This is my vote too.
D&D 5E Magic Item Creation: Which book should contain rules for magic item creation?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
This is my vote too.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
The poll is flawed, it should have another option for a third book...
Personally, I think that item creation should be in a separate book along with rules for spell research, ACKs companion book done an excellent job making a system for researching spells and allowing players to make their mark upon the magical world.
Warder
Personally, I think that item creation should be in a separate book along with rules for spell research, ACKs companion book done an excellent job making a system for researching spells and allowing players to make their mark upon the magical world.
Warder
I know that's what we saw in public playtest. I, however, don't see much need to place bets, when with an extra sentence or two I can cover both possibilities.
RangerWickett
Legend
I am more and more coming to believe that "magic item creation" should entail two sentences: "What do you want it to do? Are you sure you're okay with the party getting their hands on that?"
Maybe add some paragraphs of examples of things that can ruin people's fun in games. But why in the hell do we need rules for pricing +3 flaming falcatas. It's a bloody magic item. Just give them three categories of minor, major, and artifact. All items in each category have the same price range people bargain over (500 to 5000, 5k to 50k, 50k to 500k). Limited use items might cost 1/10th the normal price. Famous items might cost 10 times as much.
Potion of healing? Fifty gold pieces.
It's a hat that lets you speak a foreign language? Two thousand gold pieces.
It's a sword that glows in the dark?! Ten thousand gold pieces.
It's a wand that can slice a man's arm off once per day? Fifty thousand gold pieces.
Oh, it's Bookslayer, the sword of that little blonde butt-hole of a king? Well, all it does is cut things really well, but it's famous, so sure, I'll pay you six thousand for it.
Maybe add some paragraphs of examples of things that can ruin people's fun in games. But why in the hell do we need rules for pricing +3 flaming falcatas. It's a bloody magic item. Just give them three categories of minor, major, and artifact. All items in each category have the same price range people bargain over (500 to 5000, 5k to 50k, 50k to 500k). Limited use items might cost 1/10th the normal price. Famous items might cost 10 times as much.
Potion of healing? Fifty gold pieces.
It's a hat that lets you speak a foreign language? Two thousand gold pieces.
It's a sword that glows in the dark?! Ten thousand gold pieces.
It's a wand that can slice a man's arm off once per day? Fifty thousand gold pieces.
Oh, it's Bookslayer, the sword of that little blonde butt-hole of a king? Well, all it does is cut things really well, but it's famous, so sure, I'll pay you six thousand for it.
Savage Wombat
Hero
Seems to me that allowing PCs to make permanent magic items under any rules other than "only if the DM lets you" would go against the design intent of greatly limiting access to permanent magic items.
If they want to have rules for potions and scrolls available to players, that's probably OK.
If they want to have rules for potions and scrolls available to players, that's probably OK.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
I think this is going to be pretty one sided...
In the basic game design, you can always make something inherent to a character without magic items, so why not just do that?
4E, for example, did integrate items, which seemed like sound game design, but in practice this made them sort of boring, did not work in all campaigns, required constant math driven upgrading, and eventually had to be tweaked with the rarity system anyways to reflect what makes magic items special:
Magic items work well as rewards. As rewards, they don't have to be as finely balanced, game math doesn't have to be as rigidly tide to them, and they give an extra incentive to adventure. A deeply ingrained, archetypal one: magic treasure.
In the basic game design, you can always make something inherent to a character without magic items, so why not just do that?
4E, for example, did integrate items, which seemed like sound game design, but in practice this made them sort of boring, did not work in all campaigns, required constant math driven upgrading, and eventually had to be tweaked with the rarity system anyways to reflect what makes magic items special:
Magic items work well as rewards. As rewards, they don't have to be as finely balanced, game math doesn't have to be as rigidly tide to them, and they give an extra incentive to adventure. A deeply ingrained, archetypal one: magic treasure.
Jacob Marley
Adventurer
I don't like this word. I want players to be able to craft certain items on their own: potions, scrolls, and alchemical items. Those rules should be handy for the player and would fit in the Player's Handbook. For other items: weapons, armor, rods and staves, and wondrous items; I'd prefer the rules to be variants and guidelines for the DM, and thus be in the Dungeon Master's Guide. This, of course, assumes the threefold model.
Ideally, I'd like to get a single digital document like d20srd.org or something like DDi tools.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
well the cheese stands alone...
I said PHB and stand by my very unpopular choice.
PCs should have access to basic item creation through feats and class features, and the basic rules in the PHB. The DMG should expand on it and have the items listed... like 3e. (everyone knows how much I LOVE that edition) I do feel that is one thing wotc got right on the first try.
I said PHB and stand by my very unpopular choice.
PCs should have access to basic item creation through feats and class features, and the basic rules in the PHB. The DMG should expand on it and have the items listed... like 3e. (everyone knows how much I LOVE that edition) I do feel that is one thing wotc got right on the first try.
Balesir
Adventurer
Well, not quite alone, since that's my basic choice, too.
I say "basic choice" because I think the original 4E system got this done perfectly - but very few folk seem to have seen it. "Magic Items" come in two key varieties - those that player characters can make and those that they can't. "Level" or powerfulness or whatever doesn't enter into it; items the PCs can make are regular "Magic Items", items PCs can't make are "Artifacts". "Magic Items" are detailed (along with how they are made) in the PHB (or other "player" book). Artifacts are detailed in the DMG.
For any specific campaign, either one of these classes can be limited or removed entirely. If you want magic items to be exclusively DM toys to hand out as rewards* just don't use "Magic Items" at all; use exclusively Artifacts. If you want the PCs to be the source of any magic item (potentially), don't use Artifacts. It's simple, functional and ultimately flexible. If the "PC made" items have numerical bonuses, though, you'll need some sort of "inherent bonus" option for when you don't use them. Or, you know, simpler option, just don't have them give much numerical bonus...
*: I have to say I'm totally unconvinced, these days, about "magic items as rewards". Rewards for whom? The character? Why should the character be specifically rewarded, exactly? For the player? What kind of a warped "reward" is having an imaginary thing that you can't take out of the game? Is it supposed to be some sort of "Badge of 1337ness" to have a character who has a +2 sword, or something? Good grief.
Similar Threads
