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="Kerrick" data-source="post: 3339611" data-attributes="member: 4722">Yeah... In our system, crafting times are all set - a simple weapon takes 2 days, a martial weapon takes 5 days, etc.; the DM can apply an optional modifier (based on the item's size/complexity) if he wishes. A failed check means you lose a day (at least); success by 10 or more means you get more work done, and gain a day (or 2 days, if you're doing the check for a week. This gives them a little more incentive to make the d20 roll instead of just taking 10, makes them actually want to try using some of the higher-end materials, and simulates a master crafter making simple stuff much faster than a novice ("Masterwork daggers! Bah, I can do those in my sleep!")I was thinking of tying it to minimum number of ranks - same concept, basically. Say, a +0 modifier (and below*) requires 3 ranks, +1 7 ranks, up to +10 at 39 ranks. That would limit the really high-end stuff to master smiths. Obviously it wouldn't work for anyone who doesn't play epic; I suppose for those groups, you could halve it again (round up) so the highest stuff requires 20 ranks. I think the problem I was having is that I was trying to tie them to the existing rank system we have for mastercrafting - a +1 masterwork item requires 7 ranks, +2 is 14, all the way up to +10, which is 68 ranks. By dropping the rank requirements, it makes them mesh a lot more easily.*I actually ruled that basic stuff like bronze and iron have a negative craft mod - -2 for bronze and -1 for iron, since we're using steel as the baseline.That's what I'm trying to avoid (forcing them to take 10, not losing the item). I think if they want to take the chance and roll the die, they should benefit from a lucky high roll.Oooh... I like that idea. Right now, DCs are figured on a combination of the item's size and complexity - a generic small difficult item (a gold and diamond tiara) is DC 18. The only problem I can see here is how to simulate small, complex items being more difficult to make - a pocketwatch will be just as hard to make as a grandfather clock because of all the tiny springs, gears, and whatnot, despite there being less to work with.What do you mean by "the material's size", though? Do you mean "How much of the item is made from X"?You mean, they don't worry about where the material came from or what its properties (softness, ductility, etc.) are, just how it works vs. DR? I suppose you could do it that way; I'm not a realist Nazi, but I kind of like the thought of someone with a solid silver sword not being able to use it in every combat unless it were magically hardened (which is why I came up with the silversteel spell).Depends how you split Primary and Seconday. If Primary is "the majority of the item", then yes, it should.</blockquote>

Verification