even if you abstract it and say 1 common resource without naming it (which would be awful and boring and metagame-y)
I'm not sure about that, actually. The tabletop has an asset that video games don't, which is the imagination engine. If you give the player a resource that's a smoking piece of infernal iron, then when they use it to make their Sword of Wounding, it's probably going to be a smoking infernal iron Sword of Wounding. But if it was an iridescent wing of a giant rust monster, then it would be an iridescent or rusty Sword of Wounding instead. The possibility space here is much larger and more exciting than I think you're giving it credit for, and that's not even going into what happens if you add on minor effects. For example, what if that infernal iron deals 1 fire damage to anyone who touches it, the first time they touch it? What if the smoke kills regular-sized insects? Or you could even go bigger with it: maybe the infernal iron makes celestials make a CON save against poison or something, right?
I think there's a lot of potential there for unique materials whose properties can often be generated organically through the narrative, if not simply spelled out for the DM. (Note: They absolutely, categorically should not appear in the Dungeon Master's Guide or any other agnostic sourcebook, because then they just become another piecemeal choose-whatever-you-like option for players, which defeats the whole point.) These would be the little bit of unexpected spice that means a player can't perfectly predict their exact loot, but they wouldn't alter the loot in any way that would make it less useful or desirable.
Point is to keep it basic, and focus on what matters to the player, which is being able to create (some of) the gear they want, rather than make do only with what they find.
I fundamentally disagree on this point. IMO there are two types of players who want crafting:
1) munchkins who want uber powerful combos that they don't think their DM would normally allow in the game (hence the DM wouldn't give them the items they want) so they want to go around the DM to create it anyway by using crafting. Hopefully we can agree that this is an absolutely terrible thing for the game and should not be enabled. These players don't care how crafting works they just want their goodies by any means necessary.
2) flavour creatives who want to use their creativity to make a unique item to remember / honour particular moments in the game - e.g. making a suit of armour from the scales of the dragon their character killed, or making a dagger from the fang of a guardian naga they defeated, or making a flying broom from the feather they stole from an Awk's nest. These players want the item they create to be thematically linked to the materials used to create it.
These groups overlap, and I'm not sure how to address that.
even if you abstract it and say 1 common resource without naming it (which would be awful and boring and metagame-y)
I'm not sure about that, actually. The tabletop has an asset that video games don't, which is the imagination engine. If you give the player a resource that's a smoking piece of infernal iron, then when they use it to make their Sword of Wounding, it's probably going to be a smoking infernal iron Sword of Wounding. But if it was an iridescent wing of a giant rust monster, then it would be an iridescent or rusty Sword of Wounding instead. The possibility space here is much larger and more exciting than I think you're giving it credit for, and that's not even going into what happens if you add on minor effects. For example, what if that infernal iron deals 1 fire damage to anyone who touches it, the first time they touch it? What if the smoke kills regular-sized insects? Or you could even go bigger with it: maybe the infernal iron makes celestials make a CON save against poison or something, right?
I think there's a lot of potential there for unique materials whose properties can often be generated organically through the narrative, if not simply spelled out for the DM. (Note: They absolutely, categorically should not appear in the Dungeon Master's Guide or any other agnostic sourcebook, because then they just become another piecemeal choose-whatever-you-like option for players, which defeats the whole point.) These would be the little bit of unexpected spice that means a player can't perfectly predict their exact loot, but they wouldn't alter the loot in any way that would make it less useful or desirable.
Oh, I meant what would be awful would be “tier 1 item” without naming it.
And I wonder how much use it would get if you did name it, like now when you get treasure like, a statue worth 25 gp. Ime, you just sell it in town without looking at it, or even just write down 25 gp and skip that it’s art.
But, as I’m writing it, I’m thinking I guess you just put it out there and let table make as much or little of it as they like.
A Lore Color Resource type would work wonderfully for some games, and super lousy for others.
Simple truth is, no matter how popular an idea crafting rules in 5e are, they haven't been a focus overtly beyond that attempt to enrich them in XGE, which built off the existing system.
I have no problems with saying to my folks "you need a special resource for this" when they go to make something -- that's pretty much how the current rules operate for magical items. They even suggest it be something from within this CR range, based on the rarity of the item. Which makes it very much that kind of abstract system -- it is what we have now, if we were to follow the rules, just without the "list of suggested ingredients" that is really what a lot of folks want.
So we already have those two types of players. I am naturally inclined to suspect there are at least five types, but there is a whole cultural deal there and I won't go into it.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players. The Bastion stuff really drove this home to me -- how the hell do they create teleportation circles and dimensional spaces that are permanent when there is no spell that they have (outside of wish) that allows them to create such things?
I would confine and build it for crafting the stuff they need normally -- and I recognize that isn't much because the game generally doesn't have many ways of "breaking gear", lol. Then enable magical creation as an add-on to that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players.
Why? Would crafting be meaningfully better if it was "works exactly the same as it does now, but uses a spell"?
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players.
Why? Would crafting be meaningfully better if it was "works exactly the same as it does now, but uses a spell"?
That's not quite what I said, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players.
Why? Would crafting be meaningfully better if it was "works exactly the same as it does now, but uses a spell"?
That's not quite what I said, lol.
Yeah it is. There's really no difference between "To craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells" and "to craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells, including spell X which is conveniently available at the lowest level we think people should be crafting magic items".
Point is to keep it basic, and focus on what matters to the player, which is being able to create (some of) the gear they want, rather than make do only with what they find.
I fundamentally disagree on this point.
The point whereby players who want to craft something want to craft something? So you disagree with the entire concept of crafting being in the game?
1) munchkins who want uber powerful combos that they don't think their DM would normally allow in the game
I wish people on these forums would stop accusing everyone of being "munchkins". It's a stupid term and always used in the most unnecessarily reductive way. People want particular magic items for any number of reasons, only one of these is power-gaming.
By default loot in D&D is random; if your DM goes by what the game recommends then it's entirely possible to end up with gear that doesn't really fit your party. Wanting to craft a different uncommon or whatever item is perfectly reasonable; sure, some toxic players will try to powergame everything put in front of them, but not having a crafting system isn't going to solve that problem.
A crafting system also doesn't suddenly render a DM powerless; they remain free to veto items, or to layer additional mechanics on top of the basics. For example, they could require the player to have some kind of crafting schematic for the item they want, then offer only access to a specific set of choices, though if they're going that route they might as well just give one of the items.
2) flavour creatives who want to use their creativity to make a unique item to remember / honour particular moments in the game - e.g. making a suit of armour from the scales of the dragon their character killed, or making a dagger from the fang of a guardian naga they defeated, or making a flying broom from the feather they stole from an Awk's nest. These players want the item they create to be thematically linked to the materials used to create it.
A simple system doesn't prevent you from adding narrative on top of it, it's literally the exact opposite in fact, it gives you maximum narrative freedom; from a mechanical standpoint all you need is "a rare material", but the player/DM is free to decide what that actually is, and what that actually means for any item created from it. If they gained that rare material from a dragon, then it could be bone, scales or whatever from the dragon, or something else that the DM knows the player was hoping for, and that's then what the item is made of.
The purpose of a mechanic is to enable narrative; getting too bogged down in detail forces narrative and makes a less accessible, enjoyable and usable system. I encounter this all the time in video games; most crafting systems are just horrible, and the more specific they make the ingredients you need the more painful and annoying they become, and that's with video games having the advantage of being able to do things automatically for you, show you at a glance what you can do with what you have etc.
Baldur's Gate 3 is relatively simple, but its UI is very much a part of that thanks to a single button to quickly extract components from ingredients, and a menu that shows what you can make. Starfield by comparison gives you basically no help whatsoever and if you're missing one specific resource you simply can't do what you want at all and have to go searching for someone that has the one adhesive you're missing or whatever. Even worse, it has components that can only be crafted after gaining higher level perks, but are required for items you can make before you have those, and it prevents you from making very basic items; it's over-complicated, and has fully prioritised being frustrating rather than being in any way fun. By comparison ship building in the same game lets do 100% of it using money alone and is a lot of fun, though the best components require levelling up to get perks (so only the power is limited).
Over-complicating crafting has no benefit to anyone; a simple system gives you the means to do crafting, and because D&D is a TTRPG you can do anything extra if you really want to, but most of it can be handled by the two main pillars of the game, narrative flavour and talking to the player(s).
This is actually why I'm not a fan of the bastions rules in their current form; they throw far too much detail at you right away, and it really doesn't need most of it. By all means give suggestions to help inspire players and help DMs with balance, but if you're letting players build a base then they will tell you what they actually want. It's a system that's both far too complicated, and yet simultaneously far too restrictive.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A crafting system also doesn't suddenly render a DM powerless; they remain free to veto items, or to layer additional mechanics on top of the basics. For example, they could require the player to have some kind of crafting schematic for the item they want, then offer only access to a specific set of choices, though if they're going that route they might as well just give one of the items.
This is exactly my point! The main benefit of a crafting system is to subvert the control of the DM over magical items. Because any crafting system that doesn't do this is simply adding extra steps and complexity over the DM just giving the players what they want which seems like pointless busy work to me. Rolling for loot is very much optional, in that I have never never played in a game that uses it, nor met anyone who has played in a game that uses it.
Narrative players aren't going to be impressed by a system that let's them craft a Cloak of Displacement out of the jaw bones of giant shark, and that won't let them craft it out of the hide of a Displacer Beast (because Displacer Beasts are CR 3 which should put them very much in the "uncommon" category, but Cloak of Displacement is very much a "rare" item). Or where a +1 dagger made from the fangs of a poisonous snake is identical to a +1 dagger made from a stick from an awakened tree. They want items customized based on what they are made from to make them special and unique.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players.
Why? Would crafting be meaningfully better if it was "works exactly the same as it does now, but uses a spell"?
That's not quite what I said, lol.
Yeah it is. There's really no difference between "To craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells" and "to craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells, including spell X which is conveniently available at the lowest level we think people should be crafting magic items".
Well, it belabors the point, but, um, if there was no difference then you wouldn't need to write them differently.
My point is that if it is a magic item that players can craft, then there needs to be a spell that exists so they can put it into the magic item.
Your snip ignored my question: How do players create a Teleportation Circle or a Dimensional Space that are permanent? That served as an example, providing context to the statement.
IOW, while you were focused on "it means casting spells" -- which, seriously, duh -- I was saying "where are the spells to create the magic items they are already saying players can create?"
A crafting system should have a basis within the game to operate -- and that includes the things that players ostensibly create themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A crafting system should have a basis within the game to operate -- and that includes the things that players ostensibly create themselves.
I disagree.
Well, that's easy, ain't it? lol
I support your disagreement for your table, and will continue to run my table my way.
We'll have to see what the designers opt to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually, teleportation circle becomes permanent if it is cast in the same spot every day for a year.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I support your disagreement for your table, and will continue to run my table my way.
That's an argument for "leave it up to the individual group". Which was my real point: just don't include the rules.
The question, though, is which is more popular.
If it is popular enough, they will include the rules. If it isn't, then they likely won't.
Crafting, right now, is exceptionally popular. So I suspect there is a high chance that they will include rules on it.
Which is sorta the point of the UAs -- to test those rules out -- and why it is one of the things likely looked forward to in the DM UAs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Crafting, right now, is exceptionally popular. So I suspect there is a high chance that they will include rules on it.
Is it? The reality of crafting systems is that they're things people find interesting in theory and in actual play they are one or more of game breaking, boring, annoying, or useless.
A Lore Color Resource type would work wonderfully for some games, and super lousy for others.
Simple truth is, no matter how popular an idea crafting rules in 5e are, they haven't been a focus overtly beyond that attempt to enrich them in XGE, which built off the existing system.
I have no problems with saying to my folks "you need a special resource for this" when they go to make something -- that's pretty much how the current rules operate for magical items. They even suggest it be something from within this CR range, based on the rarity of the item. Which makes it very much that kind of abstract system -- it is what we have now, if we were to follow the rules, just without the "list of suggested ingredients" that is really what a lot of folks want.
So we already have those two types of players. I am naturally inclined to suspect there are at least five types, but there is a whole cultural deal there and I won't go into it.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players. The Bastion stuff really drove this home to me -- how the hell do they create teleportation circles and dimensional spaces that are permanent when there is no spell that they have (outside of wish) that allows them to create such things?
I would confine and build it for crafting the stuff they need normally -- and I recognize that isn't much because the game generally doesn't have many ways of "breaking gear", lol. Then enable magical creation as an add-on to that.
I disagree, I don't think crafting should be heavily linked to classes. the scientist, or engineer, magic or otherwise, reason for creating items is to eliminate the need for people to be casters/wizards in order to gain functionality. This would be like requiring a horse, to make a car. The whole reason I design a car is so I don't need a horse. But even that aside, the type of character that wants to design/create magical items, is not necessarily the kind of guy who wants to be a wizard.
As well, many of the things one might wish to craft, are not replicated by spells.
Point is to keep it basic, and focus on what matters to the player, which is being able to create (some of) the gear they want, rather than make do only with what they find.
I fundamentally disagree on this point. IMO there are two types of players who want crafting:
1) munchkins who want uber powerful combos that they don't think their DM would normally allow in the game (hence the DM wouldn't give them the items they want) so they want to go around the DM to create it anyway by using crafting. Hopefully we can agree that this is an absolutely terrible thing for the game and should not be enabled. These players don't care how crafting works they just want their goodies by any means necessary.
2) flavour creatives who want to use their creativity to make a unique item to remember / honour particular moments in the game - e.g. making a suit of armour from the scales of the dragon their character killed, or making a dagger from the fang of a guardian naga they defeated, or making a flying broom from the feather they stole from an Awk's nest. These players want the item they create to be thematically linked to the materials used to create it.
taking control from the DM isnt always about greater power, its about a feeling of control. Many people don't like the concept of the dm just giving you something, they want to plan it, create it, contribute to it, alter it.
there also people who just enjoy the idea of making use of scraps, the thrill of making the useless useful.
flavor people are not always uniform in what aspect of flavor is important, some love super realistic ingredients, others are more interested in the flavor of the end product, still others, as you say are interested mostly just in the one ingredient that was special.
And even among power gamers, some like to power game items, but they want to excel at a rule system. They enjoy getting the most out of any system, They don't really want the GM to just hand them an item, they want to see a crafting system, and figure out how to get the strongest benefit possible from the rule system.
As a guy who enjoys crafting, games, and design, you can observe this with mods people create for games.
That said, I would avoid making it required or central to item acquisition, many people aren't interested.
A Lore Color Resource type would work wonderfully for some games, and super lousy for others.
Simple truth is, no matter how popular an idea crafting rules in 5e are, they haven't been a focus overtly beyond that attempt to enrich them in XGE, which built off the existing system.
I have no problems with saying to my folks "you need a special resource for this" when they go to make something -- that's pretty much how the current rules operate for magical items. They even suggest it be something from within this CR range, based on the rarity of the item. Which makes it very much that kind of abstract system -- it is what we have now, if we were to follow the rules, just without the "list of suggested ingredients" that is really what a lot of folks want.
So we already have those two types of players. I am naturally inclined to suspect there are at least five types, but there is a whole cultural deal there and I won't go into it.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players. The Bastion stuff really drove this home to me -- how the hell do they create teleportation circles and dimensional spaces that are permanent when there is no spell that they have (outside of wish) that allows them to create such things?
I would confine and build it for crafting the stuff they need normally -- and I recognize that isn't much because the game generally doesn't have many ways of "breaking gear", lol. Then enable magical creation as an add-on to that.
I disagree, I don't think crafting should be heavily linked to classes. the scientist, or engineer, magic or otherwise, reason for creating items is to eliminate the need for people to be casters/wizards in order to gain functionality. This would be like requiring a horse, to make a car. The whole reason I design a car is so I don't need a horse. But even that aside, the type of character that wants to design/create magical items, is not necessarily the kind of guy who wants to be a wizard.
As well, many of the things one might wish to craft, are not replicated by spells.
I am confused about the "heavily linked to classes" thing -- I made no mention of classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A Lore Color Resource type would work wonderfully for some games, and super lousy for others.
Simple truth is, no matter how popular an idea crafting rules in 5e are, they haven't been a focus overtly beyond that attempt to enrich them in XGE, which built off the existing system.
I have no problems with saying to my folks "you need a special resource for this" when they go to make something -- that's pretty much how the current rules operate for magical items. They even suggest it be something from within this CR range, based on the rarity of the item. Which makes it very much that kind of abstract system -- it is what we have now, if we were to follow the rules, just without the "list of suggested ingredients" that is really what a lot of folks want.
So we already have those two types of players. I am naturally inclined to suspect there are at least five types, but there is a whole cultural deal there and I won't go into it.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players. The Bastion stuff really drove this home to me -- how the hell do they create teleportation circles and dimensional spaces that are permanent when there is no spell that they have (outside of wish) that allows them to create such things?
I would confine and build it for crafting the stuff they need normally -- and I recognize that isn't much because the game generally doesn't have many ways of "breaking gear", lol. Then enable magical creation as an add-on to that.
I disagree, I don't think crafting should be heavily linked to classes. the scientist, or engineer, magic or otherwise, reason for creating items is to eliminate the need for people to be casters/wizards in order to gain functionality. This would be like requiring a horse, to make a car. The whole reason I design a car is so I don't need a horse. But even that aside, the type of character that wants to design/create magical items, is not necessarily the kind of guy who wants to be a wizard.
As well, many of the things one might wish to craft, are not replicated by spells.
I am confused about the "heavily linked to classes" thing -- I made no mention of classes.
Well, if you need to cast a spell to make a magic item then most Fighters won't be able to make it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not sure about that, actually. The tabletop has an asset that video games don't, which is the imagination engine. If you give the player a resource that's a smoking piece of infernal iron, then when they use it to make their Sword of Wounding, it's probably going to be a smoking infernal iron Sword of Wounding. But if it was an iridescent wing of a giant rust monster, then it would be an iridescent or rusty Sword of Wounding instead. The possibility space here is much larger and more exciting than I think you're giving it credit for, and that's not even going into what happens if you add on minor effects. For example, what if that infernal iron deals 1 fire damage to anyone who touches it, the first time they touch it? What if the smoke kills regular-sized insects? Or you could even go bigger with it: maybe the infernal iron makes celestials make a CON save against poison or something, right?
I think there's a lot of potential there for unique materials whose properties can often be generated organically through the narrative, if not simply spelled out for the DM. (Note: They absolutely, categorically should not appear in the Dungeon Master's Guide or any other agnostic sourcebook, because then they just become another piecemeal choose-whatever-you-like option for players, which defeats the whole point.) These would be the little bit of unexpected spice that means a player can't perfectly predict their exact loot, but they wouldn't alter the loot in any way that would make it less useful or desirable.
These groups overlap, and I'm not sure how to address that.
Oh, I meant what would be awful would be “tier 1 item” without naming it.
And I wonder how much use it would get if you did name it, like now when you get treasure like, a statue worth 25 gp. Ime, you just sell it in town without looking at it, or even just write down 25 gp and skip that it’s art.
But, as I’m writing it, I’m thinking I guess you just put it out there and let table make as much or little of it as they like.
A Lore Color Resource type would work wonderfully for some games, and super lousy for others.
Simple truth is, no matter how popular an idea crafting rules in 5e are, they haven't been a focus overtly beyond that attempt to enrich them in XGE, which built off the existing system.
I have no problems with saying to my folks "you need a special resource for this" when they go to make something -- that's pretty much how the current rules operate for magical items. They even suggest it be something from within this CR range, based on the rarity of the item. Which makes it very much that kind of abstract system -- it is what we have now, if we were to follow the rules, just without the "list of suggested ingredients" that is really what a lot of folks want.
So we already have those two types of players. I am naturally inclined to suspect there are at least five types, but there is a whole cultural deal there and I won't go into it.
My big thing about crafting is that if we are going to have it, and we are going to allow creation of magical items, then those magical items should be able to be created using the spells that are available to players. The Bastion stuff really drove this home to me -- how the hell do they create teleportation circles and dimensional spaces that are permanent when there is no spell that they have (outside of wish) that allows them to create such things?
I would confine and build it for crafting the stuff they need normally -- and I recognize that isn't much because the game generally doesn't have many ways of "breaking gear", lol. Then enable magical creation as an add-on to that.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Why? Would crafting be meaningfully better if it was "works exactly the same as it does now, but uses a spell"?
That's not quite what I said, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yeah it is. There's really no difference between "To craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells" and "to craft a magic item requires someone who can cast spells, including spell X which is conveniently available at the lowest level we think people should be crafting magic items".
The point whereby players who want to craft something want to craft something? So you disagree with the entire concept of crafting being in the game?
I wish people on these forums would stop accusing everyone of being "munchkins". It's a stupid term and always used in the most unnecessarily reductive way. People want particular magic items for any number of reasons, only one of these is power-gaming.
By default loot in D&D is random; if your DM goes by what the game recommends then it's entirely possible to end up with gear that doesn't really fit your party. Wanting to craft a different uncommon or whatever item is perfectly reasonable; sure, some toxic players will try to powergame everything put in front of them, but not having a crafting system isn't going to solve that problem.
A crafting system also doesn't suddenly render a DM powerless; they remain free to veto items, or to layer additional mechanics on top of the basics. For example, they could require the player to have some kind of crafting schematic for the item they want, then offer only access to a specific set of choices, though if they're going that route they might as well just give one of the items.
A simple system doesn't prevent you from adding narrative on top of it, it's literally the exact opposite in fact, it gives you maximum narrative freedom; from a mechanical standpoint all you need is "a rare material", but the player/DM is free to decide what that actually is, and what that actually means for any item created from it. If they gained that rare material from a dragon, then it could be bone, scales or whatever from the dragon, or something else that the DM knows the player was hoping for, and that's then what the item is made of.
The purpose of a mechanic is to enable narrative; getting too bogged down in detail forces narrative and makes a less accessible, enjoyable and usable system. I encounter this all the time in video games; most crafting systems are just horrible, and the more specific they make the ingredients you need the more painful and annoying they become, and that's with video games having the advantage of being able to do things automatically for you, show you at a glance what you can do with what you have etc.
Baldur's Gate 3 is relatively simple, but its UI is very much a part of that thanks to a single button to quickly extract components from ingredients, and a menu that shows what you can make. Starfield by comparison gives you basically no help whatsoever and if you're missing one specific resource you simply can't do what you want at all and have to go searching for someone that has the one adhesive you're missing or whatever. Even worse, it has components that can only be crafted after gaining higher level perks, but are required for items you can make before you have those, and it prevents you from making very basic items; it's over-complicated, and has fully prioritised being frustrating rather than being in any way fun. By comparison ship building in the same game lets do 100% of it using money alone and is a lot of fun, though the best components require levelling up to get perks (so only the power is limited).
Over-complicating crafting has no benefit to anyone; a simple system gives you the means to do crafting, and because D&D is a TTRPG you can do anything extra if you really want to, but most of it can be handled by the two main pillars of the game, narrative flavour and talking to the player(s).
This is actually why I'm not a fan of the bastions rules in their current form; they throw far too much detail at you right away, and it really doesn't need most of it. By all means give suggestions to help inspire players and help DMs with balance, but if you're letting players build a base then they will tell you what they actually want. It's a system that's both far too complicated, and yet simultaneously far too restrictive.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is exactly my point! The main benefit of a crafting system is to subvert the control of the DM over magical items. Because any crafting system that doesn't do this is simply adding extra steps and complexity over the DM just giving the players what they want which seems like pointless busy work to me. Rolling for loot is very much optional, in that I have never never played in a game that uses it, nor met anyone who has played in a game that uses it.
Narrative players aren't going to be impressed by a system that let's them craft a Cloak of Displacement out of the jaw bones of giant shark, and that won't let them craft it out of the hide of a Displacer Beast (because Displacer Beasts are CR 3 which should put them very much in the "uncommon" category, but Cloak of Displacement is very much a "rare" item). Or where a +1 dagger made from the fangs of a poisonous snake is identical to a +1 dagger made from a stick from an awakened tree. They want items customized based on what they are made from to make them special and unique.
Well, it belabors the point, but, um, if there was no difference then you wouldn't need to write them differently.
My point is that if it is a magic item that players can craft, then there needs to be a spell that exists so they can put it into the magic item.
Your snip ignored my question: How do players create a Teleportation Circle or a Dimensional Space that are permanent? That served as an example, providing context to the statement.
IOW, while you were focused on "it means casting spells" -- which, seriously, duh -- I was saying "where are the spells to create the magic items they are already saying players can create?"
A crafting system should have a basis within the game to operate -- and that includes the things that players ostensibly create themselves.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
By using the magic item creation rules. Magic items are not required to be portable, nor are they required to match spells.
I disagree.
Well, that's easy, ain't it? lol
I support your disagreement for your table, and will continue to run my table my way.
We'll have to see what the designers opt to do.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually, teleportation circle becomes permanent if it is cast in the same spot every day for a year.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
That's an argument for "leave it up to the individual group". Which was my real point: just don't include the rules.
The question, though, is which is more popular.
If it is popular enough, they will include the rules. If it isn't, then they likely won't.
Crafting, right now, is exceptionally popular. So I suspect there is a high chance that they will include rules on it.
Which is sorta the point of the UAs -- to test those rules out -- and why it is one of the things likely looked forward to in the DM UAs.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Is it? The reality of crafting systems is that they're things people find interesting in theory and in actual play they are one or more of game breaking, boring, annoying, or useless.
I disagree, I don't think crafting should be heavily linked to classes. the scientist, or engineer, magic or otherwise, reason for creating items is to eliminate the need for people to be casters/wizards in order to gain functionality. This would be like requiring a horse, to make a car. The whole reason I design a car is so I don't need a horse. But even that aside, the type of character that wants to design/create magical items, is not necessarily the kind of guy who wants to be a wizard.
As well, many of the things one might wish to craft, are not replicated by spells.
taking control from the DM isnt always about greater power, its about a feeling of control. Many people don't like the concept of the dm just giving you something, they want to plan it, create it, contribute to it, alter it.
there also people who just enjoy the idea of making use of scraps, the thrill of making the useless useful.
flavor people are not always uniform in what aspect of flavor is important, some love super realistic ingredients, others are more interested in the flavor of the end product, still others, as you say are interested mostly just in the one ingredient that was special.
And even among power gamers, some like to power game items, but they want to excel at a rule system. They enjoy getting the most out of any system, They don't really want the GM to just hand them an item, they want to see a crafting system, and figure out how to get the strongest benefit possible from the rule system.
As a guy who enjoys crafting, games, and design, you can observe this with mods people create for games.
That said, I would avoid making it required or central to item acquisition, many people aren't interested.
I am confused about the "heavily linked to classes" thing -- I made no mention of classes.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, if you need to cast a spell to make a magic item then most Fighters won't be able to make it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)