D&D 5E Crafting Items - Expert Craftsman vs Adventurers

Stalker0 · May 1, 2019

For crafting especially, I think the take 10 rule is the way to go. A lot of the problem is we use a single skill check to represent a 6 second thing and a 2 day activity. Realistically 2 days of smithing should be tons of checks.

So the better way is just to take 10. Then even a +2 to DC can be a big deal. The difference between a DC 14 sword and a DC 16 sword is a really big deal.

Bradley Hindman · May 1, 2019

Saelorn said:
The DM literally has unlimited power within the game world, which is why it's important that they don't want anything; and if they can't help themselves from wanting something, then they'd better have the integrity to not abuse their power by simply making it happen. After all, this is a game about the players and their decisions, and those decisions would be meaningless if the DM just went around fulfilling their own preferences.

While I understand the point you are trying to make, I disagree at a fundamental level. The DM should have at least one want. The DM should want the players to have a good time. For some groups that means setting up a scenario and then standing back to see what happens. For some groups that means giving the players a good challenge. For some groups that means inserting elements during the middle of play to help tell an interesting, collaborative story. For some groups, I will even admit, it means setting up the players win. For some groups it can be a combination of all of the above and the tricky part is knowing at the moment which option will enhance the long-term enjoyment of the group.

MechaPilot · May 1, 2019

Myzzrym said:
So. How do you deal with this? Do you just go "eh screw the rules" and decide that good craftsman get godly bonuses in their own craft? (They have EXPERT Expertise) Do you just shrug and say that adventurers, by virtue of their pure awesomeness, are able to compete with poor peons that spent their lives honing their craft? (well they didn't get to get their ass blasted by mindflayers so boohoo screw your hard work)

If a roll is needed, I typically give master craftsmen expertise and advantage on the roll (or, just an additional +5 instead of advantage). In most cases though, a master craftsman doesn't need to roll. Rolling is only for uncertainty. If a master craftsman is rolling, it's because thy're working with a very scarce material they're not used to working with, or to figure out how much waste there is before the work is finished.

Regarding the archery contest, taking more shots helps skew the odds in favor of the archer with the better bonuses. So does firing with disadvantage for shooting at long range.

MechaPilot · May 1, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Because, ultimately, they're declaring very different things, even though they're making the same thing. The Adventurer is making something using skills he has a talent for, but has rarely utilized, because, for some reason at the moment, he needs it to advance his world-shaking goals, while for the Craftsman it's Tuesday.

[video=youtube;GlhOUyy4wbs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlhOUyy4wbs[/video]

MechaPilot · May 1, 2019

Stalker0 said:
For crafting especially, I think the take 10 rule is the way to go. A lot of the problem is we use a single skill check to represent a 6 second thing and a 2 day activity. Realistically 2 days of smithing should be tons of checks.

So the better way is just to take 10. Then even a +2 to DC can be a big deal. The difference between a DC 14 sword and a DC 16 sword is a really big deal.

Almost as if crafting an item were a skill challenge. X successes before Y failures, or else you ruin the product and have to start over again.

Stalker0 · May 1, 2019

MechaPilot said:
Almost as if crafting an item were a skill challenge. X successes before Y failures, or else you ruin the product and have to start over again.

Yep, it’s one area where the old challenge system would be good to use.

The Crimson Binome · May 1, 2019

Bradley Hindman said:
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I disagree at a fundamental level. The DM should have at least one want. The DM should want the players to have a good time.

I'm all for making the game your own, but as a baseline default until someone says otherwise, everyone at the table will have the most fun if the DM remains impartial. That's what you're signing up for, when you agree to play D&D rather than some other game. If that's not why you're playing, then you need to discuss that with your DM.

Bradley Hindman · May 2, 2019

Saelorn said:
I'm all for making the game your own, but as a baseline default until someone says otherwise, everyone at the table will have the most fun if the DM remains impartial. That's what you're signing up for, when you agree to play D&D rather than some other game. If that's not why you're playing, then you need to discuss that with your DM.

Perhaps my opinion is heavily slanted by the fact that I have played with the same people for a long long time.

Further, perhaps we have a different understanding of what is meant by "impartial" in this instance. I honestly don't quite understand what you mean . Do you mean impartial at the table? Sure. A partial DM who tries to force a particular outcome or favors one player over another is gonna piss players off. However, I don't see how you can be impartial when designing adventures or designing a campaign. Any time you make a decision, there must inherently be a bias. You choose to include an encounter, an NPC, a location, or a theme because you believe it be interesting to the players. There's a bias. You choose how difficult an encounter will be. There is a bias. Even when running a published adventure or campaign, you must interject decisions about how to roleplay an NPC or decide how the villains react when the players go completely off script (as they should).

The Crimson Binome · May 2, 2019

Bradley Hindman said:
Further, perhaps we have a different understanding of what is meant by "impartial" in this instance. I honestly don't quite understand what you mean . Do you mean impartial at the table? Sure. A partial DM who tries to force a particular outcome or favors one player over another is gonna piss players off. However, I don't see how you can be impartial when designing adventures or designing a campaign.

Yes, I consider the actions of the world-builder to be distinct from the actions of the DM-at-the-table, for the same reason that I consider character creation to be distinct from role-playing your character at the table. Frequently, both tasks are performed by the same person; but they need not be, and even if they are, they are governed by different principles and restrictions.

The world-builder should create a setting or adventure that lends itself toward exciting gameplay, so that the DM-at-the-table doesn't need to cheat in order for interesting things to happen. Often, that's going to involve some contrivance (such as placing monsters in the world so that the players can follow a progression from weak to strong), but you can't fault a premise.

Bradley Hindman said:
Even when running a published adventure or campaign, you must interject decisions about how to roleplay an NPC or decide how the villains react when the players go completely off script (as they should).

When it comes to role-playing NPCs, impartiality is just honestly playing the character as you understand them, and not having them act out-of-character in order to promote some ulterior motive. (Which really just goes back to not meta-gaming.) And the same goes for the players, with their characters.

The obvious corollary is that the world-designer and character-creator should not include characters which would derail game-play as a result of staying in character.