Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does the Artificer Suck?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8379138" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>I'll add a few citations here to discuss.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Magic items can be a way of balancing a party against monsters where the expectation is the party has weapons to face such monsters, but the monsters themselves aren't necessary to have in the first place either.</p><p></p><p>The default assumption in game design is magic items are not required because there's an assumption someone will cast spells.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The default assumption also exists that magic items will be found following the treasure table rolls. This assumption does not mean the items are necessary, or that the items are applicable, or that the items are "good"; only that magic items do fall into the hands of the party.</p><p></p><p>The optional magic item awards system is there for DM's who want more structure and less random in that assignment. They don't change the default assumptions.</p><p></p><p>This is also a demonstration on math with the artificers. There are more than 100 possible infusions because of the magic item replication options. Not all of those are applicable (or even desirable to spend the resource on) but they do demonstrate that unless the a party of 5 character has even one quarter of the infusion options or better (not all of which are available in the magic items) then the party has a lot more magic items than the tables would give.</p><p></p><p>There needs to be a massive excess of magic items beyond the system probability for infusions to become marginalized.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Those charts and prices you gave earlier help a DM in determining what might be appropriate or inappropriate at certain levels, but there is never a point where players determine what they do or do not have for magic items outside of AL rules, which are there to help streamline between different DM's for the same characters. AL rules are not the default assumption. They are the "house rules" for a specific gaming environment.</p><p></p><p>This also applies to artificers. The benefit for crafting items is only there if the DM allows it, but the default is that NPC's are the crafters. It's a ribbon ability, not an expectation. The infusions are the guarantee.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The process goes on to picking appropriate locations and monsters, and adds guidelines for CR's based on rarity of the items. This is still optional additional work to expand on the DMG and default that magic items are meant to be challenging to acquire.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have it backwards. The default assumption is magic items are rare, random, and hard to acquire outside of finding those items. A DM giving out the items is the exception, not the rule. It's a fairly common exception as part of the reward system but those rewards are not numerous enough to negatively impact artificer infusions.</p><p></p><p>It's not that a DM needs to accommodate the campaign for artificers; it's the DM is over-accommodating other PC's beyond the default assumptions if an issue does occur where artificers struggle in this department.</p><p></p><p>The only way for magic items to be excessive is if the DM goes against the default assumptions to make them more available.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 8379138, member: 6750235"] I'll add a few citations here to discuss. Magic items can be a way of balancing a party against monsters where the expectation is the party has weapons to face such monsters, but the monsters themselves aren't necessary to have in the first place either. The default assumption in game design is magic items are not required because there's an assumption someone will cast spells. The default assumption also exists that magic items will be found following the treasure table rolls. This assumption does not mean the items are necessary, or that the items are applicable, or that the items are "good"; only that magic items do fall into the hands of the party. The optional magic item awards system is there for DM's who want more structure and less random in that assignment. They don't change the default assumptions. This is also a demonstration on math with the artificers. There are more than 100 possible infusions because of the magic item replication options. Not all of those are applicable (or even desirable to spend the resource on) but they do demonstrate that unless the a party of 5 character has even one quarter of the infusion options or better (not all of which are available in the magic items) then the party has a lot more magic items than the tables would give. There needs to be a massive excess of magic items beyond the system probability for infusions to become marginalized. Those charts and prices you gave earlier help a DM in determining what might be appropriate or inappropriate at certain levels, but there is never a point where players determine what they do or do not have for magic items outside of AL rules, which are there to help streamline between different DM's for the same characters. AL rules are not the default assumption. They are the "house rules" for a specific gaming environment. This also applies to artificers. The benefit for crafting items is only there if the DM allows it, but the default is that NPC's are the crafters. It's a ribbon ability, not an expectation. The infusions are the guarantee. The process goes on to picking appropriate locations and monsters, and adds guidelines for CR's based on rarity of the items. This is still optional additional work to expand on the DMG and default that magic items are meant to be challenging to acquire. You have it backwards. The default assumption is magic items are rare, random, and hard to acquire outside of finding those items. A DM giving out the items is the exception, not the rule. It's a fairly common exception as part of the reward system but those rewards are not numerous enough to negatively impact artificer infusions. It's not that a DM needs to accommodate the campaign for artificers; it's the DM is over-accommodating other PC's beyond the default assumptions if an issue does occur where artificers struggle in this department. The only way for magic items to be excessive is if the DM goes against the default assumptions to make them more available. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does the Artificer Suck?
Top