Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1864916" data-attributes="member: 17296">Well, if you want to be technical about the DMG and PHB, ALL the magic items are in the DMG. Therefore all magic items would fall under the same catagory, that of having to be approved by the DM. Which is actually the case in my games. And I wholeheartedly approve of the DM using rules as guidelines. I only wish more people approached more of the RAW in that way. Rules as written is a horrible approach to gaming in my opinion. People need more creativity. The entire RAW approach is, in my opinion, the thing most wrong with the 3.x culture. If you were to take that away and approach the entire thing as guidelines (which there is at least one paragraph saying you should do) it would be a better game/culture.ALL magic items should be a reward for good gameplay. Players shouldn't be able to wave foul no matter what magic item (or spell) the DM doesn't want.OK, ok, granted that allowing wands and potions would technically be allowing one feat to work for three... but then again, people in my games HATE creation feats. If noone is going to make wands or potions and you think they should be able to, it doesn't hurt. And there is the very real fact that 1) the game system wasn't really very well thought out. (Fine, the very real opinion). And 2) No matter what else you claim, unless you're being absurd, you'll save more gold making the wonderous items in the DMG than you ever will making wands. And the gold you save early on can easily pay the remained of the full price )from if you had taken that feat instead) for the few wands you want to make. Plus the rules for making wonderous items with charges and making one use wonderous items are written down. They really DO have duplicate items. It's not MY fault if the game system designers wrote in a way (and therefore either intended or are pretty bad at noticing these things) for the smarter characters to make potions and wands AND wonderous items for all one feat. "I guess I must have missed the part where ENWorld posting rules were declared official errata  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> "Yea, there was a short meta discussion about it. I didn't participate but I found it an enjoyable read. I understood the point of both sides of the conversation, but basically one side was using the general impression that since the exact items aren't in the DMG it must be house rules, whereas the other side pointed out that, indeed, the rules and tables were there (if complex)... and therefore it was core RAW. Actually, with a few easy additional house (guideline what to accept) rules it's not too hard to allow players to take that table and run.Oh, and potions... actually, even if you don't allow potions that are in the DMG as wonderous items just because they're duplicates (in obvious disregard of the duplicates that exist), it's STILL better to take wonderous for those potions. Go back and reread the guidlines for potion making. There are a lot of restrictions, and you can make more spells into elixers than you can into potions.And yes, a *few* scrolls are pretty good. But when I can find a DM that will allow me to trade that feat in for something I'll use more often I definitely do it! To me, I'd rather just buy or find the few scrolls I want... and/or make pearls. MmmMmm Pearls of Power. Oh, sure, you're FIRST level spell only cost you one XP. (But then, at first level you only need 1000 to advance, so...) Higher level spells cost more. But I agree. Note that I said "many" scrolls, not "any" scrolls. Definitely have and or make several. Just not many.</blockquote>

Verification