[D&D 3.5] Masterwork Craft rules

[Enforcer]

Anyone else want to see a change in how Masterwork items are crafted or cost? The way it is now, the cost and time to craft masterwork daggers and masterwork greatswords are close. Do you see a problem with this? To my mind, a good smith should be able to pump out at least a few masterwork daggers in the time to make one masterwork greatsword.

Has there been word of changes to Craft or Masterwork prices?

 

[kenjib]

I think the problem is that the rules were designed to hold up as a game system rather than to model reality. For example, getting a low-medium end kitchen knife is around $25 US. Top of the line deluxe "masterwork" knife is around $160 US. This is an increase of around 600%. Normal dagger is 1gp. Masterwork is 151gp, which is an increase of 15100%. If the real world worked like that, a superb quality kitchen knife would run over well $3500. ZOINKS!

However, consider if a masterwork dagger only cost 6gp. Why would anyone ever NOT buy one? Further, why would anyone ever buy any normal d6 damage weapon for that matter (the +1 to hit works out better on average than one additional point of damage average)?

In the real world, we are more constrained about the relative costs of our purchase vis-a-vis other items in the same category. $150 is nothing if you're looking at cars, but it doesn't mean you'll drop that on a knife.

In D&D, on the other hand, small amounts of money are truly insignificant. You WOULD always be willing to pay 6gp for a masterwork dagger over a 1gp standard one for three reasons.

#1 D&D adventurers are very wealthy compared to the general population only considering their starting gold for purchasing equipment. Where does all that wealth come from, anyway?

#2 D&D adventurers do not have to pay for day to day living expenses in which small costs would add up to significant sums if not kept in check.

#3 D&D adventurers by default have an incredibly vast disposable income as their career advances. Go into Bill Gates' house and I guarantee you that he has $160 knives in his kitchen, not $25 ones. The difference in cost at such small scales is irrelevant to him, as it would be to adventurers if masterwork costs were as in real life.

Unfortunately, these factors all contribute to make a truly realistic masterwork cost system completely untenable in a D&D game. The D&D economic model is fundamentally flawed in many ways.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I like the Craft rules just the way they are.

It gives me the satisfaction of having superior House Rules.

 

[Kershek]

I like the Craft rules just the way they are.

It gives me the satisfaction of having superior House Rules.

...And those would be?

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I like the idea of masterwork is x6 the cost.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Sure, in a modern, automated factory masterwork items can be churned out at six times the prize of an average item. If the item had to be handcrafted with the most primitive of tools, I think you'd find 150 x normal prize to be MORE realistic than 6 x normal. Though in truth, it would probably be somewhere between the two...

What you have to keep in mind is that your D&D books are not history books! In a game, you have to balance realism against playability. Exactly where that balance lies is really a matter of individual taste...

 

[Nifft]

I think 10x-20x is reasonable. (Lower for more commonly requested items -- such as daggers -- and higher for exotica.)

-- Nifft

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

We (...well some of us) seem to agreee on the idea that multiplying the price is basically more sound than adding a flat value to the cost. Determining the exact multiplier is hard, since D&D makes no effort to create any resemblance to a working economy. And... it's a game so...

 

[kenjib]

Sure, in a modern, automated factory masterwork items can be churned out at six times the prize of an average item. If the item had to be handcrafted with the most primitive of tools, I think you'd find 150 x normal prize to be MORE realistic than 6 x normal. Though in truth, it would probably be somewhere between the two...

Do you think? I thought, more realistically, that an item would be of extremely high quality mostly because the craftsman is highly skilled and has knows the best techniques. Secondary would be spending more time and using better materials -- certainly not to the point where it would require 150 times the cost in craft time and materials. If anything, it seems to me that the high price for a high quality item would have more to do with demand than with costs.

To consider more low technology production, think of something like pottery. Many potters today use essentially the same technology (with the exception of some of the dyes, paints, and finishes) that they would have used 5000 years ago -- clay, a wheel, a kiln, and paint. Part of what makes a high quality work of pottery stand out is the craftman's ability to create a uniform shape, and coax shapes from the clay that a lesser craftsman cannot. He also has the taste and vision to produce works that are more well proportioned and aesthetically pleasing. It's not so much that he uses special clay that costs 100 times as much, and takes twenty times as long to finish. Before you suggest that the difference are due to ornamentation (expensive inlay, leaf, intricate detail work, etc.) I would point out that the benefits of a masterwork item are practical above all. They work better. Being more highly ornamented is secondary to this and not necessary, in my view.

What you have to keep in mind is that your D&D books are not history books! In a game, you have to balance realism against playability. Exactly where that balance lies is really a matter of individual taste...

I agree with you. I was just trying to highlite the factors at play on both sides of the coin so as to open the field of discussion. Where do you think this balance works best? Do you like the current rules? They certainly seem mechanically sound to me, if aesthetically displeasing.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I agree that the only important factor in pricesetting a masterwork item is the frequency (or lack of) master craftsmen. And the general availability of the craft - and to the extent it matters the extra time spent (usually not an issue in a medieval economy) and the cost of better materials (might be imported steel, but as kenjib pointed out a masterwork sword isn't a bejeweled, engraved sword of silver) - is already reflected in the base price. Thus, multiplying with 6 (or whatever) still seems sound to me.

True, most characters would use a masterwork dagger - if they were in a place where there is a master bladesmith that makes such a knife. Most commoners, however, would think a masterwork dagger is an outrageous luxury and be perfectly content with a normal dagger. This seems quite reasonable to be.

The rub is the damage potential of the masterwork dagger compared to normal d6 weapons. But that is really a different discussion altogether - you could use the old masterwork rules (+1 to hit OR +1 damage), reduce the base damage die of the dagger to 1d3, rule that Tiny weapons has no reach and has to be used in the square of the opponent - I'm just brainstorming...