PDA

View Full Version : (D&D) Why does crafting cost XP?



Coidzor
2010-11-07, 12:04 PM
Is it completely a holdover from earlier incarnations of D&D that they didn't think about, or was there some rationale at play?

If it was just a holdover from earlier D&D, was there a rationale at play there, some additional way it impacted play, or did it just seem good to Gygax at the time?

Zaq
2010-11-07, 12:06 PM
I think it's mostly so that you have a reason to not simply take every crafting feat and double your wealth for relatively little cost. Having an XP cost at least makes you think twice about turning into a craft-monkey and churning out magic items like there's no tomorrow.

Now, that said, the system is dumb for a lot of reasons (the whole "XP is a river" argument, the fact that only one person usually pays the XP and thus creates level disparity in the group, the very concept that you should become LESS powerful as you practice your art, and so on), but I think that it's just meant to be another cost.

truemane
2010-11-07, 12:19 PM
It is, in fact, a balancing mechanic, not a legacy issue. In 2nd Edition Enchant Item was a 6th level spell and carried with it a 5% chance of Constitution loss. So, one in 20 times you made a magic item, you lost a point of Con. Costing Feats and XP is a far better, if still imperfect, mechanic.

Fhaolan
2010-11-07, 12:21 PM
I vaguely remember there being a fluff reason a long time ago. Something about magic items requiring a piece of *you* to create, a bit of spirit/soul. I could be misremembering though, or remembering a houserule fluff in an attempt to rationalize the rule.

Callista
2010-11-07, 12:24 PM
Having a magic item makes you more powerful; so you lose XP to compensate and end up at the same overall power level. It's balance.

Acero
2010-11-07, 12:36 PM
I personally never use XP penalties. No need to take awway hard-earned xp because someone wants a new belt..

lesser_minion
2010-11-07, 12:46 PM
Having a magic item makes you more powerful; so you lose XP to compensate and end up at the same overall power level. It's balance.

This seems to have been the idea. The other half of it was that while gold wasn't really limited beyond some basic guidelines for how much a character's equipment should be worth at any given level, lost XP couldn't be recovered*, which was supposed to ensure that it actually hurt.

As far as the fluff is concerned, the official explanation is that the character puts a little piece of themselves into every magic item they create (hence why it's possible to use souls for the same thing).

* The reason 3.5 gives lower-level characters more experience is actually an accident -- originally, XP was calculated based on the average level of the party and split evenly. The reason it was changed was because players realised that they could gain extra experience by bringing large numbers of low-level mooks along with them.

bloodtide
2010-11-07, 12:47 PM
Is it completely a holdover from earlier incarnations of D&D that they didn't think about, or was there some rationale at play?


It's not a hold over from earlier editions. It was new for 3E.

In 2E, at least, magic items were a bit more 'fantastic'. To create them you needed time and effort. You needed exotic materials, not not just a 'red dragon scale', but sometimes things like 'the flutter of a butterfly's wing'. And to create the item you needed to do things like 'leave it in the sunlight and pour salt water on it for 33 days'.

So the average adventuring spellcaster would not bother with creating items much in 2E. It was better just to loot (or have an NPC make them for you).

3E made magic items more something a spellcaster could 'whip up' in a short time. The idea that a spellcaster could sit down for a couple of days and 'pop' made a magic item.

To balance this, they made it cost XP. In theory a character would not want to 'waste' to much XP making items, but this never quite works out. A character can burn a couple thousand in XP, make a couple items, then go on an adventure and still go up a level. At worst, they might be a level or two behind the rest of the group.

Douglas
2010-11-07, 03:30 PM
* The reason 3.5 gives lower-level characters more experience is actually an accident -- originally, XP was calculated based on the average level of the party and split evenly. The reason it was changed was because players realised that they could gain extra experience by bringing large numbers of low-level mooks along with them.
Heh, I actually did that once in Icewind Dale II. Only level up 1 guy, have him clear every area while the other 5 (level 1) party members wait. It didn't take very long before my solo character was steamrolling everything because he was so much higher level than he was supposed to be.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-07, 03:41 PM
It is, in fact, a balancing mechanic, not a legacy issue. In 2nd Edition Enchant Item was a 6th level spell and carried with it a 5% chance of Constitution loss. So, one in 20 times you made a magic item, you lost a point of Con. Costing Feats and XP is a far better, if still imperfect, mechanic.

Only for permanent stuff was there a 5% chance.
Wands, scrolls, staffs, and potions cost no XP.


This was the reason there was few +1 swords but many +1 flaming ones (who would risk creating a plain +1 sword when they can make a +1 flaming one for same XP cost).

Echoes
2010-11-07, 06:54 PM
My fluff semi-IC explanation for the XP cost goes something like this:

In Dungeons and Dragons, experience is not what we generally envision it in other games; that is, a flight of steps our character climbs up while travelling from level to level. Rather, it is almost a form of currency, composed of the sum of your character's efforts and, well, experiences.

Now normally your characters, being the adventurers that they are, choose to invest this effort into analyzing all the battles they've recently been a part of, looking for ways to become better at whatever it is they do (and in the case of spellcasters, some of this time goes into researching/meditating upon new magic). The "XP" we count on our character sheet is all the effort of this type, and level ups represent major breakthroughs, when suddenly you have a flash of inspiration and realize from this analysis some better way of fighting/casting/sneaking/what have you.

However, this is not the only thing adventurers spend their effort on. When someone creates a magical item, it's assumed that extensive research went into discovering whatever methods are employed in the item's creation. And this is where the the XP cost comes in - from other mechanics, we already know that D&D sometimes retroactively edits your character history (this is why you only need a spell component pounch for cheap materials, it's assumed that your character found or haggled for whatever he needed to put in it last time he was in town). When you pay the XP cost for creating a magic item, you're basically doing the same thing; some of the effort we assumed your character had put into analyzing battles really went into researching this new item. Since we only count XP that's going towards adventuring betterment on the character sheet, the number appears to go down, but in truth you're just erasing the XP you never had.


It's a needlessly complicated explanation compared to "some of your soul goes into the item", but it's the way that it makes most sense to me. *shrug*

Lev
2010-11-07, 07:09 PM
DnD is about adventuring, leave the crafting to the NPC's or lose some adventuring momentum.

Winter_Wolf
2010-11-07, 07:32 PM
XP cost was introduced to D&D magic item creation in 3.0. In 2E, making a magical item was a long, painful, and often fruitless endeavor, but if you succeeded you gained XP for making the item.

Then 3E decided that magical items were necessary for characters to be viable, so you end up with ridiculous magical item usage, magic marts in all places where it could be reasonably or unreasonably expected, and anyone could do it easily. Doing that meant that they HAD to make it cost something more precious than money, and XP is always a painful loss. Especially for casters.

I like 3rd, but the way they handled magical items in general and creation of magical items in particular is something I really dislike. Also that whole CR and unified XP for all thing they did.

AslanCross
2010-11-07, 08:00 PM
I personally never use XP penalties. No need to take awway hard-earned xp because someone wants a new belt..

While I don't like docking PCs for XP either, I would like to emphasize how tiny XP costs actually are. Crafting a third-level scroll costs only about 15 XP.

Magical items with a base price of 25000 GP would cost 1000 XP, which can be theoretically gained back in the span of one encounter.

Here's an example:
-A cloak of resistance +5 has a market price of 25000 GP and requires a 15th-level caster.
-It will cost 1000 XP in adition to the 12500 GP materials cost.
-A level-appropriate encounter for a party of 4 15th-level characters gives 1125 XP.

Unless the DM's really stingy, by RAW, the XP crafting cost of such an item should be negligible.

ffone
2010-11-08, 02:32 AM
My fluff semi-IC explanation for the XP cost goes something like this:

In Dungeons and Dragons, experience is not what we generally envision it in other games; that is, a flight of steps our character climbs up while travelling from level to level. Rather, it is almost a form of currency, composed of the sum of your character's efforts and, well, experiences.

Now normally your characters, being the adventurers that they are, choose to invest this effort into analyzing all the battles they've recently been a part of, looking for ways to become better at whatever it is they do (and in the case of spellcasters, some of this time goes into researching/meditating upon new magic). The "XP" we count on our character sheet is all the effort of this type, and level ups represent major breakthroughs, when suddenly you have a flash of inspiration and realize from this analysis some better way of fighting/casting/sneaking/what have you.

However, this is not the only thing adventurers spend their effort on. When someone creates a magical item, it's assumed that extensive research went into discovering whatever methods are employed in the item's creation. And this is where the the XP cost comes in - from other mechanics, we already know that D&D sometimes retroactively edits your character history (this is why you only need a spell component pounch for cheap materials, it's assumed that your character found or haggled for whatever he needed to put in it last time he was in town). When you pay the XP cost for creating a magic item, you're basically doing the same thing; some of the effort we assumed your character had put into analyzing battles really went into researching this new item. Since we only count XP that's going towards adventuring betterment on the character sheet, the number appears to go down, but in truth you're just erasing the XP you never had.


It's a needlessly complicated explanation compared to "some of your soul goes into the item", but it's the way that it makes most sense to me. *shrug*

Ahh, love this explanation! And it's consistent with the fact that you can't (I think?) level-down to burn XP crafting items, you can only use XP that represents 'potential' and thus can be explained as 'reflections and practice after the fight' with no in-character difference.

Runestar
2010-11-08, 03:23 AM
To me, it is a game balance mechanic.

If it didn't cost xp, and you simply paid the market price of the item in gp, then it is no different from simply buying said item in the open market, and you are down a feat.

It makes sense that the cost of making a magic item should be cheaper than the market price (assuming people want to earn profits), but then the problem is players getting more gear than their wealth guidelines would otherwise indicate, because they are getting a 50% discount on all their gear.

There are only 2 resources in dnd which impose a meaningful cost on the players - gold and xp. So crafting items would require both gp and xp to make it a comparable (but not clearly inferior/superior) alternative to simply buying items from cities. :smallsmile:

Ravens_cry
2010-11-08, 03:34 AM
Whether XP or Con loss, it not only is it a balancing act but it also fits some of the old tropes of how creating a magic item was exhausting. For example, when Bruenor forged Aegis-fang, it took a lot out of him, he in fact fainted from exhaustion at the end, if I remember correctly.

Eldan
2010-11-08, 03:41 AM
Whether XP or Con loss, it not only is it a balancing act but it also fits some of the old tropes of how creating a magic item was exhausting. For example, when Bruenor forged Aegis-fang, it took a lot out of him, he in fact fainted from exhaustion at the end, if I remember correctly.

There's quite a few examples of that around, as far as I remember. I mean, Lord of the Rings: Sauron invested so much of his power in the ring, he was almost powerless without it. Obviously, he found a way to invest more XP than just to the next lower level.

Killer Angel
2010-11-08, 03:44 AM
I personally never use XP penalties. No need to take awway hard-earned xp because someone wants a new belt..

I totally agree. Why casters cannot have nice things? :smalltongue:

ffone
2010-11-08, 04:35 AM
To me, it is a game balance mechanic.

If it didn't cost xp, and you simply paid the market price of the item in gp, then it is no different from simply buying said item in the open market, and you are down a feat.

It makes sense that the cost of making a magic item should be cheaper than the market price (assuming people want to earn profits), but then the problem is players getting more gear than their wealth guidelines would otherwise indicate, because they are getting a 50% discount on all their gear.

There are only 2 resources in dnd which impose a meaningful cost on the players - gold and xp. So crafting items would require both gp and xp to make it a comparable (but not clearly inferior/superior) alternative to simply buying items from cities. :smallsmile:


One sol'n that I've seen several people use is replace 50% gp and the XP with 70% gp.

The reasoning being that 'extra' XP that goes into an item (like a scroll that casts a spell with an XP cost) is at an exchange rate of 5 gp = 1 XP. Ditto when you hire spellcasting serves from an NPC caster. So the 1/25th Xp cost becomes 1/5th GP, which added to the 1/2 is 70%.

In the short term this is probably 'easier' on the caster but in the long long term burning XP is great, b/c you catch up with 3.5's XP formulas (the "XP is a river" meme). This houserule might improve balance in campaigns where the upfront XP seems a big obstacle, or it's long running enough for the item crafter to end up with 'too much' stuff and be at the same level.

Assuming the PC has the needed crafting time, it comes down to "for a feat, your party can buy most Wondrous Items (or whatever it is) at 70%."I couldn't say whether this is too good. (Though of it is, regular crafting is even moreso in the right situations.) Feels strong, given that Wondrous Items can be the lion's share of most character's wealth (and would be moreso if they had a 30% discount).

Mastikator
2010-11-08, 04:59 AM
It's a balance thing. Since money in D&D is basically score type B (and exp is score type A) you'll need to pay some of score type B in order to get an item that costs less score type A than it normally costs. You'll have to (re?)invent economics in D&D entirely if you want it to "make sense from a fluff standpoint".

Morithias
2010-11-08, 05:14 AM
One sol'n that I've seen several people use is replace 50% gp and the XP with 70% gp.

The reasoning being that 'extra' XP that goes into an item (like a scroll that casts a spell with an XP cost) is at an exchange rate of 5 gp = 1 XP. Ditto when you hire spellcasting serves from an NPC caster. So the 1/25th Xp cost becomes 1/5th GP, which added to the 1/2 is 70%.

In the short term this is probably 'easier' on the caster but in the long long term burning XP is great, b/c you catch up with 3.5's XP formulas (the "XP is a river" meme). This houserule might improve balance in campaigns where the upfront XP seems a big obstacle, or it's long running enough for the item crafter to end up with 'too much' stuff and be at the same level.

Assuming the PC has the needed crafting time, it comes down to "for a feat, your party can buy most Wondrous Items (or whatever it is) at 70%."I couldn't say whether this is too good. (Though of it is, regular crafting is even moreso in the right situations.) Feels strong, given that Wondrous Items can be the lion's share of most character's wealth (and would be moreso if they had a 30% discount).

Pray your group never discovers the Merchantile background feat. Namely the ability to sell any item for 75% it's listed price instead of 50%.

Oh and I did I mention said feat never requires a roll?

Fizban
2010-11-08, 05:48 AM
And of course that's more of a problem with the feat than the variant. Although honestly, I think that feat's pretty awesome. It's the only feat that lets you change the usual crappy exchange rate, and it does so without a bunch of extra rolling. Just bam, you sell higher, and once per month you buy lower. Mostly all it does is help with converting useless items into useful without losing so much of the value, and with the monthly ability you can basically say "I trade this for that" of equal value when you really need it. This is a godsend if your DM rolls random treasure and doesn't account for it being useless. Making it possible to make money selling magic items is also a nice touch, though obviously if this combo is in play you'll need to keep the xp cost or at least pay attention to downtime.

Morithias
2010-11-08, 06:26 AM
And of course that's more of a problem with the feat than the variant. Although honestly, I think that feat's pretty awesome. It's the only feat that lets you change the usual crappy exchange rate, and it does so without a bunch of extra rolling. Just bam, you sell higher, and once per month you buy lower. Mostly all it does is help with converting useless items into useful without losing so much of the value, and with the monthly ability you can basically say "I trade this for that" of equal value when you really need it. This is a godsend if your DM rolls random treasure and doesn't account for it being useless. Making it possible to make money selling magic items is also a nice touch, though obviously if this combo is in play you'll need to keep the xp cost or at least pay attention to downtime.

Which was pretty much the point I was making. 70% gp is legit variant, but as with all variants I feel there is a need to warn the DM's about ways people will use the new RAW to open new abuse-holes.

Oh and watch out for guildmaster (merchantile) too if one of your people has leadership. Once per month you can sell something at twice it's listed value.

faceroll
2010-11-08, 06:43 AM
While I don't like docking PCs for XP either, I would like to emphasize how tiny XP costs actually are. Crafting a third-level scroll costs only about 15 XP.

Magical items with a base price of 25000 GP would cost 1000 XP, which can be theoretically gained back in the span of one encounter.

Here's an example:
-A cloak of resistance +5 has a market price of 25000 GP and requires a 15th-level caster.
-It will cost 1000 XP in adition to the 12500 GP materials cost.
-A level-appropriate encounter for a party of 4 15th-level characters gives 1125 XP.

Unless the DM's really stingy, by RAW, the XP crafting cost of such an item should be negligible.

We only do experience and leveling once per session, to save on time in real life, so being behind in experience can mean being a level or two behind the party due to the way xp is handed out.

AslanCross
2010-11-08, 06:44 AM
We only do experience and leveling once per session, to save on time in real life, so being behind in experience can mean being a level or two behind the party due to the way xp is handed out.

Well, that's unfortunate, but it's more of a quirk in the way the game is run and not in the nature of XP costs.

Dr.Epic
2010-11-08, 07:33 AM
So you don't go crazy and craft every magic item in the game a few dozen times. With an XP cost, it limits how often you can and would want to make a magic item.

Coidzor
2010-11-08, 07:34 AM
So the consensus seems to be that they wanted a cost but not as onerous and annoying as before and it's contingent upon DM quirkiness to actually be much of a trade-off at all after the update to get rid of a different exploit in the system.

Interesting.

dsmiles
2010-11-08, 07:52 AM
So the consensus seems to be that they wanted a cost but not as onerous and annoying as before and it's contingent upon DM quirkiness to actually be much of a trade-off at all after the update to get rid of a different exploit in the system.

Interesting.

My take on it: WotC wanted to divorce themselves from as much of TSR DnD as they could.
1e/2e = crafting magic items gives you xp.
WotC = crafting takes away xp.

1e/2e = AC on a scale of 10 - -10.
WotC = AC on a scale of 1 - 20.

1e/2e = secondary skills/nwp's are rolled under to work.
WotC = skills are rolled over to work.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems more than a little coincidental.

panaikhan
2010-11-08, 08:25 AM
Having played an Artificer, the XP cost of making items wasn't all that bad. And, if I crafted enough items to be consistantly behind the group by one level, I actually earned XP faster AND I had all my wonderful toys.

Diarmuid
2010-11-08, 10:13 AM
Y'know what's funny. I have routinely found that the time investment is the bigger hurdle than the XP cost.

So few games allow for days at a time to be spent on those kinds of things. Heck, I'm playing in a game where my wizard hasnt been able to scribe any new spells into his book for weeks because we never have any time to do anything but save the world and narrowly avoid certain death.

It's a great game, I just wish I had the time to scribe a scroll every now and then.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-08, 10:37 AM
Y'know what's funny. I have routinely found that the time investment is the bigger hurdle than the XP cost.

So few games allow for days at a time to be spent on those kinds of things. Heck, I'm playing in a game where my wizard hasnt been able to scribe any new spells into his book for weeks because we never have any time to do anything but save the world and narrowly avoid certain death.

It's a great game, I just wish I had the time to scribe a scroll every now and then.

You never get a day (8 hrs) off?

Duke of URL
2010-11-08, 10:49 AM
As much as it pains me to say this (:smallwink:), I prefer the 4e model to an extent. Let magical items be decomposed for some kind of magic essence that can be used for crafting other items.

It's kind of like giving everyone the artificer's Retain Essence ability, but the way I like it is to only allow a portion of the sacrificed item's "essence" to be recovered. The formula I use is d6 x 10% of the item's XP cost (prorated for charged items no longer fully charged), or 50% + ( d4 x 10% ) of the XP cost if you have the relevant item creation feat.

This makes a good use for "junk" magic items the party recovers, and limits the need to use actual XP for item creation.

Diarmuid
2010-11-08, 10:58 AM
You never get a day (8 hrs) off?

Not where I'm not spending those 8 hours resting so I can get my spells for the day back, no.

Our goals are almost all time oriented (Do X in Y days or Z happens, Z is bad), and much of our time is spent in various dungeons so we usually dont have the time to spare.