Crafting EXP substitution with gold

[RoboEmperor]

If you were a DM, would you allow a player to craft an item without the XP cost as long as he pays the full amount in GP and any additional GP as a result of failure?

Or if you were a DM, would you allow some sort of XP to Gold equivalency, like 5gp per 1 XP used?

For example, a player wants to craft an iron golem, but craft construct is a monster only feat, so instead he wants to craft a iron golem manual but instead of paying 3,500 gp + 5,880 XP, he wants to craft it with 35,000 gp + cost for the base materials for the Iron golem.

He says golems can make the game much more fun but says they are absolutely not worth the XP to create them.

He also wants to make a quick loading self loading heavy crossbow, but doesn't want to spend XP on such a low-op item.

What are your opinions?

[Extra Anchovies]

In Pathfinder, item crafting expends only GP, not XP. It's simpler and hardly different; if a PC in a 3.5 game ends up behind the party by a level, they'll earn more xp/encounter than the rest of the party and thus will catch up quickly.

[RoboEmperor]

In Pathfinder, item crafting expends only GP, not XP. It's simpler and hardly different; if a PC in a 3.5 game ends up behind the party by a level, they'll earn more xp/encounter than the rest of the party and thus will catch up quickly.

Yeah he knows that, but iron golems are for fun, because they're pretty weak. So instead of putting your xp in some super powerful weapon/armor that boosts your strength, in this case he'll be putting xp in something fun, not serious, and can be killed, thus wasting the massive investment. He argues that the reason why crafting is worth it is because you save on gold, so by eliminating that advantage he should be allowed to eliminate the disadvantage too.

[ace rooster]

Golems are iconic and rare (and not that weak), requiring a significant expendature of power from casters. Letting casters create them with no xp cost is asking for tippy style golem armies. For cheaper more common constructs I would point you towards CA effigies.

I feel the need to point out that golem manuals have craft construct as a prerequisite, so do not get around the need for it that way. If the player really wants a golem, your best option seems like just having them find a golem manual as treasure, through accident or sending them on a quest for it. Also a feat in the MM is not the same as a [monsterous] feat.

A repeating heavy crossbow that grants the user proficiency maybe? A ring of continuous masters touch (or other item of ...) would reasonably be valued at 4000gp, and could let the character use a repeating heavy crossbow or any other weapon with proficiency (though only one at a time).

[Phelix-Mu]

Magic already splits WBL wide open in many games. It is unwise to allow someone to substitute a potentially unlimited resource with a tightly controlled one like xp (xp=river notwithstanding).

Also, iron golems aren't toys. They might not be the most efficient use of resources, but they are pretty effective guardians and mook control. That they can be destroyed shouldn't enter into the calculation much, as the purpose of all created/summoned defenders/meatshields is to soak attacks, and golems do that pretty damn well.

Iron golem also has a nifty source of magical healing that combos well with offensive spell use, so they are actually pretty viable if paired with some aoe blastomancy (or enough twinned fire spells).

[Extra Anchovies]

Iron golem also has a nifty source of magical healing that combos well with offensive spell use, so they are actually pretty viable if paired with some aoe blastomancy (or enough twinned fire spells).

Indeed. One of the nastiest encounters in the 3.0 Book of Challenges involves a room with a half-dozen iron golems and an Incendiary Cloud trap. It makes me cringe just thinking about having to deal with that...

[Xuldarinar]

Indeed. One of the nastiest encounters in the 3.0 Book of Challenges involves a room with a half-dozen iron golems and an Incendiary Cloud trap. It makes me cringe just thinking about having to deal with that...

Im reminded of something out of Grimtooth.

A room filled to a depth of ten feet with boiling wax. A narrow wooden bridge lacking any safety measures spanning the room. Wax splashes onto you as well as the bridge, making it slippery, and the air is filled with the vapors from the boiling wax. Guarding the bridge is a flint golem.

Now, think: What could possibly go wrong?

[Troacctid]

From a game design perspective, xp costs are bad. Giving up xp is not fun. Players shouldn't have to do it, and DMs have enough math to deal with already without having to account for the level imbalance. Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e all got rid of xp costs; I think the general consensus among the designers is that they were a mistake.

[Phelix-Mu]

From a game design perspective, xp costs are bad. Giving up xp is not fun. Players shouldn't have to do it, and DMs have enough math to deal with already without having to account for the level imbalance. Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e all got rid of xp costs; I think the general consensus among the designers is that they were a mistake.

This is all very true. But, if one changes from xp costs to gp costs, one needs to make gp costs more than trivial for casters. This is quite the chore in many campaigns where casters have access to large numbers of spells and players have good knowledge of the system.

1.) Don't let players sell spells.

2.) Don't let them wall of salt their way to billionaire status.

3.) No ladders to firewood mundane WBL-mancy, either.

If you iron all of those loopholes out and keep gp values meaningfully scaled instead of trivially small next to the value of magic (which casters get a daily, renewable supply of for free), then feel free to get rid of xp costs.

My experience stems from a relatively high-op, upper level thing where the DM went for 1xp=5gp because he wasn't going to use xp at all, leveling us up as we hit plot benchmarks. Good idea, really. Except that casters, fabricate, and the something-for-nothing nature of magic during downtime eventually chucked WBL out the window, and the party was soon turning around profits in the high 100ks per week of downtime, per party member. And we weren't even all playing full casters (though we were epic at that point, which is a totally different issue).

Basically, beware the pitfalls of this otherwise good alteration to the game. The game hands out what amounts to money (spells) for free every day for large numbers of classes (and others get shafted). The degree to which a caster can convert spells to money varies, but needs to be much more controlled in order to make using gp instead of xp a clear cut improvement.

[Troacctid]

It shouldn't be difficult to put a stop to infinite wealth shenanigans, and they break the game even without crafting, so whatever.

[TheIronGolem]

Letting casters create [golems] with no xp cost is asking for tippy style golem armies.

The Tippyverse is based on RAW 3.5, which includes XP costs. So it can hardly be true that XP costs are the only barrier (or even a significant barrier) between the player and a golem army. The real hurdle for that is the DM letting you get away with it, which will happen or not happen regardless of whether XP costs are in play.

[RoboEmperor]

This is all very true. But, if one changes from xp costs to gp costs, one needs to make gp costs more than trivial for casters. This is quite the chore in many campaigns where casters have access to large numbers of spells and players have good knowledge of the system.

1.) Don't let players sell spells.

2.) Don't let them wall of salt their way to billionaire status.

3.) No ladders to firewood mundane WBL-mancy, either.

If you iron all of those loopholes out and keep gp values meaningfully scaled instead of trivially small next to the value of magic (which casters get a daily, renewable supply of for free), then feel free to get rid of xp costs.

My experience stems from a relatively high-op, upper level thing where the DM went for 1xp=5gp because he wasn't going to use xp at all, leveling us up as we hit plot benchmarks. Good idea, really. Except that casters, fabricate, and the something-for-nothing nature of magic during downtime eventually chucked WBL out the window, and the party was soon turning around profits in the high 100ks per week of downtime, per party member. And we weren't even all playing full casters (though we were epic at that point, which is a totally different issue).

Basically, beware the pitfalls of this otherwise good alteration to the game. The game hands out what amounts to money (spells) for free every day for large numbers of classes (and others get shafted). The degree to which a caster can convert spells to money varies, but needs to be much more controlled in order to make using gp instead of xp a clear cut improvement.

Our DM says Fabricate by RAW lets you create only 1 item, so no wall of iron + 1000000 masterwork daggers, only 1 masterwork dagger, and the player is suggesting crafting the item in question at full market price so crafting scrolls and selling them will result in 0 profit. He could just technically buy all his gear but super powerful enchanting crafting wizards are not available in every city or in every campaign, so he wants the crafting feats to ensure he can "buy" those items anywhere, anytime so he doesn't have to make adjustments to his strategy depending on campaign. That and he really likes iron golems.

From a game design perspective, xp costs are bad. Giving up xp is not fun. Players shouldn't have to do it, and DMs have enough math to deal with already without having to account for the level imbalance. Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e all got rid of xp costs; I think the general consensus among the designers is that they were a mistake.

I agree :)
I'm tempted to try and learn pathfinder mainly for that reason, and summoners + eidolons.

[Deadline]

For example, a player wants to craft an iron golem, but craft construct is a monster only feat, so instead he wants to craft a iron golem manual but instead of paying 3,500 gp + 5,880 XP, he wants to craft it with 35,000 gp + cost for the base materials for the Iron golem.

First off, Craft Construct is not a monster only feat.

Secondly, I don't see any problem with letting him "craft" a magic item by paying the full market price for it, so long as he meets the pre-requisites to do so. All that really does is ensure he has a way of acquiring items he wants without needing the DM to place sellers for it in-world. The DM may have an issue with that, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[Extra Anchovies]

First off, Craft Construct is not a monster only feat.

Indeed. It may be in the Monster Feats section of the SRD, but it doesn't require that you be a monster. I'm pretty sure it's there because it first showed up in a Bestiary.

[Codenpeg]

I'm currently playing Pathfinder and do not miss XP for item creation at all. If you want them to still pay the xp cost just make them pay 5gp per 1xp or something.
"Each XP in the component costs adds 5 gp to the market price." http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm