Crafting Magic Items - a Thought

One irony of recent editions of D&D is that the models for magic item crafting in 3e/4e and 5e are so wildly different and yet I feel both got it wrong.

In the case of 3e and 4e (and Pathfinder), crafting a magic item is mostly a matter of having the money, some easily-gained feats, and some downtime. It's a very 'industrial' process, it's more suited to accounting on a spreadsheet rather than actual gaming, and it's both deadly dull and (almost certainly) unbalanced. (In fact, the ability of Wizards to easily craft themselves scrolls and wands is one of the aspects of 3e that most unbalances the game - it's trivially easy for a Wizard to craft lots of 'utility' scrolls and thus bypass the Vancian casting limits that are the sole balancing factor for the class.)

In the case of 5e, the pendulum has swung almost entirely the other way - magic items are basically something for the PCs to find while adventuring, and are basically not to be bought, sold, or crafted. Which is fine, so far as it goes, but does mean throwing out an aspect of the game that was, at least in concept, pretty cool.

I want PCs to be able to craft items. I just don't want them to trivially craft lots of items, or for those crafted (or bought) items to totally negate the point of adventuring to find those items.

I was musing on this while playing "Lego The Hobbit: The Video Game", where at least a part of the answer came to me. In that game, in addition to collecting the usual studs, you can collect various types of loot. These are later used to craft various items to help you in your quest.

"Hmmm..." I thought.

So, I'd be inclined to break the materials used for crafting items down into four... only one of which can be bought:

• Gold: Used for the purchase of mundane supplies and services, this is the basic building block for crafting items, and remains a half of the 'purchase' price, as before.
• Special Materials: These are rare and undefined magical ingredients of a permanent nature: mithral, adamantium, orichalcum, unobtanium, special crystals, runes, and so on and so forth. These are used in the creation of all permanent magic items, and can be found on adventures but can't be bought in any meaningful quantities.
• Reagents: These are rare and undefined magical ingredients of a transitory nature: special liquids, crystals charged with magical radiation (that will fade), and so on. These are largely collected from slain fantastic beasts. All magic items require at least some reagents, but they're primarily used in crafting potions - reagents last until the next period of downtime and then become useless, but are easily transformed into potions and other alchemic items. (And, likewise, potions and alchemic items can be broken down into reagents, but at a cost.) As with special materials, reagents can be found on adventures but can't be bought.
• Lore: This is, simply put, the knowledge required to craft the item. But, since every item is unique (and because there are no universal "laws of magic"), each item requires an expenditure of lore that needs to be repeated each time. Lore is, of course, found by tracking down books in adventure hoards, but can also be gleaned by studying with dragons, ancient masters, and the like. And, of course, those who are members of "crafting classes" (notably the Artificer, but probably also the Wizard and Cleric, and perhaps all dwarves) can count some or all of their level towards the lore requirements for every item they craft.

The consequence of this is that it adds three new treasure types to the game, which is of at least some value by itself, and also usefully ties into some of the themes of the game. But it also means that the players gain some flexibility as to which magic items they gain (freeing the DM from "wish lists" or players trying to track down specific items - if they really want something, they can go ahead and make it). But, also, since the casters can't simply churn out huge numbers of scrolls easily (due to their limited supply of materials), this should be less destructive to the game than is currently the case.

That said, it has one big weakness - the game would then require breakdowns of the costs in materials, reagents and lore for every item, would need these three items added to the treasure lists, and would also require guidelines for harvesting reagents from slain fantastic beasts!

The Laws of Magic

There's a tendency in RPGs to codify magic very tightly - there are eight schools of magic and everything must neatly fit into those categories; or all magic comes from The Weave, with absolutely no exceptions no way no how; or whatever.

A large part of this is that an RPG needs rules, and a natural consequence of those rules is that they codify what can and can't be done - and indeed allow for extrapolations from what can be done now to what might be done.

However, I think it's a mistake to become too prescriptive about this.

There are three reasons for this:

Firstly, by declaring "this is the way things are", you cut down sharply on the possibility for exceptions. Want a character who knows only a few spells, but can cast any of them at will? Well, in 2nd Ed AD&D you can't, because that's just not how magic works. Want a character who blends 'arcane' and 'divine' magic (and maybe psionics, while we're at it)? Again, no go - the universe doesn't allow it.

It also cuts down the wonder of the thing. If you can look at the magical effect, break it down into specific building blocks, and analyse it to the nth degree, it's suddenly less impressive than if you just have to accept it as-is. Don't look at the man behind the curtain!

Finally, if magic is codified and locked down, then it has another name: technology. It may be highly advanced technology, but it's technology just the same. Far better, IMO, if magic is just a somewhat-understood thing... and technology is something else. The art of the possible versus the art of the impossible, if you will.

It's worth noting that I'm not saying there shouldn't be some rules, and especially where PCs are concerned (since balance remains a consideration). But those rules shouldn't necessarily be all the rules, and they probably shouldn't be the physics of the game world.

(Incidentally, one consequence of that is that I'll no longer be placing a "magical university" in my homebrew settings. There will be universities, where appropriate, but they'll teach science (and pseudo-science), not magic.)

Languages

If and when I write up another homebrew setting (or, indeed, if I do that "Ultimates" version of Terafa), I'll be handling the question of language a little differently from previously.

Modern Languages

The 'modern' languages in use will actually be very few. Indeed, assuming the somewhat-standard pseudo-European setting, I'll use three only: Common, Elven, and Orcish.

The reason Elven will remain a distinct language is partly a flavour issue, and partly because I want to retain Old Elven as well, and don't want to give all elven PCs access to that language by default. However, if I didn't have the modern form of the language, that would leave elven PCs not able to speak 'their' language, leading to inevitable arguments. Better just to retain the language!

The reason Orcish remains a distinct language, while things like Giant and Dwarven do not, is due to the role orcs play in the setting, which is that they represent the specific rejection of civilisation. And so, all the 'civilised' races speak a common language; orcs do not as part of that rejection.

The overwhelming majority of NPCs in the setting will speak Common, and indeed will only speak Common. Elves will be an exception, in that most will speak both Common and Elven, while most orcs will speak only Orcish.

However, PCs are exceptional by their very nature. As such, all PCs speak Common, but the player can freely choose whether their character also speaks Elven and/or Orcish. (In theory, players should really only choose additional languages if they make sense for their character, but I'm not going to bother codifying that. If you want your PC to speak all the languages, have at it!)

Magical Languages

However, in addition to the three modern languages, I'm also going to have a number of almost-dead languages used for recording magical spells. Where a character can access a written spell if (and only if) they read the language in question - thus removing any notion of a read magic spell or similar. So, there's no unique magical code, or individual notations, or any such thing, just a set of magical languages.

The languages in question will be Draconic (the most common), Old Elven, Druidic, and Dark Speech. In theory, any spell can be recorded in any of the languages, but in practice some will of course be more common than others.

Those spellcasters who record their spells in a written form will start with access to one of the these languages (usually Draconic for Wizards and Druidic for Druids). They may learn other languages as they progress, either by spending a feat (3e) or training in a proficiency (5e) to do so.

And that's where things stand right now...

"Ultimates" Edition?

One of the things that I've sometimes thought that WotC should do, given the mess that they made of the setting in 4e, would be to reboot FR as an "Ultimates" version - redesign the setting from the ground up, but incorporate all the best ideas from the long history of the setting while discarding the dross (and, conveniently, any 'questionable' material like the cultural appropriation of The Horde or Maxtica).

They won't do that, but over the Christmas break I was pondering whether it might be worth digging out my old settings of yore, and rebuilding my ancient homebrew, Terafa, using that same "Ultimates" principle. Because there's a lot of good stuff there, but there's also a lot of dross, and much of it has many of the same problems as FR (and for much the same reason). And, indeed, one of the issues is that much of the best stuff is spread out across the long timeline of the setting, meaning that it can't ever really be used in a game - it's just a bunch of stories that PCs might perhaps hear on their travels, but who really cares about someone else's adventures?

That also does give the opportunity to break away from some of the decisions that seemed a good idea at the time, but which now don't seem so good - and it also allows an opportunity to redraw the various maps... (which a simple revision wouldn't really allow)

On the other hand, it would be a fairly significant writing project for a game setting I'm unlikely ever to use again. And it would begin with a process of revisiting lots of cringe-inducing handwritten notes I wrote in my teens.... (on the other other hand, that would give me incentive to dig out those notes, scan the ones I actually want to keep, and discard the rest. That alone almost makes the project worth doing.)

How that ties in with other world-building notions I've had in the past few years, some of which are incompatible with some of the best aspects of the old setting(s), I'm not entirely sure. I guess we'll see...

My Monopoly House Rule

It's fair to say that I'm not a fan of Monopoly, and it's fair to say also that I'm really not a fan of house-ruling it: most of the house rules that people use serve to render a long and boring game even more long and boring.

That said, I have a house rule to propose that I think will improve things somewhat, especially with regard to the end-game that so often just drags on.

The game starts as normal, and plays as normal up until all the properties are sold. (I strongly recommend that the 'auction' rule be used, as this significantly speeds this part of the game.)

As soon as the last property is sold, though, there comes a reckoning: anyone who does not own a complete set is immediately eliminated from the game. All their properties are returned to the bank, as is any money that they have. (The complete set can be any set on the board and can include one or more mortgaged properties. The key question is whether they own one or not.)

(If only one player holds a complete set at this point, that player immediately wins the game. If nobody does, the game is a draw.)

From that point onwards, play continues normally, except that of course there are far fewer players, and there are probably some more properties available for purchase.

The reason for this house rule is simple: once all the properties are sold, anyone who holds a complete set has an almost overwhelming advantage over anyone who does not. It's almost certain that this will lead to the weaker players gradually bleeding money until they are eliminated from the game. Better just to drop them out now and save everyone the time and ill-feeling that results. (And if nobody has a complete set, the end game will be an interminable slog that will probably end only when everyone quits the game in disgust. Again, better just to stop.)

The other scenario, which is where two or more players hold complete sets, can be quite interesting - this is likely to be a fairly explosive set of transactions with the balance moving back and forward quite quickly, until someone runs out of cash. And that's likely to be pretty fast. Which is no bad thing.

So, anyway, that's my Monopoly house rule.

Volo's Guide to Monsters

When this book was announced, I was hugely disappointed, on three counts. Firstly, I very much enjoyed the 5e "Monster Manual", and so the single supplement I was most hoping for was an MM2 of the same sort of size and quality. Instead, what was announced was a book that sounded like it was one-third a Monster Manual, which not only fell short by being full of other things I didn't want, but also meant that that MM2 is definitively not happening - it's just not in WotC's plans. Secondly, this book saw them adopt a higher price-point for 5e books - they'd already been right at the top-end of the scale at $50 for their 256-page adventures, but now they were charging $50 for 224 pages.

So I was all set to skip this book. Fortunately (?) though, Amazon had a very large discount available on the pre-order, and since I received some vouchers for my birthday it became a very easy buy. But that very much sets the tone for this review: this is an okay book, but very much non-essential, so the question is entirely one of determining at what point it represents value for money.

The book starts in the worst way possible: with a foreword written by "Volo" - a fairly annoying Forgotten Realms character who serves as a travel guide and lore-master - coupled with 'witty' annotations by Elminster. Such joy. Fortunately, the contribution of these characters after that introduction (which is, fortunately, a single page) amounts to a handful of notes in the text, and is therefore much less intrusive than I'd feared.

Thereafter, the book is split into three chapters.

Chapter One is about 100 pages of lore about nine iconic monster types: Beholders, Giants, Gnolls, Goblinoids, Hags, Kobolds, Mind Flayers, Orcs, and Yuan-ti. These are very similar in style to any of the Paizo "... Revisited" books or the old "Ecology of the..." articles from Dragon Magazine. These are all fine, so far as they go, except that too many of them seem to rely on "the gods made them this way" as an explanantion for why the monsters are as they are. Still, that's fine - the selection of monsters is decent, the amount of lore per monster is about right, and it's all fairly interesting. In fairness, I mostly prefer Paizo's take on most of these, but it's nice to have alternatives.

Chapter Two is very short, and provides some additional playable races for the game: Goliaths, Kenku, and a few others. The chapter also includes support for several monster-as-PC options for DMs who are so inclined. I was actually surprised by these: I had intended to ban all of them out of hand, but I found the new races sufficiently interesting that if a player came to me having read the book and wanted to play one of the new races then that would be fine (but not if they just wanted to play the stat-block). The monsters-as-PCs are not something I'd allow, though - I don't care for the concept, and the book notes they're not balanced anyway.

Chapter Three and the Appendices, then, amount to about 100 pages and provide new monsters for the game. Well, new to 5e that is - I don't think there are any genuinely new monsters here, which is no bad thing. The selection here is fine, with some odd choices (apparently, each designer was allowed to nominate one personal favourite for inclusion - which gives a nice weirdness to the book, and is a good thing). I was particularly glad to see personal favourites the Dark Ones and Chitine make the cut. Unfortunately, there are very few high-CR monsters here - it seems WotC once again have no meaningful intention to support high-level play. One of these days they should probably just drop levels 16+ (or even 10+) from the game.

One big criticism that I'll level at the monster chapter, and that I also levelled at "Tome of Beasts" is that the book doesn't have the table showing how the various traits affect monster building. Including such a table would have been a massive boon to a DM building his own monsters or building variants. It really should be a standard feature (or would be a really nice web enhancement).

And that's that.

So, a recommendation...

In some ways, this is really three books in one, as represented by the three chapters: monster lore, new PC races, new monsters. If all three of those appeal, this book is worth considering. If any one of the three does not appeal, you should probably skip this book unless you can get a huge discount. (Fortunately, the presence of Volo in the book is marginal, so shouldn't be a turn-off!)

Having said that, I don't think this book is worth buying at full price anyway. I got it at something like a 35% discount, and it feels like I paid about the right amount for what I got. Make of that what you will.

Better Player #4: How Much to Roleplay?

I've recently come across a near-perfect answer to the pesky question of how much a player should roleplay their character. That is, should the PC be considered as nothing more than a playing piece to be used to 'win' the game, should the PC basically be you in a fantasy universe, or should your PC be a whole other person with their own motivations, personality, and quirks?

The answer I came across is pretty simple: as much as you want.

That is, if you want to go full immersion, you should go for it. If you want to treat your character as just an extension as yourself, that's fine too.

There is one caveat to that, however, and it is this: don't be a jerk. If your character is an anti-social jerk who alienates everyone else in the group, that's on you - "I'm just playing my character" isn't a valid defence, because you chose to play that character rather than a myriad of others. (Likewise, if your character is resolutely determined not to get involved in adventures, that's your call - but it's not my responsibility to involve your character in events. Your choices are two-fold: play your character differently (or a different character), or don't play.)

And, yeah, there's a corollary to that: it can be a bit depressing for the DM to see players choose a non-human race for their character based purely on game stats, and then play that character as just a soulless playing piece to 'win' the game, but that's the player's prerogative. It's their character to roleplay as much, or as little, as they want. If it really bothers the DM, maybe the answer is to ban the use of non-human races... which may in turn lead to players choosing not to play.