half cost

[AuraSeer]

House Rule Warning

It's arguments like this that made me decide to allow sharing of XP costs for items. You want the wizard to craft a +10 sword for you? Then you go to the lab with him every day, you follow his instructions on how to assist, and you spend the XP yourself.

So IMC, any player can get items at lower money cost, as long as they pay the experience cost.

 

[IceBear]

While the cost is mostly XP, the spellcaster also gave up a feat in order to make these items. That's something else to consider. I agree that it's a minor point as in many cases, having an item creation feat is a bonus

IceBear

 

[Shaele]

--Macbrea----
How did it make your job easier? I would think it would be harder since you have to keep a sewperate list of all items personally created by the wizard.
------

Don't do it this way, just take it as a "net gain" in wealth for the wizard (or the party depending on their point of view).

I think people are getting a little too hung up on making sure that everyone has the "proper" amount of wealth, and completely follows the guidelines. In any campaign I've DM'd or played, wealth distribution is pretty uneven. It's fairly normal for characters to have different levels of wealth, based on the items they've found or the choices the party has made on how to spend their wealth.

With a new (starting-above-first-level campaign), I'd give each player their wealth to spend as they see fit. If they choose to give the fighter most of their wealth to buy a spiffy set of full-plate armor, should I stop them? He ends up with much better equipment than he could otherwise obtain, but only at their sacrifice. It completely messes up the "wealth guideline" chart that everyone seems so keen on following, but I don't think it's unreasonable either.

Getting back to the wizard/feat example; the mage who crafts himself a wand ends up "ahead" in wealth. If the party tracks individual loot (i.e the wizard's wealth vs. the fighters) than it's up to him to negotiate with the fighter to get a reasonable deal. He might give it away, sell it at cost or sell it for full value - that's completely up to the players involved. In the end, either of those characters could end up "ahead", depending on the deal they make.

In our campaign, this is a non-issue. We adventure together, and pool both our wealth and expenses. A player needs something? The group decides whether or not to spend it. At 3rd level, with little wealth, my bard/sorcerer would love a masterwork lute - and could certainly buy it if the wealth was always "split evenly" - but he'd much rather see the paladin get new armor, of the rogue get a masterwork bow.

 

[kreynolds]

--Macbrea----
How did it make your job easier? I would think it would be harder since you have to keep a sewperate list of all items personally created by the wizard.
------

Crothian asked this question, not Macbrea.

[BIn the end, either of those characters could end up "ahead", depending on the deal they make. [/B]

Not by the rules. The item that the wizard makes counts half against him, but full against the fighter. So, only the wizard can get "ahead" in wealth.

 

[kreynolds]

How did it make your job easier? I would think it would be harder since you have to keep a sewperate list of all items personally created by the wizard.

Nah. I have everyone keep a list of all their stuff anyways. Call me crazy, but I'm kinda stuck on the idea that you should know what you're carrying. Anyways, keeping track of what the wizard makes isn't a big deal. For instance, if the fighter has a sword that the wizard made for him, the sword has a little check or something next to it on his inventory list, indicating that the wizard made it. Usually, it's not a big deal keeping track of stuff like that, but it can be with items that are really useful to just about anyone, because those items have a tendancy to get passed around.

 

[Artoomis]

If the wizard makes an item for the fighter, but only charges the fighter half cost, then the wizard is, quite frankly, a sucker!

The wizard most certainly should charge full cost to recoup his indirect expenses - time involved, experience point spent, etc. If he does not, well, then, the fighter makes out quite well and the wizard does not.

Such is life - free market at work.

 

[Weeble]

Which is a little silly. Party resources are still being used. In fact the same amount, the only difference is that who it is given to.

"Mr. Wizard, I appriciate you making that Greatsword +5 for me, but could you hold onto it until I need it in combat because it's worth less towards our total amount of gold if you do. I'll hold a equal amount of magic for you that we found."

metagaming

 

[Weeble]

Okay, the only thing the Wizard is given up is XP.

plus he spent the feats and paid out of pocket to make the items.

 

[Weeble]

They think that that the half price for wizard made items is the correct way to go.

just following the rules

 

[Weeble]

How did it make your job easier? I would think it would be harder since you have to keep a sewperate list of all items personally created by the wizard.

longsword +1 (CC 1000gp for "initials of PC who created item")

or, longsword +1 (CC1000gp for SL)

you would only have to do this with items he made, of course. i think wizards is "assuming" that no party would let their wizard spend years making magic items.