Would it be reasonable to allow the Artificer in my game to create additional patches for his robe during in town downtime?
He makes a good point in that it doesn't seem right that one of his class features will eventually be just an ordinary robe once all the patches have been used.
So I was thinking he could create new patches from the list given in the DMG, so long as the replacement patches did not create wealth, like the bags of gold or gems, and did not exceeed the number of patches the robe had when it was first created.
I'd let them "recraft" the robe once the patches are half gone using the normal crafting rules restoring at least half the patches. The time and cost i would make proportional to the number of patches.
It's an Uncommon Item, so half restoration would cost 250 gp and take 10 days. However many patches they started with (let's say the average of 12), they can do half (6) for that and additional ones proportionally (250/6=42 gp per patch, 10/6=1.5 days per patch). So 7 patches would be 292 gp and take 11.5 days, 8 would be 334 gp and 13 days, up to 12 patches taking the full 500 gp and 20 days. You as DM decide which patches they find materials for.
I mean, he chose the robe from a list. He could have chosen an object that doesn't run out of charges, so I don't think there is a "fairness" element at play if his class feature turns into a pumpkin. Honestly, creating the 50GP gold pouches are some of the more mundane objects in the RoUI, and I would be much more worried if he were able to re-craft iron doors, place-able pits and portable windows, or instant Rams. Even with a semi-random element, they still make the artificer a little too good at heisty/thiefy type things... Also, remember, the player has the option to acquire ANOTHER robe of useful items in a few levels. In addition to wrecking the fairness argument, overpowering the robe might cost you once he's sitting on 4 of them. You have to remember, the ROBE is not a class feature, crafting rare items every few weeks is.
All that being said, rather than going to all the trouble that killowog went to, If I wanted to justify this, I'd just add another wonderous invention slot or 4. (3rd, 7th, 12th, 17th) IMO, this just feels more like a class feature than sacking gold, time, and resources to build new patches in the same manner that literally any other player can do... and since it is a class feature, it puts a little pressure on you, the DM, to make sure it is balanced within your campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would it be reasonable to allow the Artificer in my game to create additional patches for his robe during in town downtime?
He makes a good point in that it doesn't seem right that one of his class features will eventually be just an ordinary robe once all the patches have been used.
So I was thinking he could create new patches from the list given in the DMG, so long as the replacement patches did not create wealth, like the bags of gold or gems, and did not exceeed the number of patches the robe had when it was first created.
opinions?
I'd let them "recraft" the robe once the patches are half gone using the normal crafting rules restoring at least half the patches. The time and cost i would make proportional to the number of patches.
It's an Uncommon Item, so half restoration would cost 250 gp and take 10 days. However many patches they started with (let's say the average of 12), they can do half (6) for that and additional ones proportionally (250/6=42 gp per patch, 10/6=1.5 days per patch). So 7 patches would be 292 gp and take 11.5 days, 8 would be 334 gp and 13 days, up to 12 patches taking the full 500 gp and 20 days. You as DM decide which patches they find materials for.
How I'd do it anyway.
I mean, he chose the robe from a list. He could have chosen an object that doesn't run out of charges, so I don't think there is a "fairness" element at play if his class feature turns into a pumpkin. Honestly, creating the 50GP gold pouches are some of the more mundane objects in the RoUI, and I would be much more worried if he were able to re-craft iron doors, place-able pits and portable windows, or instant Rams. Even with a semi-random element, they still make the artificer a little too good at heisty/thiefy type things... Also, remember, the player has the option to acquire ANOTHER robe of useful items in a few levels. In addition to wrecking the fairness argument, overpowering the robe might cost you once he's sitting on 4 of them. You have to remember, the ROBE is not a class feature, crafting rare items every few weeks is.
All that being said, rather than going to all the trouble that killowog went to, If I wanted to justify this, I'd just add another wonderous invention slot or 4. (3rd, 7th, 12th, 17th) IMO, this just feels more like a class feature than sacking gold, time, and resources to build new patches in the same manner that literally any other player can do... and since it is a class feature, it puts a little pressure on you, the DM, to make sure it is balanced within your campaign.