Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5703038" data-attributes="member: 6668292">You said the following: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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification