*D&D 4ed*

[Talisman]

It's less useful in D&D, I admit, but I have a fondness for "crafty" characters. I've played:

~A gageteer in Spycraft
~A mildly insane junker in Deadlands: Hell on Earth (whose primary weapon was a "knifegun" - a gun that shot knives - and who named his grenades after various women)
~A mechanic-turned-warrior in a zompocalypse survival Savage Worlds game.

I like characters who can make/fix stuff. It's harder if there's no system, or if the system sucks.

[RandomCasualty2]

I agree with Psychic Robot re: crafting rules. I may never use them, but I appreciate their existing in case I do need them.

Suppose the fighter wants to forge his own nifty Asskickery Sword. You can just handwave it, but a rules system gives you a point of reference other than "that sounds about right, I guess."

Actually the main important thing in 4E is that you can make an asskickery sword as a fighter now since it's possible for the fighter to buy a scroll of enchant item and make his own magic sword. I mean, nobody cared what you could create with the craft skills, the power was all in what you could make with magic item creation.

You just handwave the hammer and anvil stuff, because seriously, nobody cares.

Crafting can also be used in grittier, survival-type scenarios, especially at lower levels. Making a raft to sail downriver...crafting traps to hold back the horde of undead...repairing your sundered sword, because The Monsters Are Coming and all these damn fool dirt farmers have are pitchforks and clubs...etc.

Well, this is more ingenuity stuff than it should be about having a skill. Honestly if someone wants to find a stick and sharpen it into a spear, or chop some wood and use vines to make a raft, I'm okay with that just working as part of the scenario. You shouldn't need craft (raftmaking) because otherwise nobody would fucking be able to build the raft anyway.

If you're creative enough to think of creating makeshift weapons, that's awesome, so let the players do it. Nothing worse than the DM calling for some obscure craft (something I know you didn't pick) check.

[Amra]

Well, this is more ingenuity stuff than it should be about having a skill. Honestly if someone wants to find a stick and sharpen it into a spear, or chop some wood and use vines to make a raft, I'm okay with that just working as part of the scenario. You shouldn't need craft (raftmaking) because otherwise nobody would fucking be able to build the raft anyway.

If you're creative enough to think of creating makeshift weapons, that's awesome, so let the players do it. Nothing worse than the DM calling for some obscure craft (something I know you didn't pick) check.

That may be your own mileage, but I couldn't disagree more. Removing non-combat skills is a totally retrograde step; heck, it's even worse than 2e, where you at least had nonweapon proficiencies as a basic yardstick for handwavium application!

My group spends skill points on Craft and Profession skills, right up to high levels. My players all like that stuff and have done from the get-go. YOU might not, the group you play in might not, but that's a long way from nobody caring.

"Creative enough to think of creating makeshift weapons" is too basic to even register on the creative radar for my lot and I'm damn grateful for a system that lets me set reasonable DC's for certain tasks. Nine times out of ten, my players will try to apply skills to gain information, solve logistical problems and whatnot before reaching for the spellbook.

To respond to Talisman's example: even when Fabricate becomes available, the fact that you can make something that looks like a boat doesn't mean you have the basic knowledge of how boats need to be designed such that they don't just capsize as soon as things get a little rough! Skills are fun, skills are useful.

If you don't find them so, you can just "not use them". If they're not in the system though, it's a hell of a lot more work to put them back in!

[Koumei]

Even Epic "create stuff" spells required craft/knowledge checks to make anything useful. I had a spell that created a small stone city. I needed to cast it every time I summoned a new giant turtle to travel on.

Without plenty of "Know: Architecture" and "Craft: Stone" (or simply "Craft: City" or whatever), I would have made a lump of rock, or crude buildings that had a good chance of toppling/caving in.

So even with magic, it was still very important to have the skills.

[RandomCasualty2]

My group spends skill points on Craft and Profession skills, right up to high levels. My players all like that stuff and have done from the get-go. YOU might not, the group you play in might not, but that's a long way from nobody caring.

Oh, my group has done that sometimes, but it's really skill points that we've looked at and said "If he got those points for free, would anyone care?"

Pretty much the answer is no.

You just don't do anything meaningful mechanically with the craft skill. PCs may want it for their background, but it's just not especially useful.

Look at it this way: Can you provide a good reason why skills like craft or profession belong on the same list as stuff like Knowledge(arcana) or Perception?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

A craft skill is critically important in a game like Dnd. A game which is based upon combat and war needs rules for determining how much time and effort is required to create setting pieces like fortresses and medieval weaponry/armor. This is especially true when magic or impossibly skilled individuals can create items progressively faster and better as they rise in level.

Here are a few example questions crafting rules must answer:

-Can your armorers outfit your army in appropriate gear for the upcoming war?
-How defensible of an outer wall can your villagers create in the 8 days it will take the Hobgoblin raiding force to get here? What if the party Wizard helps?
-Your sword is sundered fighting a giant out in the wilderness. Are you skilled enough to fix it? If not, what else can you fashion into a weapon?
-You are funding an expensive fortified castle, and you have Dwarven craftsmen of great skill. What can they make? How much do you pay them?
-Etc.

These questions, and similar ones, cannot be answered fully in a core rulebook. The Stronghold Builders Guidebook attests to this. But it should be obvious that some sort of skeleton crafting rules are necessary to describe the setting you are in.

[Maxus]

Logically, the Craft skills are very important.

From the point of view of PCs, though, that stuff just turns up. It might as well spontaneously pop into being for all the thought players and DMs usually give it.

Edit: Come to that, some of the rules of item creation are BS. Like crappy (read: Normal) weapons and armor can't be enchanted. And, furthermore, you have to get that enhancement bonus before your weapon starts doing obviously magical stuff like crackling with electricity.

Seriously, it wouldn't be too bad if there was one feat for making magic items--Craft Magic Item. Enchanting an axe to surround itself with flames on command should be the exact same principle as making a Wondrous Item that does something on command.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

From the point of view of PCs, though, that stuff just turns up. It might as well spontaneously pop into being for all the thought players and DMs usually give it.

The players and Dm's usually don't give it much thought because it is not supported well in the rules. They can't rely on the rules for it, so they are required to hand-wave it.

If the crafting rules were well designed, then people would be on the same page. Players and Dm's could tell stories about my aforementioned examples, and the players could influence the outcome. It would be the same difference if the combat rules were nonexistent, and the Dm was forced to hand-wave all combats without letting the players interact with the story.

[RandomCasualty2]

Here are a few example questions crafting rules must answer:

-Can your armorers outfit your army in appropriate gear for the upcoming war?
-How defensible of an outer wall can your villagers create in the 8 days it will take the Hobgoblin raiding force to get here? What if the party Wizard helps?
-Your sword is sundered fighting a giant out in the wilderness. Are you skilled enough to fix it? If not, what else can you fashion into a weapon?
-You are funding an expensive fortified castle, and you have Dwarven craftsmen of great skill. What can they make? How much do you pay them?

No they don't.

Seriously, this isn't a tactical wargame or an army building game. How much gear can you make for the upcoming war is a DM call. If the scneario calls for your forces being underequipped, then you're underequipped and so be it. The story isn't about the army's knights anyway, it's about the PCs. You aren't going to be rolling for each individual knight, so seriously, who cares. Who wins the war is DM fiat anyway.

As far as defenses for the village, if the wizard can create walls of stone, then you add them to the existing battlemap that the DM prepared. Done.

If you're in the wilderness and without a forge, then no, you're not going to fix a broken sword unless you've got some sovereign glue on hand.

Making castles is entirely arbitrary anyway and background. Honestly I think it's better to just come up with some flat price for a castle than bothering to come up with complex rules to make your PC do accounting. The castle is just a backdrop for the stories and a place your PC stays when he's not adventuring. You really don't need to get all anal on him as to how big his stables can be or where his arrow slits are. So you pick a generic price for a castle, and just let the PC build on pretty much anything he wants, so long as it's not completely ridiculous.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Who wins the war is DM fiat anyway.

The same can be said for any encounter the Pc's have with monsters. There are rules for combat.

As far as defenses for the village, if the wizard can create walls of stone, then you add them to the existing battlemap that the DM prepared. Done.

If you're in the wilderness and without a forge, then no, you're not going to fix a broken sword unless you've got some sovereign glue on hand.

You are talking specifically about Dnd 3.x. I was speaking more generally. Don't you think that players should have input on crafting their equipment, building their homes, and protecting their people?

Making castles is entirely arbitrary anyway and background. Honestly I think it's better to just come up with some flat price for a castle than bothering to come up with complex rules to make your PC do accounting. The castle is just a backdrop for the stories and a place your PC stays when he's not adventuring. You really don't need to get all anal on him as to how big his stables can be or where his arrow slits are. So you pick a generic price for a castle, and just let the PC build on pretty much anything he wants, so long as it's not completely ridiculous.

Right. There aren't good generic rules for castles. That's the problem.

[RandomCasualty2]

The same can be said for any encounter the Pc's have with monsters. There are rules for combat.

No it can't. Because the combat rules are to be used when the PCs are involved. That's the whole point. If combats happen offstage, then its' DM fiat.

D&D is not a wargame. It's a skirmish game. You simply cannot handle army vs army battles in any reasonably capacity with D&D rules. If two armies clash, it is expected that only the part with the heroes be actually resolved with combat rules. The rest is DM fiat.

You are talking specifically about Dnd 3.x. I was speaking more generally. Don't you think that players should have input on crafting their equipment, building their homes, and protecting their people?

Honestly not really. Crafting magical items perhaps, but mundane equipment, who cares? As far as protecting people and building homes, unless you're playing a wargame, you shouldn't bother having complex rules for building fortifications and such. At least not in the core books.

If people want to get anal about that shit, then you can have supplements dedicated to that sort of thing, where you roll checks to see if your rations were spoiled and you might get food poisoning, or the fact that the weather was bad and your inn took 3 more days to complete than you expected. Yeah, I mean if you really want to, you can bog the game down with a series of craft checks. If getting anal about small details like that makes your players happy and increases your fun, then go for it.

Me, I say, "whatever. It's background stuff, and the DM can seriously just make that stuff up."

If someone wants to say they forged their own sword instead of buying one... whatever. It's not like the universe is going to fall apart, or anyone in your group is even going to care. It matters are level 1 and that's it.

Right. There aren't good generic rules for castles. That's the problem.

Well that's because this is the stupid gold piece economy started in 3rd edition. once they started that, they didn't need rules for castles, because no PC would ever buy one. All you may care about is how much you can sell one for.

[Psychic Robot]

No they don't.

Seriously, this isn't a tactical wargame or an army building game. How much gear can you make for the upcoming war is a DM call. If the scneario calls for your forces being underequipped, then you're underequipped and so be it.

Am I the only one who would base their status of being properly equipped or under-equipped on whether or not the kingdom had sufficient crafters?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

No it can't. Because the combat rules are to be used when the PCs are involved. That's the whole point. If combats happen offstage, then its' DM fiat.

Exactly. Sometimes the Pc's want to be involved with aspects of the gameworld that interact with construction and crafting. The Pc's might invest in a fortress or an army, and there need to be guidelines in the rules for what happens.

Otherwise it's hand-waved by the Dm, and that can cause all sorts of problems. Ex: When players and Dm's have grossly different concepts of what is possible in construction. When players don't know if their intervention would be meaningful or not. When players assume that their bases are well defended, and it turns out that they are not.

Honestly not really. Crafting magical items perhaps, but mundane equipment, who cares? As far as protecting people and building homes, unless you're playing a wargame, you shouldn't bother having complex rules for building fortifications and such. At least not in the core books.

You need basic rules that work. Why do you take such umbrage at the fact that there should be rules that aid players and Dms in understanding how the gameworld functions, and the stories they can tell?

If people want to get anal about that shit, then you can have supplements dedicated to that sort of thing, where you roll checks to see if your rations were spoiled and you might get food poisoning, or the fact that the weather was bad and your inn took 3 more days to complete than you expected. Yeah, I mean if you really want to, you can bog the game down with a series of craft checks. If getting anal about small details like that makes your players happy and increases your fun, then go for it.

Huh. Given the fact that I have defended all the crazy high magic stuff in 3.x multiple times, this is really coming out of nowhere.

Honestly, this seems like the sort of game tailored to your tastes. You've expressed that you don't like flying in fantasy. You don't like swordsman who need to carry bows, or have an Int score of 3 or more. You like LotR, where chapters upon chapters can be condensed to the homerism "Me so hungy."

If someone wants to say they forged their own sword instead of buying one... whatever. It's not like the universe is going to fall apart, or anyone in your group is even going to care. It matters are level 1 and that's it.

Or if you need to repair sundered equipment in a time critical situation. Or if you need to know if you can arm some refugees to make a fighting force. Or if you need to know whether you have damaged an enemy fortress so much that they can't repair it in time to stop your army from flowing in the next day.

Again, I am speaking in terms more general than 3.x.

[RandomCasualty2]

No they don't.

Seriously, this isn't a tactical wargame or an army building game. How much gear can you make for the upcoming war is a DM call. If the scneario calls for your forces being underequipped, then you're underequipped and so be it.

Am I the only one who would base their status of being properly equipped or under-equipped on whether or not the kingdom had sufficient crafters?

Which is also DM fiat.

Seriously... the kingdom enters the game at some stage that the DM wants them to enter at. If that happens to be where they have no good craftsmen and dont' have many weapons, then that's where they're at.

But in any case at no point is the kingdom's craftsmen ever making craft checks. At no point are you even bothering to stat out every blacksmith in the kingdom. So whether they have the skill or not is mechanically irrelevant, because they never really use the mechanics.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Am I the only one who would base their status of being properly equipped or under-equipped on whether or not the kingdom had sufficient crafters?

That might be interesting and functional. So different kingdoms or different races would have different guilds of crafters with different specialties. You could have iconic stuff like; Dwarves being the best stonemasons, gnomes being the best builders of secret passages, elves being the best carpenters, etc.

Then, if gp isn't tied to character wealth, you could hire different guilds to create/upgrade your base/fortress/villages. There could be tiers of craftsmanship, giving different benefits. Possibly something like the following: (a skeletal example)

Stoneworking:
level 1: standard
level 2: hardness increases by 5. Crafted in 3/4 the time.
level 3: hardness increases by 10. Crafted in 1/2 the time. Outer walls have 1 supernatural effect off of the following list:...
Etc.

In addition to craftsmen, if there were special materials that were actually difficult to obtain, that could also influence construction. Guarding caravans is a common fantasy trope. It would be more interesting if the Pc's had a personal attachment to the cargo.

This also makes non-adventurers important to kingdoms, which I like.

[josephbt]

The keep on Shadowfell - a battle report from 4E

The party

• Dragonborn Paladin
• Human Wizzard
• Halfling Rogue
• Tiefling Warlord

The party started of with a good start - a hook. Initially, one of the players had the "Unhookable" ability, be that was corrected. They set down the King's Road in search of their old mentor Dauven Stahl.

Just before the town, they were beset by a group of: 3 Kobold Minions, 2 Kobold Dragonshields and 1 Kobold Slinger. Nobody had surprise, initiative was rolled, and most of the Minions died from burst attacks from the wizzard. Some 7-8 rounds later, the rest of the Kobolds had died. The party had at that time used up all of their daily and encounter powers.

Next they came to Winterhaven. After some inquiring, the party found out where the kobold lair is and where their mentor has gone of to. They exited the town and went to their doom.

The ambush of kobolds bent on revenge was the next encounter. 3 Dragonshields, 1 Skirmisher and 1 Wyrmpriest. All had surprise, all hit their marks, and had good initiative. The combat lasted for some 10 rounds, and party was on the defensive the whole time. The paladin went down 3 times in a row, the wizzo did almost no damage with Acid Arrow due to acid resistance, the warlord and the rogue tried to get into flanks, but couldn't due to Dragonshield's Tactics ability(shift when an enemy shifts away or moves close). The wizzo went down first, pally second, followed by the rogue and warlord. The wyrmpriest and one dragonshield remained, although both badly wounded.

This was the first time any of them played 4e, although some read through the books(arrrived on thursday). Nobody really had clues what the combat would look like. After some talk, they came to the conclusion that monsters have too much HP, that players don't do much damage, and that some monster abilities are way sweet. Like any that let you use minor actions. Rogue was very annoyed by the fact that he couldn't get to flank because every kobold shifted away when he moved close. So, action management is still incredibly important.

What i realised was that Mob attack(+1 to hit per ally adjacent to target) was really breaking the math. For the first 3-4 rounds of combat there were always at least 3 Kobolds adjacent to at least 2 party members. Whenever they attacked, an extra +3 to hit and maybe they flanked. This was devastating, bc they hit mostly on 4+ or 8+ for paladin.

This will not be the end of 4e for my group. They want to have a go at it again, but this time with characters that are well minmaxed.

[Koumei]

The party started of with a good start - a hook. Initially, one of the players had the "Unhookable" ability,

lolwhut?

No seriously, there's an immunity to plot hooks? I must know what this is.

[JonSetanta]

The party started of with a good start - a hook. Initially, one of the players had the "Unhookable" ability,

lolwhut?

No seriously, there's an immunity to plot hooks? I must know what this is.

I want that so bad. Please explain what campaign effects Unhookable causes!

[josephbt]

Thats what we call that ability when the party refuses all but the most railroading of hooks.
Like, when you have 2-3 hooks, but they(the party) really really want to go over the mountain and into that swamp and what temple who said temple no we're not going to the temple nor to see our mentor nor to speek with the widow look a mountain.
So then the temple and the mentor and the widow find themselves on the damned mountain because you damn well wrote the adventure and they are gonna play it hook or no hook.


The Mountain


Edit - okay, what the hell? i can't get the link to work. can someone give hints?
edit 7 - that did it

[Fwib]

The Mountain

Ahha! it's the apostrophe (replace with %27). (and possibly the quote marks?)

[Kaelik]

So Frank, you earlier talked about Cloud of Daggers being a 3X3 area, but in the book it seems to be one square. How do you get it to be 3x3?

[Username17]

So Frank, you earlier talked about Cloud of Daggers being a 3X3 area, but in the book it seems to be one square. How do you get it to be 3x3?

The rules are honestly vague on this point. Little things like "how to count an area" are pretty hard to figure from the text:

✦ Burst: A burst starts in an origin square and extends
in all directions to a specified number of squares
from the origin square. For example, the cleric
power flame strike is a burst 2 within 10 squares of
you, which means the power originates in a square
up to 10 squares away from you and affects the
origin square and every square within 2 squares
of it (a 5-square-by-5-square area). Unless a power
description notes otherwise, a close burst you create
does not affect you. However, an area burst you
create does affect you. A burst affects a target only
if there is line of effect from the burst’s origin square
to the target.

On the other hand:

✦ Blast: A blast fills an area adjacent to you that is a
specified number of squares on a side. For example,
the wizard power thunderwave is a blast 3, which
means the power affects a 3-square-by-3-square area
adjacent to you. The blast must be adjacent to its origin
square, which is a square in your space. The origin
square is not affected by the blast. A blast affects a
target only if the target is in the blast’s area and if there
is line of effect from the origin square to the target.

So a "1 square burst" is a 3x3 square, while a "1 square blast" is a 1x1 square.

The Cloud of Daggers is area "1 Square" and I have no idea whether that's a burst or a blast. I've been assuming that it's a burst because it can be up to 10 spaces away, but it is an equally valid reading that it is truly supposed to literally just fill one square. Which kind of makes it weird that the daggers "relentlessly attack creatures in the area." if it only affects one square and thus one creature, but whatever. My interpretation is at least as problematic because it has it being far and away superior to Scorching Burst in literally every way. But again, that's hardly surprising.

For Clarity: It says Area "1 square." That should either be "Burst 0" or "Burst 1" not "1 Square" - but I can't read the minds of authors whose math is bad either way.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Fair enough, I was reading it literally, but you are right, it should be a burst and if it is, it has a 3x3

[Jotoco]

The same can be said for any encounter the Pc's have with monsters. There are rules for combat.

No it can't. Because the combat rules are to be used when the PCs are involved. That's the whole point. If combats happen offstage, then its' DM fiat.

D&D is not a wargame. It's a skirmish game. You simply cannot handle army vs army battles in any reasonably capacity with D&D rules. If two armies clash, it is expected that only the part with the heroes be actually resolved with combat rules. The rest is DM fiat.

You are talking specifically about Dnd 3.x. I was speaking more generally. Don't you think that players should have input on crafting their equipment, building their homes, and protecting their people?

Honestly not really. Crafting magical items perhaps, but mundane equipment, who cares? As far as protecting people and building homes, unless you're playing a wargame, you shouldn't bother having complex rules for building fortifications and such. At least not in the core books.

If people want to get anal about that shit, then you can have supplements dedicated to that sort of thing, where you roll checks to see if your rations were spoiled and you might get food poisoning, or the fact that the weather was bad and your inn took 3 more days to complete than you expected. Yeah, I mean if you really want to, you can bog the game down with a series of craft checks. If getting anal about small details like that makes your players happy and increases your fun, then go for it.

Me, I say, "whatever. It's background stuff, and the DM can seriously just make that stuff up."

If someone wants to say they forged their own sword instead of buying one... whatever. It's not like the universe is going to fall apart, or anyone in your group is even going to care. It matters are level 1 and that's it.

Right. There aren't good generic rules for castles. That's the problem.

Well that's because this is the stupid gold piece economy started in 3rd edition. once they started that, they didn't need rules for castles, because no PC would ever buy one. All you may care about is how much you can sell one for.

From what I'm understanding that you're talking, you're saying that when you DM the PCs CAN'T influence ANYTHING other than combat?

Please don't ever ask me to join you're group


And yes, this is my first and only post. I HAD to register to say that. Because of people like you that DnD is considered a HACK AND SLASH game and not a proper ROLEPLAYING GAME.

And I'm note being polite, I'm not trying to be polite. If your insulted by that, ask someone to ban me, I don't care. I felt insulted by what you're saying as well.

[Jerry]

And I'm note being polite, I'm not trying to be polite. If your insulted by that, ask someone to ban me, I don't care. I felt insulted by what you're saying as well.

Sounds like you'lll fit right in here.

Also, it's just what a couple people said here as well. Don't judge the entire board on the suggestions of a few.