Using magic to make money

[anest1s]

I mean, consider: The basic unit of fabricate is the 1 sqaure foot of raw materials. Now, 1 square foot of iron I think I estimated before ways about 400 lbs. The price of iron is 1 sp/lb, so you could buy a cubic foot of iron for 40 gp. So, for 40 gp, you could potentially make 400 Masterwork Daggers, for instance, to a theoretical profit to the tune of (400 x 302)/2 - 40 = 60360 gp. Even, if, for the sake of argument, the DM ruled that your saturation of the market drove prices down by a whole magnitude, that would still be a profit of 6000 gp for a mere 400 lbs of iron. And the fact is that you could probably diversify what you created, and keep your prices up. So, let us just imagine that you could make anywhere from 10-30000 gp from 400 lbs of iron. Raw materials become your only limit.

Fabricate :: d20srd.org

You can't make something out of more than one material, so crossbows spears etc are out. To make things you still need to pay 1/3rd of the price, and that goes for masterwork things too. You also need to make a craft check to make them.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I have never seen it in my gaming.


That said, what about the use of fabricate and gems?

In our world, a gem of double size is worth MUCH more than double the cost. Take ten very high quality diamonds and fabricate them into a single very high quality large diamond.

In our world, that'd be an amazingly valuable thing to do.



Oh, and as both a player and a DM, I recognize that the wealth by level guidelines and magic marts make "too much wealth" a problem in balanced gaming. If the money is "plot money" like outfitting an army, buying a keep, etc., then I see no problem with it.

But I don't want to play in a world where my group all has vorpal swords at level 5 because we can afford them.


But there's another important point. If the player wizard can do it, so can npcs. Perhaps, as with my gemcutting example, since this is something that can happen in this world, gems are priced by total weight, not by size. Cut a million gold piece gem in half, and you get two gems whose value adds up to one million. Essentially, because of NPC wizards who can be paid to make nice big gems for kings and queens, smaller gems are seen of as parts. A large gem, in our world valuable because it is rare, is not rare in this world, thanks to the use of the court wizard's fabricate spell.

If the players are able to make a ton of money doing something, so can the npcs...and then the npcs and the players all have vorpal swords at level five. Or, more sensibly, something like my gemcutting fabricate solution rears its head, and the world is already prebalanced by years of economic and magical struggles.

Basically, it depends on the kind of game that everyone wants to play.

 

[chaochou]

If a bunch of players want to set up some sort of business or merchant house as the basis for adventure, intrigue and challenge then I'm good with it. That sounds like an excellent game to me.

If a player / players want to try and Calvinball easy advantages out of a, by necessity, imprecise and simplistic economic model then I don't want to run a game for those players.

I've not yet run a game where the players have said 'Hey, let's make money at this' but if and when they do I'll be happy to try and make it as fun as possible, provided their intent is to make it as fun as possible.

 

[Kaodi]

Fabricate :: d20srd.org

You can't make something out of more than one material, so crossbows spears etc are out. To make things you still need to pay 1/3rd of the price, and that goes for masterwork things too. You also need to make a craft check to make them.

Not entirely true. If you have a bunch of shafts and a bunch of spearheads, you have the hardest part of making a bunch of spears out of the way.

But in any case... even getting all of this cost stuff out of the way... Consider that with a meager +10 Craft (Weapon) bonus, it would ordinarily take something like 2 months to craft a masterwork weapon from scratch, being able to accomplish the same task in mere moments is incredible. Now considering many such weapons you could create with a couple of castings and maybe some assembly, and you are still looking at astronomical profit potential.

 

[MarkB]

I mean, consider: The basic unit of fabricate is the 1 sqaure foot of raw materials. Now, 1 square foot of iron I think I estimated before ways about 400 lbs. The price of iron is 1 sp/lb, so you could buy a cubic foot of iron for 40 gp. So, for 40 gp, you could potentially make 400 Masterwork Daggers, for instance, to a theoretical profit to the tune of (400 x 302)/2 - 40 = 60360 gp. Even, if, for the sake of argument, the DM ruled that your saturation of the market drove prices down by a whole magnitude, that would still be a profit of 6000 gp for a mere 400 lbs of iron. And the fact is that you could probably diversify what you created, and keep your prices up. So, let us just imagine that you could make anywhere from 10-30000 gp from 400 lbs of iron. Raw materials become your only limit.

If you're going to get into the iron market, don't bother with spellcasting - just buy iron pots in bulk at a cost of 5 sp per 10lb pot, melt them down, and sell them as iron ingots at 1 sp per lb.

 

[CuRoi]

Basically, I'm advising that based on the hint of subtext of "I wouldn't let them get away with it" that I heard, to be mindful of bad DMing pitfalls. to consider what you're really against, and whether it's your right to do so as GM.

I concur with this, however I think I want it to be clear that from my perspective there is nothing wrong with a DM making a judgement call based on the possible fact that "x" has most likely been done before, even if it might shut an avenue for the players down. I create relatively detailed campaigns with pre-existing laws, cultures, factions, NPCs, etc etc. But I've NEVER thought of EVERYTHING prior to the PCs sitting down at a table (I know some DMs perhaps have and kudos to them, I just don't have that kind of time.) But yes, the power should be exercised with caution.

In the case of players finding ways to say cheat NPCs with spells, or other get rich quick schemes, the DM should, IMO feel free to exercise even more control as that's just not what the game is usually about (unless as mentioned the group decided they wanted to focus on this.). DnD is fairly item dependent as far as power levels go and allowing characters to sit around an Inn, roll a few dice and come up with some scheme for vast sums of money without adventuring could ultimately spoil the game if you are playing a classic adventure/combat focused type of game.

 

[CuRoi]

I assume the InnKeeper is also not a moron, and knows, there are monsters out there. That's why adventurers carry weapons. Before I go out to the dungeon, I should aquire a weapon and get some training in it. he doesn't actually have to KNOW about adventuring or dungeons to know it is dangerous and he must learn more before he can become an adventurer.

He still might suck at it. But he's not just going to trade his inn for a sword and head down to the nearest dungeon.

Right, so we should assume if PCs want to pursue "getting rich" without adventuring, they should be eager and prepared to acquire a business and spend the necessary time and money to get "trained". Finding out there are a bunch of challenges in their way to their plans of making millions shouldn't mean the DM is just being an a$$.

In the case of an Inkeeper, he picks up a sword and gets training as you say (i.e. learns the ways of a 1st lvl Fighter let's say) before hitting the dungeon. The typical adventurer should take up a ledger and an abacus, scale, what have you, and learn the ways of a business owner (i.e. start taking on Expert levels perhaps or focusing skill ranks.)

All I'm saying with the example is there needs to be some sort of in game trade off for any monetary value the players come across. If a DM just flat out rules there are no "get rich quick schemes" in his campaign and shut splayers down, that is entirely his perogative and I've got no beef with that. Most such schemes should, at the very least, be illegal (lest economies in the game world would have sucumbed to them long ago.) Once in a blue moon a true "get rich quick scheme" should work, but it should be under full DM control (not the control of pleading players holding a "you're a crappy DM" card) and the exception, not the rule.

So I'm much less willing to warn DMs of overstepping boundaries regaridng this issue

 

[CuRoi]

If you're going to get into the iron market, don't bother with spellcasting - just buy iron pots in bulk at a cost of 5 sp per 10lb pot, melt them down, and sell them as iron ingots at 1 sp per lb.

An excellent example of why DMs should feel free to ruthlessly squash "get rich quick" schemes with some sort of in-game judgement call on laws, economies, taxes, etc. etc without the "bad DM" thing lingering over their head. The book economies aren't made for "gaming" - whether the economics of a spell or just the simple book pricing for goods and services. DMs shouldn't feel bad for proactively nipping this stuff in the bud, unless as mentioned, the group as a whole has decided they want to play this way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...a Druid & a Mage go into business together: the Druid makes certain grain crops grow, and the Mage sets up infinite supplies of water and heat.

D&M's Brewery & Distillation Co!

(And it could be run out of a magnificent mansion...)

 

[Janx]

An excellent example of why DMs should feel free to ruthlessly squash "get rich quick" schemes with some sort of in-game judgement call on laws, economies, taxes, etc. etc without the "bad DM" thing lingering over their head. The book economies aren't made for "gaming" - whether the economics of a spell or just the simple book pricing for goods and services. DMs shouldn't feel bad for proactively nipping this stuff in the bud, unless as mentioned, the group as a whole has decided they want to play this way.

This example looks like an attempt to exploit a rules glitch (contradictory pricing). I think we both agree to not allow that.