Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5844517" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I think the concept was that the wizard could sit in his tower making items while the rest of the PCs did other things and he'd gain some XP while the others were gaining theirs.AD&amp;D (1e certainly) was also designed for troupe play. You weren't expected to have one single character that you played all the time. So your wizard might hole up for a long time in his tower. Meanwhile you'd be playing your other PCs until their timelines converged again. The 1e DMG made a big deal of PC timelines for that reason. You might well even play the wizard's apprentice detailed to go find some rare material or whatever that was needed for the job. That whole aspect of the game wasn't much talked about in 2e, though the creation rules are the same, and 3e just changed the whole paradigm entirely. Once &quot;be out of action for 5 months&quot; no longer means anything at the table then the XP cost was at least a way of making the player pay SOMETHING. 4e makes the price gold, but basically the same thing applies.In any case, unless troupe play is once again the primary concept (and people actually do it), or the DM is willing to have significant plot consequences for time spent, we're reduced to some sort of price. I am not really convinced gold isn't a good cost. It has its problems, but is it really worse than the alternatives? Given that you will have a GP cost of some sort inevitably assigned to items anyway, why bother with anything else?4e has gone to a &quot;make most items with DM permission&quot; model since Essentials. That allows the DM to restrict availability as desired and insert plot consequences into making an item however he wants. That seems like a pretty straightforward and non-metagame approach to me. The exact costs, what is common vs rare and how long enchantment itself takes are up for debate of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5844517, member: 82106"] Yeah, I think the concept was that the wizard could sit in his tower making items while the rest of the PCs did other things and he'd gain some XP while the others were gaining theirs. AD&D (1e certainly) was also designed for troupe play. You weren't expected to have one single character that you played all the time. So your wizard might hole up for a long time in his tower. Meanwhile you'd be playing your other PCs until their timelines converged again. The 1e DMG made a big deal of PC timelines for that reason. You might well even play the wizard's apprentice detailed to go find some rare material or whatever that was needed for the job. That whole aspect of the game wasn't much talked about in 2e, though the creation rules are the same, and 3e just changed the whole paradigm entirely. Once "be out of action for 5 months" no longer means anything at the table then the XP cost was at least a way of making the player pay SOMETHING. 4e makes the price gold, but basically the same thing applies. In any case, unless troupe play is once again the primary concept (and people actually do it), or the DM is willing to have significant plot consequences for time spent, we're reduced to some sort of price. I am not really convinced gold isn't a good cost. It has its problems, but is it really worse than the alternatives? Given that you will have a GP cost of some sort inevitably assigned to items anyway, why bother with anything else? 4e has gone to a "make most items with DM permission" model since Essentials. That allows the DM to restrict availability as desired and insert plot consequences into making an item however he wants. That seems like a pretty straightforward and non-metagame approach to me. The exact costs, what is common vs rare and how long enchantment itself takes are up for debate of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification