Do you like XP costs for magic item creation?

[delericho]

I am curious about your opinion to my idea to fix it for 4th and 3rd upthread a ways in regards to losing spell use to show this loss of "power".

I think it's a good solution. I'm not sure it would work for 4e, necessarily, but I don't claim to be an expert on that system.

XP as a currency just doesn't float well with me.

Actually, on that one I think I agree with you. I can see how the justification works in 3e, but I think the implementation has too many problems to really be workable. Besides, if there's one thing players really hate, it's having something and then having it taken away (be that equipment, a really nice magic item, or especially XP).

 

[BryonD]

I voted no. I'd prefer something else.

But, I don't have any major issue with it.

 

[Treebore]

Just too many of these silly arguments lately, that I am removing myself from many of the silliness to get back to the point of many threads.

I am curious about your opinion to my idea to fix it for 4th and 3rd upthread a ways in regards to losing spell use to show this loss of "power".

As well anyone else and how best some of the people here think it should be refined.

Was it really good enough to work considering I don't really like 3rd enough to know/care about the edition?

I agree a designer made a bad choice, and one of many I have tried to get away from to make things make more sense, as I am one of those that thinks common sense and logic SHOULD be in the game and removing them removes me form the game.

XP as a currency just doesn't float well with me.

I posted what my revised house rule will be, revised do to ideas this thread gave me, earlier in this thread. I don't know exactly where but I'll try to repeat it from memory. My rules uses CON, not XP's. Here it goes:

A spell caster can make 1+CON bonus magic items (items requiring enchant an item and permanency, not potions and scrolls) per year without permanent debilitating effect. If they have to make more they will PERMANENTLY lose 2 points of CON that can never be restored. They do lose 2 points of CON for one month, that can be magically restored, but otherwise they lose 2 CON for one month, and they also lose any bonus HP the higher CON gave them and any CON the lower score takes away due to a negative modifying kicking in.

So with this a PC or NPC can only make one item per year, or 5 if they have an 18 CON, and none if their CON gives them a -1 penalty. I would also stipulate that this is their base, un-enhanced from magic CON. So wearing an item that boosts their CON does not help with this particular aspect. But could, if the DM wishes to allow it.

So even if they can make 5 items per year, it is unlikely they would make more than one such item within a month. Then again, if its a moderately powerful item, they took more than one month to make the item anyways, and then will spend the next 30 days having a negative CON score.

So they could conceivably start another item and not even finish it before the CON loss from the last item fades.

Actually, now I am thinking of only having CON lost when the item requires a permanency spell to be used. So most wands, staves, and some Rods won't even cost them CON. Staff of the MAgi, Power, and all the others with permanent effects, would require a Permanency spell and cost the CON.


This is how I would like it. Other DM's who like the idea of magic always taking some of the casters life force can alter this base line rules with temporary loss of CON for all magical items, and temporary loss of HP from making scrolls, potions, and any other minor item. Or mix it up until it suits their tastes best.

 

[Tetsubo]

I voted yes. But I also house ruled that anyone can add XP to the creation process, not just the spell caster. I see the XP as the 'lifeforce' of a character. And pouring your lifeforce into a magic item makes perfect sense to me.

 

[El Mahdi]

Except that undead drain life-force through their energy drain ability, and this is modelled by the loss of XP. Furthermore, this is not a 3e innovation, but has been present in every edition of D&D I have played (except 4e).

And this is a concept I dislike just as much as losing XP for magic items. However, I'm not saying it's wrong (since there is no right or wrong when it comes to gameplay), it just doesn't work for me.

But, the answer "because that's the way we've always done it" is never a good answer, something I'm sure is just as true in the corporate world (and real world) as it was when I was in the military (where that answer usually followed with me handing them their ass). Just because that's the way it's always been done, does not make that way right. The law may care about precedence, but processes and mechanics based on logic don't. If something is illogical, it's illogical whether or not it's always been done that way.

 

[El Mahdi]

I posted what my revised house rule will be, revised do to ideas this thread gave me, earlier in this thread. I don't know exactly where but I'll try to repeat it from memory. My rules uses CON, not XP's. Here it goes:

A spell caster can make 1+CON bonus magic items (items requiring enchant an item and permanency, not potions and scrolls) per year without permanent debilitating effect. If they have to make more they will PERMANENTLY lose 2 points of CON that can never be restored. They do lose 2 points of CON for one month, that can be magically restored, but otherwise they lose 2 CON for one month, and they also lose any bonus HP the higher CON gave them and any CON the lower score takes away due to a negative modifying kicking in.

So with this a PC or NPC can only make one item per year, or 5 if they have an 18 CON, and none if their CON gives them a -1 penalty. I would also stipulate that this is their base, un-enhanced from magic CON. So wearing an item that boosts their CON does not help with this particular aspect. But could, if the DM wishes to allow it.

So even if they can make 5 items per year, it is unlikely they would make more than one such item within a month. Then again, if its a moderately powerful item, they took more than one month to make the item anyways, and then will spend the next 30 days having a negative CON score.

So they could conceivably start another item and not even finish it before the CON loss from the last item fades.

Actually, now I am thinking of only having CON lost when the item requires a permanency spell to be used. So most wands, staves, and some Rods won't even cost them CON. Staff of the MAgi, Power, and all the others with permanent effects, would require a Permanency spell and cost the CON.


This is how I would like it. Other DM's who like the idea of magic always taking some of the casters life force can alter this base line rules with temporary loss of CON for all magical items, and temporary loss of HP from making scrolls, potions, and any other minor item. Or mix it up until it suits their tastes best.

Not a bad concept, and can easily be "seasoned to taste". If the "economics" of a particular GM's world means more readily available magic items (magic stores, etc.), then just increase the number of items a year a caster can make. If magic items are exceedingly rare, limit the amount even further, like one item every 5 or ten years. This could even make the creation of an artifact to be the result of a lifetime of research and work, and may also require the cooperation of multiple casters. I'd probably want to add some kind of rule that mitigates the costs when multiple casters cooperate in the creation of the item. Probably just something like exponentially increasing the number of items a caster can make, in the set time period, by the number of casters cooperating in the creation process.

 

[Delta]

But, the answer "because that's the way we've always done it" is never a good answer, something I'm sure is just as true in the corporate world (and real world) as it was when I was in the military (where that answer usually followed with me handing them their ass). Just because that's the way it's always been done, does not make that way right. The law may care about precedence, but processes and mechanics based on logic don't. If something is illogical, it's illogical whether or not it's always been done that way.

This isn't a case of "what to do", but rather "what it means". Delricho was responding to an assertion that "XP is in no way a measure of lifeforce", with rules observations that imply exactly that (OD&D-3E).

A person can reasonably express dislike for it, or a proposal to change it. But when someone says that it simply isn't such a thing, then historically for D&D, they are wrong.

 

[Treebore]

This isn't a case of "what to do", but rather "what it means". Delricho was responding to an assertion that "XP is in no way a measure of lifeforce", with rules observations that imply exactly that (OD&D-3E).

A person can reasonably express dislike for it, or a proposal to change it. But when someone says that it simply isn't such a thing, then historically for D&D, they are wrong.

You know why I really, really, don't like level loss? Because even if you want to tie XP to your life force, XP also reflects your knowledge gained. IE your memories. SO how is the player supposed to know what his character no longer knows? Did he keep a detailed log of what happened to his character when? I highly doubt it.

So as for the game design, it makes much more sense to tie Energy Drain and the like to Constitution. You can accurately reflect that on all levels. You lose HP, you feel tired more easily, you can't hold your breathe for as long, you can't run or swim for as long, you don't resist poisons or disease as well as you used to.

So I really have a problem with the game design issues of using XP's. Fortunately I have the freedom to house rule it, and so I exercised that freedom.

 

[Vegepygmy]

You know why I really, really, don't like level loss? Because even if you want to tie XP to your life force, XP also reflects your knowledge gained.

Not necessarily, it doesn't. I understand that you apparently prefer to conceptualize it that way, but it isn't the only way to do so.

 

[El Mahdi]

This isn't a case of "what to do", but rather "what it means". Delricho was responding to an assertion that "XP is in no way a measure of lifeforce", with rules observations that imply exactly that (OD&D-3E).

A person can reasonably express dislike for it, or a proposal to change it. But when someone says that it simply isn't such a thing, then historically for D&D, they are wrong.

Nowhere in the mentioned post by justanobody, did he state or imply that this has never been a part of any edition of D&D. I'm pretty sure he was simply talking about what a few of us on this thread have been saying, that for us, the abstraction of "Experience" doesn't make sense when applied to "Lifeforce" - whether it is or isn't supported by, or stated in, the rules of any D&D edition - and not that it isn't, or never has been, historically, a part of D&D. I think trying to say he intended exactly that is just looking for any reason, no matter how small, to pick a fight. However...


I really don't remember how "Experience" was defined in 2E (and I don't have my books available), and I can't speak for earlier editions (didn't play them), but from the standpoint of the 3.5E PHB and DMG, I'd say although not entirely wrong, Delricho's not entirely right either. This is because 3.5E's definition of experience is contridictory (and although I'm not sure, probably holds true for past editions also).

3.5E PHB, pg. 58
"Experience points (XP) measure how much your character has learned and how much he or she has grown in personal power. Your character earns XP by defeating monsters and other opponents. The DM assigns XP to the characters at the end of each adventure based on what they have accomplished. Characters accumulate XP from one adventure to another. When a character earns enough XP, he or she attains a new character level (see table ..."

3.5E DMG, pg. 36:
"Experience points are a measure of accomplishment. They represent training and learning by doing, and they illustrate the fact that, in fantasy, the more experienced a character is, the more power he or she possesses. Experience points allow a character to gain levels. Gaining levels heightens the fun and excitement."

- These paragraphs imply that Experience Points are a measure of aquired knowledge and experience gained through accomplishment, and that this KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE increases the power of the character (represented by levels). The best definitions of power, within the context of this paragraph, would be skill, knowledge ("Knowledge is Power"), or even "Prestige". This is because this applies to all characters, NOT JUST SPELLCASTERS. Power in this context does not necessarily imply lifeforce except in a VERY loose interpretation. That only occurs in the next paragraph.

"Experience points can be spent by spellcasters to power some of their most potent spells. Experience points also represent the personal puissance that a character must imbue an object with in order to create a magic item."

- This paragraph is essentially saying that Experience Points (and by extension, levels) is an abstract idea that means multiple things at once (as a lot of things do in D&D). Puissance can mean lifeforce, and I'm sure is intended that way in this paragraph.


The problem arises because combining lifeforce and aquired knowledge together, under one abstract construct, is like saying education and spiritual growth are the same thing. It's a combined abstraction that doesn't make logical sense to many (including myself), thus the reason for the question posited by the OP in the first place.


Hit Points: (3.5E PHB, pg. 136)
"Your hit points tell you (sic - define and quantify) how much punishment you can take before dropping. Your hit points are based on your class and level, and your Constitution modifier applies."

- This isn't a perfect fit for lifeforce either, although I'd say this is just as much an abstraction as XP is.


Constitution: (3.5E PHB, pg. 9)
"Constitution represents your character's health and stamina. A constitution bonus increases a character's hit points, so the ability is important for all classes."

- Also not a perfect fit either.


So, we are left with trying to make a logical deduction of what losing lifeforce would mean and how it would affect a character.

- Would a loss of lifeforce be expected to physically affect a character? - I think that would be a logical outcome, therefore probably detrimentally affecting the ability to execute physical actions (skill checks, attacks, resisting damage, etc.).

- Would a loss of lifeforce be expected to affect the spirit (Ki, energy, soul, etc.) of a character? - I think this would also be a logical outcome, best modeled with a reduction in willful resistance (will saves), and reduction in ability to expend or channel energy (whether arcane or divine).

- Would a loss of lifeforce be expected to decrease or eliminate the acquired experience, knowledge and accomlishments of a character? - This is where it no longer makes sense to me, making a decrease in XP a hard thing to swallow.


So, from this prespective, a reduction (whether temporary or permanent) in ability to cast magic and accomplish physical feats makes more sense, especially when it's reinforced by most narrative fiction (from which most of the concepts of D&D are taken). Just because it's not the way it's always been done, wether RAW or not, doesn't make this a bad idea. Restricting the definition of Experience to aquired knowledge and accomplishment seems to make better logical sense. This also makes a lot more sense to me for the draining abilities of undead. To me, the mechanics should be one and the same.

When Jonathan Harker is drained by the Brides of Dracula, does he lose his knowledge, experience, and accomplishments? No. He is permanently affected physically (weakened, gray hair) and mentally (sanity, not knowledge). In fact, afterwards one could even make the argument that his Will was even stronger now that it was focused on Dracula's destruction. His memories remain intact, and his knowledge, garnered through experience, is unaffected.