New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Vael]

The main problem that I have with 4e magic items, is that you need them to keep the d20 in the right ranges ... aka, the "tyranny of accuracy". What I don't mind is the damage boost.

So, if I were making 5e, or revamping 4e's magic item system, is that a +X sword or +X wand, only adds the X to damage, and I'd make sure that PC accuracy is fine, with or without magic items. Not sure what I'd do with +X armor, though.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Oooh, I can spend my own Xp so you get a +1 AC at a cost of a feat that is absolutely useless to me. Please, can I have more of that?

You said the following:

"Oh, you get bonus feats anyway" isn't really a good argument IMO. That's like telling the fighter he should take meta-magic feats. After all, he's got feats to spare. And they're about as useful as Craft Armor is to a wizard.

I pointed out that it was a poor analogy. Disliking it because it doesn't directly help the guy who takes it is fine. Saying it's completely useless to everyone (like a Fighter who takes a meta-magic feat) is a poor analogy, because it's obviously flawed.

Now, if there was no feat cost or xp cost, then fine. No problem. But, expecting a player to burn a feat (and also presuming that you have a wizard in the group and not something else which doesn't get these bonus feats) and the xp for pretty much no reward other than to help someone else in the group is not a winning game design IMO.

I didn't like it too much, so it didn't stick around in my game (no feat needed to make magic items, though the cost is steeper than D&D's). However, I will say that in my longest running 3.5 campaign (which we sunk over 2,000 hours of play into), both of the high level casters took a crafting feat (the Sorcerer took arms and armor, and he took it before the other caster got wondrous items). And, he had no problem paying the experience on party members, as long as it wasn't on a ton of weapons, or ill-spent. He was making magic items for the three warriors in the party before the other guy even grabbed the wondrous item feat.

So, as far as game design goes, it seemed very reasonable to my players. It's not my choice for game design (which is why I didn't keep it), but it's definitely not poorly designed just because it takes up resources. I like my magic items rare, and it helped accomplished that. I still made them rare in my game, I just took out the feat cost (you can now make magic items without any feat).

I think that, depending on what you want, how good of a design the crafting system is will vary. If you want rare wands, it's probably poor design. If you want rare magic weapons, it's probably decent design. My groups prefers rare weapons, and never uses wands, so it clicked really well for us (though cheap wands would have become a problem if my group used them).

If you want the feat to have a direct use for the caster, it's poor design (it still has secondary use to the caster in terms of making money, magic items for friends, pulling political strings by providing magical equipment, etc.). No, a +1 ghost touch bastard sword doesn't help the Sorcerer. However, making a +1 ghost touch bastard sword for a king (that lives in a land with ghosts in it at a place called the Pit to the Underworld) in a game where magic items are rare, it has a real and tangible benefit to the caster (political pull).

I don't like its design, and changed it. You don't like its design. That's cool with me. However, a mage taking the weapon/armor crafting feat gets exponentially more use out of it than any Fighter that takes the Silent Spell feat, especially if the setting is accommodating. That's what I was pointing out. Saying you don't like it is discounting what I said, but it certainly isn't refuting it. As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

If you want the feat to have a direct use for the caster, it's poor design (it still has secondary use to the caster in terms of making money, magic items for friends, pulling political strings by providing magical equipment, etc.). No, a +1 ghost touch bastard sword doesn't help the Sorcerer. However, making a +1 ghost touch bastard sword for a king (that lives in a land with ghosts in it at a place called the Pit to the Underworld) in a game where magic items are rare, it has a real and tangible benefit to the caster (political pull).

I'd go even farther and say that there is a night and day difference if "good design" is based some kind of optimization goal or if "good design" is based on character concept realization.

Absolutely, everyone should "play what they want". But my lack of enthusiasm for 4E has never prevented me from saying it is good at what it was intended to do. It is well designed, I just don't much care for it. (Now I *HAVE* disputed what some fans CLAIM it does.... )

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd go even farther and say that there is a night and day difference if "good design" is based some kind of optimization goal or if "good design" is based on character concept realization.

I agree.

Absolutely, everyone should "play what they want". But my lack of enthusiasm for 4E has never prevented me from saying it is good at what it was intended to do. It is well designed, I just don't much care for it. (Now I *HAVE* disputed what some fans CLAIM it does.... )

Or what some fans claim past editions fail to do.

 

[pemerton]

In a narrative game, it makes since to only give longbows when you have an archer (everything Conan found helped Conan in some way, more or less). However, my group gets drawn out of the game when a demon lord melee warrior they're fighting has a magical longbow but not a magical sword. I mean, he has the resources to acquire magical equipment, so why does he carry a magical longbow on him, but not a magical sword?

I don't think the answer is to make him wield a magical longbow, either.

Of course not! The answer is that, after you kill the demon lord, your god bestows a blessing upon you, and the enhancement bonus of your longbow increases by 1. Or, after killing the demon lord, you are now such a superlative hero that your longbow strikes even truer than it did before (modelled mechanically by increasing its enhancement bonus by 1). Or whatever.

There is nothing in the game - either the mechanical or the story elements - that requires the acquisition of magical items to be a literal taking of things from defeated enemies.

 

[Hussar]

I don't like its design, and changed it. You don't like its design. That's cool with me. However, a mage taking the weapon/armor crafting feat gets exponentially more use out of it than any Fighter that takes the Silent Spell feat, especially if the setting is accommodating. That's what I was pointing out. Saying you don't like it is discounting what I said, but it certainly isn't refuting it. As always, play what you like

What use is the mage getting out of Craft Armor?

What use is the fighter getting out of Silent Spell?

The answer to both of those questions are the same. Now the GROUP might get more use out of Craft Armor, but, that wasn't the point. Game design that forces one player to spend character resources to gain something that does absolutely nothing for that character is poor design.

Now, if the group could spend resources for this, then fine and dandy. But, forcing only once character to spend these resources and expect them to do so without gaining any benefit is not good design.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Of course not! The answer is that, after you kill the demon lord, your god bestows a blessing upon you, and the enhancement bonus of your longbow increases by 1. Or, after killing the demon lord, you are now such a superlative hero that your longbow strikes even truer than it did before (modelled mechanically by increasing its enhancement bonus by 1). Or whatever.

Depending on the type of game, I'm completely okay with this being one form of implementation. I'd like to see a way to have this manifest without a forced narrative, but I'm not sure how that's possible.

There is nothing in the game - either the mechanical or the story elements - that requires the acquisition of magical items to be a literal taking of things from defeated enemies.

I think there's a strong implication that this is normal, however.

What use is the mage getting out of Craft Armor?

I'll go back and quote myself:

(it still has secondary use to the caster in terms of making money, magic items for friends, pulling political strings by providing magical equipment, etc.). No, a +1 ghost touch bastard sword doesn't help the Sorcerer. However, making a +1 ghost touch bastard sword for a king (that lives in a land with ghosts in it at a place called the Pit to the Underworld) in a game where magic items are rare, it has a real and tangible benefit to the caster (political pull).

So, there you go. Money, improving allies, political pull, to name three. It'd also be useful for making long term allies or contacts, bribery, and many other potential uses.

What use is the fighter getting out of Silent Spell?

Absolutely none.

The answer to both of those questions are the same.

No, they aren't.

Now the GROUP might get more use out of Craft Armor, but, that wasn't the point.

I've pointed out more uses than just the group getting uses out of it.

Game design that forces one player to spend character resources to gain something that does absolutely nothing for that character is poor design.

I disagree with this in general, but I also don't believe it's true in this case.

Now, if the group could spend resources for this, then fine and dandy. But, forcing only once character to spend these resources and expect them to do so without gaining any benefit is not good design.

First, it's only "forcing" if you want to craft magic items. That's your call, it's not inherently forced (though if it was, it'd probably still be fine in my eyes, as it's not like you wasted a choice on it). However, in this scenario, there's a plethora of tangible benefits to a caster who takes the feat, especially if the setting is one that complements the feat choice (which generally means rarer magic items in the setting, but it could be just a lower number of spellcasters in general, or something else entirely). I don't find your arguments accurate or compelling. But, as always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

There is nothing in the game - either the mechanical or the story elements - that requires the acquisition of magical items to be a literal taking of things from defeated enemies.

I think there's a strong implication that this is normal, however.

Both Adventurer's Vault and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium (or whatever it's called) discuss the method I describe - which is also canvassed in 3E's Oriental Adventures.

The key mechanical differences between AD&D, 3E and 4e are in the ways in which treasure is associated with adventuring. In AD&D it is mostly by lair or by room. In 3E it is mostly by creature. In 4e it is by parcels, which are defined by reference to PC levels, not GM-placed encounters. So 4e best facilitates the approach I describe. 3E makes it next-easiest - generate the treasure for a monster fought, but apply it in the way I describe. AD&D makes it the hardest, because of its primarily geographic conception of the location of treasure.

I'd like to see a way to have this manifest without a forced narrative, but I'm not sure how that's possible.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The GM can describe the "blessing" or "heroic enhancement" in accordance with his/her conception of the situation, or in accordance with a player wishlist, depending on the convention in use at the particular table. It doesn't seem to me that any particular narrative is forced.

 

[Hussar]

So, there you go. Money, improving allies, political pull, to name three. It'd also be useful for making long term allies or contacts, bribery, and many other potential uses.

Yeah, I'm sure I could pull up all sorts of mythical examples out of thin air as well. Thing is, all of those things that you list off could just as easily be done with straight up cash, and wouldn't actually cost me character resources.

But, let's at least try to be serious here. Expecting this kind of thing from a feat is ridiculous. After all, I can get exactly the same effects from say, Craft Wonderous, and still not have wasted a feat on things I can never use.

But, I think the most telling point here is this one:

Game design that forces one player to spend character resources to gain something that does absolutely nothing for that character is poor design.

I disagree with this in general, but I also don't believe it's true in this case.

To me, this is pretty much open and shut. It is always poor game design to have an element which requires one character to spend resources for which he gains no direct benefit in order to be utilized. To me, this is bad design, full stop.

Can you think of an example where this is good design?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Both Adventurer's Vault and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium (or whatever it's called) discuss the method I describe - which is also canvassed in 3E's Oriental Adventures.

Not quite core. By far the most common implementation I've seen is looting. This is, of course, only based off of my perception, so it's anecdotal. I don't think your sources contradict my point that the norm is different from "other ways" to accomplish the same task.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The GM can describe the "blessing" or "heroic enhancement" in accordance with his/her conception of the situation, or in accordance with a player wishlist, depending on the convention in use at the particular table. It doesn't seem to me that any particular narrative is forced.

I mean more in terms of scaling power or the assumption of magical items. I'd prefer a system that supports as much narrative range as possible, and while a system that gives me a lot of ways to explain magic items (scaling to personal power, looted from enemies, upgraded through magic, blessed by the gods, etc.) is nice, it's still forcing the narrative of the assumption of magic items or "heroic scaling" (for things like inherent bonuses). I'd much prefer a system that goes gritty as well as gonzo. Something like, "here's the rules for gritty, they're base (because they're the simplest). If you want a highly fantastic game, here's the rules on how to expand it (giving inherent bonuses and the like). If you want magic items, here's the rules on how to add them, what they do, and how they'll affect things."

Yeah, I'm sure I could pull up all sorts of mythical examples out of thin air as well.

... so, you agree with me then?

Thing is, all of those things that you list off could just as easily be done with straight up cash, and wouldn't actually cost me character resources.

Well, considering cash is a character resource (as in, not just consumable, but also strongly tied into PC power in 3.X), I have to disagree here. You can actually make arms and armor at cost, and if the party reimburses you for your work, you're down a little XP, but everyone ends up ahead on money. That's not the case if you're buying armor, bribing, paying for contacts, buying allies(?), providing magical gear that doesn't exist(?), and the like.

But, let's at least try to be serious here.

That would be wonderful.

Expecting this kind of thing from a feat is ridiculous. After all, I can get exactly the same effects from say, Craft Wonderous, and still not have wasted a feat on things I can never use.

Depending on the setting and what other characters have, Craft Armor is a better choice. As I said, in my group, one spellcaster had weapons/armor, and one had wondrous items. They didn't want overlap, they wanted diversity. And, as I said, they picked arms and armor before wondrous items. I think you're projecting your assumptions to everyone's game.

But, I think the most telling point here is this one:

To me, this is pretty much open and shut. It is always poor game design to have an element which requires one character to spend resources for which he gains no direct benefit in order to be utilized. To me, this is bad design, full stop.

Can you think of an example where this is good design?

I can think of a lot, especially in the more narrative games. Let's say you have to spend a character resource, like, say, Background Points. Depending on how you spend them, the world will be affected. For example, if you bought the Background of "raised in a monastery" then the world would have a monastery in it, whereas it might not if you didn't take it (and you taking it might indicate where it is, or how it interacts with the world). If the goal of the character resource is not to increase power of the character, but is instead to help shape the world, that's fine.

Or, take Plot Points. You can spend one to affect any other character in some minor or major way (depending on the number of Plot Points spent). For example, if a party member was looking for a clue, you could spend a Plot Point to let them find it. Or, if the bad guy was about to get captured by the cops, you could let him escape (to further the plot in a more interesting direction, or because you have other plans for him, it really doesn't matter). This is a character resource that definitely doesn't directly help your character in particular, but it's a fine design.

In 3.X, you can take the Leadership feat. It allows for people to follow you, and for you to have their loyalty. It gives nothing inherently to your character, though it's well known that it's one of the most powerful feats in 3.X. The flexibility, character combinations, and extra raw power (through the action economy if nothing else) is evident in the feat. However, the feat does not directly increase your character's power (it brings in allies to help you, much in the same way the magic weapons/armor feat allows allies to help you more easily). This feat is also fine for its design, including the advice to carefully allow it.

But, hey, these are just off the top of my head. It's nowhere near as open and shut as it is for you. I'm okay with you not agreeing with me, but I still don't find your disagreement compelling. As always, play what you like