Monte Cook talks about Crafting Magic Items

[Leress]

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.c ... r][br]This could be an interesting system, but what happens when you want to sell a ring you made or don't want anymore?

[RandomCasualty]

Basically this is the CCG booster pack idea applied to magic items.

But really who wants to risk a ton of gold on making random items when you can just buy the item that you want?

[Voss]

Wow. I'm glad that... 8? years later, Monte still doesn't understand the consequences of the system he helped create.

Of course you want the bonuses over some 'weird' effect that may never matter. Seriously, fuck the ring of water walking. And random effects? Bite me. If you have infinite gold to toss at the Diablo Gamble Merchant, a random drop is fine. It isn't OK when you sit down in a game with limited time, resources and body slots to make a ring of protection +3 and get a ring of feather falling.

And seriously, the characters are dull because they have useful magic items? What the fuck, Monte? You helped design a system where you either role-play to the point that bonuses don't matter at all, or the bonuses are the only thing that matter. Why complain about players (and designers) that actually use the system you made? You know, the one thats all about accumulating the biggest pile of bonuses you can?

You can, of course, balance the two. But any mechanical discussion is going to be about the size of your bonuses. Throwing random, weird shit in to spice it up a little is pretty much a declaration of intent to deny the players the bonuses the characters need to be successful against level appropriate encounters.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The maddening thing is how he has both good ideas and bad ideas, and seems to be incapable of distinguishing between them.

Swapping out the wealth-by-level guidelines for x items of y level of effect is a good idea. Forcing a character to randomly acquire those items is a terrible idea.

He looks at boring, efficient characters; and declares that the problem with efficiency is that it is boring, when of course the problem is that boringness is efficient. If weird effects are more competitive with straight bonuses, then more people will use them.

Of course, he compares the utility of a Ring of Protection +1 vs a Ring Water Walking as if the first one provided a bonus you might not forget you had, while the second one didn't provide an enormous (if situational) tactical bonus. So I'm not even sure the problem he's trying to solve exists outside of his mind.

[Leress]

Wow I forgot about Diablo d20...that had a horrible random item generator. Well that and a very horrible system (the bastard child of d20 and DnD 2nd edition).

I was thinking more of a system where you make your +x weapon and then got a bonus effect for good(ala water walking or mage hand at will) , bad, or nothing at all.

[RandomCasualty]

1200259224[/unixtime]]The maddening thing is how he has both good ideas and bad ideas, and seems to be incapable of distinguishing between them.

Yeah, the problem isn't that characters can choose their items, it's that the choices shouldn't be between bonus items or utility items. The boring bonus items just shouldn't exist at all.

[Voss]

1200259224[/unixtime]]
Of course, he compares the utility of a Ring of Protection +1 vs a Ring Water Walking as if the first one provided a bonus you might not forget you had, while the second one didn't provide an enormous (if situational) tactical bonus. So I'm not even sure the problem he's trying to solve exists outside of his mind.

Water walking seems an extraordinarily bad example. Water walking sucks. Its competing directly with fly, which is even better tactically, and isn't even vaguely as situational.

I've never quite figured out why fly is a low level effect, despite the fact that its often just made of win.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Water walking seems an extraordinarily bad example. Water walking sucks. Its competing directly with fly, which is even better tactically, and isn't even vaguely as situational.

Well, yes, but either is better than negligible defense bonus.

I've never quite figured out why fly is a low level effect, despite the fact that its often just made of win.

Flight's countermeasure (archery) is also a low-level effect, so it's not a usually a tactical issue. Giant Scorpions are usually just as defeatable by cavalry as flying people, for instance.

The question is, at what level do you want climbing and jumping to become obsolete?

[K]

Monte Cook is a very creative guy, but he needs an editor like no one's business.

Basically, weird magic items do make the game fun. He gets that point.

Statted magic items are needed to win the game. Losing the game makes it no fun, which is why DnD doesn't work without Raise Dead.

So players do the obvious thing and rather than ever make a fun Ring of Water Walking with their extremely limited resources, they make an item that lets them win DnD rather than lose.

The solution is simple, and very not-DnD: design a system that doesn't have modifiers. No +1 swords or rings of protections +1.

[Username17]

Yeah, Keith and I looked at the same problem and said:

• If you're going to set the numbers to require the negligible bonuses added together just to get in the door, those bonuses should automatically scale and be virtually free.

Of course, perhaps an even better answer would be to remove all the negligible bonuses across the board and scale the numbers down to match. But hey, we work with what we have.

What I don't understand is why people keep offering up that the numbers should be scaled against people having all these stupid numeric bonuses and then trying to offer people the ability to trade these bonuses that they need to have for the things in the game which are unique and cool. It basically just leverages characters into sucking while keeping interesting parts of the game off the table.

It seems pretty damned obvious, and I'm actually kind of insulted that he seems to think this is a good idea.

-Username17

[Koumei]

1200268950[/unixtime]]
It seems pretty damned obvious, and I'm actually kind of insulted that he seems to think this is a good idea.

Insulted, perhaps, frustrated, definitely, but I'm not in any way surprised.

[JonSetanta]

1200262920[/unixtime]]
The question is, at what level do you want climbing and jumping to become obsolete?

Universally at 5.

[RandomCasualty]

1200262920[/unixtime]]
The question is, at what level do you want climbing and jumping to become obsolete?

I'd probably think around level 15 or so would be good.

It has to be about the level when you stop fighting opponents that can't fly without ranged attacks.

You want flight to become commonplace at the level that simple beasts don't matter anymore, no matter how strong they might be. Basically when you get flight, you basically should toss the battlemat too and you're running combat more BESM style than D&D style. Because by that time, terrain doesn't matter anymore, and really, neither should tactical positioning. You can just fly over or under people anyway, so the idea of meatshields and all that is out the window.

The game really changes entirely when everyone flies.

[Jacob_Orlove]

I realize that the maneuverability rules as printed are pretty confusing and unclear, but if you actually use them, there's a huge amount of aerial strategy that doesn't just go away.

[Neeek]

1200268872[/unixtime]]
Losing the game makes it no fun, which is why DnD doesn't work without Raise Dead.

Meh. Raise dead creates story problems.

I'd prefer making it harder to die. The D&D -10 hp standard is just plain bad. At high levels, 10 extra damage is an afterthought, or accident. Screw that noise.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I'd probably think around level 15 or so would be good.

It has to be about the level when you stop fighting opponents that can't fly without ranged attacks.

You want flight to become commonplace at the level that simple beasts don't matter anymore, no matter how strong they might be. Basically when you get flight, you basically should toss the battlemat too and you're running combat more BESM style than D&D style. Because by that time, terrain doesn't matter anymore, and really, neither should tactical positioning. You can just fly over or under people anyway, so the idea of meatshields and all that is out the window.

The game really changes entirely when everyone flies.

The game does change drastically when everyone flies, but that doesn't necessitate that terrain and tactical positioning don't matter anymore. Enclosed spaces, damaging area effects, traps, battlefield control via spells, and reach all can restrict movement and create tactical choice. I wouldn't want to remove those.

Climbing and jumping difficulties as mundane movement should become obsolete around mid-levels I agree. But they should not become obsolete from a tactical or thematic standpoint. You just need to make abilities that trigger off of climbing and jumping (and other movement types too) that don't occur when flying.

For example, lets take a look at Spiderman. In dnd terms lets say that he can create significant centripetal/centrifugal force by running, jumping, and using his web-rope as leverage while slinging around a point. He could then make a more devastating attack because of this movement. So yes, at that level he could be flying like other dnd characters, (akin to the green goblin) but it is more advantageous for him not to. That doesn't mean that he would never fly, but his main Schick is dependant upons acrobatics and climbing.

[tzor]

1200260360[/unixtime]]I've never quite figured out why fly is a low level effect, despite the fact that its often just made of win.

Lack of foresight. Honestly, the real problem with fly is actually minor. Here is the spell from the SRD:

The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load). It can ascend at half speed and descend at double speed, and its maneuverability is good. Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.

What makes it a win spell is the maneuverability. If you dropped it to average, you eliminate hover, you prevent reverse directions, you have to make 45 degree turns and you can't move than 90° in a given turn. You can fall down but you can only go up in a 60° angle at half speed. That singlehanded change to the spell would change it to the win to borderline suck.

[Bigode]

Moreover, tension between burts and auras creates a huge importance of positioning regardless of ground, and a high-level meatshield is someone with a (really) huge reach (i.e. not 10 feet).

[ckafrica]

1200306568[/unixtime]][

I'd prefer making it harder to die. The D&D -10 hp standard is just plain bad. At high levels, 10 extra damage is an afterthought, or accident. Screw that noise.

We changed it to con+level for negative levels which saved our character's asses more times than I can count. Only thing that ended up killing any of us were SODs

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Personally, I like the system of:

Non-numeric things cost too much for the bonuses they dish out, on average. The Helm of Telepathy gives a level 1 Beguiler spell (at will!), and a level 3 spell that the enemy always saves against. This item can be traded for:
+3 sword (make it a +2, Screaming) AND
+2 armor (make it +2) AND
+2 shield (make it +2) AND
1000 gp (call it a reserved room in the inn for you, and free food, and someone who waves a fan on you constantly and feeds you grapes as long as you stay)

[shau]

1200326749[/unixtime]]
What makes it a win spell is the maneuverability. If you dropped it to average, you eliminate hover, you prevent reverse directions, you have to make 45 degree turns and you can't move than 90° in a given turn. You can fall down but you can only go up in a 60° angle at half speed. That singlehanded change to the spell would change it to the win to borderline suck.

Am I the only one who has house ruled the flying maneuverability rules out of existence? It is bad enough trying to bring a 2d game into 3 dimensions without including crap about how you can only make a 45 degree turn for every five feet you move as an average flyer. Especially in game without facing.

[tzor]

I haven't done 3D flying combat in a very long time. On the other hand, at the 2006 Gen Con I saw this game with WWII airplanes that used hand radio antennia to move the airplanes up and down.



I think that maneuverability is absolutely critical to game balance. I don't consider momentum in the same light as facing, rather I consider it in the same light as the charging rules. After all, the fact that you can only charge in a straight line does not imply a return to facing rules. I also consider it in the same light as the rules for jumping more than your movement distance. At the next turn you continue to jump in the same direction that you were jumping in the last turn. That also does not require facing rules, only a conservation of momentum rule.

[RandomCasualty]

1200516602[/unixtime]]

Am I the only one who has house ruled the flying maneuverability rules out of existence? It is bad enough trying to bring a 2d game into 3 dimensions without including crap about how you can only make a 45 degree turn for every five feet you move as an average flyer. Especially in game without facing.

Yeah, I find it just bogs down the game and doesn't change a heck of a lot. The fact that D&D doesn't really have facing arcs for fire kinda makes facing almost irrelevant. I mean, the dragon can still fire it's breath weapon backwards, so who cares?

About the only real rule I use is that you can't hover without good or better maneuverability.

[Crissa]

I have no problem with hovering with bad maneuverability. But that just means you have much worse resistance to any sort of rush attempt, possibly can't fire weapons, etc.

-Crissa