D&D 5E Magic Item Creation: Which book should contain rules for magic item creation?

[pemerton]

In a certain style of play - challenge-based player-driven play - they are rewards for the player.

<snip>

If you get it, then your PC has capabilities that you otherwise wouldn't have. You could always just pass it by, though. But what a rush if you can get it! Now that you have it - what are you going to do with it?

<snip>

If the DM is determining the challenge or risk that you face, yes, things are easier and potentially less interesting. If you are able to grab that flame tongue in a player-driven game, though, maybe you think you can now sally forth into the troll marshes and set yourself up as their new god-on-earth.

I think these rewards are for smart play - you can now punch above your weight - so you take on more dangerous and interesting challenges

<snip>

the real reward isn't the flame tongue or vorpal weapon or crystal ball - it's the adventures that those magic items allow you to get into; more interesting adventures that you wouldn't be involved in if you weren't such a good player.

You identify two different sorts of rewards - the "rush" of getting it; and the "more interesting adventures" that it lets you partake in.

The first makes a lot of sense to me. And there are a range of ways of supporting that aspect of game play, of which looting items is only one (and often not the main one, because in traditional D&D play most magic items aren't obtained in the way you describe in your example, but rather by opening treasure chests after the rush of victory).

The second I am increasingly finding puzzling. As you describe them, the adventures sound interesting. But to the extent that the interest is a story/dramatic interest, it's not clear why that should wait on the players finding the item - why not get into an interesting story anyway (whether player driven or GM driven)? And once you set yourself up as the god-on-earth of the trolls, what happens? That seems like it's the end of the game, but D&D traditionally hasn't done that well with end-games.

To the extent that the greater degree of interest is a tactical/mechanical interest, I can see that, and I can see the logic of linking that to game play - that looks like a classic cycle of improving play in any sort of competitive game. It's also an argument for magic items that are more about breadth than simply bigger numbers.

 

[LostSoul]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - food for thought; let me get back to you in a couple of days or so. At the moment I'm thinking that the "rush" + driving towards your own goals is the big thing, not so much interesting adventures. But I need some time to think it through.

 

[Hussar]

Both books!

The PHB could contain item making rules but stipulate that the DM may add hidden effects and such.

The DMG could then contain all sorts of extra item making rules that can ummm, "add excitement" to the game!

That's my vote.

What is the rationale that it must be exclusively one book or other? I mean both 3e and 4e had rules in both books. AdnD didn't really have item creation rules at all. Just some very rough guidelines.

 

[Kinak]

While I dislike the rules themselves for PF item creation, I take the opposite approach and make them 110% available for players, practically forcing them to take item creation feats and establishing means of buying and selling their items. This isn't because I love the rules, but because I love the option of customizing a character through the use of magic items. If feats could imitate what magic items do, I'd probably not care so much.

This is a really good point. It's certainly not that I don't want character customization or even entirely that I don't want it through items, I just really don't like how its ended up in 3rd, Pathfinder, and 4th.

I really like crafting in games (tabletop, videogames, board games, card games, weird LARPy dungeon games, whatever). But a lot of that is because of the mini-quest element of getting the ingredients.

The antithesis of that is just walking up to a vendor or the auction hall and buying the item. Modern editions have taken that process, dressed it up, and called it crafting. Which, to me, is like turning on a spotlight at night and calling the result "day."

In any case, I agree that there's a lot of stuff (particularly looking at 3e/Pathfinder here) that you can get through items that would need to get offloaded if items aren't craftable freely.

Which is part of the reason, actually, that I'd prefer not to have item crafting rules than bad ones. Bad ones I'll end up removing, leaving players with no reliable options to fill those roles. If there's nothing there, hopefully the designers have included other ways to get access to those abilities.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[ExploderWizard]

Of course. But by the same token, the typical rational character would retire after looting a 10,000 gp hoard, rather than continue risking death.

But unless you're into extreme world-and-life-simulation, that doesn't make for a particularly fun game. I think the game should be designed to support play by real players in the real world, not to produce a simulation of a rewarding life for imaginary people in an imaginary world.

Many adventurers do seem to retire at low to mid levels, buy an inn and run it (at least adventure modules suggest as much).

There is retiring, then there is retiring in style with some political power. If you take early retirement then you won't have the means to construct your stronghold, attract followers, and be a bigshot mover & shaker.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Just answer a few posters who asked me why I believe there are players who would be better off playing boardgames.

The reason for this is because I have seen several posters across multiple boards who only seem to care about the numerical side to the game. I even read in a thread over at Wizards.com where a poster was saying that the name and fluff of the Earthquake spell didn't matter and that the spell should work in mid air. They were saying that the only important thing is that it does X amount of damage and knocks X creatures prone.

There are also posters who push for the game to be based where characters are built around their magic items. This is more of the attitude where it's the mathematical build of the character that's more important than anything else. Other posters also talk about alienating fluff from the mechanics etc... These people would be better off playing a boardgame or even just a math game since they want everything to work all the time just as long as the numbers fit. When you have a game that is numbers first and then just apply fluff where you feel necessary makes the game feel like it's just chess with some fluff held on with a sticky note.

 

[Lanefan]

... I have seen several posters across multiple boards who only seem to care about the numerical side to the game.

You know, I think you're on to something here in defining a core difference between 0-1-2e and 3-PF-4e. Yes the older editions had numbers, but they most of the time stayed in the background and-or were the purview of the DM only. But the newer editions tend to put the numbers - all of them - right in the players' faces, which of course means they're going to get a lot more attention. And while we can argue for years about whether this is good for the game or not, there's no denying the shift in design.

There are also posters who push for the game to be based where characters are built around their magic items. This is more of the attitude where it's the mathematical build of the character that's more important than anything else.

And there's a third group, those to whom the core of the game is the mechanical build of their character - abilities, feats, prestige classes, etc. - rather than (or, at best, alongside) the actual run of play (story, plot, role-played interactions with party and NPCs, etc.) at the table.

To tie back in to the actual thread here, I'd posit it's the mechanical builders who would like item creation to be relatively simple, easy to do, and in the players' control; as they need the items as part of "the build".

Lan-"I'm a character, not a number"-efan

 

[billd91]

You know, I think you're on to something here in defining a core difference between 0-1-2e and 3-PF-4e. Yes the older editions had numbers, but they most of the time stayed in the background and-or were the purview of the DM only. But the newer editions tend to put the numbers - all of them - right in the players' faces, which of course means they're going to get a lot more attention. And while we can argue for years about whether this is good for the game or not, there's no denying the shift in design.

Personally, I think this is a bit overblown as an explanation. Yes, 3e is a bit different from 2e in this regard. There are 2 fundamental things going on in that design change as far as this is concerned. 1) There are more opportunities to customize the character in significant ways. 2) The rules are given more consistent structure for players to understand, plan for, and use without needing DM oversight.

But ultimately the problem is less with the game than with the style of play the players embrace. Does 3e attract more players who want to play like it was a board game than previous editions? I don't know but I doubt it. I strongly suspect there was plenty of that in the old 1e/2e days as well. Maybe 3e's higher degree of customizability exposes the differences between players who embrace that sort of thing and the ones who don't in more stark detail.

 

[sheadunne]

This is a really good point. It's certainly not that I don't want character customization or even entirely that I don't want it through items, I just really don't like how its ended up in 3rd, Pathfinder, and 4th.

I really like crafting in games (tabletop, videogames, board games, card games, weird LARPy dungeon games, whatever). But a lot of that is because of the mini-quest element of getting the ingredients.

The antithesis of that is just walking up to a vendor or the auction hall and buying the item. Modern editions have taken that process, dressed it up, and called it crafting. Which, to me, is like turning on a spotlight at night and calling the result "day."

In any case, I agree that there's a lot of stuff (particularly looking at 3e/Pathfinder here) that you can get through items that would need to get offloaded if items aren't craftable freely.

Which is part of the reason, actually, that I'd prefer not to have item crafting rules than bad ones. Bad ones I'll end up removing, leaving players with no reliable options to fill those roles. If there's nothing there, hopefully the designers have included other ways to get access to those abilities.

Cheers!
Kinak

I find these two methods work the best. Either limit it to the point of it being non-existent (which it sounds like more of what you do) or going overboard to the point of it being simply an aspect of character advancement (which is more of what I do). Both methods, I think, work well. And I think what we can agree on is that the current system (3x/PF) doesn't produce a desirable effect in either direction. It's half way between good enough.

Crafting rules, while I think useful for players, also tend to put more limitations on DMs. It's become more bookkeeping to create an interesting magical item than it is wonderment. So while I think there is great benefit to players being able to craft items and by doing so need some rules to govern the economy of it, there needs to be less of that on the DM side of the table.

 

[sheadunne]

Maybe 3e's higher degree of customizability exposes the differences between players who embrace that sort of thing and the ones who don't in more stark detail.

I think this is well said.