Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 717899" data-attributes="member: 9254">Still does if I remember the rules right (posting from work).&nbsp; Most of the &quot;full plate&quot; we think of was mastework and included a matching shield: cost: 1500+150+20+150=1820gp.IIRC, Crafters create 1/2 their roll result in GP/week.&nbsp; So the smiths would need a total of 3640 to complete the armor.&nbsp; Assuming you take the smiths' rolls individually instead of using the more painful &quot;helping out&quot; rules, two 10th level smiths with 18 stats (+4), max skill (13), masterwork tools (+2) and the various minor helpers would take 47 weeks (11 months) to complete the set.&nbsp; Now, how likely are you to find twin 10th level mastersmiths?&nbsp; Not very.&nbsp; So I don't see a conflict with &quot;real world&quot; economics.&nbsp; Especially since 1cp ~ $1 in 3e.After watching three magic items go up in smoke last session from shocker lizards, I can heartily agree that non-artifacts are not indestructable.&nbsp; Factor in sundering and other incidents and I can see a magic item graveyard.&nbsp; I run a game in a &quot;civilized&quot; world with stables, smiths, and all the crafters you might expect in 11th century England.&nbsp; (Domesday book online + &quot;Life in a Medieval Castle&quot; == good 'nuff realisim).&nbsp;&nbsp; All of those skills exist in the party.&nbsp; Mainly because adventurers often spend time away from civilization and cannot afford to be without those skills.&nbsp; Will they often have more than 5 points in the skill?&nbsp; No, but that makes them functional, if not exceptional, workers.&nbsp; I can't really argue that, but it really gets into setting vs. mechanics which is probably the crux of the arguments.&nbsp; Some people believe that mechanics are setting agnostic while others do not.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are a lot of inter-related dependencies in 3e that were either never mentioned or never thought through.&nbsp; Some of us (myself) believe that changing any of the availabilities of items, character wealth, XP progression, or CR pretty much requires changing all of them.&nbsp; 3e makes certain assumptions and it spells them out.&nbsp; Let's just say I distrust many DMs to balance these factors since most aren't even aware of their relationships.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 717899, member: 9254"] Still does if I remember the rules right (posting from work). Most of the "full plate" we think of was mastework and included a matching shield: cost: 1500+150+20+150=1820gp. IIRC, Crafters create 1/2 their roll result in GP/week. So the smiths would need a total of 3640 to complete the armor. Assuming you take the smiths' rolls individually instead of using the more painful "helping out" rules, two 10th level smiths with 18 stats (+4), max skill (13), masterwork tools (+2) and the various minor helpers would take 47 weeks (11 months) to complete the set. Now, how likely are you to find twin 10th level mastersmiths? Not very. So I don't see a conflict with "real world" economics. Especially since 1cp ~ $1 in 3e. [b][/b] After watching three magic items go up in smoke last session from shocker lizards, I can heartily agree that non-artifacts are not indestructable. Factor in sundering and other incidents and I can see a magic item graveyard. [b][/b] I run a game in a "civilized" world with stables, smiths, and all the crafters you might expect in 11th century England. (Domesday book online + "Life in a Medieval Castle" == good 'nuff realisim). All of those skills exist in the party. Mainly because adventurers often spend time away from civilization and cannot afford to be without those skills. Will they often have more than 5 points in the skill? No, but that makes them functional, if not exceptional, workers. [b][/b] I can't really argue that, but it really gets into setting vs. mechanics which is probably the crux of the arguments. Some people believe that mechanics are setting agnostic while others do not. There are a lot of inter-related dependencies in 3e that were either never mentioned or never thought through. Some of us (myself) believe that changing any of the availabilities of items, character wealth, XP progression, or CR pretty much requires changing all of them. 3e makes certain assumptions and it spells them out. Let's just say I distrust many DMs to balance these factors since most aren't even aware of their relationships. [/QUOTE]

Verification