Our group resolved such issues of the wizard creating items for people simply. You pay the half cost of the item (which is the monetary cost of the wizard making it) plus some extra (not sure exactly what the amount is) to compensate for the xp loss. It is a good system. You get the item for quite a bit less than the full cost, and the wizard (or other magic item creation class) gets a better deal. On some occasions it makes sense that a certain item benefits the whole party if a character has it (nothing comes to mind right now, but it has happened in the group) then the group works together to buy it.
Another point is this...I don't know how any of you deal with treasure (magical or otherwise) but we're pretty strict about keeping with level limits. Part of that is keeping the party treasure equal, so if you decide to take something, you get a lesser share of gold.
Example: The party comes across a ring of invisibility. The rogue wants it (obviously). We take whatever the party would get out of it if it were sold (half the cost of the item) away from the gold that the rogue would get. If this is more than the rogue would get in treasure, he owes what is remaining to the party when he DOES get some gold.
This is pretty metagamey (is that a word?) but, the fact is, it works really well to quell any arguements between players about items. And to get on topic, it would have solved the whole issue of the Trials of the Bard and the Wizard. If you had been playing with this rule from the beginning, the wizard would have had to accept this rule from when he started to play. There is no way, using this rule, the wizard could logically demand the item without compensating the bard.
This might help to set up a situation like this...as I said, it is a MetaGame solution to the problem...but it's better than just allowing this problem to exist.
Also, on mages buffing people. I agree that the mage isn't obligated to buff ANYONE. It's possible to play an effective spellcaster that doesn't USE any buffs. Also, if it is an in character decision that the character is stingy (sp?) with buffs, or doesn't like a character IN CHARACTER so doesn't buff them, thats fine...but I don't think I would play for long in a game where such pettiness was allowed even if it is an IC thing. Especially if I was the character who is the recipient of such pettiness, but even if I wasn't that character. I don't like the idea of "my character doesn't like you..so you get nothing!"
I had a character that was at odds with most of the party due to alignment. He was lawful good, and the rest were a mix of chaotic/neutral (no evil characters...our group doesn't allow them unless there is a specific reason for it). He argued with the rest of the group about their actions all of the time. However, due to beliefs that I decided that the character had, he would ALWAYS look after the groups needs before his own.
Wow...that's long, and it gets kinda ranty at the end. I hope you can resolve your problems (if you haven't already) because it sounds like this is going to hurt the group as a whole if not checked soon. Good luck.
