Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8213086" data-attributes="member: 6987520">No, I don't mind (generally). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />No, it isn't standard, what I am working on is (quite literally) a "recipe" book for magic items. As every chef will make changes to create their own recipe, these are examples for the players who can either use it or try to come up with their own.Sorry, but I am pretty set on ability checks. One thing I HATE about 5E is the assumption that "heroes" can do things automatically ALL THE TIME (see the recent climbing an 80-foot tower thread for details <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).You are not crafting something mundane, but something magical and there should always be a chance of failure IMO, at least for the untrained or poorly trained.With DC 10s, the odds are not great most people who want to craft an item and take the necessary proficiencies will fail at all--worst case is a set-back. Notice, you have to fail the check by 5 or more for anything really serious to go wrong.I do like [USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER]'s suggestions for failures instead of just "ruining" the attempt and will probably work to develop things along those lines, but I will also probably increase the DCs for some items as well. shrugYes, that is why I settled on DC 10 for most of the stuff I've already done. 10 is "Easy" in 5E. And there is a consequence to failure--the materials are ruined, the enchantment doesn't hold, you performed the tanning wrong on such a difficult hide, etc.In general, a PC trying to craft a cloak of displacement should be looking at +6 or better modifiers anyway, so with DC 10 success is certain if you do everything else. (FWIW, we house-rule a 1 ALWAYS fails, but I am not imposing that in this document.)I think everything that has a significant consequence if you fail should have a check, yes. But I REALLY don't want to get into that type of discussion/debate again with anyone. I'm tired of it, personally. When I am done, and if I post this or offer it for sale, any DM or table can just ignore the checks if they want to play that way. For me, THAT is boring and not at all exciting nor challenging, both as a DM and player.And as I said, I will certainly explore alternatives to total failure. <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=":)" />Thanks, I am glad you like it. See above for my response on removing checks, LOL. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The tanning/weaving/tailoring process takes 50 days less a "month". What is a month? In my game, yes, it is 30 days, but as that can vary from table to table, etc. the process's individual parts of not set, just the length of the entire thing.LOL, yeah, I don't bother spell checking stuff until I am done with it, but thanks for pointing it out! <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=":)" />Yes, this is the process my PC used in making her own in our 1-20th level game. I had to come up with it, and my DM approved it.Thus, originally I was going to call it "Ferrlaun's Fabulous Folio For Fabricating Fantastic Fings" (not joking, btw) but decided on something simpler. <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=":)" />Ideally, in my dreams, as a published product this would me akin to Xanathar and Volo with comments by my PC concerning certain items, and each "recipe" would be from different creators.Sigh... if only... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />As noted above, I have to disagree for a couple reasons:1) The encourage interested players to have their character invest in tools and other proficiencies.2) To my mind, crafting magical items should not EVER be a standard and automatic process. The system in XGtE is laughable IMO. I know 5E is supposed to be "simple", but seriously folks--give me a break!To point #2, as I've mentioned above DMs/tables can ignore that part (if I ever distribute this) or make it so proficiency alone is sufficient.Finally, to that point...In 5E this is a faulty assumption.Lacking proficiency in 5E is more akin to lacking "special training", it does not mean a lack of knowledge or ability, just a lack of focus on that knowledge or ability. Your ability score, itself, includes training:[ATTACH=full]133552[/ATTACH]FWIW I am not saying I necessarily agree with this, just that is how 5E is supposed to work as I understand it. shrugNow, that last part of the first sentence "overcome a challenge" is key and (for better or worse) subjective to every single DM. To me, the level of quality, the precise techniques in craftsmanship, etc. is challenging and the PC succeeds by making the check. If you view them as mundane and not a challenge, you would see no need for a check. There is nothing wrong with either way, IMO, and so I will err on the side of being inclusive for checks since it is easier for you to remove them than for others to add them.Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. Whether I agree or not, they are always appreciated. <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=":)" />Especially this one...I'll have to give that some thought as I am well under way to a draft of the "first installment". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification