Jon Tweet - Magic Item Creation

[Will]

Huh? Lower level PCs get more XP? They way I play it, and the way it reads in the DMG, you calculate the total XP based upon average party level, then divide that number evenly among the party members.

If you're talking about 3.5e, then you're wrong.


On topic... in the games I've run/been in, XP cost has more been an esthetic problem than a pragmatic one. It's just... annoying. I also find it annoying that magical crafting is utterly divorced from regular craftign... it'd be neat if, say, a wizard would have to actually forge a ring before making it magical (or, better, there is some advantage to doing it this way.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Wouldn't the members of your party compensate your crafting expenditure of XP with GP? For instance, we would pay the crafters in our party 75% of the book value to craft items for us. That way, the crafter gets some extra wealth by making a slight profit, the recipients get magic items at a discount, and the party is better off overall with customized items.

And what, exactly, does the spellcaster do with the gold? Eat it? Glue it together and wear it as a coat?

Gold has far less worth than XP.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I also find it annoying that magical crafting is utterly divorced from regular craftign... it'd be neat if, say, a wizard would have to actually forge a ring before making it magical (or, better, there is some advantage to doing it this way.)

Absolutely. If you want to limit the amount of magical items out there, make them difficult crafting checks and require each crafting skill individually. Sauron might crank out a whole bunch of magic rings, but he's not likely to be hammering out magical swords and armor as well, unless that's ALL he does as an NPC, with skill allocations to match.

 

[thorian]

And what, exactly, does the spellcaster do with the gold? Eat it? Glue it together and wear it as a coat?

Gold has far less worth than XP.

Umm... He could buy magic items with it. He could use it to pay crafting expenses for his own magic items. He could use it for scribing spells into his spell book. He could use it for spell research. (I'm not sure if you are being facetious.)

Gold is a measure of character power just like XP is. There is an implied conversion rate of 5 to 1 in the crafting rules. Gold and XP both represent avenues to character effectiveness.

 

[pawsplay]

In my view, forging a powerful magical item takes weeks to years, and hence is outside the scope of normal adventuring. In BECMI and AD&D High Level Campaigns, it was presented as an option for high level characters, which seems reasonable. In fact, apart from some minor quirks, the High Level Campaign rules were just about perfect, a nice mixture of structure, art, and DM fiat. Potions and scrolls were no biggie, but were somewhat more involved than in 3e, just enough to discourage stockpiling huge numbers of them. Various editions tried permanent costs (Con points, usually) which I never found quite satisfying.

 

[Twowolves]

How about the wizard creating stuff for other classes? His sacrifice and being behind a level is not an issue because the fighter is better off?

By that logic, why not have the cleric be burning XP to heal the party, since the cleric benefits by having them alive to help out?

It's a crappy system that works well only if 1) you don't actually use it or 2) you're not the poor sucker roped into taking Craft Wondrous Items for the party.

Except, of course, the cleric just might be making scrolls and potions and wonderous items himself. Oh, and cleric healing DOES cost xp (Restoration/Raise Dead/Ressurection).

The fighter is putting him/herself between the fragile wizard and danger, thus is more likely to die and lose xp that way. So yeah, the wizard MAY be a level behind but so might be the fighter. And lets not forget that in some games, the craft feats are the only reliable source of magic items, other than finding them as loot. Not every campaign has on-demand access to magic items.

It is your opinion that this subsystem is "crappy", not a fact, and this so-called "crappy" system was heavily tested and has done better than any other D&D-based item creation rules to date.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't understand why spending XP on magic item creation is a bad idea. To me, it represents the crafter having to pour in part of his essense to make the item. Magic item creation is a difficult process whereby the crafter must "donate" some of his personal power to make the item.

I think that's a bit of a false argument. A few spells, and all magic item creation, are the only time XP becomes "essense" [sic]. Nothing else in the game affects XP. Older characters, or wiser characters, don't automatically have more essence. You can't spend essence to make your turning extra powerful or your sneaking extra quiet, and no monster eats XP. Some eat -levels-, but XP is a way of measuring up to levels, not levels themselves. A raised character loses a level whether that level cost 2000xp or 20,000xp. A creature that drains a level drains a level, not 5000xp. Furthermore, level drain works regardless of whether you use the standard xp table, or the variant xp table in UA, or destiny points, or simply awarding level increases at story points in the campaign; spending xp for magic items does not.

If you really want to take something away from the characters, have them spend skill points - storywise, that's even more dramatic than xp, since the character/player now faces a very real dilemma - a magic item, or more learning? In story terms, the magic item is bought with a very real, and finite, piece of the caster's essence, and a caster with a fondness for creation can eventually end up a virtual blank slate as they strip-mine their knowledge and abilities for material power.

Alternately, make xp costs a fraction of levels rather than a fixed amount. Costs would have to scale with levels (e.g., 100gp market value = .1 level loss at first -fifth levels, 500gp = .1 level loss at sixth - tenth, 1,000gp = .1 at eleventh, 10,000 gp = .1 at sixteenth, etc) but bookkeeping would decline as less valuable magic items become essentially "free" at higher levels (which they are anyways) and casters could advance with the rest of the party unless they overspent and dropped an entire level.

 

[Nellisir]

It is your opinion that this subsystem is "crappy", not a fact, and this so-called "crappy" system was heavily tested and has done better than any other D&D-based item creation rules to date.

His opinion, and mine, and the designers and developers at WotC. And "[this system] has done better than any other D&D-based item creation rules to date" isn't an argument. Better =/ good.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, and cleric healing DOES cost xp (Restoration/Raise Dead/Ressurection).

Yeah, that's a huge imposition for level 4 clerics.

It is your opinion that this subsystem is "crappy"

Yes, it is.

And I have the benefit of actually playing a low level caster who creates magic items, making this a distinctly non-theoretical opinion.

not a fact, and this so-called "crappy" system was heavily tested and has done better than any other D&D-based item creation rules to date.

And aristocracy was the best system of government in the world until democracy came along.

"Best yet" does not equal "best possible."

 

[Twowolves]

Yeah, that's a huge imposition for level 4 clerics.

So, your arguement against the crafting rules now suddenly only applies to low level item makers. Moving the goalposts are we? You implied that clerics don't have to spend xp to heal, and they do.

And I have the benefit of actually playing a low level caster who creates magic items, making this a distinctly non-theoretical opinion.

And I have the benefit of actually DMing for a group in which every caster has at least 1 type of item crafting feat. Now, does my experience trump yours, or will you drop this whole "you don't know what you are talking about, I have EXPERIENCE" line of non-arguement?

"Best yet" does not equal "best possible."

Where did I say that it was the best possible? Where is that even implied?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this thread was posted in the 4th ed forum. I thought we were talking about the game that is actually published and is currently being played by millions, not the theoretical rules of a game yet published, where everyone's house rules are official cannon, and everyone's dreams of The Perfect System comes true. Except for those of us not buying the party line that we are now at war with Oceania and always have been, and are able to see that the current edition of the rules don't suck quite so bad as the 4th ed developers would like us to believe.