New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

I think that's a tad unfair. Reading through your original response, I thought you made a fair point. I then read Jameson Courage's response above and thought the points cogent and certainly not to be so easily dismissed.

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

Where is the "forced" in this? I'm not quite connecting that part with the argument at hand. Character options are exactly that. What Jameson Courage suggests seems a cool/efficient way of making what is admittedly a fairly focused feat into one of more general use for the character involved. Good stuff I say.

However, what would be interesting with the gist of what you are saying is a group of "party rewards". These are rewards/abilities that the party as a whole choose and that are helpful to most PCs in the group. One of these could of course be the various crafting feats. This form of party focus is something explicitly developed in Warhammer 3e and something implicitly developed in D&D 4e. I'd like to see this furthered in what ever Monte's working on.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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.

Why take Craft Armor and not, say, Craft Wands? After all, Craft Wands is directly related to the crafter. Just because your group happened to accept bad rules doesn't make the rules good.

I mean, in your example, you talk about bribing NPC's. How often is your group dropping several thousand GP's on a bribe? Often enough that it should cost a feat? Really?

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.

How is that not directly benefiting my character? I now have an organization I can draw upon in game. I have contacts. I have a history within that setting that I can leverage in game. Additionally, this does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone else, unless, I suppose, they come from the same monastery. Here is a perfect example of spending character resources for something that directly benefits my character.

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.

Now this is a mechanic that I like. Trail of Cthulu is full of this sort of thing. 4e, actually, is as well since many of the powers can be used to affect other characters. OTOH, I can spend that point on ME as well. I have the choice.

Your example here is flawed since Craft Armor can't actually be used by the wizard to directly benefit him. He has no choice.

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.

Umm, what? How does having the use of a character only a level or two behind me not quallify as a direct benefit. A cohort does what I tell it to. A cohort does not obey anyone else. It is typically under my direct control, within some limitations. This feat is considered one of the most powerful feats for all the reasons you list, all of which my character is the direct beneficiary.

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

Me, I think you're really stretching here. Again, how often is the party going to need to A) bribe someone B) only be able to bribe someone with magic armor and C) have enough available cash and time to actually do so? I'm going to say that this is nowhere near often enough to justify burning a feat on plus the xp costs.

Where is the "forced" in this? I'm not quite connecting that part with the argument at hand. Character options are exactly that. What Jameson Courage suggests seems a cool/efficient way of making what is admittedly a fairly focused feat into one of more general use for the character involved. Good stuff I say.

It's forced because only the casters can do it, and, for the most part, the caster who chooses to do it can never actually benefit from it. True, he doesn't have to take the feat, but, then that option is never available.

IOW, for the group to be able to do this, the wizard has to take one for the team. Granted, the cleric could do this, and at least he can directly benefit from it, but, again, is it going to be used enough to actually justify the feat? You build magic armor for the group. Ok, fine, that's probably 3 suits. Now, you won't do it again for 4 levels, because that's how long it takes to get to the next "plus".

A feat that you only use every four levels, that costs you xp and money and generally benefits everyone else BUT you is a poorly designed feat.

Note, I'm not talking about the magic item crafting system in general. I do like that actually. I think that groups should have that option. I'm talking about these feats in specific.

 

[pemerton]

How is that not directly benefiting my character? I now have an organization I can draw upon in game. I have contacts. I have a history within that setting that I can leverage in game.

<snip>

It's forced because only the casters can do it, and, for the most part, the caster who chooses to do it can never actually benefit from it. True, he doesn't have to take the feat, but, then that option is never available.

IOW, for the group to be able to do this, the wizard has to take one for the team.

<snip>

A feat that you only use every four levels, that costs you xp and money and generally benefits everyone else BUT you is a poorly designed feat.

I think that this is related to (1) the relative value of a feat in D&D character building, and (2) what counts as contributing to the strength of a PC.

In Burning Wheel it is possible to spend character building resources on hostile relationships - like the monastery JamesonCourage describes, except they are your enemies. This doesn't directly create a PC resource, but it does create something the player can use in the course of play to establish and build his/her PC. Roughly speaking, the resources are being spent not to improve PC effectiveness but to improve PC screentime and integration into the fiction.

In one of my RM campaigns three of the PCs were samurai - a clan leader, his cousin, and their retainer - and the cousin PC was an excellent weapon and armour smith. Over the course of the campaign he made weapons for the clan leader, and armour for the retainer, but I believe never built anything for himself. Nevertheless, that activity conributed to the PC - it helped define his role in the story, and his character (selfless in the service of others).

I think that it played a role, in the building of that character, that buying up the crafting skills, while affecting his capacity as a samurai warrior, didn't affect that capacity in a terribly adverse fashion. He remained a viable warrior at all levels of play.

The Craft Arms and Armour feat, if it is bad design, is so (I think) only against an assumption as to what a feat should do in D&D (ie improve PC effectiveness) and what the point of play is in D&D (ie rather gamist in orientation). I can see how those who have drifted their 3E play away from those assumptions wouldn't find the feat a problem. I can even think that the feat (like the Crafting rules) might have been put into the system precisely to support that sort of drift.

The same guy who played the samurai swordsmith in my RM game now plays a wizard in my 4e game who has, among his feats: 2 familiar feats; Deep Sage; and Skill Training (Dungeoneering). He is also multi-classed as an Invoker, so that he could Paragon as a Divine Philosopher, despite having a 6-point split between his WIS and INT. And he knows, and spends resources on casting, many rituals. (Mostly informational ones, but it's likely that the first magic items he builds - he hasn't made any yet - won't be for himself.)

This isn't the sort of PC one would take into Lair Assault - but it is completely viable in the game that we play. (In the interests of full disclosure, I should probably state that this PC also does also have Expanded Spell, Action Surge and Additional Implement Mastery. And his dailies include Flaming Sphere and Wall of Fire. Like the samurai, he's not at all completely gimped.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why take Craft Armor and not, say, Craft Wands? After all, Craft Wands is directly related to the crafter.

Because generally, weapons and armor is more beneficial to the world at large (anyone can pick up a sword, but most people can't use a wand), so more people are willing to befriend you / let you bribe them / let you craft them things / directly beneficial to other party member / etc.

Just because your group happened to accept bad rules doesn't make the rules good.

That's true. Then again, saying that doesn't mean that the rule is bad, either, does it?

I mean, in your example, you talk about bribing NPC's. How often is your group dropping several thousand GP's on a bribe? Often enough that it should cost a feat? Really?

I'm sorry, if the group I play with decides they want to do this, are they having badwrongfun? Because, if that's the case, just let me know and I'll tell them, and we'll change the way we play right away

How is that not directly benefiting my character? I now have an organization I can draw upon in game. I have contacts. I have a history within that setting that I can leverage in game.

First things first. First, just because you were raised in a monastery, it doesn't mean you can draw on it. You can take the resource "beaten up orphan" but it doesn't give you a resource to draw on. I'm not sure where you made that leap.

Secondly, how is this different from making arms and armor for people you know? I mean, even if this background does benefit you, it's not directly. Spending this resource indirectly helps you achieve your goal, just like crafting arms and armor.

Additionally, this does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone else, unless, I suppose, they come from the same monastery. Here is a perfect example of spending character resources for something that directly benefits my character.

I think you're being inconsistent here. This background resource indirectly benefits your character (other people can help you). Craft arms and armor is the same way (other people can help you). This is the same thing.

Now this is a mechanic that I like. Trail of Cthulu is full of this sort of thing. 4e, actually, is as well since many of the powers can be used to affect other characters. OTOH, I can spend that point on ME as well. I have the choice.

Your example here is flawed since Craft Armor can't actually be used by the wizard to directly benefit him. He has no choice.

Um, let me take a look at what I wrote again. Indeed, the first thing about it, really. "You can spend one to affect any other character in some minor or major way..." Of course, I'm pointing out that you cannot affect yourself. That means that you can only benefit yourself indirectly (such as by improving an ally, which might aid you... much like crafting arms and armor).

Umm, what? How does having the use of a character only a level or two behind me not quallify as a direct benefit.

Because you cannot use the feat directly to help your character. You've gained allies that will aid you. This feat allows outside forces to help aid your character... much like craft arms and armor.

A cohort does what I tell it to.

This is only to an extent. If you mistreat the cohort, he'll leave you. He's loyal, but he's not necessarily stupid. According to the 3.5 DMG (page 104), "mistreated cohorts become disloyal and eventually leave or even seek revenge against their employers." So, they definitely will only do as they're told to a certain extent, as they're subservient but not dominated.

A cohort does not obey anyone else.

Again, I'm not sure where you got this. This can definitely be the case, but I assume that many cohorts might be subject to the laws of their church (if a cleric or paladin), druidic circle (if a druid), wizard school (if a wizard), and so on. Most of the time, they probably won't serve anyone else, but I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says they don't obey anyone else.

It is typically under my direct control, within some limitations.

While this is widely how this feat is dealt with (as are animal companions), I'm not sure where the official ruling on this is (or if there is one). I know that in my campaigns, animal companions, familiars, and (especially) followers / cohorts were not directly controlled by the players, though the characters had great sway. However, none of them were near "directly controlled, within some limitations." That sounds way too close to Dominate to me.

This feat is considered one of the most powerful feats for all the reasons you list, all of which my character is the direct beneficiary.

Well, if that's the case, your character also directly benefits from outfitting a group that supports him (or his goals) by supplying the party, by garnering political pull that would otherwise be outside his reach, by making allies by giving them weapons or armor, by making contacts by being sought out for your services, etc. These are just as much of a direct benefit as the Leadership feat.

Me, I think you're really stretching here.

I'm not. Again, consulted four players on this tonight when we were hanging out (not playing, just chilling) and they think you disagreeing is funny. Our mileage has varied.

Again, how often is the party going to need to A) bribe someone

Depends on the party.

B) only be able to bribe someone with magic armor

Hardly ever?

and C) have enough available cash and time to actually do so?

Most of the time? In the campaign I played in with this party (over 2,000 hours of gaming), the PCs started off ages 21-27, and died of old age in their 90's. Needless to say, they had a lot of down time in between their adventures. Some campaigns are nonstop, some aren't. I still feel like you're making a lot of assumptions here.

I'm going to say that this is nowhere near often enough to justify burning a feat on plus the xp costs.

This is slightly baffling to me. Why not include making items in a low magic setting, political pull, making weapons/armor for allies, making money, and so on. These all seem to directly benefit your character. Now, these may not enough to swing how much you like the feat (and, like I said, I don't use it). However, the feat can provide just as much direct benefit as what you've outlined with Leadership.

It's forced because only the casters can do it, and, for the most part, the caster who chooses to do it can never actually benefit from it. True, he doesn't have to take the feat, but, then that option is never available.

IOW, for the group to be able to do this, the wizard has to take one for the team. Granted, the cleric could do this, and at least he can directly benefit from it, but, again, is it going to be used enough to actually justify the feat? You build magic armor for the group. Ok, fine, that's probably 3 suits. Now, you won't do it again for 4 levels, because that's how long it takes to get to the next "plus".

A feat that you only use every four levels, that costs you xp and money and generally benefits everyone else BUT you is a poorly designed feat.

Note, I'm not talking about the magic item crafting system in general. I do like that actually. I think that groups should have that option. I'm talking about these feats in specific.

Yeah, I still think that maybe your groups just didn't get to use them to their maximum benefit. There's very little reason not to use them to make allies, contacts, benefit allies (which can extend beyond the party... the PCs probably had 25-35 close NPC allies at high levels), use the crafting for political pull, create magic items in a low magic setting, and the like.

Just because you don't, and your campaigns may not accommodate that, it doesn't mean the feat is poorly designed. It means it didn't mesh well with you. Which is fine, of course, but I feel like you're coming off as irrationally dismissive and kinda one-way-trueish. I don't find, "my group doesn't bribe people often, and that's all crafting magic weapons is good for if you're a wizard" particularly persuasive, especially after outlining why that's obviously untrue. But that's just me. I didn't like the feats (or crafting system) enough to keep them for my game. I just think you're being a little contradictory on what constitutes "directly benefiting" a character. But, as always, play what you like

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, it seems to me, if I understand this argument correctly, that if FEAT A doesn't provide a direct, mechanical benefit to a particular character, then it is somehow "broken"?--and the correllary that all such feats that *do* provide a direct, mechanical benefit to the particular character are therefore, entirely superior?

By extension, then, such feats designed that do not provide such a direct benefit are therefore examples of poor design?

Well, hopefully I'm not out of it entirely in understanding.

With the great number of feats--and skills--there are naturally some that have a more direct, personal benefit than others, and especially so in combat-based circumstances. (Obviously, Power Attack, Weapon Specialization, and Maximize Spell have distinct advantages over feats such as Negotiator, Charming Demeanor, Gifted Potter or Distinguished Tobacco Merchant.

However, it would seem that such a broad variety of feats and skills exist not just for simulationist purposes, but also as 'tools" in which to build, within the story of the milieu, characters with particular profiles and distinctions.

In my own campaigns, I typically have players that pay close attention to strange, off-beat feats, or seemingly unassuming skills, whether they be Craft (Carpentry), Craft Wondrous Item, or Perform (Singing) and Perform (Dancing). None of these feats and skills provide great power or benefit to the particular character necessarily in a direct manner, but indirectly?--such skills and feats can be very beneficial.

The value of such atypical feats and skills may be seen as more valuable to particular players because of a particular vision for the character they are playing, and the individualistic story-development that such a character is involved with--none of which may necessarily have a large personal benefit, or provide a benefit to the rest of the party in any kind of routine, predictable manner, but merely enhance an occasional chance at gaining some advantage due to a particular set of circumstances.

I think that's ok, too. Taking feats and developing skills with an eye towards enhancing the story, adding colour to the individual character, and so on, even if such does not provide direct mechanical benefit to the character is certainly not "broken" or an example of poor design.

Always expecting every feat or skill to provide a concrete, predictable, direct mechanical benefit that is chiefly focused on some kind of combat advantage or even a strict, mechanical benefit seems to be limiting and narrowing to me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[billd91]

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.

There are at least three things wrong with this argument.

1) The game design doesn't force anything with respect to feat selection, much less magic item creation feats.

2) A wizard making magic arms and armor gains companions he depends on in life and death situations that are more formidable.

3) Benefits gained may be subjective. If the player feels that setting out to be an "armorer worthy of kings" is what he wants his wizard to do, then he's gaining a benefit from the craft arms and armor feat. He's playing the character the way he wants to (and with real mechanical downstream effects too).

 

[howandwhy99]

This is a long thread, so regarding the article:

I'm on board for insuring that magic, like mystery, must have an element of the unknown in it to be magical. "This is exactly what this spell, this item, X does" is not magical or mysterious. Cut and dried never is.

The real key to both magic and mystery is the ability to learn through play what the item does - to reveal the initially unknown magic. As long as this is an ongoing journey more can be learned. When we say "nope, that's every single use for this item" we stop the wonder and experimentation. By leaving the stats undisclosed the players learn how valuable an item is, but never quite fully. It always holds a chance of a little more magic power.

Guaranteed PC-to-PC balancing may the justification for apportioning magic, but this balancing isn't really possible anyways. Two points on this: Pooling and combining magic items.

Pooling magic items means different characters share their magic items with each other. If magic items have any kind of numerical benefit, then the players can quickly unbalance themselves from each other. Combining is simply pooling them on a single individual, so he or she can use them best for the given situation. The wizard can lay the smack down with fireballs, but they are a paper tiger. Pool together a cloak of invisibility and flying boots and we have an iconic powerhouse. Are the items the wizard's? They don't have to become so, but players can share character loot with each other. In fact, it's a smart way to play, if you trust your fellow players. Of course, this goes beyond simply magic items. Anything easily shared can be pooled and combined. And, just like powers, players can also choose not to use magic items or any kind of equipment or property when playing the game. When broke and disarmed this is the default mode.

I try and have non-class powers as additional to class earned ones and balance the whole together as a challenge rating. This goes for NPCs too. This leaves class level as a (mostly) reliable separate character rating for balancing. But when rating the team I add in the equipment for an overall accounting of what challenges the could handle.


EDIT: I agree magic items not only require being unknown to be magical, but also must retain their quantified powers within the game to be meaningfully powerful. Handwaving all of magic so it has no consequences wouldn't make it anything. Well, it would be inconsequential.

 

[The Shaman]

Just as an addendum to the discussion, here are the poll results from the magic item article.

Magic items should be...
A reward given out by the DM. 87.3%
A part of character advancement chosen by players. 12.7%​

Reward from the dungeon master for the win.

 

[Hussar]

Things have gotten bogged down in the idea that I'm talking about character power. I'm not. I'm talking about utility. SHARK says,

In my own campaigns, I typically have players that pay close attention to strange, off-beat feats, or seemingly unassuming skills, whether they be Craft (Carpentry), Craft Wondrous Item, or Perform (Singing) and Perform (Dancing). None of these feats and skills provide great power or benefit to the particular character necessarily in a direct manner, but indirectly?--such skills and feats can be very beneficial.

How do these feats not directly give benefit to the character? If I take Perform (Dancing), I can dance better. Presumably in the campaign, I will have opportunities to dance and this feat makes me better able to do something.

But, Craft Armor does not benefit the wizard directly at all. At best, he can make stuff to give to other people. He can do that with other feats, such as Craft Wonderous, and still have a direct benefit.

Oh, and BTW,

I'm sorry, if the group I play with decides they want to do this, are they having badwrongfun? Because, if that's the case, just let me know and I'll tell them, and we'll change the way we play right away

Umm, how is this not completely dodging my question? I didn't make ANY badwrongfun shots at all. I asked a straight question: HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN?

And, does it happen often enough, that you have an NPC that you want to bribe with a several thousand GP gift, that can only be done with magic armor, that it justifies spending a feat and xp on?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Things have gotten bogged down in the idea that I'm talking about character power. I'm not. I'm talking about utility.

... right. Me too.

How do these feats not directly give benefit to the character? If I take Perform (Dancing), I can dance better. Presumably in the campaign, I will have opportunities to dance and this feat makes me better able to do something.

That makes sense. Presumably in the campaign, I will have opportunities to create magical weapons or armor and this feat makes me better able to achieve my goals.

But, Craft Armor does not benefit the wizard directly at all.

I'd really like a response to how a wizard can use the feat to gain direct benefits. If the person with Perform (Dancing) gains a benefit because he can use the feat to make him better able to do something, then why doesn't it count when a Wizard uses Craft Arms and Armor makes weapons to improve comrades (who help protect him and accomplish his goals), create magic items in a low magic setting, bribe people, make contacts (people seeking you out for your skill or services, breaking into an established market with obviously wealthy individuals, etc.), attain political pull by providing services (or withholding them), making money, etc.?

At best, he can make stuff to give to other people.

I feel like I've shown how this isn't true. Or is about as true as "at best, a guy with Leadership can tell other people what to do" or "at best, a guy with Perform (Dance) can dance."

He can do that with other feats, such as Craft Wonderous, and still have a direct benefit.

Yep. Though, like I've pointed out, anyone can pick up and use a sword. Sometimes in the setting, armor or weapons might be more beneficial. But the point is, really, that it can directly benefit your character, not that another crafting feat could arguably do it better. Remember, you were the one who compared it to a Fighter taking a metamagic feat, which literally cannot be used, much less aid him or anyone else in any way. That's what I disagreed with.

Umm, how is this not completely dodging my question? I didn't make ANY badwrongfun shots at all. I asked a straight question: HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN?

This is amusing. You ignore my the entire post, but ask me to say how often bribery in particular happens. I'll answer you, and then you address everything else I listed it can do, explaining to me how that doesn't aid the Wizard. Deal?

Bribery with magical weapons or armor happens pretty rarely. Probably about once every other level, at most.

Your turn.

And, does it happen often enough, that you have an NPC that you want to bribe with a several thousand GP gift, that can only be done with magic armor, that it justifies spending a feat and xp on?

I answered this, explicitly:

This is slightly baffling to me. Why not include making items in a low magic setting, political pull, making weapons/armor for allies, making money, and so on. These all seem to directly benefit your character.

Why are you only considering bribery, and no other method I've listed? And, at that, why is bribery not directly aiding your character?

Also, why are you trying to make me justify mechanics I didn't include in my own SRD-based game? I said that the feat can directly benefit your character through a variety of methods (and named several). You've said, "bribery doesn't crop up often enough for it to be worth it." This doesn't refute my disagreement with you, nor did I attempt to champion the value of the feat. I've said that your made a false analogy by saying it's just as directly beneficial for a Wizard to take Craft Arms and Armor as it is for a Fighter to take a metamagic feat (that is, there's no direct benefit to either). I disagreed with that.

Please, show me what I'm missing here, because it seems like using the feat to "make me better able to do something" is just as valid as the Perform (Dance) skill. I've listed ways that Craft Arms and Armor makes you better able to do things. This seems inconsistent. What am I missing?