So another thread got me thinking, magic items that do not cast spell can be made by any character with proficiency in Arcana and the tools necessary to create the base item (Tinker's Tools for most Wondrous Items, Smithing Tools for most weapons and armor, etc.) according to the Rules as Written. Items that cast actual spells require the creator to be able to cast the spell itself.
Now assuming that NPCs are just level 1 PCs leads to all sorts of bad situations (e.g., enormous populations of Humans with the Magic Initiate feat since humans get to pick a second feat for free) but it would seem like at least a reasonable percentage of the NPC population could manage 2 proficiencies (reasonable percentage in this case being at least .1%, which for a city like Waterdeep means at least 140-200 people). Even if only a small fraction of those take Arcana plus the correct Tool Kit you should still be looking at quite a few people in most large cities capable of crafting things like Rubies of the War Mage, Silver Weapons, Enduring Spell Books, Clothes of Mending, and Cloaks of Many Fashions.
I will admit that this is bordering on House Rules since this is a lot of interpretation and is not explicitly stated, but it does seem a reasonable extension of the rules. This isn't meant to be a 'DM's must allow this' kind of idea since DMs are always free to interpret and house rule as they feel appropriate, but I was just wondering what other people think about this train of thought.
The currently published commoner doesn't have any proficiencies. Anything that is about the setting of the game is up to DM purview as far as I'm concerned, including availability of NPCs with various abilities, materials, and magicians items. Even mundane items can fall into this.
It’s not unreasonable. Someone has to be making the stuff, but why would they? It will be world dependent, but (in my games, at least) PCs are a rare type. So, unless there’s lots of adventurers running around, there’s not going to be much market for most stuff.
Now, probably anyone could get some use from a bag of holding, and maybe other similar items. Those I could see selling well and someone just churning them out. But a ruby of the war mage? The cost of the ruby alone would make it prohibitive for most crafters, since it will sit on a shelf for a long time before they make a profit on it as so few people will want one. Ditto silver weapons, there’s just not going to be many people who are looking to pick fights with lycanthropes.
What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
[...] Now assuming that NPCs are just level 1 PCs leads to all sorts of bad situations (e.g., enormous populations of Humans with the Magic Initiate feat since humans get to pick a second feat for free) but it would seem like at least a reasonable percentage of the NPC population could manage 2 proficiencies (reasonable percentage in this case being at least .1%, which for a city like Waterdeep means at least 140-200 people). Even if only a small fraction of those take Arcana plus the correct Tool Kit you should still be looking at quite a few people in most large cities capable of crafting things like Rubies of the War Mage, Silver Weapons, Enduring Spell Books, Clothes of Mending, and Cloaks of Many Fashions.
In fact, hiring skilled hirelings is detailed in the 2024 PHB:
Hirelings Skilled hirelings include anyone hired to perform a service that involves a proficiency (including weapon, tool, or skill): a mercenary, an artisan, a scribe, or the like. The pay shown on the Hirelings table is a minimum; some expert hirelings require more pay. Untrained hirelings are hired for work that requires no particular proficiencies; they include laborers and porters.
Also, using Bastions hirelings can craft Common or Uncommon magic items. Some examples:
So another thread got me thinking, magic items that do not cast spell can be made by any character with proficiency in Arcana and the tools necessary to create the base item (Tinker's Tools for most Wondrous Items, Smithing Tools for most weapons and armor, etc.) according to the Rules as Written. Items that cast actual spells require the creator to be able to cast the spell itself. [...]
Just to add, if following the XGtE rules, it's even less demanding:
To complete a magic item, a character also needs whatever tool proficiency is appropriate, as for crafting a nonmagical object, or proficiency in the Arcana skill.
[...] What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
That's exactly one of the things we've allowed in our current campaign.
While common magic items are the most plentiful, it should always remain optional to DM usually being in full control of the campaign's level of magic and how likely any are up for purchase in a given area. Low magic might only have a few magic items available if any, where high magic could regularly find them just about anywhere.
The currently published commoner doesn't have any proficiencies. Anything that is about the setting of the game is up to DM purview as far as I'm concerned, including availability of NPCs with various abilities, materials, and magicians items. Even mundane items can fall into this.
While common magic items are the most plentiful, it should always remain optional to DM usually being in full control of the campaign's level of magic and how likely any are up for purchase in a given area. Low magic might only have a few magic items available if any, where high magic could regularly find them just about anywhere.
I absolutely agree that even mundane items fall into this. Just because a PC has 200 gold doesn't mean that there's an elephant available. The idea certainly isn't suppose to be 'Mr. DM, you have to let me do this'. Even if it were black-letter rules as written I acknowledge that a DM has not just a right but an obligation to make adjustments to keep the game fun (It's great that you found that overlooked combination that lets you do 128 damage a round at level 2, but I'm going to say that those abilities can't work together that way because otherwise none of the other players are going to get to do anything).
I'm thinking more in broad strokes; is this idea something where people feel I'm pretzeling the rules, is there some other limiting factor that I am missing, etc.
So another thread got me thinking, magic items that do not cast spell can be made by any character with proficiency in Arcana and the tools necessary to create the base item (Tinker's Tools for most Wondrous Items, Smithing Tools for most weapons and armor, etc.) according to the Rules as Written. Items that cast actual spells require the creator to be able to cast the spell itself. [...]
Just to add, if following the XGtE rules, it's even less demanding:
To complete a magic item, a character also needs whatever tool proficiency is appropriate, as for crafting a nonmagical object, or proficiency in the Arcana skill.
[...] What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
That's exactly one of the things we've allowed in our current campaign.
The rules in XGtE are suppose to be superseded by these new rules though, aren't they?
Commissioning is definitely one way to go, but I was thinking that for something such as an NPC of the appropriate skills who sets up shop near the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors in Waterdeep they might even keep around a few things such as Enduring Spellbooks (with the option of providing bespoke items at even greater cost).
It’s not unreasonable. Someone has to be making the stuff, but why would they? It will be world dependent, but (in my games, at least) PCs are a rare type. So, unless there’s lots of adventurers running around, there’s not going to be much market for most stuff.
Now, probably anyone could get some use from a bag of holding, and maybe other similar items. Those I could see selling well and someone just churning them out. But a ruby of the war mage? The cost of the ruby alone would make it prohibitive for most crafters, since it will sit on a shelf for a long time before they make a profit on it as so few people will want one. Ditto silver weapons, there’s just not going to be many people who are looking to pick fights with lycanthropes.
What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
I did neglect to take into account the base cost of the ruby and was only thinking about the extra cost for enchanting it. This would probably also apply to things like Mithral Armor, which are common magical armor but probably way more than normal cost + 400gp because of the value of the mithral. Still, for things like Enduring Spellbooks, Bags of Holding, and Cloaks of Many Fashion it seems like the base cost would be low (kind of like how the heavier suits of armor can usually be found for sale already pre-made, even though that makes even less sense since they would need to be fitted).
So another thread got me thinking, magic items that do not cast spell can be made by any character with proficiency in Arcana and the tools necessary to create the base item (Tinker's Tools for most Wondrous Items, Smithing Tools for most weapons and armor, etc.) according to the Rules as Written. Items that cast actual spells require the creator to be able to cast the spell itself. [...]
Just to add, if following the XGtE rules, it's even less demanding:
To complete a magic item, a character also needs whatever tool proficiency is appropriate, as for crafting a nonmagical object, or proficiency in the Arcana skill.
[...] What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
That's exactly one of the things we've allowed in our current campaign.
The rules in XGtE are suppose to be superseded by these new rules though, aren't they?
I need a hireling with proficiency in laws on my side before answering this, hehe.
I don't recall if WoTC gave any advice on usage of pre-existing splatbooks since the revision of the core rules 2024. They were optional and complementary and must still be.
I don't recall if WoTC gave any advice on usage of pre-existing splatbooks since the revision of the core rules 2024. They were optional and complementary and must still be.
I don't recall if WoTC gave any advice on usage of pre-existing splatbooks since the revision of the core rules 2024. They were optional and complementary and must still be.
Interesting. I think I was just assuming that 2024 PHB rules were suppose to override any comparable pre-2024 PHB rules (and likewise for the 2024 DMG).
I've been kind of wondering about the whole School of Swords/School of Valor; since they are not identical names is School of Swords still valid even though they are highly similar?
However, that's definitely wandering off the main topic.
The Dungeon Master Guide has guidelines for Buying and Selling magic items in general but from there anything is possible.
Thanks for that link. That actually gives me a pretty good baseline.
Part of the reason for wondering was I was flashing back to, I think, 4, where it seemed as though most players fully expected to be able to wander into a shop and purchase magical items that they had the gold for (I think this was primarily caused by price lists for the items put in the Player's Handbook, if memory serves). That link would indicate that they have clearly distanced themselves from that idea.
The DM has to have some agency too. I don't think it should be assumed that because something can be manufactured, it should be available for general purchase or possession.
We can look to the real world for example, I live in the US and we're noted for having lax firearm restrictions, but not everything is available for citizens to purchase, own or possess. I can't go and purchase a rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches for example without getting special permission/permits. Law enforcement can get them, but I can't. In medieval Japan, citizens who were not of the samurai class could not carry swords with blades of longer than 2 shaku. Many cities in Europe did not permit commoners to carry swords. There's a lot of precedent for governmental regulation of weapons, and I think that magic and magic items would fall into the same kind of category.
I could easily see a large city such as Waterdeep banning the open sale of things such as Ruby of the Warmage for example in the same way people cannot conceal pistols legally without permits. An argument could be made that a ruby of the warmage is something of a concealed implement, and could be regulated. Then there's supply and demand. Just because something CAN be made means there's a demand for it. Regulation can go beyond just weapon type magic items too. Perhaps the most honorable guild of tailors and seamstresses has lobbied the Lords of Waterdeep to ban the sale of clothes of mending because if everyone had those, it could seriously harm the businesses of the tailors and seamstresses of the cities, and also have a negative impact on the local economy, and now cloth to make new clothes would be in lower demand because clothes didn't need to be replaced, etc.
The DM has as lot of tools available to say "not available here" and players should never just assume that because there's a rule to create something, that they should be allowed to do it. All of those sort of things should be at DMs discretion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I don't recall if WoTC gave any advice on usage of pre-existing splatbooks since the revision of the core rules 2024. They were optional and complementary and must still be.
Interesting. I think I was just assuming that 2024 PHB rules were suppose to override any comparable pre-2024 PHB rules (and likewise for the 2024 DMG).
I've been kind of wondering about the whole School of Swords/School of Valor; since they are not identical names is School of Swords still valid even though they are highly similar?
However, that's definitely wandering off the main topic.
That's true for backgrounds, subclasses, feats, or spells.
Any subclass, spell, or feat from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything or Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything that appears in this book replaces the version that appears in the Everything book.
The article also has a section named "New Subclass Names".
But for other things like downtime activities, managing areas of effect on a grid, or DM's tools included in XGtE or TCoE, etc., I think there is no official answer.
So another thread got me thinking, magic items that do not cast spell can be made by any character with proficiency in Arcana and the tools necessary to create the base item (Tinker's Tools for most Wondrous Items, Smithing Tools for most weapons and armor, etc.) according to the Rules as Written. Items that cast actual spells require the creator to be able to cast the spell itself.
Now assuming that NPCs are just level 1 PCs leads to all sorts of bad situations (e.g., enormous populations of Humans with the Magic Initiate feat since humans get to pick a second feat for free) but it would seem like at least a reasonable percentage of the NPC population could manage 2 proficiencies (reasonable percentage in this case being at least .1%, which for a city like Waterdeep means at least 140-200 people). Even if only a small fraction of those take Arcana plus the correct Tool Kit you should still be looking at quite a few people in most large cities capable of crafting things like Rubies of the War Mage, Silver Weapons, Enduring Spell Books, Clothes of Mending, and Cloaks of Many Fashions.
I will admit that this is bordering on House Rules since this is a lot of interpretation and is not explicitly stated, but it does seem a reasonable extension of the rules. This isn't meant to be a 'DM's must allow this' kind of idea since DMs are always free to interpret and house rule as they feel appropriate, but I was just wondering what other people think about this train of thought.
The currently published commoner doesn't have any proficiencies. Anything that is about the setting of the game is up to DM purview as far as I'm concerned, including availability of NPCs with various abilities, materials, and magicians items. Even mundane items can fall into this.
It’s not unreasonable. Someone has to be making the stuff, but why would they? It will be world dependent, but (in my games, at least) PCs are a rare type. So, unless there’s lots of adventurers running around, there’s not going to be much market for most stuff.
Now, probably anyone could get some use from a bag of holding, and maybe other similar items. Those I could see selling well and someone just churning them out. But a ruby of the war mage? The cost of the ruby alone would make it prohibitive for most crafters, since it will sit on a shelf for a long time before they make a profit on it as so few people will want one. Ditto silver weapons, there’s just not going to be many people who are looking to pick fights with lycanthropes.
What could work is for the PCs to commission one. If you don’t have a lot of downtime in your campaign, they can go out adventuring while the shopkeeper makes the thing. But that’s probably a pretty common idea — going to the big city to find the smith who knows how to work this kind of metal. That sort of thing.
In fact, hiring skilled hirelings is detailed in the 2024 PHB:
Also, using Bastions hirelings can craft Common or Uncommon magic items. Some examples:
Just to add, if following the XGtE rules, it's even less demanding:
That's exactly one of the things we've allowed in our current campaign.
While common magic items are the most plentiful, it should always remain optional to DM usually being in full control of the campaign's level of magic and how likely any are up for purchase in a given area. Low magic might only have a few magic items available if any, where high magic could regularly find them just about anywhere.
I absolutely agree that even mundane items fall into this. Just because a PC has 200 gold doesn't mean that there's an elephant available. The idea certainly isn't suppose to be 'Mr. DM, you have to let me do this'. Even if it were black-letter rules as written I acknowledge that a DM has not just a right but an obligation to make adjustments to keep the game fun (It's great that you found that overlooked combination that lets you do 128 damage a round at level 2, but I'm going to say that those abilities can't work together that way because otherwise none of the other players are going to get to do anything).
I'm thinking more in broad strokes; is this idea something where people feel I'm pretzeling the rules, is there some other limiting factor that I am missing, etc.
The rules in XGtE are suppose to be superseded by these new rules though, aren't they?
Commissioning is definitely one way to go, but I was thinking that for something such as an NPC of the appropriate skills who sets up shop near the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors in Waterdeep they might even keep around a few things such as Enduring Spellbooks (with the option of providing bespoke items at even greater cost).
The Dungeon Master Guide has guidelines for Buying and Selling magic items in general but from there anything is possible.
I did neglect to take into account the base cost of the ruby and was only thinking about the extra cost for enchanting it. This would probably also apply to things like Mithral Armor, which are common magical armor but probably way more than normal cost + 400gp because of the value of the mithral. Still, for things like Enduring Spellbooks, Bags of Holding, and Cloaks of Many Fashion it seems like the base cost would be low (kind of like how the heavier suits of armor can usually be found for sale already pre-made, even though that makes even less sense since they would need to be fitted).
I need a hireling with proficiency in laws on my side before answering this, hehe.
I don't recall if WoTC gave any advice on usage of pre-existing splatbooks since the revision of the core rules 2024. They were optional and complementary and must still be.
Yeah, I really agree with you.
Interesting. I think I was just assuming that 2024 PHB rules were suppose to override any comparable pre-2024 PHB rules (and likewise for the 2024 DMG).
I've been kind of wondering about the whole School of Swords/School of Valor; since they are not identical names is School of Swords still valid even though they are highly similar?
However, that's definitely wandering off the main topic.
Thanks for that link. That actually gives me a pretty good baseline.
Part of the reason for wondering was I was flashing back to, I think, 4, where it seemed as though most players fully expected to be able to wander into a shop and purchase magical items that they had the gold for (I think this was primarily caused by price lists for the items put in the Player's Handbook, if memory serves). That link would indicate that they have clearly distanced themselves from that idea.
The DM has to have some agency too. I don't think it should be assumed that because something can be manufactured, it should be available for general purchase or possession.
We can look to the real world for example, I live in the US and we're noted for having lax firearm restrictions, but not everything is available for citizens to purchase, own or possess. I can't go and purchase a rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches for example without getting special permission/permits. Law enforcement can get them, but I can't. In medieval Japan, citizens who were not of the samurai class could not carry swords with blades of longer than 2 shaku. Many cities in Europe did not permit commoners to carry swords. There's a lot of precedent for governmental regulation of weapons, and I think that magic and magic items would fall into the same kind of category.
I could easily see a large city such as Waterdeep banning the open sale of things such as Ruby of the Warmage for example in the same way people cannot conceal pistols legally without permits. An argument could be made that a ruby of the warmage is something of a concealed implement, and could be regulated. Then there's supply and demand. Just because something CAN be made means there's a demand for it. Regulation can go beyond just weapon type magic items too. Perhaps the most honorable guild of tailors and seamstresses has lobbied the Lords of Waterdeep to ban the sale of clothes of mending because if everyone had those, it could seriously harm the businesses of the tailors and seamstresses of the cities, and also have a negative impact on the local economy, and now cloth to make new clothes would be in lower demand because clothes didn't need to be replaced, etc.
The DM has as lot of tools available to say "not available here" and players should never just assume that because there's a rule to create something, that they should be allowed to do it. All of those sort of things should be at DMs discretion.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That's true for backgrounds, subclasses, feats, or spells.
Off-topic, as you said, but if you're interested in the guidelines: Updates in the Player’s Handbook (2024) | Dungeons & Dragons
The article also has a section named "New Subclass Names".
This thread is useful too: Rules Summary: Using 2014 character options on 2024 characters - General Discussion
But for other things like downtime activities, managing areas of effect on a grid, or DM's tools included in XGtE or TCoE, etc., I think there is no official answer.