That is the problem. this is
Rarity is a useless metric for this as for example a +1 greatsword & an amulet against detection & location are both the exact same uncommon rarity &
D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?
Flamestrike
Legend
the rules are incomplete and you are ignoring that to continue this
Flamestrike
Legend
Not my rules. I have rules for magic item creation (times, cost, and other requirements). They're very DM dependent (he can choose to use them, they might require slaying monsters and harvesting parts or recovering components or a 'formula', there is a level requirement etc).
I also have rules for item rarity.
Now you might not agree with the rarity of certain items (and I dont blame you, I do too) but that's opinion.
If the rules are in use, that's what they (RAW) are.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
No, it is not a problem.
RPGs that have a regimented "you should have this at level X" approach are the problem. Making them not so much role playing games as tactical combat board games.
Err, what's the problem with that?
There certainly are anomalies, with items that have the same ability having different rarities, but any decent DM will take it with a pinch of salt anyway, and distribute magic items as they see fit.
No, because it's guidance that DMs can choose which version, or none, they want to use. It's not rules.
Simplest point - if you want to craft an item, you need a recipe. That has to be found in-game. If the GM doesn't place the recipe in game, you can't make the item, period. On top of that, all magic items require special ingredients they also have to find in-game. So this is completely in the GM's control.
My artificer has yet to make a single magic item.
In this way, you can keep crafting for things like healing potions and spell scrolls, but not have extra items crop up.
The smart GM, however, will allow crafting - and instead of giving the party so many items, makes many of the items they'd give as recipes instead, so that the Artificer has to make the things for the party. Keeps the balance while allowing the character to exercise their shtick.
Stoutstien
lunk
scrolls are a pretty power option for the artificer to capitalize on once you realize that 2 hours of crafting time lines up perfectly with the long rest rules. potions are kinda meh in comparison but if each person has a few on them it can be a good insurance plan.Simplest point - if you want to craft an item, you need a recipe. That has to be found in-game. If the GM doesn't place the recipe in game, you can't make the item, period. On top of that, all magic items require special ingredients they also have to find in-game. So this is completely in the GM's control.
My artificer has yet to make a single magic item.
In this way, you can keep crafting for things like healing potions and spell scrolls, but not have extra items crop up.
The smart GM, however, will allow crafting - and instead of giving the party so many items, makes many of the items they'd give as recipes instead, so that the Artificer has to make the things for the party. Keeps the balance while allowing the character to exercise their shtick.
You have a gracious GM who thinks a crafting day is 8 hours?
Flamestrike
Legend
Simplest point - if you want to craft an item, you need a recipe. That has to be found in-game. If the GM doesn't place the recipe in game, you can't make the item, period. On top of that, all magic items require special ingredients they also have to find in-game. So this is completely in the GM's control.
My artificer has yet to make a single magic item.
Did you discuss this with the DM in advance of creating the PC?
Your assertion that the unfinished design outline is guidance not a rule is correct.... I agree entirely as that is the purpose of a design outline so there is guidance to follow while the designer is completing the thing it outlines. In this case the "thing" would be a completed set of crafting rules. I'm not the one who has been claiming that it's a completed or even acceptable rule. If it's simply guidance then obviously it can't be considered completed rules for crafting magic items but I can't help noticing you aren't trying to correct anyone who has been pointing at that "guidance" provided by the design outline saying it's a completed system of rules for crafting magic items. In fact you don't seem to even be going that far while saying that it fills the need so he problem is with anyone who has a playstyle that causes them to disagree. Imagine rules for a card game that at no point even mentions how many cards the dealer should deal each player at the start. the artificer ability to spend half the gold & a quarter of the time crafting (un)common items is an objective mechanical rule that falls apart when paired with the mere "guidance" provide by a design outline.
Like it or not, despite the attempts to make it something else by removing portions of the rules & leaving others to be finished by the gm d&d is still a tactical combat game with some story & roleplaying elements mixed in & that remains the case no matter how thin the layer of tactics is. That's why the system has things such as levels & monster CR. 5e's omissions will never make it into something like a shared narrative roleplaying game that goes a different route, here is a great example of such a game. Regardless of if that not a tactical combat game with roleplaying elements goal is what Mearls Crawford or whoever it is at at wotc that really wishes what the one true way of that 5e was having a class with a line item of "If you craft a magic item with a rarity of common or uncommon, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold" means that those elements are no longer something that can be "guidance that DMs can choose which version, or none, they want to use" unless the class with that line item has variants that come into play when the gm finishes that system in ways that hamstring or overpower that class.
Similar Threads
