D&D 5E What do you want out of crafting rules?

[FitzTheRuke]

I would like to see a suite of effects that items can be given that work similar to magical enhancements, but are fluffed as non-magical.

(For example, in 4e, there was a magic axe that had a power that allowed you to knock an opponent prone once per encounter. In a non-magical game I gave it to a player and called it a "Bearded Axe" - you would hook the beard on an opponent and throw them prone. Nothing magical about that.)

I tend to find that minor magical enchantments are nearly always easy to come up with non-magical fluff. To my mind, those sorts of enchantments SHOULD be non-magical, giving the game a range of low-magic before it gets into bigger magic at higher levels. I mean, what's so magical about a +1 bonus? It could just as easily be a well-made item.

Those sorts of things should be crafted. And to a lesser extent, bought. On the other hand, I think that really powerful magic items should NOT be bought NOR crafted.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Personally, I want a simple, straightforward, and fun means of creating consumable items like alchemical compounds, healing salves, interesting foods, maybe the occasional magic potion or scroll.

I'm not really interested in creating the same boring lineup of +x Whatevers.

Right! This. More non-magical items that are actually useful (they need to be better than 5e's alchemical items, which are only worth using at very low levels) would give you something to spend your money (and/or crafting skills) on.

I much prefer this sort of thing to buying magic items. This should also leave actual magic items design-space to be amazing and awesome.

 

[loverdrive]

When my DM got me to make Arcana checks for brewing healing potions when Arcana is NOT a skill I'm proficient in as even Xanathar's Guide I don't see why that should be an Arcana check when Herbalist Kit literally screams a Nature check!

Well, actually, Herbalist Kit screams Herbalist Kit check...

 

[Asisreo]

Right! This. More non-magical items that are actually useful (they need to be better than 5e's alchemical items, which are only worth using at very low levels) would give you something to spend your money (and/or crafting skills) on.

I much prefer this sort of thing to buying magic items. This should also leave actual magic items design-space to be amazing and awesome.

I get the reason why they didn't do something like this: for starters, it would have the DM somehow think these high-tier alchemical-yet-mundane gear would be found in the lonely village's shop along with the plate mail armor nobody could have possibly obtained.

But also, if a character can craft a weapon that did, say 10d10 damage on-hit, they'd probably do everything in their power to create these weapons at level 1 and possibly break the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Acquisition of the ingredients and formulae is the adventuring part, not the actual forging or following the formula.

And that pretty much indicates the problem of all magic items crafting systems: by giving you all the formulas, they take away the adventuring part.

 

[Vael]

And that pretty much indicates the problem of all magic items crafting systems: by giving you all the formulas, they take away the adventuring part.

It also gives non-wizards reasons to go through old tomes, sure Druids aren't looking to scribe spells into their spellbook, but they could still craft a magic item from a found formula.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I get the reason why they didn't do something like this: for starters, it would have the DM somehow think these high-tier alchemical-yet-mundane gear would be found in the lonely village's shop along with the plate mail armor nobody could have possibly obtained.

But also, if a character can craft a weapon that did, say 10d10 damage on-hit, they'd probably do everything in their power to create these weapons at level 1 and possibly break the game.

But... that's easy to fix. You just make them something that you can't make at level one, using the usual methods to control such things. Also, simple guidelines (which would work for plate mail too - plate mail could itself be one of these types of things) for what is available where is not that difficult to implement.

 

[Imaculata]

I have a lot of thoughts about crafting.

First and fore most, it should be a means of creating items that are better than stuff you can buy. It shouldn't be a way to save money. Instead, it should be a gold sink that creates unique things.

I would like crafting to be part of the storytelling. It should be a way to forge your legend and to work towards something. Ideally, it should lead to further adventures.

What it should not be, is months of downtime where your party waits for you to create this one thing. It makes practical sense, but it does not benefit play.

What it should also not be, is a pit you dump experience points into. It makes no sense that crafting an item makes you less experienced, plus having level inequallity between the party members is undesirable to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Any PC who plans to create magic items should, IMO, naturally pick up the proficiencies in the skills and tools that will best increase their chances of success.

I'm a bit confused by this.

A PC in 5E cannot do that.

A PC in 5E has (typically) 4-5 Skills chosen at character creation, likely for their utility in adventuring or because they make RP sense. They cannot typically be changed and getting a new one is absolutely non-trivial (and simply not possible in some games). Getting a new Skill would be a far bigger achievement than obtaining a magic item in most cases. Tool proficiencies are a bit easier - they just need a lot of downtime. The chances of the stars aligning and any given PC having all the relevant skills for a magic item seem pretty low - with this example we have Arcana and Survival - unlikely to be found on the same PC, and even more unlikely that said PC is good at both.

Presumably what you mean is, rather than pick up the skills themselves, they would obtain access to them? Most likely through other party members but possibly through NPCs. That would make a lot more sense. Many high-quality goods have involved multiple people and skillsets in their creation.

PCs can't boost their numbers. They're basically maxing out at Stat Mod (+5) +Proficiency Mod (+6) +Advantage +Guidance (+1d4) - I think that's what, Level 17+. So the idea is what, that to create more amazing items, PCs should stockpile the components and money, and accept they're quite likely to lose them over multiple attempts? That doesn't seem like your intention. Does it really serve any purpose if the PCs gather incredibly rare components over years in famous adventures, spend months or more making a truly amazing item, and two unlucky rolls delete it all? Is the story of the campaign going to be improved? Because my suspicion is that no-one is going to be laughing about that, even twenty years on. They'll be saying "Yeah that was lame, what an anti-climax!".

But maybe there's a way to make it cool. It seems to me like, instead of this "ruined" thing being unavoidable, if it happens, you should have way to prevent that, at a cost - and for amazing items, that shouldn't be a financial cost, either. Instead maybe another item has to be sacrificed to stabilize the process. Or maybe you have to sacrifice a stat point - sure it'll be from dump-stat, but that'll change their character sheet - they'll remember it forever, and if they do it for an item for someone else, there'll be real gratitude. You could even have more exotic/RP sacrifices for Legendary and Artifacts/Relics, like someone sacrificing their ability to feel loved, or their sense of honour. You're getting really legendary there! They have a choice of course - maybe the price is too damn high, but then they'll remember when they didn't want to sacrifice their ability to feel joy or their memory of their father*, that they realized the cost was too high - and it's a character-defining and potentially campaign-defining moment.

That, to me, actually works with the DCs you're proposing. "LOL U BROKE IT" is a anti-fun anti-climax for a high-end item that's hard to create (and seems wrong, given the vast magical energies involves), but a choice between a permanent sacrifice and just letting it go?

* = As an aside, I had a campaign which featured some sacrifice choices like this years and year ago, and what was amazing was that even pretty min-max-y "power gamer" types were stopped dead by this kind of sacrifice.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm a bit confused by this.

I don't know why...

Any PC who plans to create magic items should, IMO, naturally pick up the proficiencies in the skills and tools that will best increase their chances of success.

A PC in 5E cannot do that.

Of course they can!

A PC can take both Arcana and Survival as background skills, even Leatherworker's tools in place of a language. Backgrounds are completely customizable so you don't even need to touch class skills. Both Arcana and Survival are commonly taken skills IME, YMMV of course.

Most likely through other party members but possibly through NPCs. That would make a lot more sense. Many high-quality goods have involved multiple people and skillsets in their creation.

Which is also an option. No one says the same PC or NPC has to make the checks, only that they need to be made.

PCs can't boost their numbers.

That is just silly to say. You gain proficiency bonus and ASIs when you level. By design, PCs are meant to boost their numbers.

and accept they're quite likely to lose them over multiple attempts?

Hardly. Again, you have to fail rolls by 5 or more for "some significant consequence to failure"--yes, it could be the attempt is completely ruined (my original thought), but as @dave2008 and others have suggested using set-backs and complications also allows for more story in the process and I am all for that.

They'll be saying "Yeah that was lame, what an anti-climax!".

Or they'll be saying that was an epic quest to get everything and we succeeded in making enough preparations to finish crafting it as well. Until you try it, don't knock it. I used the same process, with checks, since AD&D and players have NEVER ONCE complained as you think. NEVER.

But maybe there's a way to make it cool. It seems to me like, instead of this "ruined" thing being unavoidable, if it happens, you should have way to prevent that, at a cost - and for amazing items, that shouldn't be a financial cost, either. Instead maybe another item has to be sacrificed to stabilize the process. Or maybe you have to sacrifice a stat point - sure it'll be from dump-stat, but that'll change their character sheet - they'll remember it forever, and if they do it for an item for someone else, there'll be real gratitude. You could even have more exotic/RP sacrifices for Legendary and Artifacts/Relics, like someone sacrificing their ability to feel loved, or their sense of honour. You're getting really legendary there! They have a choice of course - maybe the price is too damn high, but then they'll remember when they didn't want to sacrifice their ability to feel joy or their memory of their father*, that they realized the cost was too high - and it's a character-defining and potentially campaign-defining moment.

Yes, I've already agreed to other ideas about it--maybe you weren't paying attention or missed it?