are a multiplier due to being fractions of real-world values, and mean that further multipliers are being multiplied so that the percentage you arrive at is always a percentage of the base price, rather than a percentage of the crafting price (as Side A's method would deliver), which feels more intuitive to Side B.


4. How do the cost reductions of restricting an item to the use of creatures possessing a particular alignment/class/skill play into this?
The reductions in question are not a multiplier, but are rather a change to the base price. Adding the -30% from restricting an item to a particular alignment to other cost reductions makes as much sense as saying that crafting Gloves of Dexterity +2 instead of crafting Gloves Of Dexterity +4 is a -75% cost reduction, and then applying a -25% cost reduction to make them free.
The reductions in question are multipliers like any other, and they stack multiplicatively (assuming they're allowed at all). Side A is insisting they are not multipliers at all because if they are multipliers, it becomes too easy to reduce the crafting price below 0% if multipliers are stacked additively, which weakens their side.


5. Can you use Magical Artisan with the Eberron Artisan feats?
No, for two reasons: first, Magical Artisan is a Faerun feat, whereas the other Artisan feats are Eberron, and combining elements from multiple settings together is questionable at best; secondly, the Eberron Artisan feats are only Item Creation feats in a very technical sense, and any realistic reading would say that even if Magical Artisan was an Eberron feat, it could not be used in direct combination with the other Artisan feats.
Potentially, for two reasons: first, while Magical Artisan is a Faerun feat and the other Artisan feats are Eberron, all of these feats are tied to their setting purely because of the book they're presented in, rather than their mechanics or fluff, so there isn't much preventing them from being used together other than perhaps GM preference; secondly, while the Eberron Artisan feats are only technically Item Creation feats, "Being Technically Correct" and "Being Correct" are largely the same thing in RAW, which is what is being debated.


6. Mechanical reductions referencing "raw materials" (examples: Apprentice (Craftsman) feat, membership in an arcane guild, Favored In Guild feat, etc)
Bonuses of the same type/from the same source don't stack in RAW, and neither should multiple abilities granting a reduction to "raw materials" cost. Just because there's 5 car dealers offering 10% off in your area doesn't mean you get 50% off of your car. This is supported by how many such reductions are generally not reducing the cost of raw materials, but rather setting the cost of raw materials to a fixed percentage that is less than 100%. You can't combine two separate abilities that each set your raw materials cost to 90%.
The rules on stacking bonuses don't apply to things that aren't bonuses. Even if they did, Side A is misinterpreting what "same source" means in RAW. Furthermore, it's debatable whether these reductions are the same type: "raw materials", to my understanding, is just code for "GP cost", and multiple reductions can usually be combined with each other. Furthermore, their comparison to car dealers isn't necessarily accurate, since the reduction in the cost of raw materials can just as easily represent learning crafting techniques that make the crafting process overall cheaper, rather than representing nothing more than a cheaper place to buy materials. This is supported by how you can craft items even in the middle of nowhere, far from markets or even civilization entirely. Any insistence that a reduction to the cost of raw materials is purely a wholesaler discount is nothing more than one possible fluff explanation out of many for this mechanic, but the rules have no indication that it couldn't be stacked with other similar mechanics, making such fluff limitations RAI at best and DM fiat at worst.





I've numbered the assertions to make it easier to be clear which one you're responding to, just in case it helps.

[Telonius]

For number 4 - Not 100% sure either side is correct. From the SRD:


Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use
Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use
Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the cost by 30%.

Prices presented in the magic item descriptions (the gold piece value following the item’s caster level) are the market value, which is generally twice what it costs the creator to make the item.

The reductions are applied last. Basically, under normal circumstances, final Market Price = (whatever you did to get the regular item) - (cost reducer). It's a little bit unclear if those two conditions are supposed to stack, overlap, or just be multipliers. Personally I'd lean towards "overlap" and use the 30% reduction if both apply; but I could see either way. If not, I'd use regular D&D math; 40% reduction. So the final cost of a 1000gp item would be 600 (not 630).


For #5, the wording of the feats matters.
For Extraordinary Artisan:
"When determining the gold piece cost in raw materials you need to craft any item, reduce the base price by 25%."
(The others are worded similarly).

And for Magical Artisan:
"Choose one item creation feat that you possess. When you make an item with that feat, you pay only 75% of the normal cost to create the item."

One of the feats modifies the base price; the other reduces the cost to create. While related, these two are different figures. A reduction to the base price would not affect the cost of providing the masterwork armor, for example. So if you had Extraordinary Artisan, you'd reduce the base price of a +1 chain shirt by 25%; it would reduce the base price to 750gp. Half that is 375; plus the 250gp you need for the MW Chain Shirt, gives a total cost of 625gp. But if you had Magical Artisan, it's a flat decrease to the cost, with no mention of base price. 500 (half base) + 250(chain shirt)=750, *.75=562.5gp. It would be DM call whether or not to allow Faerun and Eberron feats in the same game, but mechanically you could combine the two. Since they're not doing the same thing, there's not an issue of duplicating effects. If you had them both, you'd apply the change to the base price first, to get 625gp; and take 75% of that to get 468.75.

[Gildedragon]

I personally apply them multiplicatively. Otherwise it is pretty trivial to get a 90% discount (self crafting + class restriction + skill restriction). Item creation is strong enough as is.

[AvatarVecna]

I personally apply them multiplicatively. Otherwise it is pretty trivial to get a 90% discount (self crafting + class restriction + skill restriction). Item creation is strong enough as is.

This is part of the point of Side A though: their assertions are that you can't do those things. You can't necessarily combine a class and skill restriction, neither of them is a cost reduction multiplier, but they are rather an actual reduction to the base price. Same thing for self-crafting: the 50%/4%/0.1% set what 100% is for those costs, which can be further reduced. The point of Side A's assertions is that you can and should stack additively, and most of the way you think let you get costs down to 100% actually don't work.

[Gildedragon]

This is part of the point of Side A though: their assertions are that you can't do those things. You can't necessarily combine a class and skill restriction, neither of them is a cost reduction multiplier, but they are rather an actual reduction to the base price. Same thing for self-crafting: the 50%/4%/0.1% set what 100% is for those costs, which can be further reduced. The point of Side A's assertions is that you can and should stack additively, and most of the way you think let you get costs down to 100% actually don't work.

Can't do what? Apply multiple cost reducers?
Or that base cost reducers don't affect the crafting cost?
Or that "skill" and "race/alignment" are the same sort of reduction and can't apply both?
The first makes the whole discussion moot.
The second means the X Artisan feats don't work.
So let's work with the third.
GP-Artisan (25%) + Alignment restriction (30%) lower the base cost to 45%, one then crafts the item for a cost -5%gp
This is ridiculous.
Perhaps it would make more sense if it cost half of 45% (22.5%) But that's multiplicative cost reduction...

If one just applied the reductions multiplicatively it'd cost 26.2%

Applying everything multiplicatively makes crafting less cheap but simpler to calculate.

[Zanos]

Seems like side A is doing some pretty intensive mental gymnastics to prevent the argument from collapsing under it's own weight.

2. A gold coin is a real world value, although it can mean different things. It's also not a game abstraction at all. Characters trade in physical gold, silver, and copper(among other) coins. A character knows what a gold coin is, but not what a hitpoint is. Side A is wrong.

3. Side A is correct is assertion but wrong in conclusion. The "50% cost reduction" for crafting an item yourself is not a multiplier, and gold cost of an item can in fact be independent of its purchase price through other factors regarding the creation of the item. But the factors applied to it are absolutely multipliers. The assertions are also wrong, the "time cost" is not 0.1% for example, because you can't have fractions of days while crafting.

4. Side A is wrong. This is merely a conclusion. The conclusion is wrong. It is a multiplier.

5. Depends entirely on the game. Considering settings exist where both Eberron and Faerun are accessible exist (World Serpent Inn, Planescape) it's entirely possible for an exotic character to possess feats from multiple setting books.

6. They don't set the cost to anything. They explicitly reduce it by x%. Side A might have a point if the feats read "you spend 75% of the normal price in gold while crafting a magic item", but they're worded as a reduction. Car dealership analogy is completely idiotic and does not apply at all.

[AvatarVecna]

Can't do what? Apply multiple cost reducers?
Or that base cost reducers don't affect the crafting cost?
Or that "skill" and "race/alignment" are the same sort of reduction and can't apply both?
The first makes the whole discussion moot.
The second means the X Artisan feats don't work.
So let's work with the third.
GP-Artisan (25%) + Alignment restriction (30%) lower the base cost to 45%, one then crafts the item for a cost -5%gp
This is ridiculous.
Perhaps it would make more sense if it cost half of 45% (22.5%) But that's multiplicative cost reduction...

If one just applied the reductions multiplicatively it'd cost 26.2%

Applying everything multiplicatively makes crafting less cheap but simpler to calculate.

It's a combination of the second and the third. Essentially, there is a difference between crafting cost reductions that change the item's base price, and crafting cost reductions that change the percentage of the base. Side A asserts that the item's base price is the cost of crafting it rather than the cost of buying it (100% of the GP crafting cost is 50% of the market price, 100% of the XP crafting cost is 4% of the market price, 100% of the Time cost in days is 0.1% of the market price), and asserts that the skill/class/alignment restrictions 1) are reductions to the market price, and thus can't be counted as part of your additive reduction from 100%, and 2) are presented in a way that seems to indicate they can't be combined in any fashion (an item can have a skill restriction for 10% off the market price, or a class restriction for 30% off the market price, or an alignment restriction for 30% off the market price, but cannot have any combination of those three things).

The X Artisan feats are worded weirdly under this interpretation of the rules, not to mention that Side B seems to think that all of Side A's assertions are being made to make additive impossible to go under 100%, since going under 100% would undermine their side, but at the same time Side A's assertions aren't necessarily wrong interpretations of the words on the page, which is why I made this thread to get people's thoughts on these assertions.

Here's an example, using the example you posted above with a bit extra: an Artificer with the Apprentice: Craftsman feat and the Extraordinary Artisan feat decides to craft a set of Gloves Of Dexterity +6 that can only be used by a Chaotic Neutral individual. The market price for GoD +6 would be 36000, but the market price for this particular set would instead be 25200 gp (due the alignment restriction making it less useful to most people, and thus setting the market price to 70% normal for an item delivering this mechanic). At this point, 25200 is the market price, making the 100% base price for crafting this item 12600 gp, 1008 XP, and 25 days respectively. From there, you apply the -10% from AC and the -25% from EA for a net -35% off of this base price, changing the gp cost of crafting it to 8190 gp.

[AvatarVecna]

Seems like side A is doing some pretty intensive mental gymnastics to prevent the argument from collapsing under it's own weight.

This is one of Side B's assertions as well.


2. A gold coin is a real world value, although it can mean different things. It's also not a game abstraction at all. Characters trade in physical gold, silver, and copper(among other) coins. A character knows what a gold coin is, but not what a hitpoint is. Side A is wrong.




3. Side A is correct is assertion but wrong in conclusion. The "50% cost reduction" for crafting an item yourself is not a multiplier, and gold cost of an item can in fact be independent of its purchase price through other factors regarding the creation of the item. But the factors applied to it are absolutely multipliers. The assertions are also wrong, the "time cost" is not 0.1% for example, because you can't have fractions of days while crafting.

Well, the 0.1% is just the percentage way of saying "the base price divided by 1000", although it should probably be stated that it gets rounded up to the next highest whole value. Side A is not saying that all of the factors applied to it aren't multipliers, but they are rather asserting that the multipliers stack together the same way that damage multipliers stack together: additively. They aren't saying they aren't multipliers (mostly), and neither are they saying they can't stack (again, mostly).


4. Side A is wrong. This is merely a conclusion. The conclusion is wrong. It is a multiplier.

It is most certainly a multiplier, but it is one applied to the market price before you determine what 100% of the base crafting price is. This is why it changes all three factors rather than just cost: it's not a reduction from 100% crafting cost, but rather is changing what 100% of the base price is, due to the base price being based on the market price, and these reductions being applied directly to the market price.


5. Depends entirely on the game. Considering settings exist where both Eberron and Faerun are accessible exist (World Serpent Inn, Planescape) it's entirely possible for an exotic character to possess feats from multiple setting books.

This only deals with the cross-setting issue. There's also the issue of the Eberron Artisan feats only being Item Creation feats by technicality.


6. They don't set the cost to anything. They explicitly reduce it by x%. Side A might have a point if the feats read "you spend 75% of the normal price in gold while crafting a magic item", but they're worded as a reduction. Car dealership analogy is completely idiotic and does not apply at all.

Side A's point about these particular feats (Apprentice: Craftsman, Favored In Guild, and other mechanics directly referencing a reduction to "raw materials cost") is that they are akin to stacking the same bonus. A discount offered by your master and a discount offered by your guild can't be combined, due to being too similar a "bonus"; allowing them to combine is similar to letting a character combine multiple deflection bonuses to AC, and doesn't make any sense besides (when compared to the car dealer analogy you're rejecting).



Now that I've gotten such a thorough answer, I'll ask a new question of you: since you seem to think Side A is largely wrong about this whole thing, are there at least assertions where neither side is right? That is to say, what flaws do you see with Side B's assertions/conclusions?

[Gildedragon]

It's a combination of the second and the third. Essentially, there is a difference between crafting cost reductions that change the item's base price, and crafting cost reductions that change the percentage of the base. Side A asserts that the item's base price is the cost of crafting it rather than the cost of buying it
Bolded for shock.
That is wholly wrong.
Base cost is the buying price.



The X Artisan feats are worded weirdly under this interpretation of the rules, not to mention that Side B seems to think that all of Side A's assertions are being made to make additive impossible to go under 100%, since going under 100% would undermine their side, but at the same time Side A's assertions aren't necessarily wrong interpretations of the words on the page, which is why I made this thread to get people's thoughts on these assertions.

Here's an example, using the example you posted above with a bit extra: an Artificer with the Apprentice: Craftsman feat and the Extraordinary Artisan feat decides to craft a set of Gloves Of Dexterity +6 that can only be used by a Chaotic Neutral individual. The market price for GoD +6 would be 36000, but the market price for this particular set would instead be 25200 gp (due the alignment restriction making it less useful to most people, and thus setting the market price to 70% normal for an item delivering this mechanic). At this point, 25200 is the market price, making the 100% base price for crafting this item 12600 gp, 1008 XP, and 25 days respectively. From there, you apply the -10% from AC and the -25% from EA for a net -35% off of this base price, changing the gp cost of crafting it to 8190 gp.

I feel you could have picked a smaller cost item to do the math with a simpler rounder number. Like a set of +1 Dex Gloves for 1000gp

Now one could argue that the alignment/skill reductions don't affect the base price (by saying that the table alone determines base costs)... But that gets weird with creating items with multiple abilities (the rules for them are in the same section as alignment/skill cost reductions), notably self crafting many ability items is far far cheaper than buying them, and one can turn a huge profit by selling them)

[Zanos]

Well, the 0.1% is just the percentage way of saying "the base price divided by 1000", although it should probably be stated that it gets rounded up to the next highest whole value. Side A is not saying that all of the factors applied to it aren't multipliers, but they are rather asserting that the multipliers stack together the same way that damage multipliers stack together: additively. They aren't saying they aren't multipliers (mostly), and neither are they saying they can't stack (again, mostly).
That's fair, but I think it focuses an assumption that the value is a multiplier, which I don't believe is the case.



It is most certainly a multiplier, but it is one applied to the market price before you determine what 100% of the base crafting price is. This is why it changes all three factors rather than just cost: it's not a reduction from 100% crafting cost, but rather is changing what 100% of the base price is, due to the base price being based on the market price, and these reductions being applied directly to the market price.
Base price is only loosely coupled with market price. XP/Material/Focus components also affect that. You cannot completely determine the crafting cost of an item from the base price alone, which is why I also asserted that the cost to craft is, itself, not a multiplier.




This only deals with the cross-setting issue. There's also the issue of the Eberron Artisan feats only being Item Creation feats by technicality.
This is a RAW argument, so it being only a technicality is not an issue. Side A's argument is mired in technicalities anyway, many of which are untrue.


Side A's point about these particular feats (Apprentice: Craftsman, Favored In Guild, and other mechanics directly referencing a reduction to "raw materials cost") is that they are akin to stacking the same bonus. A discount offered by your master and a discount offered by your guild can't be combined, due to being too similar a "bonus"; allowing them to combine is similar to letting a character combine multiple deflection bonuses to AC, and doesn't make any sense besides (when compared to the car dealer analogy you're rejecting).
I understand slightly better now, I was thinking more of the feats that give you a discount because you're a more capable crafter. It's possible that feats worded this way would be capable of stacking due to pure logistical reasons. If one says that components you buy from your master cost 5% less and another says components you buy from your guild cost 5% less, those would indeed be incompatible unless your master was a member of your guild. But that's contingent on the sources being worded in that specific way.




Now that I've gotten such a thorough answer, I'll ask a new question of you: since you seem to think Side A is largely wrong about this whole thing, are there at least assertions where neither side is right? That is to say, what flaws do you see with Side B's assertions/conclusions?
As I mentioned above, Side B asserts that the crafting costs are themselves multipliers. I agree with Side A in this portion. The initial crafting costs of items are baselines.

[AvatarVecna]

Bolded for shock.
That is wholly wrong.
Base cost is the buying price.

Do you have a rules quote for that?


I feel you could have picked a smaller cost item to do the math with a simpler rounder number. Like a set of +1 Dex Gloves for 1000gp

That's certainly possible. I can edit the post if you like, make it simpler for people to see.


That's fair, but I think it focuses an assumption that the value is a multiplier, which I don't believe is the case.

Certainly a fair point.


Base price is only loosely coupled with market price. XP/Material/Focus components also affect that. You cannot completely determine the crafting cost of an item from the base price alone, which is why I also asserted that the cost to craft is, itself, not a multiplier.

Fair enough.


This is a RAW argument, so it being only a technicality is not an issue. Side A's argument is mired in technicalities anyway, many of which are untrue.

...a fair point, I suppose. Still not very in-keeping with the RAI though. But for the RAW argument, I guess being technically correct is sufficient.


I understand slightly better now, I was thinking more of the feats that give you a discount because you're a more capable crafter. It's possible that feats worded this way would be capable of stacking due to pure logistical reasons. If one says that components you buy from your master cost 5% less and another says components you buy from your guild cost 5% less, those would indeed be incompatible unless your master was a member of your guild. But that's contingent on the sources being worded in that specific way.

Here are a few separate mechanics all reducing the "raw materials" cost:


A craftsman mentor is skilled at building things. A craftsman grants his apprentice a +2 competence bonus on all Craft checks and a 10% discount when he purchases raw materials for items he makes (including items made with the Craft skill or with an item creation feat, but not spell components or services).


The Guild subsidizes the cost of goods, supplies, and guild-related services, reducing the price to a member by 10%.


Arcane: The guild subsidizes the creation of magic items, reducing your raw material costs by 5%.

It's questionable whether membership in an arcane guild qualifies for a discount on magic items (since they aren't explicitly mentioned in either the Arcane Guild description or the Membership benefits, but could reasonably be assumed to fall under guild-related services), but could you (for example) combine Favored In Guild with Apprentice for -15% (or a 90% and a 95% multiplier, as the case would be if Side B was correct)?


As I mentioned above, Side B asserts that the crafting costs are themselves multipliers. I agree with Side A in this portion. The initial crafting costs of items are baselines.

Noted, and thank you for your thoroughness. :smallsmile:

[Lazymancer]

It seems I'm a bit late to the party. I must say I do not enjoy people creatively interpreting my position without even informing me.


For #5, the wording of the feats matters. ...
Since I'm apparently (IRL my point was different) being presented as "side A", I have to clarify the actual argument: stacking of Magical Artisan and Extraordinary Artisan being RAW was never contested (it depends on GM). In fact I myself pointed out that RAW you can even add Magical Artisan as a modifier to everything made with Extraordinary (clearly not RAI and further proof of the fact that Artisan feats weren't expected to be used simultaneously).

The argument was about getting to 100% cost reduction without stacking Artisan feats, discounts for material components, or obvious shenanigans, such as extending class levels past existing limits with Legacy Champion - regardless of their RAW legality. This bit had been carefully scrubbed out. Consequently, arguments are quite surreal.


To re-iterate:

(#1) My opinion is that additive cost reducers are:
a) clearly RAI
b) not broken (within limitations presented above)

I do not claim additive costs unambiguously RAW, nor do I claim that they should be used additively. They were clearly intended to be used additively (A), and they could be used additively (i.e. they do not get to cost reduction of 100% - see above) - (B). That is all.


(#2) reverses my reasoning.

It would be incorrect to claim that my position stems from conviction that gp value is abstract value. It is the opposite. Abstract/real world distinction is debatable and irrelevant.

My opinion of additive cost reduction being obviously used by the designers is based on examples of cost reductions in books:

Master Scribe (Ex): When you use Scribe Scroll, reduce the gp and XP costs by 5% for each level in this class. These bonuses stack with those of Legendary Artisan and Extraordinary Artisan, so that a 5th-level unbound scroll with the Legendary Artisan feat reduces the XP cost of scroll creation by 50%.
While the case might be made that - unlike XP - gp cost of raw materials should be calculated differently (via multiplication, not addition) and have the cost reduced by 43.75%, not 50%, I very strongly doubt this is the case.

And this argument for additive reduction being intended was countered by the argument that gp costs are clearly "real world" values and designers simply didn't mention the "obvious" thing that while XP cost reduction is 50%, GP cost should be 43.75%.

I was not persuaded. But the reason of me not being persuaded is not based on my opinion about real world/abstract nature of gp in 3.5 - it is the examples, such as one above.


(#3) is hard to parse.

Just so that we are clear: it is the cost of crafting (50% of the base price) that is being multiplied by the final multiplier of the cost reduction. And this final multiplier is calculated via addition of all multipliers:

Sometimes a special rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value such as die roll modifiers, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple.
I.e. final multiplier = 1 + ([multiplier #1]-1) + ([multiplier #2]-1) + ...

For example: -25%, -25%, and -10% cost reducers (multipliers of 0.75, 0.75, and 0.90):

Final multiplier = 1 + (0.75-1) + (0.75-1) + (0.90-1) = 1 -0.25 -0.25 -0.10 = 0.4

And then crafting cost (50% of base price) is being multiplied by 0.4, making final crafting cost to be 20% of the base price.

At no point did I claim that "50% of the base price" is the same kind of cost reduction multiplier (as Zanos seems to think I did) and should be treated the same. In fact, I ridiculed AvatarVecna's reference to this 50% as "cost reducer".


(#4) needs context, since it's not about stacking limitations on Skill/Class/Alignment together, but said limitations stacking with crafting cost reducers (Artisan feats), in an attempt to demonstrate that you can easily get to 100% cost reduction (i.e. disprove B - additive cost reducers being practically applicable).

I.e. what was suggested is that 10,000 gp "LG only" (-30%) "Cleric only" (-30%) item, crafted with Artisan feat (-25%) and discount on components (-10%) should get its cost reduced by 95%, not have new base price determined by "LG only" and "Cleric only" restrictions (whatever this price might be) and then have its crafting costs calculated from this new base price (by taking half of it - unmodified crafting cost - and then reducing it by 35%).

Just to be clear: I consider latter approach to be both obvious and intended. It is an obvious lie to try and attribute to me the former approach that was used as an argument against my position.


And, as I said above, (#5) is wrong. In my opinion, RAW you can use Artisan feats together, it's just you weren't expected to do it and it is quite logical for GM not to allow it.


Finally, (#6) is a bit different.

My primary reason for not stacking discounts from different vendors is that it is obviously illogical, not that it is obvious from RAW. There is no need for specific rules to explain that you don't get to attack with unspecified "weapon" at a distance of 15 feet for 2d6 damage and have crit range of 18-20/x3, just because you happen to carry spiked chain, greatsword, and keen kukri. Only one weapon could be used. Similarly enough, you can acquire raw materials only from one source.

[AvatarVecna]

Original argument posts, quoted for context and spoiler'd for length.


Is it really possible to get subzero item costs without stacking modifiers when they clearly should not be stacked (costs of raw materials and Faerun/Eberron Artisan feats), or some explicit shenanigans such as extending "levels of existing class" beyond boundaries of said class?


I was always under impression that RAW cost reducers (just like every multiplication) are supposed to be additive - and that they actually did not go all the way to 100% (~80% in some speicifc cases IIRC), unless you started replacing gp/xp costs with souls or something else.



I.e. "1+(0.75-1)+(0.75-1)=50% reduction".

And an example, to confirm this:


Raw materials don't count? Sure, okay, I mean you're the first person I've ever seen arguing that, but you do you. Combining Faerun and Eberron feats doesn't count? Fine, okay. Let's just stick to what's right there in the DMG, the "limited to specific users" reductions. That's a 90%, a 70%, and a 70%; according to you, that's -10%, -30%, and -30% off the base price not including the reduction from crafting it yourself (since according to you, that doesn't count). So now we're at 30% costs. At this point, we can go ahead and apply Magical Artisan to Craft Magic Arms & Armor, reducing each of those to 5% base price after "crafting it yourself" reduction for making weapons and armor. Throw in something small and specific (like either the Gold Dwarf Dweomersmith feat or the Shield Dwarf Warder feat, both of which are Faerun feats), and there you have it: a pair of Dwarf Artificers, each crafting their items specifically for Lawful Good Artificers with 7 ranks in Craft (Blacksmithing) now have completely 100% free magic weapons and armor. Heck, if they took the DMG 2 feat "Apprentice: Craftsman", that's another 10% reduction to gold, so now not only are they instantly making items with no XP cost, but they're gaining money when they do so!

"You can't combine restrictions!" Okay, fine. How about this: Gnome Artificer 9/Wizard 5/Maester 1/Unbound Scroll 5 (Scroll GP -25%, Scroll XP -25%, Time -50%), Apprentice: Craftsman feat (GP -10%), Extraordinary Artisan (GP -25%), Legendary Artisan (XP -25%), Exceptional Artisan (Time -25%), membership in an arcane guild (GP -10%), Favored in Guild feat (GP -5%), Golden Helm Guild member with 30 Affiliation (XP -10%, easy to reach 30 for such a craft-focused character), restricted to Artificers (GP/XP/Time -30%). Note that the guild system (with Favored In Guild feat) is a separate mechanic from Affiliations (such as the Golden Helm Guild). This gets us, when crafting scrolls, GP -105%, XP -90%, and Time -105%. There you go: a 20th lvl build that, as soon as they decide they want a scroll, they lose a bit of XP, gain a bit of GP, and crafted it yesterday. If you take the Focused Caster ACF from Dragon Magazine, you can get XP down to -100%, making scroll crafting completely cost-free.



See, here's the disconnect: you see that bolded bit?

THAT'S WRONG.

The rule you're quoting about stacking multipliers is explicitly only for multipliers of numeric values that are purely mechanics; for real-world measurements, multiplying things works exactly the way math says it works. The most common multipliers are damage multipliers, and because damage (and HP, for that matter) are not a real-world value, when they get "multiplied" it follows the rule you're quoting. However, when you start combining things that multiply your range increment distance by an amount, that multiplication acts as math normally dictates, because Distance is a real-world value (unlike HP and damage). So while the range increment of a Longbow wielded by an average Warrior 1 would be 100 ft, the range increment of a +1 Distance Longbow wielded by a Fighter with the Far Shot feat with the Hawkeye spell cast on them has a range increment of 450 ft (100*2*1.5*1.5).

Of course, this leads to an interesting distinction: money (or at least, monetary value) and time are real-world measurements, but XP is not. This means that a pure RAW reading would indicate that GP and Time costs stack multiplicatively, but XP costs stack additively.



This example confirms that what you're saying is what they intended the rule to be, but they've also included enough crafting cost reductions to make things absolutely ridiculous. My answer is closer to what the vast majority of RAW says the answer would be, and even this example falls in line with the "XP stacks additively, GP/Time stack multiplicatively" RAW reading I gave above.


Of course it counts, but only once. You don't get total 50% discount on car if there are five dealers in the neighbourhood that will give you 10% discount, do you? Everyone is offering discount on a different car.

Even by game logic it's the "bonuses from the same source" that do not stck.


It better not. Especially "optimization" like choosing Extraordinary Artisan as an "item creation feat" that Magical Artisan applies to (even if it works RAW - bonus points for rule-lawyery, btw :smallcool:).


That's designing different item, not "reducing price".

You don't claim that it's -89% cost reduction (only pay 11% of the full price!), if you craft "+2 Str" item instead of "+6 Str" (4,000 as opposed to 36,000) and, therefore, adding -25% cost reduction on top should make it free (and grant you 14% of item cost), do you?


No, we do not get 5%. Seriously, what the hell? You have only one cost reducer here - Magical Artisan.


This is just trolling now. "Crafting yourself" is not cost reduction by 50%.


Nope. What you have is 30% cost reduction. 25% off from Magical Artisan and 5% off from Dweomersmith.


And with Apprentice you get 40% cost reduction total. Quite nice, but not 100%, as you claimed.


Unbound Scroll -25% - yes.
Apprentice -10% - yes.
Extraordinary Artisan -25% - yes.
membership in an arcane guild (GP -10%) - bzzzt. No. Materials are already covered by Apprentice.
Favored in Guild feat (GP -5%) - bzzzt. No. Materials are already covered by Apprentice.

You are getting -60% cost reduction. I.e. you have to pay only 40% gp for raw mateirals. That's very nice, but still nowhere near 100%.


And "restricted to Artificers" (which is not cost reduction of crafting) doesn't even work, since Artificers can't use scrolls anyway. Scrolls are already restricted to specific classes by default and Artificers have to bypass this restriction with UMD.


Both provide discount on raw materials you are using for the creation, therefore cannot stack. You can use raw materials from one source or the other. I've covered this already in my previous post and you seemed to agree. Except you went back on this now.

I should add, Unbound Scroll doesn't even need any of those to get that -10% cost reduction for raw materials (and XP), as long as he crafts in Korranberg (and didn't fail Ninth College/become enfant terrible of Sivis). And - yes. Getting discount supplies from Ninth College does not stack with getting discount on supplies from your mentor or from Golden Helm Guild.


No, it doesn't. GP is only -60%.


Except not only did you repeatedly use cost reduction from multiple discounts on raw components (-25%, instead of -10%), you also added completely nonsensical restriction, which is not even cost reducer.


Except this is not "real-world measurement". Gold price is an abstraction. You don't craft items out of gold, you might not even buy components you craft items out of with gold - it might be bank account, or gems, or silver, or platinum coins, or whatever else.


That's prime example of demagogy. Not only you aren't proving your statement (how can it be used, if it's uncertain if it is correct?) - it is completely unrelated to the topic.

And - no. I'm not going to start discussion about distance. The question was about your weird evaluation of crafting, which seems to be based on stacking non-stackable modifiers and adding virtual cost reducers.



Except, they didn't. I have little love for Hasbro's hacks that worked in WotC, but you are distorting things.

Just like you don't get to apply damage from every weapon you carry to the strike you deliver - only the weapon you actually used to stab the opponent counts - you don't get to stack discounts from different places you can get raw materials from. Neither do you get to include "there is more expensive version of this item" as a cost reduction, so as to apply actual cost reducers to more expensive version.

You even mentioned "making thing yourself" as cost reducer, for some reason. What crafting cost does it reduce? Buying from the market is also crafting now?


Either way, thanks for answering. I'll continue to use additive multipliers. If you think this discussion needs to continue, I think 3.5 subforum would be a better place.

[prototype00]

Just a barometer on a related topic, could you set an item to be limited by class, alignment and skill ranks for three separate bonuses, or does the class/alignment only count once for cost reduction?

I.e. Would I get a 30% discount for class, another 30% for alignment and 10% for the skill requirement? Or does that 30% only apply once?

[Lazymancer]

It's a threefold question: "what is written" "what designers intended", and "what would you do".

Personally, I think items should have only one limitation and stuff like "requires TN Hexblade with Perform (bagpipes) to operate" should not exist due to being overly convoluted. We already have GURPS for this. I also suspect designers thought the same (Imo, "either of conditions" suggests this), but failed to express this properly (since we have some confusion about this).

Either way, I would allow this nonsense to be crafted by PC - with explicit understanding that only the largest (30%) applies (i.e. "overlap"). After all, there are limits to what cutting corners and jury-rigging can achieve. Besides, "useable only by me and 5% of population" isn't that different from "useable only by me and 0.1% of population". You'd need "1-in-6 chance that device will explode with each use" to warrant lower price, but that's homerule territory.

Does this answer your question?

[prototype00]

I think so, you're basically saying that at your table you wouldn't allow it, but by RAW, there is nothing stopping it applying separately (or at least no such assertion has been made by the devs?).

So if I ruled at my table that it to the TN Hexblade with a Bagpipe fetish would allow for the 30% (alignment), 30% (class) and 10% (skill) reduction, I could do so without invoking rule 0 (the DMs rule, okay, rule)?

[Gildedragon]

Do you have a rules quote for that?



Magic supplies for items are always half of the base price in gp and 1/25 of the base price in XP. For many items, the market price equals the base price.
The SRD then goes on to explain which items' market and base prices don't match

Armor, shields, weapons, and items with a value independent of their magically enhanced properties add their item cost to the market price. The item cost does not influence the base price (which determines the cost of magic supplies and the experience point cost), but it does increase the final market price.

In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components or with XP components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. Each XP in the component costs adds 5 gp to the market price. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost and the base XP cost (both determined by the base price) plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.

Ie: only items that replicate spells with XP or GP components, and items that have a costly item as base (like weapons, armors, and tools) have a base cost that is different from the market price.

[VisitingDaGulag]

1 Crafting reductions have to be multiplicative of players (or NPCs) can, with not too much effort, easily create infinite free items. Think about that.

2 I'm lazy and won't site.

3 same. Multiplicatively

4 these should be viewed as custom magic items and therefore not allowed in general. Only specific entries should be allowed. Otherwise everyone is always going to make items that only function for them rather than their enemies (and it will save them money too!)

5 Cross setting feat stacking doesn't break games. Broken feats do. See craft contingent spell.

6 Whatever. It's all multiplicative.

[Telonius]

I think the key phrase in the discussion of whether you can get costs below zero, is in the crafting restrictions section: "Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies." That says, to me, that the 10 or 30% you'd get from restricting to skills or alignment is applied last; not added with any other reducers. That 30-40% is (I think) the biggest single percentage drop in the price. Without being able to add 30 or 40 to the rest of the percentages, I don't think it's possible to reduce the costs to zero without using other cost mitigating tricks (like souls as components).

[Lazymancer]

I think the key phrase in the discussion of whether you can get costs below zero, is in the crafting restrictions section ...
Except it's not crafting. It has nothing to do with crafting.

The section is about determining gp value (price) of the object players can find as part of the loot or just buy.

[prototype00]

Hmm, even if it is multiplicative (which I agree with), You still get a very nice discount if you start stacking everything.

44% of base price if you make it exclusive as possible (which of course is 22% in gp to craft against the rules).

Is the xp required determined against the 44% or the 100%?

[Lazymancer]

I think so, you're basically saying that at your table you wouldn't allow it,
Stacking 30%, 30%, and 10%? Everything is possible, but - it's highly unlikely, yes.


but by RAW, there is nothing stopping it applying separately (or at least no such assertion has been made by the devs?).
Well, if you apply them all in some dark basement, nobody is going to track you down and file a complaint. But if you try to pull it off in actual game ("Hey, I'm going to triple my wealth, because there is a clause that allows to have everything made for 70% less"), I think you'll have a very significant possibility of "Nope".


So if I ruled at my table that it to the TN Hexblade with a Bagpipe fetish would allow for the 30% (alignment), 30% (class) and 10% (skill) reduction, I could do so without invoking rule 0 (the DMs rule, okay, rule)?
Making a rule is quite explicitly "invoking rule 0", no? It doesn't really matter if it contradicts playbook or if playbook doesn't have anything to say on the matter. The latter case is simply GM having better justification.

What you are essentially asking is if you can justify 70% cost reduction to other people, or will you have to force this through.

I think it's highly unlikely they will find it reasonable, regardless of how it's phrased in RAW (and, imo, it is quite clearly phrased "only largest modifier applies" - but I have no intention of wasting my time on semantics).

People had been ignoring RAW since the day 1 and went with the "what works better" (often unconsciously!). Consensus always beats RAW. And consensus is "you don't get to triple your items just because". Actual rationalization ("modifiers do not stack" - or "modifiers are to be multiplied") is irrelevant.

[prototype00]

Stacking 30%, 30%, and 10%? Everything is possible, but - it's highly unlikely, yes.


Well, if you apply them all in some dark basement, nobody is going to track you down and file a complaint. But if you try to pull it off in actual game ("Hey, I'm going to triple my wealth, because there is a clause that allows to have everything made for 70% less"), I think you'll have a very significant possibility of "Nope".

You misunderstand my purpose. I'm writing a webnovel called Meta Gamer (https://metagamersite.wordpress.com/) which is a portal style fantasy where the protagonist is a powergamer who is transported to a D&D 3.5 setting. For the purposes of the novel (and entertainment) I was wanting to know what was possible by strict RAW, and as you've said, nothing in what I've said contradicts strict RAW, merely your personal sensibilities.


Making a rule is quite explicitly "invoking rule 0", no? It doesn't really matter if it contradicts playbook or if playbook doesn't have anything to say on the matter. The latter case is simply GM having better justification.

Following the rules as laid out in the book by RAW is not "invoking rules 0" no, or at least we have a different definition of rule 0.


What you are essentially asking is if you can justify 70% cost reduction to other people, or will you have to force this through.

I think it's highly unlikely they will find it reasonable, regardless of how it's phrased in RAW (and, imo, it is quite clearly phrased "only largest modifier applies" - but I have no intention of wasting my time on semantics).

People had been ignoring RAW since the day 1 and went with the "what works better" (often unconsciously!). Consensus always beats RAW. And consensus is "you don't get to triple your items just because". Actual rationalization ("modifiers do not stack" - or "modifiers are to be multiplied") is irrelevant.

Ah, well the beauty of being the author of a webnovel is I only have to stay faithful to the rules that I lay down (like the one where I said I will follow the RAW and see what entertaining results I can get for my Portal Fantasy webnovel). I appreciate you trying to warn me about trying this in a game, but as you know by now, that doesn't concern me.

prototype00

Edit: Hmm, maybe I should put that in my sig, so as to stave off future confusion.