What are your most loved and hated character creation rules set by DM? [Archive]

animorte

2023-03-01, 06:24 AM

Care to elaborate or give a specific example of the latter?
Thanks for asking! I love talking about it. Here was the original bit:

I've been working on a spreadsheet for some time that shows the parallels of each subclass (organized separately for each base class). I'll post it in GitP whenever I get it done.

It will allow a person who chooses to play a Cleric: pick War spell list, Light feature at 1, Life feature at 2, Twilight feature at 6, and so on. I use this precise example because my brother is running this exact set-up with his Cleric in a few adventures I have run. It's his favorite character for years now.

Where this can become a problem is if you want to choose Peace at 6, it requires you to have the Peace at 1 feature. Similar to Hexblade's level 10 and 14 features requiring you to have Hexblade's Curse from level 1. Some class features build upon each other in such a way that you would have to plan for that.

Another example: I have a Monk with Mercy features at level 3, Ascendant Dragon at 6, and planning to go with Long Death at 11.

And so you think it would play in a similar war if you restricted full casters to level 10. So potential for more spell slots but not spell levels?
Is warlock considered a full caster for your games?
It would still function exactly the same for those first 10 levels, so I don't think it would be the same experience, no. I would be interested to give that a try though. Warlock was considered "above half-caster" for the purpose of those runs.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-01, 06:45 AM

Reviled: overly linear stat rolling methods. Unless specifically pitched stat rolls should be 4d6b3, 2d6+6, or a method with a vaguely similar curve, or just use point buy. The worst I saw was rolling eight d20s, rerolling anything below a 8, and taking the best six (no matter how much I pleaded to be allowed to keep a 7 over a second 20).

Amazing:

Just pick suitable mundane equipment. No coin counting, trying to make both a bedroll and backpack fit into an unlucky total, no 'I want X but the preset equipment doesn't give that option'. The worst abuses of starting with stuff like full plate aren't that horrific*, and few players actually go that far.

Bonus tools/languages for high INT would also be amazing, even if the artificer would quickly become ridiculous.

* And I honestly lay the blame at how D&D shifts almost all defensive scaling to armour upgrades.

stoutstien

2023-03-01, 06:54 AM

Derges

2023-03-01, 08:50 AM

Amazing:

Just pick suitable mundane equipment. No coin counting, trying to make both a bedroll and backpack fit into an unlucky total, no 'I want X but the preset equipment doesn't give that option'. The worst abuses of starting with stuff like full plate aren't that horrific*, and few players actually go that far.

I ran a holiday session with something similar to this once. Getting tired of being asked what starting gold or magic items I shrugged and said "anything mundane."

One of my veteran players noted that a donkey is listed as a mundane item and then proceeded to load it with one of every mundane item in he could find listed.
That was the day I learned that "Purple Wyrm Poison" is a mundane item.

IsaacsAlterEgo

2023-03-01, 09:11 AM

Every time I have been in a game with rolling for stats, whether it was a game I was running or a player in, someone always rolled far below the other players and got upset about it, no matter what stat generation method was used, so it is absolutely one of my most hated rules now and I strenuously object if a DM is going to use it now. Same for mandatory rolling for HP, as I have had a DM insist on previously.

Another hated creation rule set by a DM is overly restrictive creation restrictions based on setting. When Artificer first came out I was forbidden from a DM for rolling it because they considered it an Eberron exclusive, which is silly when there's explicitly an island of artificers in Forgotten Realms. I dislike having races restricted as well; I can understand saying "There are no Warforged in this setting", but not "You can't use the mechanics of Warforged but reflavored to play an animated suit of armor, sentient golem, or something else that does exist in the setting".

My most loved creation rule: Free feat at level 1! Opens up so many options. I love using skill expert to make characters that hyperfocus on one particular skill to show they are an expert in that field, taking expertise in Medicine feels good when making a character that was previously a doctor.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 09:24 AM

Another hated creation rule set by a DM is overly restrictive creation restrictions based on setting. When Artificer first came out I was forbidden from a DM for rolling it because they considered it an Eberron exclusive, I agree with your DM.

If you want a free feat at level 1, play a vHuman. :smallwink:

An interesting chargen method I'd read about went something like this:

roll 4d6drop1 three times. Subtract each roll from 25. Those are your starting stats.
Example. 7, 11, 16 gives you an array of
7, 18, 11, 14, 16, 9.

Ganryu

2023-03-01, 09:46 AM

Mine has a surprising one that works.

"Casters, pick your mental stat, but explain why.
Everyone choose their saving throws, one strong, one weak."

Opened up alot of flavor and reflavoring.

Rynjin

2023-03-01, 09:50 AM

Rolling for stat generation is one of my least favorite things. Even with rules like "minimum of x, at least x number total", some people will always get screwed and some people will get god stats.

The most fair rolling method is one I've used before; roll for stats, anybody can choose anybody else's array.

IsaacsAlterEgo

2023-03-01, 09:51 AM

If you want a free feat at level 1, play a vHuman. :smallwink:

Well, this is the problem with not giving a free feat at level 1, it pushes people to play (what is in my opinion) a boring race for purely mechanical benefits. Which is why I'm such a big fan of the free feat rule. If I absolutely had to get a feat at level 1 and the DM didn't allow the free bonus, I'd just play as custom lineage and flavor as something else. But thankfully the DMs I play with nowadays are not so restrictive, having that feat opens up so many options and roleplaying ideas that normally would have to wait until level 4 and then seriously hamper combat effectiveness to take.

Amnestic

2023-03-01, 09:53 AM

I'm incredibly suspect about stat rolling, I think the only time I'd accept it would be a meatgrinder-style game where character death and replacement is not only expected but relatively commonplace.

I'm tooting my own horn with this one, but dexterity no longer (positively or negatively) impacts initiative. Class abilities (eg. war wizard), feats (eg. alert) and items (eg. luckstone) can still give bonuses to it, but outside of that you - and NPCs - are rolling straight d20s, no modifiers.

I agree with your DM.

I would ask you to consider reading the class description then.

stoutstien

2023-03-01, 09:53 AM

Eh rolling is fine as long as the actual weight of those factors aren't heavy enough to cause issues.

HP bloat is a good example. You'd think that rolling would be more painful with lower values but it's the opposite. The bigger those numbers get the more the randomness is unfun/distracting.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-01, 10:21 AM

Less rules but just the over focus on mechanics during creation of most systems just bugs me. Of course GMs struggle to get players to look beyond the buttons they mash when 90% of thier first "session" is picking buttons.

Look at 5e. Past the small sections describing races the next time they see something world facing isn't until they begin playing. Sure they have backgrounds but that's a game of pin the proficiencies on the PC primarily.

I have very strong words about D&D characters, mechanical focus, and ties to the world. But I'll save them for now, beyond 'for the love of good can the designers please take a glance at game creation tools'.

OTOH I do love both Fate's Aspects and Cortex's Distinctions for being that little bit more fiction focused than a lot of games manage. I'd love to see D&D try to implement something like that over the current skill system.

I ran a holiday session with something similar to this once. Getting tired of being asked what starting gold or magic items I shrugged and said "anything mundane."

One of my veteran players noted that a donkey is listed as a mundane item and then proceeded to load it with one of every mundane item in he could find listed.
That was the day I learned that "Purple Wyrm Poison" is a mundane item.

Turns out that searching through the pile of goods on a donkey can take time. Plus the more you run this kind of stuff on the honour system the more it tends to even out over time. It's just not fun to abuse such freedom or try the GM's patience forever.

Of course, a more narrative option for equipment wouldn't go amiss, where a character gets a handful of important items that give bonuses but otherwise just have to run with what makes sense, with a penalty only if you can justify why they wouldn't have the tool or a suitable substitute.

So a character trained in combat either has a weapon on them or can grab a sturdy ornament that'll do well enough. But if they want a cool sunforged blade that's extra hot they're going to have to pay something for that and more it on their sheet. Ideally combined with loosening the reigns on the idea that level 1 characters don't begin with magic items, and some kind of Sanctity of Equipment/XP rule (i.e. if you irretrievably lose the sword you get the invested character resources back).

Derges

2023-03-01, 11:02 AM

He played it well, RP'd caring for his pack mule, only searched through the luggage out of combat and even then only did very basic things like hand out rope, ladders and weapons etc.

Right up until outside the big bad's chamber where he sat down and coated his daggers in poisons that hit harder than the wizard's spells.

If it were a serious game I might have blocked it but foiling Santa's takeover of Easter doesn't require that firm a hand.

Tanarii

2023-03-01, 11:47 AM

My least favorite rule is multiclassing. I prefer games where it is not allowed.

I dont like feats very much either, but it's specifically the OP ones that need the DM to tone them down: GWM, SS, PAM, CBE

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 12:28 PM

I would ask you to consider reading the class description then. I have, thank you, and they fit the magitech of Eberron wonderfully. They do not fit in my world as DM, anywhere, although I had one player take one from 1 - 11 (and he started when Artificer was UA, before E:RFtLW was published) before RL overcame his ability to join the group on the usual night.
Never again.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 12:33 PM

The most fair rolling method is one I've used before; roll for stats, anybody can choose anybody else's array. Our group just used that, my array was the one they went for.

Well, this is the problem with not giving a free feat at level 1, it pushes people to play (what is in my opinion) a boring race for purely mechanical benefits. As opposed to every other race that has all kinds of proficiencies, features, skills, but human does not? It gets +1 to everything? vHuman ought to be core human, and you get to customize what your one cool thing is: that feat.
My least favorite rule is multiclassing. I prefer games where it is not allowed. I can live without it.

I dont like feats very much either, but it's specifically the OP ones that need the DM to tone them down: GWM, SS, PAM, CBE Not getting "martials can't have nice things" approach here.

Tanarii

2023-03-01, 01:06 PM

Not getting "martials can't have nice things" approach here.
Give them universally applicable nice things in their base class.

Forcing martials to spend a feat tax and then pick up a Greatsword, Halberd, Longbow or Hand Crossbow isn't the right approach.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-01, 01:17 PM

Give them universally applicable nice things in their base class.

Forcing martials to spend a feat tax and then pick up a Greatsword, Halberd, Longbow or Hand Crossbow isn't the right approach. Their base class provides them with the most ASIs which are also slots for feats. In other words, they already have that. I don't see it as a feat tax.

stoutstien

2023-03-01, 01:31 PM

Their base class provides them with the most ASIs which are also slots for feats. In other words, they already have that. I don't see it as a feat tax.

If it's removed from the core progression <optional features in feats>, able to missed <feats>, has an opportunity cost, and is still considered part of the nature path of a class then yea it's a tax.

Also only 2 classes have "extra" ASIs and those feats are seen as "requirements" for most who use weapons as their primary way to make bad stuff go away.

Regardless on what you call it it's poor form from a design standpoint and/or PC creation features.

Amnestic

2023-03-01, 01:54 PM

I'm a fan of free feat at first, with no v.human/clineage options. Either standard humans only or a homebrew version of them if people wanna play humie.

I have, thank you, and they fit the magitech of Eberron wonderfully. They do not fit in my world as DM, anywhere,

Magic items don't exist in your world? Wild. I mean, I guess it's whatever floats you+your players' boat!

togapika

2023-03-01, 02:18 PM

Magic items don't exist in your world? Wild. I mean, I guess it's whatever floats you+your players' boat!

But not airship :biggrin:

greenstone

2023-03-01, 04:04 PM

As a GM, I've noticed that the most reviled option is always, "Whatever the GM disallows."

In a game a few years ago, I said "no 'monstrous' races" (it was a Primeval Thule game where those races didn't exist). Over half the players complained that they couldn't play bugbears or halforcs.

In my current game I have not added artificers, because I have drastically limited the allowed sourcebooks. I have three players who complain regularly about not being able to play artificers.

No-one has ever played a gnome, but I'm pretty sure that if I said "no gnomes" in the next game then two people would complain. :-)

As a player, I detest rolling for stats. I've been on the side of "my character is drastically underpowered and the GM won't let me reroll" and it sucked. In that case it wasn't roling stats, but the GM changed character generation methods after my character and didn't tell me about it until we were into the game.

TyGuy

2023-03-01, 06:55 PM

Love level 1 free feat and floating one racial ASI.

Hate anything-goes. Troll players always pick immersion breaking races when allowed.

Captain Cap

2023-03-01, 07:05 PM

As a player, I detest rolling for stats.
The only random I tolerate is when everything is random. I still fondly remember my granny halfling barbarian in a 3.5 game :smallbiggrin:

NecessaryWeevil

2023-03-01, 07:57 PM

"You can use point buy or you can roll for stats" if rolling for stats is also given a safety net.
Uh, no. If you want to gamble in order to be distinctly better than my point-buy character, then it should be a gamble.

Tanarii

2023-03-01, 10:14 PM

I have, thank you, and they fit the magitech of Eberron wonderfully. They do not fit in my world as DM,I agree with their DM too. If the world isn't magic-tech, artificers don't belong. Just like if a world doesn't have early modern technology, guns don't belong.

Or if a world doesn't have Abier, Dragonborn don't belong. Or if a world isn't Planescape, Tieflings don't belong. Or if a world doesn't need short big-headed tiny-footed mutants, 5e halflings don't belong.

Of course, any world CAN just be set up as a kitchen sink patchwork with a magictech country right next to a Devil worshiping tiefling nation right next to a pistol dueling nation and none of it bleeds into anywhere else. With the DM just shoehorning a homeland in when a player brings a half-shardmind half-Dragonborn Cambion-templated gestalt artificer/gunslinger with a physicist background to the table. But not every DM wants a incoherent world.

That said, I do love running me some Mystara's Known World, with Steppe Horse Archer living next door to Norse Raiders living next door to Arabian Nights living next door to a Legionary Empire. :smallamused:

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-01, 10:30 PM

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-02, 05:56 AM

I hate point buy nowadays. Same characters get churned out time and again. I prefer to roll and everyone can choose their array from what the table rolled or the middle value of a highest to lowest snake method that determines the stat array (DM rolls a set of stats if there's an even amount of players).

Because I see this argument time and time again, does rolling really change this? If I'm playing a Sorcerer and rolling for stats I'm almost always putting my highest in Charisma and my next two in Dexterity and Constitution. The somewhat more variable values don't change the fact that Sir Pimplebottom III has the exact same stat priorities as Sir Pimplebottom II, it's just that his Strength is one point lower, his Wisdom is two points higher, and so on.

The last time I required player to roll I did 4d6b3 in order, which led to both players having to play different classes to normal (which, depending on the player, is either a blessing or a curse*), but had talents and deficits that would never have appeared under point buy or standard rolling.

* If I did it again I might allow players to swap arrays after all rerolls are done.

diplomancer

2023-03-02, 07:27 AM

My favourite stat-generation method is what I call the "snake method". Everyone, including the DM, rolls 4d6b3. Then all stats are arranged in a descending/ascending left to right grid pattern with 6 columns and N lines (where N is the number of people who rolled).
Then players pick, in order of who rolled the best array, which line they want. So the player who "contributed the most" gets to pick first, but all arrays are reasonably balanced. For instance, the top array will probably have a very good 1st stat, probably a 17 or even an 18, but a much worse 2nd stat, while the bottom array could easily have two 15s as the top stats, or even two 16s if people rolled well enough. And the "extra" array (generated by the fact that the DM rolled too) gives the players some extra flexibility. DM who used it also had us reroll scores under 6, but I wouldn't say that's necessary, just a small boost.

End result is that the party is mostly (but not perfectly) balanced, average party power is similar to expected power levels of the game, and you don't have cookie-cutter characters.

About other character-creation rules: I like the free feat at 1st level, but preferably from a curated, less power gaming, list. I dislike "pick any race", but also dislike it when the choice is too restricted (for instance, PHB-only), though I'd rather it be too restricted than completely open.

stoutstien

2023-03-02, 08:18 AM

I have a weird theory about stats and their generation.

Way back in the tail end of next playtest and the launch of 5e the normalized meta of the weight of ability scores nearly doubled due to leaning on accuracy and on hit effects. *This meta has continually progressed with more content. See npc block styles, and the push for changing resource recovery cycles.*

For example a fighter using up to Tasha and no feats has 4X the rough cap of the Next fighter's damage and almost all this extra output is due to accuracy and on hit bonuses.

Originally martials where better at martialing due to extra attack so even if they rolled a lower governing stat it wasn't as big of a deal. A 16-18 strength/dex would be plenty. Compared to ability checks that have mostly stayed unaltered. ability scores are less important because proficiency and bonuses aren't automatically assumed and overall are more rare. Some how used this fact to super charge certain ability checks but as a general theme it hasn't changed. A +2 or +3 dex is less important than Prof in the grand scheme of things meaning the star being random isn't that big of a deal.

So that means rolling for stats does feel worse now because it is. however, the more you shift back to the next material the less of an issue it becomes.

Batcathat

2023-03-02, 08:23 AM

I've never understood the appeal of rolling for stats. If the idea is to limit characters feeling samey, I prefer to have specific limits (about classes, skills, background, whatever) and build a character based on those, rather than having an entirely random element.

stoutstien

2023-03-02, 08:25 AM

Batcathat

2023-03-02, 08:27 AM

It's roots is from back when ability scores were about as important as backgrounds are now in 5e.

Sure, but I still don't understand why rolling them would be preferable, whether they are extremely important or not at all.

stoutstien

2023-03-02, 08:35 AM

Sure, but I still don't understand why rolling them would be preferable, whether they are extremely important or not at all.
Because the players didn't the GM did.

Back then a lot of small amount of randomization was just built into the assumed play style. Randomized stat generation was no different than a randomized table for treasure or encounters.

Your stats were more akin to a hand of cards dealt to you. Sure some were better than others but doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of the card game as a whole.

*3d6 or 4kh3d6 alao has an nice subtle interaction with the D20 Stdev*

Tanarii

2023-03-02, 09:49 AM

It was important when it was rolling stats in order. Because it determined if you were going to play a Fighting Man or Cleric or Magic-User.

This became a relatively pointless sacred cow as early as AD&D, when the default became 4d6b3 arrange in desired order. It still had some point, because there were some fairly high stat requirement classes you might not qualify for.

As of 3e it became actively detrimental sacred cow, because stats are so important and there are no stat requirements.

Point Buy on the other hand is hot garbage. It's only there for the worst kind of "optimization", allowing folks to dump 3 stats to max 3 stats.

Standard array is and needs to remain the default for a reason.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 09:57 AM

Magic items don't exist in your world? You don't need an artificer for magic items to exist. I suggest that you read the PHB and the DMG.

Standard array is and needs to remain the default for a reason.
Only if they fix it. The standard array as presented is horsecrap.

Tanarii

2023-03-02, 10:07 AM

Only if they fix it. The standard array as presented is horsecrap.
Agreed if they remove rolling they can fix standard array. As it stands, it's low so that rolling has some kind of value in comparison. But if that is taken away they can raise it.

Debate might be needed on the primary stat is a 15 or 16 tho. Personally I'm fairly strong believer that it needs to stay a 15.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-02, 10:17 AM

Agreed if they remove rolling they can fix standard array. As it stands, it's low so that rolling has some kind of value in comparison. But if that is taken away they can raise it.

Debate might be needed on the primary stat is a 15 or 16 tho. Personally I'm fairly strong believer that it needs to stay a 15.

My shout is 16 but remove racial/background stat bonuses (replace them with actual abilities, mine 4e if you're out of ideas). Sure you basically have to redo most of the PhB races, but they could do with a rework anyway so that most hit the cool factor of the supplemental races. If that means teleporting elves then let's have teleporting elves (although I'd give them BA shift/5FS to make them really good at escaping melee, 'elves don't fight when they don't have the advantage'). We of course need something for humans to replace a bonus feat, but I'm sure we can hit on something that works (13th Age gives them the choice of two initiative rolls, might be worth pinching).

Mastikator

2023-03-02, 10:28 AM

One rule I liked from a DM was that if you wrote a backstory you started with an additional 2 healing potions, and if you brought a real world item to the table that fit your character then you got to pick out a magic item from a curated list. It was for a one-shot.

Personally I have that if you have some kind of character goal/story then you start each session with inspiration.

Also

Likely to be unpopular, but my most hated is the absence of any restrictions, bans, fiction-based conditions[1], etc. "Eh, build whatever you want" is a warning sign that the world will just be a flat backdrop for mostly playing the system, not exploring a might-be-real world.

[1] such as "you can build a warlock, but the only patron is X" or "if you're a halfling, your cultural traits are like Y and no you can't Z".

This.

Luccan

2023-03-02, 10:37 AM

Something I stole/reworked from 3e when it comes to rolling stats is minimum requirements: you can't have bonuses totalling less than +1 and must have at least one stat of 14 or higher before choosing race. This prevents truly useless ability scores from ruining a PC, while feeling less arbitrary than your DM looking at your sheet and telling you to reroll, since the rules are established before you start rolling.

However, the most balanced rule for stat generation I've come across is just letting players pick their stats. Many players don't just give themselves straight 18s because that's boring. Any player that would do that is placated for their stats, while everyone else ensures they have a character that does their job well. And yet I don't find the method appealing. I'd rather have a buffed array at that point.

Aside from that, I think most settings should have defined limits, whether it be in class, race, background, etc.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 10:50 AM

Debate might be needed on the primary stat is a 15 or 16 tho. Personally I'm fairly strong believer that it needs to stay a 15. While I'd prefer Make the 8 a 10, I think you are at a good line to draw in the sand.

The standard array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8...the average rolls for 4d6-drop-one are 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/109838/22566) — so if we go 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, or 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 10 I'd have less to grouse about.
I prefer the 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 , 9 - since I don't care if there is an 18 at level 1. But I understand the position (based on bounded accuracy, I believe) of capping the stats at 15 (PB does that also) if not rolling. No problem with that.:smallcool:

Oramac

2023-03-02, 10:57 AM

Likely to be unpopular, but my most hated is the absence of any restrictions, bans, fiction-based conditions[1], etc. "Eh, build whatever you want" is a warning sign that the world will just be a flat backdrop for mostly playing the system, not exploring a might-be-real world.

[1] such as "you can build a warlock, but the only patron is X" or "if you're a halfling, your cultural traits are like Y and no you can't Z".

I both agree and disagree. I've been on record here stating that I rarely, if ever, ban anything at my table (other than electronics). What I haven't stated is that with that freedom comes the requirement that your character fits the world in which we're playing. I'll let you make damn near anything, but you have to justify it in-world. Which, by extension, causes "shadow-restrictions", for lack of a better term.

One rule I liked from a DM was that if you wrote a backstory you started with an additional 2 healing potions, and if you brought a real world item to the table that fit your character then you got to pick out a magic item from a curated list. It was for a one-shot.

I love this idea. And if you write a backstory in which your parents love you and are still alive, you get a free Potion of Flying! (or some such reward for not being another edgelord)

================================================== ================================================== ==========

One stat generation method I've always wanted to try for a one-shot, but thus far haven't been able to: 1d20 straight down.

Osuniev

2023-03-02, 11:03 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 11:06 AM

I'll let you make damn near anything, but you have to justify it in-world. Which, by extension, causes "shadow-restrictions", for lack of a better term. Which fit the game world. :smallsmile:

I love this idea. And if you write a backstory in which your parents love you and are still alive, you get a free Potion of Flying! (or some such reward for not being another edgelord) Particularly that last bit ... :smallbiggrin:

Agreed ! I love clear constraints, and it's much more fun to optimize/find the flavour I'm excited about for a charcater INSIDE the constraints. Yes, and it can be done, although my usual challenge is to optimize how I can make the party better based on whatever constraints there are.(Example: our first campaign had no feats).

animorte

2023-03-02, 11:15 AM

I both agree and disagree. I've been on record here stating that I rarely, if ever, ban anything at my table (other than electronics). What I haven't stated is that with that freedom comes the requirement that your character fits the world in which we're playing. I'll let you make damn near anything, but you have to justify it in-world. Which, by extension, causes "shadow-restrictions", for lack of a better term.
100% and I'll start using this terminology for it, thanks.

I love this idea. And if you write a backstory in which your parents love you and are still alive, you get a free Potion of Flying! (or some such reward for not being another edgelord)
I've referred to that as "the Batman." Once, I even required that everyone's parents/siblings were alive as part of the setting and still ended up with, "my adventure started when my best friend died" or "I was banished from my people." :smallsigh:

I appreciate it when people break away from tragedy and avoid it myself unless most of the time.

One stat generation method I've always wanted to try for a one-shot, but thus far haven't been able to: 1d20 straight down.
We actually run more one-shots than anything else. With as many as we run, this could definitely work.

Batcathat

2023-03-02, 01:24 PM

Agreed ! I love clear constraints, and it's much more fun to optimize/find the flavour I'm excited about for a charcater INSIDE the constraints.

Yeah, me too. I love coming up with (frequently weird) character concepts and having some limits in place frequently make that more interesting (not to mention that I usually have roughly a billion ideas to choose from, so some help killing my darlings can be almost necessary), though it depends on both how limiting the limitations are and why they are (I'm a lot more likely to accept "it doesn't fit with the setting/campaign because X" than "I don't like it").

KyleG

2023-03-02, 01:26 PM

I saw somewhere someone was putting proficiency caps on stats/asi so you couldn't get a max stat more than 1 above proficiency but you got more feats. I think this sort of feat heavy but stat light game might be fun.

Amnestic

2023-03-02, 01:33 PM

You don't need an artificer for magic items to exist. I suggest that you read the PHB and the DMG.

Right, and artificers make magic items. That's all they do, which I'm sure you're aware of since you say you read their class description. So if magic items exist then presumably people specialised in doing so - commonly called artificers - likewise do so.

I mean one of the subclasses literally just makes potions/elixirs. I'm not sure why you think that doesn't fit with your world, but it's your stuff. If you want potioncrafting to be off-limits then all power to you as a DM my friend, I certainly won't stand in your way. After all I'm leaning pretty heavily towards simply banning wizards myself.

stoutstien

2023-03-02, 01:44 PM

Slingbow

2023-03-02, 01:46 PM

What are the character creation specifics that you love or hate the most? I'm talking stat generation methods, certain things being banned, free feats or what have you.

I hate the motivation more than the regulations themselves. If you don't want anyone to play a full caster because it's Dark Sun or no artificers cause we aren't in Eberron, or because watching someone spam a gimick move every session gets old. Or because summon spells slow down combat. Fine, whatever.

Just don't ban things because they are "too powerful".

There are infinite ways for the DM to undercut powerful characters. You can target weak saves, utilize dispell magic or areas of anti magic. You can alter monsters and abilities, hit points, anything you want. There is no such thing as a player option that trumps a DM option. Says so in the PHB and DMG.

Oh I also hate it when the DM is a frustrated novelist. Write a book if you want to write a book. Your narrative is SECONDARY. The primary goal is for everyone at the table to have fun, not for everyone at the table to validate the DM.

Oramac

2023-03-02, 01:46 PM

Rynjin

2023-03-02, 01:48 PM

Point Buy on the other hand is hot garbage. It's only there for the worst kind of "optimization", allowing folks to dump 3 stats to max 3 stats.

The fact that you think "dump 3 max 3" is the optimal way to build your character's stats is possibly the strongest argument FOR point buy being the default anybody could ever make.

Being able to control your stat allocation quickly teaches players the intrinsic value of each stat for their character so they don't make horrific miscalculations like this.

stoutstien

2023-03-02, 01:52 PM

I'm curious. The people that picked at or over 18, did they also pick a correspondingly low stat as well? Or just big numbers across the board?

Highest across board was 15s. See lots of double 16s but usually not in both primary stats. It's more smart monks and crafty barbs.

Low stats are common. Few have everything 10+ and i see lots of 6s and 8s.

I have my theories that because it's a bold face choice to pick them they tend to be conservative to not be *that person*.also they have confidence I won't treadmill values anyways so they won't be useless regardless of maxing something or not.

Been in eye opening experiment and changed how and where my WIP focuses attention.

CTurbo

2023-03-02, 02:00 PM

By far my favorite method for stats is for everyone to roll 4d6 drop lowest and anybody can choose anybody's rolls. There has never been a complaint about this method in my groups and not everybody chooses the "best" array every time.

I really dislike rolling for stats and being stuck with what you roll. Back in the 4e days I rolled up a Paladin and had three 18s and my lowest score was 14 while none of the other 3 players had a single 18. Another time my brother in law had a character that didn't have anything higher than a 12. We adopted the "fall back on Point buy as a last resort" option after that before settling on the new favorite method.

I do like starting with a free feat but you can't have Vhuman too. One DM allowed both and nearly everybody showed up with Vhumans starting with 2 feats and that was on top of rolling for stats. The Cleric started with both Warcaster and Res(Con). The Fighter started with PAM and Sentinel, and the Ranger started with both Xbow Expert and Sharpshooter.

One wild way to roll for stats is to roll seven D20s and drop the lowest. lol

animorte

2023-03-02, 02:33 PM

There is no such thing as a player option that trumps a DM option. Says so in the PHB and DMG.

Oh I also hate it when the DM is a frustrated novelist. Write a book if you want to write a book. Your narrative is SECONDARY. The primary goal is for everyone at the table to have fun, not for everyone at the table to validate the DM.
Hard truths, both. I like it.

The fact that you think "dump 3 max 3" is the optimal way to build your character's stats is possibly the strongest argument FOR point buy being the default anybody could ever make.

Being able to control your stat allocation quickly teaches players the intrinsic value of each stat for their character so they don't make horrific miscalculations like this.
Agreed. I personally prefer point-buy over all the other options and have consistent variations from one character to the next. (I've only used 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 for some one-shots.)

Though, a trend I have noticed I tend to favor is:
(14, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10) + racial = (16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10) OR (16, 15, 13, 12, 10, 10)
There's room for a half-feat depending on where I want/need it.

I have my own modified point-buy system that is an option. No race stats. Each player starts with 10 in all stats and can apply 20 points however they want (up to max 18). So you could potentially start with a character at (18, 18, 14, 10, 10, 10) or a character with (14, 14, 13, 13, 13, 13) and anything in between.

Rynjin

2023-03-02, 02:42 PM

Yeah. People tend to gravitate toward more balanced stat lists if you let them. For 20 PB: 16 14 14 10 10 10 is a classic, as is 16 14 14 12 12 7 for examples.

MADder characters might end up trying out something like 16 16 12 12 10 7, or go for one of the safer picks above since the 12 is likely to be in Con at that point.

It's its own minigame, and has far more nuance and player engagement than other methods in thinking about what stats you want and why you want them instead of just taking whatever you're given.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-02, 02:42 PM

The fact that you think "dump 3 max 3" is the optimal way to build your character's stats is possibly the strongest argument FOR point buy being the default anybody could ever make.

Being able to control your stat allocation quickly teaches players the intrinsic value of each stat for their character so they don't make horrific miscalculations like this.

I.e. every stat bar Strength and Intelligence has a cost to dumping, and depending on class one or both of those might be required as well. At the end of the day any stats I pick during point buy aren't going to be that far from the standard array, because having your tertiary stat that high generally isn't worth it.

Unless you've gone for a DEX/CON/WIS build and don't care about social interaction.

Oramac

2023-03-02, 02:45 PM

I personally prefer point-buy over all the other options (I've only used 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 for some one-shots.)

Agreed. Point buy is my go-to method.

I will say, however, that one of my most fun characters broke the rules for point buy (with the DM's approval). Dak the Barbarian. Instead of starting 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8, the DM allowed me to start 17, 17, 17, 6, 6, 6. It was glorious. I deliberately put myself in situations to use the 6's. Let me tell you, rolling a -1 for a persuasion check is incredible!

I have my own modified point-buy system that is an option. No race stats. Each player starts with 10 in all stats and can apply 20 points however they want (up to max 18). So you could potentially start with a character at (18, 18, 14, 10, 10, 10) or a character with (14, 14, 13, 13, 13, 13) and anything in between.

Hmm. I like it. Might give that a shot sometime.

animorte

2023-03-02, 02:54 PM

Agreed. Point buy is my go-to method.

I will say, however, that one of my most fun characters broke the rules for point buy (with the DM's approval). Dak the Barbarian. Instead of starting 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8, the DM allowed me to start 17, 17, 17, 6, 6, 6. It was glorious. I deliberately put myself in situations to use the 6's. Let me tell you, rolling a -1 for a persuasion check is incredible!
This is one thing I've appreciated about rolling. If I end up with some low stats, I've always enjoyed actually using them. I try to play my character as a character instead of just a pile of mechanics. Motivation, immersion, that old chestnut.

Hmm. I like it. Might give that a shot sometime.
:smallbiggrin:

Batcathat

2023-03-02, 05:35 PM

I suppose I can see a point to rolling if the alternative is everyone min-maxing (though personally, the reason I don't like rolling is basically the same as the reason I don't like min-maxing: I want to create the character I have in mind. So unless being stupid is part of the character concept, I won't dump intelligence even if I had zero use for it mechanically, for example).

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-02, 05:40 PM

If you want potioncrafting to be off-limits You don't need an artificer to craft potions. All you need is an herbalism kit for healing potions, for example.
See the DMG for further detail on crafting magic items.
You don't need artificers - as a class - at all to craft potions or any other magic item.
(If one wants to take less time, use the rules in Xanathars that reduces time expended).
Before E;RFtLW was published you could already craft magic items. Right there in the DMG.
The Artificer class is not needed to do that.
(And FWIW, that niche was already filled by the Transmutation wizard sub class).

Amnestic

2023-03-02, 07:07 PM

You don't need an artificer to craft potions. All you need is an herbalism kit for healing potions, for example.
See the DMG for further detail on crafting magic items.
You don't need artificers - as a class - at all to craft potions or any other magic item.
(If one wants to take less time, use the rules in Xanathars that reduces time expended).
Before E;RFtLW was published you could already craft magic items. Right there in the DMG.
The Artificer class is not needed to do that.
(And FWIW, that niche was already filled by the Transmutation wizard sub class).

So, since you're okay with potioncrafting (and indeed magic item crafting), surely you must be fine with artificers from a narrative perspective, no?

I mean, if you believe it should be Eberron exclusive (which you said earlier in the thread), surely there must be a reason behind that, and since none of the mechanics of the artificer class reference anything specific to Eberron (such as dragonmarks, changelings, or warforged), I can only conclude you believe the issue lies with its narrative.

However, we've now established (from your confirming you've read the class description) its narrative is that of someone who enchants magical items, be they potions, armour, or otherwise. That concept is certainly not exclusive to Eberron, since as you've noted such rules are commonplace in the game, widespread throughout other classes, and indeed have a place in all 5e official settings. I'm sure you have noted by reading the class description that it even calls out a number of other settings and where artificers may find a place there.

So what's the deal?

Ogre Mage

2023-03-03, 12:37 AM

Roll for stats in order, no rearranging the scores. Hate it, hate it. I want to arrange my stats to fit the class I want to play, not to be stuck with Strength 17 and low Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma when I dislike playing melee characters. I feel so strongly about this that I would refuse to play if a DM was using it.

Spo

2023-03-03, 12:58 AM

I'm tooting my own horn with this one, but dexterity no longer (positively or negatively) impacts initiative. Class abilities (eg. war wizard), feats (eg. alert) and items (eg. luckstone) can still give bonuses to it, but outside of that you - and NPCs - are rolling straight d20s, no modifiers.

Hmmm. This has some possibilities in my next campaign.

KillingTime

2023-03-03, 05:26 AM

Friend of mine DMs a game where he routinely insists on 4d6drop1 in order. So no swapping stats around to fit.
But if you hate your stats you can use standard array.

I thought I'd hate it, but actually have had a couple of very fun characters spring off the page that I wouldn't have thought of in a million years if I was allocating stats normally.

Unoriginal

2023-03-03, 06:03 AM

Derges

2023-03-03, 06:10 AM

My group ran a lot of oneshots during lockdown.

One of the fun concepts we played around with were party "class packs" which dictated what classes the party could pick from.

for example "The Horde" Meant every player had to have 1 level in barbarian and had to select a chief, in return they got the choice of getting 3 +1 weapons or one +2. The "School outing" required 4 wizards of different specialisations in return for a couple of scrolls each.

Some required more than 1 level investment to work such as Gishes - Wizard (Bladesinger), Fighter (EK), Rogue (AT), Warlock (Hexblade), Bard (Valor) who all got a free fighting style or "Oriental Adventures" - Monk, Fighter (Samurai), Rogue (assassin), Mystic (Wu Jen) - Choose 2 from Daisho set (+1 Greatsword, +1 longsword, +1 shortsword, +1 dagger).

And then there was my personal favourite "Grey Square" where everyone had to roll for class in exchange for each getting a table F magic item roll.

Players were heavily incentivised to roll for stats, backgrounds and race as well using several odd methods. Very silly, lots of fun.

CTurbo

2023-03-03, 09:23 AM

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-03, 10:24 AM

A note on restrictions: despite how hated they are they're always the first thing I recommend to a new DM. Mostly in terms of classes, as races (particularly the core races) and backgrounds have a much smaller impact on how characters work. I'm also a full supporter of setting-based restrictions, although it's generally easier to justify a missing race than a missing class.

I'm also a big fan of no multiclassing, because it makes everything more complex and the kinds of concepts that require it tend to do so because there's no suitable subclass. You pick your adventuring archetype at level 1 and you're going to stick with it your entire career. Although there's like three classes I'd like to see added to round things out (a Bonded who fights alongside a magical creature', a Psychic who serves as a proper psionic option a, and a dedicated Shapeshifter*), multiclassing basically destroys the advantages of not just being a point buy system.

* I cannot for the life of me work out why the PhB has two 'bargain with Outsiders for magic' classes but no dedicated Shapeshifter class

stoutstien

2023-03-03, 10:27 AM

* I cannot for the life of me work out why the PhB has two 'bargain with Outsiders for magic' classes but no dedicated Shapeshifter class

Technically there are ~3 classes that have magic sugar daddies built in. Paladin are borderline and if you view ideals as having agency then they definitely fit that as well

Xervous

2023-03-03, 10:30 AM

It’s a little difficult to comment on most disliked house rules as a forever GM because it’s part of what keeps me running my setup with its hook horrors and blackguards. Though if I was to play?

Low levels only: I’ve avoided a lot of offers from friends wanting to GM because they all detailed low level starts, low level adventure paths, or low level oneshots. If the premise is forever low level nobodies you’re going to have to pitch me something other than D&D.

Rolled stats in the absence of a meat grinder. Roguelikes work because they have short cycle times. High attrition campaigns work the same. For a game that’s implicitly about equal starts and power rolled stats aren’t a good fit.

Class bans for lore reasons: I like the concept but my acceptance is conditional on liking the lore

Class bans because “rogues OP”. This isn’t specifically about rogues, it’s about incompetent GMs who don’t understand the system or otherwise have peculiar standards of what should be.

Flight and other exploration feature bans figure in on a similar note. They more often come as a warning to look for buried lengths of parallel metal bars or bring into question the fragility of scenes.

Oh, and a lack of race bans. Heck, it should be a whitelist we see for session 0. I want to see a coherent setting, none of this bending over “oh I’ll pencil in XYZ here because you want to play it.”

“7-20, pick from these 7 races, clerics are banned because all clerics are going to lose their powers in the opening of the campaign as gods are mostly cut off from the world. Here’s your point buy / array.” Please, do go on.

RogueJK

2023-03-03, 11:14 AM

I cannot for the life of me work out why the PhB has two 'bargain with Outsiders for magic' classes but no dedicated Shapeshifter class

Besides the Druid? While outside the Moon Druid it's technically not a "dedicated shapeshifter", being primarily a spellcaster, any Druid can Wild Shape.

Sounds like you'd like the Shifter class from Pathfinder. In 5E terms it's kind of like a hybrid Monk/Moon Druid/Ranger, built around shapeshifting, unarmed/unarmored combat, and wilderness scouting/survival. But Pathfinder has 42 classes and hundreds of subclasses and prestige classes, so they can afford to be a lot more granular with their class motifs than 5E...

Tanarii

2023-03-03, 11:15 AM

Random rolling for EVERYTHING can be a lot of fun. A few times I've played where literally everything from race, background, class, stats, alignment, and a starting free feat was rolled for. It definitely makes for some interesting characters.
I did Random race / class / background a lot when playing AL. Unsurprisingly, it means I was usually the only one not showing up with Variant human or a matching stat race/class combo. Optimizers gotta optimize. Which is why we ended up with Tasha's. :smallyuk:

diplomancer

2023-03-03, 11:36 AM

Besides the Druid? While outside the Moon Druid it's technically not a "dedicated shapeshifter", being primarily a spellcaster, any Druid can Wild Shape.

Sounds like you'd like the Shifter class from Pathfinder. In 5E terms it's kind of like a hybrid Monk/Moon Druid/Ranger, built around shapeshifting, unarmed/unarmored combat, and wilderness scouting/survival. But Pathfinder has 42 classes and hundreds of subclasses and prestige classes, so they can afford to be a lot more granular with their class motifs than 5E...

I'd imagine a dedicated Shapeshifter class couldn't be a full caster, as so much of the power of a full caster comes from Spellcasting that it leaves relatively little room to be dedicated to anything else.

Slingbow

2023-03-03, 11:51 AM

Less hate and more puzzlement, but I made a character to test the one-shot scenario the DM was going to use at an event, and for some reasons the DM really didn't want my human Barbarian to be in his 60s (or maybe older, I forgot).

Like, it was an entirely inconsequential thing, there weren't any age-affecting or age-affected effects in his scenario, but it just didn't work for the DM.

Yup, frustrated author.
My old DM would only let me choose Devils as patrons and not Demons. He claimed that Demonic sourced magic would bring all the solars in Celestia knocking on my tent. #palenight

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-03, 12:19 PM

Kane0

2023-03-03, 05:26 PM

I hate free feat at level 1. I know its harmless and the game can handle it but I'm just not interested in that sort of direct power creep.

Velaryon

2023-03-03, 10:58 PM

For D&D, I want to have an 18 in my primary stat without having to gimp myself in every other category. I dislike any stat generation method that doesn't allow this. That means standard array is right out for me. I'm not opposed to point buy in theory, but I find that it almost never gives enough points to give me ability scores that I find satisfying. I like to play powerful characters, and if I can't have at least a 16 or 17 (with reasonable expectation of upgrading to 18 quickly) in my most important stat, I'm not going to enjoy the character.

Roll for stats in order, no rearranging the scores. Hate it, hate it. I want to arrange my stats to fit the class I want to play, not to be stuck with Strength 17 and low Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma when I dislike playing melee characters. I feel so strongly about this that I would refuse to play if a DM was using it.

I played in a game like this once, where we had to roll stats in order. I hated it. I was unable to play the class I wanted to play because I didn't have good stats for it, and I ended up with a character that I didn't enjoy at all. Never again will I play at a table where this method of character generation is used.

J-H

2023-03-03, 11:53 PM

Speaking of stat generation, I've just been letting my players pick the values. That's it. No hurdles, or rolling, or needing to justify it.

I have way more important things to do as a GM then play PC generation police and they have to live with the implications of thier own choices.

So far none has picked a value over 18 and that has been only on 3 occurrences and on separate PCs.

When I see this in the Big 16 for a game, I bluescreen. I like having rules!

This thread is making me reconsider offering an array for the next big campaign, in favor of something like a 78 point buy where you can assign stats however you want. 78 points is equivalent to 14x3 + 12x3, so MAD characters are OK. I kind of like the idea of the stat cap tied to PB, but the game will also have strength-boosting items available, so I'm not sure if that will work out or not.

stoutstien

2023-03-04, 06:26 AM

When I see this in the Big 16 for a game, I bluescreen. I like having rules!

This thread is making me reconsider offering an array for the next big campaign, in favor of something like a 78 point buy where you can assign stats however you want. 78 points is equivalent to 14x3 + 12x3, so MAD characters are OK. I kind of like the idea of the stat cap tied to PB, but the game will also have strength-boosting items available, so I'm not sure if that will work out or not.

Lol. I had a few hold out players who had a certain array or rolling preference to use. Best part of just hand waiving it they can still do it.

My WIP is generally moving away from stats being the most important form of progress. Still impactful but only about 1/4 of the equation. I'm also ditching mental stats in the classic sense so it's been fun fitting it all together. I took a page out of travels and tried to make hero generation into a fun little game that exposes the players to the world in bite size amounts.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-04, 07:15 AM

Lol. I had a few hold out players who had a certain array or rolling preference to use. Best part of just hand waiving it they can still do it.

My WIP is generally moving away from stats being the most important form of progress. Still impactful but only about 1/4 of the equation. I'm also ditching mental stats in the classic sense so it's been fun fitting it all together. I took a page out of travels and tried to make hero generation into a fun little game that exposes the players to the world in bite size amounts.

I went the opposite way for a homebrew game, trying to drop physical stats entirely. It kind of worked, but it really needs a rework because one of the stats (Courage) is in practice just a Strength/Physique score. I did like managing to group both physical and social agility into a single Grace stat, so I definitely am going back to the idea at some point. I might have to drop yet another stat to make it work properly, but I like the fact that the current version includes Faith (which yes, in this project is specifically religious faith, I have issues with how much religion is assumed to be 'the Cleric/Paladin thing').

Honestly the best thing about playing non D&D games is seeing how they mess about with stats and similar things. They're actually completely unnecessary, and you could probably improve 5e by removing them and adding more tiers to Proficiency, but included stats tell you a lot about how the original designer intended the game to be played.

stoutstien

2023-03-04, 11:50 AM

I went the opposite way for a homebrew game, trying to drop physical stats entirely. It kind of worked, but it really needs a rework because one of the stats (Courage) is in practice just a Strength/Physique score. I did like managing to group both physical and social agility into a single Grace stat, so I definitely am going back to the idea at some point. I might have to drop yet another stat to make it work properly, but I like the fact that the current version includes Faith (which yes, in this project is specifically religious faith, I have issues with how much religion is assumed to be 'the Cleric/Paladin thing').

Honestly the best thing about playing non D&D games is seeing how they mess about with stats and similar things. They're actually completely unnecessary, and you could probably improve 5e by removing them and adding more tiers to Proficiency, but included stats tell you a lot about how the original designer intended the game to be played.

You could use conviction as a stand-in for courage.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-04, 01:02 PM

You could use conviction as a stand-in for courage.

The issue isn't that I need an alternative for Courage, it's that I need a way for it not to be 'the stat that does physical stuff'.

That project might take a hard swing towards using Cortex Prime anyway, if only to not have to deal with the nightmare of writing spells for a crunchy magic system.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-04, 04:03 PM

So, since you're okay with potioncrafting (and indeed magic item crafting), surely you must be fine with artificers from a narrative perspective, no? No, people with the Arcana skill, or a recipe and time. Artificers are not necessary. Wizards and Magic Users have been doing it since the game was created. There was never a need for the Artificer class, ever.

My bard made magic items (she had the Arcana skill, and we used Xan's guidance) in a recent campaign.
She made a moon-touched blade, some healing potions, and a few scrolls during a few down times when she wasn't Carousing.

DM could have restricted it to wizards and Sorcerers and I'd have been good with that, but the DM didn't. Since I could I did.

Have I allied with an Artificer? Yes. Dork Forge played one in a game Max Wilson ran, and we did fine. Max was good with it, we were a team, press on.

I hate free feat at level 1. I know its harmless and the game can handle it but I'm just not interested in that sort of direct power creep. Concur.

JNAProductions

2023-03-04, 04:04 PM

No, people with the Arcana skill, or a recipe and time. Artificers are not necessary. Wizards and Magic Users have been doing it since the game was created. There was never a need for the Artificer class, ever.

My bard made magic items (she had the Arcana skill, and we used Xan's guidance) in a recent campaign.
She made a moon-touched blade, some healing potions, and a few scrolls during a few down times when she wasn't Carousing.

DM could have restricted it to wizards and Sorcerers and I'd have been good with that, but the DM didn't. Since I could I did.

"Not necessary" isn't the same as "Not worth having".

Is your dislike of artificers mechanical? Or narrative?

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-04, 04:06 PM

I hate free feat at level 1. I know its harmless and the game can handle it but I'm just not interested in that sort of direct power creep.

Is your dislike of artificers mechanical? Or narrative? It is visceral. Some day, I'd like to find a DM who runs an Eberron campaign so that I can play in it. Will someone play an artificer? No idea. But I'd like to see if the feel is that different. (I also no longer do Warforged, but they are perfect in Eberron based on how they fit into that world).

JNAProductions

2023-03-04, 04:10 PM

Amnestic

2023-03-04, 04:48 PM

No, people with the Arcana skill, or a recipe and time. Artificers are not necessary. Wizards and Magic Users have been doing it since the game was created. There was never a need for the Artificer class, ever.

It's a bizarre choice when I approach you on a narrative basis to reply to me with a mechanical point. It also wasn't about "need". You said artificers should be exclusive to Eberron.

I've pointed out how their mechanics are not related to Eberron whatsoever, so that doesn't seem reason to restrict them. I've also pointed out how their class-narrative is item enchanters and potionmakers, which fits in all the published 5e settings and not just the

magitech of Eberron

that you mentioned. So yeah, seems a bit weird! Again, you do you, I just don't want anyone reading your posts to get the wrong impression that artificers don't fit in 99.99% of settings people make, when they do.

Mastikator

2023-03-04, 05:03 PM

It is visceral. Some day, I'd like to find a DM who runs an Eberron campaign so that I can play in it. Will someone play an artificer? No idea. But I'd like to see if the feel is that different. (I also no longer do Warforged, but they are perfect in Eberron based on how they fit into that world).

If you weren't located in a different continent I'd be tempted to invite you to play as a guest in my Eberron campaign. I've tried my best to embrace and emulate the concept of wide accessibility to low level magic. Any spell up to 3rd level? You can just buy it. What does the world look like if spells as powerful as revivify, glyph of warding, sending, speak with death, are widely available for anyone who can pay?
Exploring that concept is a cool journey for me.

Slingbow

2023-03-04, 05:44 PM

Artificers are not necessary.

{Scrubbed}

sambojin

2023-03-04, 08:52 PM

My favourites have been:

Start with a feat at lvl1. Yes, vhumans etc still get +1.

Every lvl4/8/12/16/19 ASI is an ASI and a non-half feat for martials (they really do keep up with casters then). Can choose two feats, but it's "encouraged" that one of them is a weaker one. Most players just grabbed the stats and flavour feats.

All HP level ups are rolled, and if it's below average, it's at least the average.

It ends up a bit power-gamery, but it's fun, and works well up until about lvl12 (which is where most campaigns are already finished by, in my experience).

Tanarii

2023-03-04, 08:56 PM

It is visceral. Some day, I'd like to find a DM who runs an Eberron campaign so that I can play in it. Will someone play an artificer? No idea. But I'd like to see if the feel is that different. (I also no longer do Warforged, but they are perfect in Eberron based on how they fit into that world).
I feel the same way about Artificers outside a magitech world, but they were splat.

What bothers me far more is Tieflings being in the PHB, instead of in a Planescape splat.

But the worst offender was Drow in the PHB, even as a variant rule. What's next, Orcs?

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-04, 09:20 PM

If you weren't located in a different continent I'd be tempted to invite you to play as a guest in my Eberron campaign. I've tried my best to embrace and emulate the concept of wide accessibility to low level magic. Any spell up to 3rd level? You can just buy it. What does the world look like if spells as powerful as revivify, glyph of warding, sending, speak with death, are widely available for anyone who can pay?
Exploring that concept is a cool journey for me. If only. Ever since that book came out (Eberron: Rising from the Last War) I've wanted to try Eberron as I didn't have that experience in the limited 3.x D&D before I put the books and boxes away and stopped playing D&D or any RPG for a decade or so.
Maybe someday, but RL does constrain one's gaming ... darnit! :smallfurious: (And our 13th Age game died to RL scheduling too... :smallfrown: )

Telwar

2023-03-04, 09:41 PM

I played in a friend's game, one session.

Character creation, you rolled stats. Fine, whatever.

You rolled hit dice, but he rolled one you could take, but you didn't know what it was, so it was a risk. No, you couldn't just take the average.

And he applied 3e rules to rogue sneak attack ("they have to have a vulnerable spot"), and threw constructs and undead at the party. The rogue player, in particular, was a little frustrated, especially as he had made the mistake of playing an assassin.

I might have stayed on, but it was on Friday nights, I got home at 1 am, and I just don't want to do that anymore.

fishyfishyfishy

2023-03-04, 11:04 PM

And he applied 3e rules to rogue sneak attack ("they have to have a vulnerable spot"), and threw constructs and undead at the party. The rogue player, in particular, was a little frustrated, especially as he had made the mistake of playing an assassin.

did they at least remove the 1 per turn limitation, like in 3e?

Leon

2023-03-05, 02:16 AM

I like seeing some limits set on what can or cannot be used in terms of resources (even if sometimes the reasoning is skewed ~ after all GM's game GMs Choice)

Generally Most games ive been in have used 4d6b3 with a reroll, one didn't have a reroll but had a d4 mercy dice which you could add to any stat (also had dedicated Stat rolling dice)
Once did I play with Point buy and gosh so bland.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 05:21 AM

Any GM who bans the magical robot people and the magical engineers/craftsmen 'because magitech' is not one I want to play with. Because sometimes I want to play a character who'll fiddle with a Cape of Wings just to see what she can achieve.

And of course sometimes I want to play the hamtastic Popebot 3000. REJOICE WORSHIPPERS, POPEBOT™ IS HERE TO SMITE THE INFIDEL!

Slingbow

2023-03-05, 06:12 AM

Any GM who bans the magical robot people and the magical engineers/craftsmen 'because magitech' is not one I want to play with.

I've played with GMs that ban things because they don't like them. They are the same GMs that blame players for breaking games. The same ones who whine about Drow and Teifling PCs. The ones who "just don't want that in my world".

They also turn threads about player character problems into just another thread about what they (as a GM) love to BAN.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 07:24 AM

I've played with GMs that ban things because they don't like them. They are the same GMs that blame players for breaking games. The same ones who whine about Drow and Teifling PCs. The ones who "just don't want that in my world".

They also turn threads about player character problems into just another thread about what they (as a GM) love to BAN.

The thing is, I support limitations sometimes, particularly with new GMs. But my favourite races and classes tend to get banned for absurd reasons like 'not being fantasy enough'. It's a fantasy, game and my personal fantasy is being a psychic robot, or a robot prophet, or a magic-using swordsmith.

If it's someone's first time GMing I might ask to play something weird, but I can be argued down to stuff like elfin death priestesses, lizardfolk wizards, or dwarven scouts fairly easily. But if you're experienced than beep boop.*character activated*.

Also insert a rant about The Angry DM's view on psionics here.

Slingbow

2023-03-05, 07:41 AM

The thing is, I support limitations sometimes, particularly with new GMs. But my favourite races and classes tend to get banned for absurd reasons like 'not being fantasy enough'. It's a fantasy, game and my personal fantasy is being a psychic robot, or a robot prophet, or a magic-using swordsmith.

If it's someone's first time GMing I might ask to play something weird, but I can be argued down to stuff like elfin death priestesses, lizardfolk wizards, or dwarven scouts fairly easily. But if you're experienced than beep boop.*character activated*.

Also insert a rant about The Angry DM's view on psionics here.

We had to remove a DM from our group. He kept banning Elves because "they're gay". That kind of old school BS is an extreme example, but it's still out there.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-05, 07:53 AM

So, since you're okay with potioncrafting (and indeed magic item crafting), surely you must be fine with artificers from a narrative perspective, no?

I mean, if you believe it should be Eberron exclusive (which you said earlier in the thread), surely there must be a reason behind that, and since none of the mechanics of the artificer class reference anything specific to Eberron (such as dragonmarks, changelings, or warforged), I can only conclude you believe the issue lies with its narrative.

However, we've now established (from your confirming you've read the class description) its narrative is that of someone who enchants magical items, be they potions, armour, or otherwise. That concept is certainly not exclusive to Eberron, since as you've noted such rules are commonplace in the game, widespread throughout other classes, and indeed have a place in all 5e official settings. I'm sure you have noted by reading the class description that it even calls out a number of other settings and where artificers may find a place there.

So what's the deal?

There's a term for people who spend their time sitting home for weeks or months to brew potions and craft magic items: NPC. And that's the thing: Magic items exist, but outside Eberron, they are supposed to be pretty rare and hard and slow to make, even if material to make them can be best obtained through adventuring. Artificer changes that "hard and slow to make" into "as easy as swinging a sword" and "rare" into "loaded with them since level 1". That's definitely not something that fits in every other setting.

stoutstien

2023-03-05, 08:19 AM

There's a term for people who spend their time sitting home for weeks or months to brew potions and craft magic items: NPC. And that's the thing: Magic items exist, but outside Eberron, they are supposed to be pretty rare and hard and slow to make, even if material to make them can be best obtained through adventuring. Artificer changes that "hard and slow to make" into "as easy as swinging a sword" and "rare" into "loaded with them since level 1". That's definitely not something that fits in every other setting.

Nor are they meant to. PC options are one of the more apparent things players see as far as setting up a game but there's a ton of stuff GMs can do to round out setting/theme.

Artificer are great for wide magic but have little impact on its depth.

stoutstien

2023-03-05, 08:21 AM

We had to remove a DM from our group. He kept banning Elves because "they're gay". That kind of old school BS is an extreme example, but it's still out there.
Umm. That's not an old school thing. If anything I've seen a lot more of *that* in young players regardless of the system used.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 08:39 AM

We had to remove a DM from our group. He kept banning Elves because "they're gay". That kind of old school BS is an extreme example, but it's still out there.

So that's why so many of my friends like to play elves.

... And I'm going to leave it there so as not to have this thread descend into a discussion on fantasy race sexuality.

There's a term for people who spend their time sitting home for weeks or months to brew potions and craft magic items: NPC. And that's the thing: Magic items exist, but outside Eberron, they are supposed to be pretty rare and hard and slow to make, even if material to make them can be best obtained through adventuring. Artificer changes that "hard and slow to make" into "as easy as swinging a sword" and "rare" into "loaded with them since level 1". That's definitely not something that fits in every other setting.

Anything permanent is still dependent on:
1) the characters having significant amounts of downtime, and
2) the GM using the crafting rules (either version)

If both of those requirements are fulfilled then yes Artificers in 5e can crank out magic items about four times as fast as anybody else, if they reach level 10. Otherwise they're just making temporary magic items and having to juggle what's useful today. It was different in 3.5, but the 5e Artificer interacts with a lot more than the crafting system.

Yes, even if one of their best class features is being a magic item mule.

Also four times as fast really isn't that fast in the grand scheme of things, especially if the setting doesn't have an established trade in the required ingredients.

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 08:40 AM

And that's the thing: Magic items exist, but outside Eberron, they are supposed to be pretty rare

This is patently untrue. The 'main' setting of 5e, given the amount of material it has printed, is undoubtedly FR, and magic items are super common with numerous magic item shops existing in the lore. Other than FR there's also Planescape/Spelljammer, and they don't seem that rare there, nor are they going to be rare in Strixhaven or Ravnica. I'm not super familiar with Exandria but I'm gonna guess they ain't that rare there either.

I guess they might not be super common in Ravenloft, that's probably the one exception knocking around in 5e.

If you're banning artificers for not fitting your world though I'd hope wizards are out as well, since they're the same narrative with different focuses (understanding magic from an intellectual perspective).

, even if material to make them can be best obtained through adventuring. Artificer changes that "hard and slow to make" into "as easy as swinging a sword" and "rare" into "loaded with them since level 1". That's definitely not something that fits in every other setting.

Forge clerics were making magic weapons and armour from level 1 since Xanathar's. I never see anyone arguing to ban them for being "magitech". Ditto for Rune Knights (well, from 3rd, when they actually get their subclass).

Artificers enchantments are notably not the same as "normal" magic items, because their infusions are temporary - they disappear (after a few days) if you die or if you move the magic elsewhere. That's why they do it faster than the laborious task of crafting 'permanent' magic items that you find in treasure hoards.

As an example case:
Magic Weapon spell (fast, short duration)->Infusions (long rest, indefinite but not permanent)->Actual crafting (Laborious process, permanent)

It's a spectrum, and if you're okay with the left side of the spectrum and the right side of the spectrum it seems pretty weird to go "actually the middle breaks my setting".

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-05, 09:00 AM

I've played with GMs that ban things because they don't like them. They are the same GMs that blame players for breaking games. That is utterly false, in my experience. Your non sequitur failed, as did the poorly veiled insult.
(Can those two things go together? Sure. Not everyone is cut out to be a good DM).

@Anonymous Wizard: While I tend to agree with Angry about psionics (the is informed by having first tried it out in OD&D and AD&D 1e) I do think that with some effort it can be folded into D&D. But that can only be done if the questions asked in the AD&D 2e psionics dialogue (from the creators) is answered "yes" which is: does the game need another magic system in parallel with the one already in place? (As I didn't play that much 3.x I never got to experience the improvements made in 3.5 with the Complete Psionics implementation: I understand it worked pretty well)

I don't feel that what WotC has has done with psionics in Tasha's, etc is a satisfactory answer.
For my money, the monk's ki is the closest to psionics that 5e has gotten and it might be worth exploring that avenue on the dev side.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-05, 09:19 AM

This is patently untrue.

"Unless you decide your campaign works otherwise, most magic items are so rare that they aren't available for purchase. Common items, such as a potion of healing, can be procured from an alchemist, herbalist, or spellcaster. Doing so is rarely as simple as walking into a shop and selecting an item from a shelf. The seller might ask for a service, rather than coin." -DMG

The 'main' setting of 5e, given the amount of material it has printed, is undoubtedly FR, and magic items are super common with numerous magic item shops existing in the lore.

FR? You mean the mess where the writters can't decide if spellcasters are 1 in tens thousands or one on every corner?

Other than FR there's also Planescape/Spelljammer, and they don't seem that rare there

There's no Planescape or proper Spelljammer setting in 5e

nor are they going to be rare in Strixhaven or Ravnica

Yes, the MtG settings have artificers. However, they are MtG settings, not D&D settings, despite WotC's misguided attempt to cash out on crossover between their IPs.

Forge clerics were making magic weapons and armour from level 1 since Xanathar's. I never see anyone arguing to ban them for being "magitech". Ditto for Rune Knights (well, from 3rd, when they actually get their subclass

There's a difference between subclasses and entire base class. Even then, there's a huge thematic difference between a priest bestowing blessing of their deity on a weapon, and a mortal just making them willy-nilly. And I do ban Rune Knight.

Artificers enchantments are notably not the same as "normal" magic items, because their infusions are temporary - they disappear (after a few days) if you die or if you move the magic elsewhere. That's why they do it faster than the laborious task of crafting 'permanent' magic items that you find in treasure hoards.

As an example case:
Magic Weapon spell (fast, short duration)->Infusions (long rest, indefinite but not permanent)->Actual crafting (Laborious process, permanent)

It's a spectrum, and if you're okay with the left side of the spectrum and the right side of the spectrum it seems pretty weird to go "actually the middle breaks my setting".

It's the whole theme of the class, there isn't any "middle ground". Artificer's entire schtick is a rapid creation and use of magic items.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-05, 09:21 AM

. And I do ban Rune Knight. I am about to play one.
What is it about that sub class that makes it less palatable for you?
As I reviewed the options, it feels like a different take on EK. But I have not played it yet.

As to Magic items: in the published adventures, there tend to be a great many, but the PCs don't usually visit everyplace in the published adventure.
Given that 5e's system has some spells consume various things that have a cost, I have begun subbing in that kind of spell component (gems usually) for some of the GP treasure, and in a few cases have replaced magical treasure with components that I know the PCs need for spells like revivify.
The idea is that 'useful treasure' is usually appreciated.

I've also gotten good mileage out of the magical tattoos (usually the consumable version, one spell one time). The players have responded to them positively.

Given all of the things in Tasha's that I don't much care for, the Tattoos and the Skill Expert feat are now standard in my games.

stoutstien

2023-03-05, 09:26 AM

I am about to play one.
What is it about that sub class that makes it less palatable for you?
As I reviewed the options, it feels like a different take on EK. But I have not played it yet.

Runic magic is as impactful as artifice in a given setting so if you want runes to exist in a "mystical" and/or rare sense you can't have someone who can just pop them out like a gumball machine even if it's has the limits of only being activated by self.

Mechanically it's solid besides some odd decisions with action economy.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-05, 09:32 AM

Runic magic is as impactful as artifice in a given setting so if you want runes to exist in a "mystical" and/or rare sense you can't have someone who can just pop them out like a gumball machine even if it's has the limits of only being activated by self. OK, that makes sense as an aesthetical objection. Narratively, the DM and I had to put together a back story that had my PC interacting with both Goliaths and Giants (before adventuring begins at level 3) so that having that rare ability to inscribe runes made sense 'in world.' We arrived at a good place.
Mechanically it's solid besides some odd decisions with action economy. The Runes that I have each have two features. One is for an ability check, and the other is something in combat.
The SR limit is IMO a good thing; pick your spots to activate the rune.
Do you think it ought to be an LR limit?
Or, do you think that "once chosen, you are stuck with it" is the better idea? (Rather than mix and match after a long rest)

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 09:37 AM

"Unless you decide your campaign works otherwise, most magic items are so rare that they aren't available for purchase. Common items, such as a potion of healing, can be procured from an alchemist, herbalist, or spellcaster. Doing so is rarely as simple as walking into a shop and selecting an item from a shelf. The seller might ask for a service, rather than coin." -DMG

That's great and all but I'm still talking about official 5e settings, the ones where magic items are not so rare that they aren't available for purchase. Considering that section then goes on to discuss all the ways you CAN buy magic items, it seems pretty disingenuous for you to cut it off there.

FR? You mean the mess where the writters can't decide if spellcasters are 1 in tens thousands or one on every corner?

Yeah, that one. the one that keeps getting material printed for it. The one that's essentially the flagship setting for this edition, and what new players are almost certainly going to start with since that's where the starter sets are based.

There's no Planescape or proper Spelljammer setting in 5e

https://dnd.wizards.com/products/spelljammer

You don't get to discount it as not "proper" just 'cos you don't like it. It's still there, in print.

Yes, the MtG settings have artificers. However, they are MtG settings, not D&D settings, despite WotC's misguided attempt to cash out on crossover between their IPs.

They're 5e settings. You can whine all your like about their inclusion but they're still part of the official game. Just as much if not moreso than your homebrew setting.

There's a difference between subclasses and entire base class. Even then, there's a huge thematic difference between a priest bestowing blessing of their deity on a weapon, and a mortal just making them willy-nilly.

Why is one character using magic on an item bad but another character using magic on an item good? Do you ban all the classes that get Magic Weapon? Elemental Weapon? Holy Weapon?

stoutstien

2023-03-05, 09:48 AM

OK, that makes sense as an aesthetical objection. Narratively, the DM and I had to put together a back story that had my PC interacting with both Goliaths and Giants (before adventuring begins at level 3) so that having that rare ability to craft runes made sense 'in world.' We arrived at a good place. The Runes that I have each have two features. One is for an ability check, and the other is something in combat.
The SR limit is IMO a good thing; pick your spots to activate the rune.
Do you think it ought to be an LR limit?

Nothing like that. It's just the way they have conditions set for the runes can be confusing to those who tend to gravitate to the fighter chassis/theme.

Cloud - reaction to redirect attack. So it's something you have to 'meta' to use because ita dependent on the type of roll made rather than the effect. It's also magic<not spell>.

Fire - no action but rides on an attack with a a weapon. Note this is different than the attack action so theoretically it works with things like magical effects that include weapon attacks. Rest is pretty straightforward. Auto damage and instant save and a repeating save at end of turn. Functions a lot like some of the smite spells.

Frost - flavorful but very clunky. Oddly would be a better on barbarians to give them kind of like a long duration non-combat rage to be more "big guy do strong stuff"

Stone- another reaction but this one's based on when a Target finishes a turn. Once again this is a meta aspect so it can be a little disjointed. It also function off a charm which is a condition which has mixed applications because sometimes the immunity is listed in the stat block and sometimes it is listed in the flavor text and sometimes it's applied but not stated.

Hill- bonus action activation with some resistance to the big three. Like rage this is any source of damage not just attacks or weapons. Clean, easy to use powerful, but has action economy conflict with the room knights "big thing" with rune might. Not bad enough to be a huge problem but it is something to consider.

Storm- bonus action dice manipulation via reaction. The good news is while this one can be complicated it doesn't come online immediately because it has a level lock so you can ease into it. Personally I'm not a fan of affecting roles after dice hit but that's a small nickpick.

Then you have the rune might and shield that are to other things at the player has to contend with which aren't bad even in the totality of the class but as far as fighters go you have to be action economy conscious for effect and smoothness in play.

Overall it's one of the better class/subclass combos in print but it does have some potential to be cluttered if the player/DM don't have communication rapport built up. The recovery rate isn't a issue IMO. It's about on par with your average warlock in paperwork.

Most of the action limits are likely place to prevent them from stacking the action in their favor via feats and other strategies but as long as the player isn't doing that you could avoid most of which by removing some lines.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 10:06 AM

Psionics are pretty common in fantasy, although D&D tends to give them additional theming instead of just having them be a thing. Lore-wise it's probably easiest to use the 4e explanation to integrate them, they're a product of or defence mechanism against the Far Realm, but I prefer, actually hold on a minute.

[QUOTE]I don't feel that what WotC has has done with psionics in Tasha's, etc is a satisfactory answer.
For my money, the monk's ki is the closest to psionics that 5e has gotten and it might be worth exploring that avenue on the dev side.

Oh, my personal take on a 5e psionic class is based on the monk, partially because both have a theme of enlightenment. The qi/psi split is an internal vs external thing. The psychic class I'm working on gives a bunch of core 'generic' abilities like empathy and a danger sense while subclasses give the fun stuff like reading minds, throwing wagons, or inflicting cancer.

animorte

2023-03-05, 10:11 AM

I think if magic items exist in your world, period, banning Artificer is a little silly (aside from saying "core only" or something of that nature). They just happen to be people who can grasp the concept of combining magic with items, which is a thing that can be done by other methods anyway.

If you're banning something, at least be honest about it. Don't like it, it's not core, too broken and I don't know how to deal with it, doesn't fit in this specific setting, etc. That's fine, just be honest about it instead of defaulting to something you've heard as an excuse.

The only time I've ever tried to min/max hyper-optimize is during some one-shots. I'll often use one-shots to test out mediocre character concepts as well.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-05, 10:25 AM

I am about to play one.
What is it about that sub class that makes it less palatable for you?
As I reviewed the options, it feels like a different take on EK. But I have not played it yet.

Theme. The rune magic is impactful to worldbuilding, as Stoutstien noted, and the whole giant link doesn't fit... and without the giant link, the size change, which is the core of the subclass as much as the runes doesn't make much sense (it barely makes any sense as it is... giants aren't big because they use magic to be big).

https://dnd.wizards.com/products/spelljammer

You don't get to discount it as not "proper" just 'cos you don't like it. It's still there, in print.

I do get to discount whatever I want. If there's basically no info to run a game in the setting, it's not a proper setting, no matter what WotC claims in their attempt to get more money.

They're 5e settings. You can whine all your like about their inclusion but they're still part of the official game. Just as much if not moreso than your homebrew setting.

Forcibly shoving 5e mechanics somewhere while ignoring that the entire basis of the setting is different and does not work with 5e mechanics does not make something a 5e setting. It makes the result an abomination.

Tanarii

2023-03-05, 12:01 PM

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 12:08 PM

Artificers are magitech. Period.

They're not, you're just wrong about this. We've discussed it in the past. If you believe that artificers are magitech then literally every magic item - magic swords, arcane focuses, spell scrolls, etc. - are all magitech, and it devalues the term to being basically worthless.

And, more to the point, turns every D&D setting into a 'magitech' one, since even the least magic-item-filled one in Ravenloft still has some magic items knocking around.

Which I think most people will agree is not the case.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-05, 12:34 PM

They're not, you're just wrong about this. We've discussed it in the past. If you believe that artificers are magitech then literally every magic item - magic swords, arcane focuses, spell scrolls, etc. - are all magitech, and it devalues the term to being basically worthless.

And, more to the point, turns every D&D setting into a 'magitech' one, since even the least magic-item-filled one in Ravenloft still has some magic items knocking around.

Which I think most people will agree is not the case.

No. Most settings don't have magic item creation as a common thing beyond the simplest potions. Magic items are relics of lost civilizations, not things that people just casually craft.

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 12:55 PM

No. Most settings don't have magic item creation as a common thing beyond the simplest potions. Magic items are relics of lost civilizations, not things that people just casually craft.

That isn't really a response to what I wrote, so I don't know why you quoted my post to write it. I wasn't talking about crafting there?

That post was talking about Tanarii's incorrect assertion that Artificers are magitech. They're not. They can be if that is your chosen fluff, but they're not by default. Your artificer could use magical glyphs (smith's tools), arcane gems (jeweler's tools), magic paint (calligrapher's tools) or potions (alchemist's supplies). Tell me, if you care to, why you think arcane gems infused with magic are magitech but an arcane orb infused with magic (wizard spellcasting tool) is not?

This is why I say quite simply that if your setting has a (narrative) place for wizards - which all official D&D settings do, it has a place for artificers. Both use their intellect to understand magic. Wizards do so to cast spells - some of which create permanent magical effects (such as Arcane Lock or Continual Flame) - and artificers do so to infuse items.

More to the point: Artificers, with their infusions/spells, do not "make" magic items. They infuse items with magic. Those are not the same thing in the rules of the game, since crafting an item and infusing an item with magic have explicitly different rules.

Crafting a magic item is a permanent thing. You turn a non-magical sword into a permanent +1 sword.
Infusing a magic item is a temporary thing. You turn a non-magical sword into a +1 sword until you decide to swap the infusion away or die.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 01:50 PM

Artificers are magitech. Period.

Not everyone wants to turn their world into a magitech world. Or have a magitech nation, that somehow the technology doesn't bleed out from, within their world.

Artificers don't have to be magitech, at their core they're specialised wizards who are really good at magic items. One of the subclasses is even meant to focus on pretty setting agnostic alchemy, another two are about improving a piece of equipment (Artillerists with a focus, Armourers with a suit of armour). Even the Battle Smith might just have a small golem or the like.

If Artificers require magitech than wizards require Roke. Now not every setting wants there to be magical boarding schools, so clearly most games should ban the wizard, right?

No. Most settings don't have magic item creation as a common thing beyond the simplest potions. Magic items are relics of lost civilizations, not things that people just casually craft.

I'd really like to see evidence on that, my experience suggests the opposite. Most likely most games probably fall somewhere in the middle of the Dark Sun/Eberron scale, where magic items aren't something you can buy at the shops, but most wealthy families have a couple and you can probably get a weak one made by the local wizard for a big favour. The wizard might even have a few dozen and use them as payment for adventurers, they might even have a couple of minor wondrous items on hand for emergency payments.

In more feudal settings wizards might even be taxed by having to present the local ruler with a new magic item once or twice a decade. Which most wizards probably do because it's easier to whip up the occasional sword or crystal ball than fight an army.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-05, 02:25 PM

I'd really like to see evidence on that, my experience suggests the opposite. Most likely most games probably fall somewhere in the middle of the Dark Sun/Eberron scale, where magic items aren't something you can buy at the shops, but most wealthy families have a couple and you can probably get a weak one made by the local wizard for a big favour. The wizard might even have a few dozen and use them as payment for adventurers, they might even have a couple of minor wondrous items on hand for emergency payments.

In more feudal settings wizards might even be taxed by having to present the local ruler with a new magic item once or twice a decade. Which most wizards probably do because it's easier to whip up the occasional sword or crystal ball than fight an army.

This is 5e, not 3e. Wizards don't make magic items. Wizards are not necessary or even really advantaged in making magic items. They play no role in it.

Heck, anyone with the appropriate proficiency and the necessary components and schema can make a magic item.

I'm going by the statements in the DMG, which are very clear that magic items, in the main, are the relics of lost ages and are hoarded/carefully protected by rulers or hidden in dungeons and that the primary (and almost exclusive) method of getting them is by adventuring. There are no markets for them. There are no factories churning them out. Not even on an artisinal scale. Most people, including militaries are not expected to have them except possibly as ancestral relics.

------------

I'll note that I'm not as die-hard anti-artificer as some. It's not banned in my world. It's just...meh. But let's look at the aesthetics of the class.

Base class features:
- Very heavily "tinkerer/gadgeteer" coded. Their 1st level feature is literally called "magical tinkering" and requires having tools in hand. This is clearly "magitek" coded.
- Spells...meh.
- Infuse Item: You've got
-- power armor (arcane propulsion armor, armor of magical strength, helm of awareness, enhanced defense, mind sharpener, repulsion shield, resistant armor)
-- power weapons (repeating shot is very magitech aesthetics.
-- replicating magic items...all of which are mostly mechanical-esque
-- creating a homunculus, which uses an item as its heart (very clockwork-style)
- subclasses (considered separately)
- tool expertise (very tech-coded)
- flash of genius (aka "I'm a mad scientist")
- magic item adept (which is useless unless you're stacked with magic items or can craft)
- spell storing item (ok, this one's not particularly magitech)
- magic item savant (again, requires you to be dripping with items to be much use)
- magic item master (ditto)
- Soul of artificer (ok, this one's fine)

Subclasses:
-- Alchemist: This one's mostly ok. Still got heavy mad scientist vibes, especially with Chemical Mastery and Experimental Elixir, but meh.
-- Armorer: Iron Man, the sub class. Literally and explicitly magitek coded.
-- artillerist: Also very magitek. Cannons, firearms, explosions, this thing screams magitek.
-- Battle smith: Yeah, making your own mechanical (ie non-golem) construct. That doesn't scream magitek.

Overall, the aesthetic of the class bends very very heavily toward the magitek. Could it be reworked to not? Maybe. But you're dropping all but one subclass (widely considered the weakest) and about half the infusions. Plus, unless making magic items is a thing or unless magic items feature very heavily (way more than the guidance suggests), most of their high-level features are kinda bleh.

So yeah. It doesn't fit well into any but the most magic-item-dripping and magitek worlds. Not by default. It's not nearly as generic as people are claiming.

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 02:59 PM

-- power armor (arcane propulsion armor, armor of magical strength, helm of awareness, enhanced defense, mind sharpener, repulsion shield, resistant armor)

Again, is any enchanted armour now magitech? Is a +1 half-plate? So why is it listed under your "power armour" section? Baffled by some of these inclusions. I can see arcane-propulsion armour, I can understand that one but uhh resistant armour? Helm of Awareness? Armour of Magical Strength?

-- power weapons (repeating shot is very magitech aesthetics.

It's an everfull quiver except on the weapon instead of a bag so like...doesn't seem out of the ordinary for a spellcaster.

-- replicating magic items...all of which are mostly mechanical-esque

Are we looking at a different list here? You show me yours, I'll show you mine, because the only two out of a list of some 52 are the ventilating lungs and the arcane propulsion arm, both of which are Eberron-specific. Tell me which magic items you're replicating that are magitech, since apparently it's most of them.

-- creating a homunculus, which uses an item as its heart (very clockwork-style)

The item is a gemstone or crystal. Magic gems aren't 'clockwork style'.

The text of the infusion says "You determine the homunculus's appearance. Some artificers prefer mechanical-looking birds, whereas some like winged vials or miniature, animate cauldrons."

So, again. They can be magitech, but they don't have to be. Are animated objects magitech now?

- tool expertise (very tech-coded)

How exactly is expertise with thieves tools and calligraphy supplies "tech-coded" man come on.

Overall, the aesthetic of the class bends very very heavily toward the magitek. Could it be reworked to not? Maybe.

It doesn't need reworking, because unless you're approaching it from the perspective of "it is magitech" to start with

. Plus, unless making magic items is a thing or unless magic items feature very heavily (way more than the guidance suggests), most of their high-level features are kinda bleh.

This is not true at all. Whenever their attunement slots increase, their number of infused items also increase. 4 for 4, 5 for 5, 6 for 6.

Even if not a single magic item drops in the entire campaign (I'm sure your martials would be thrilled...) they can still make use of all of their higher level features just fine. The only one that won't get used is half of Magic Item Adept at 10th - the crafting magic items part. I think they'll manage. Soul of Artifice and their additional attunement slots can see full use even if your campaign completely eschews permanent magic items for whatever reason.

I'll cop to armourer being certainly more techy than others (though, frankly, it's still just magic armour at its core) but the way some people are talking about the class you'd think they pulled out a glock and headshot tiamat. The artillerist is a wand-wielder, and magic wands aren't particularly techy last I checked.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-05, 04:51 PM

The artillerist is a wand-wielder, and magic wands aren't particularly techy last I checked.

And last time I've checked, the main feature of the feature of the Artillerist was the Eldritch Cannon mobile turret, not a wand, and even the single wand-related feature is named Arcane Firearm.

Amnestic

2023-03-05, 04:56 PM

And last time I've checked, the main feature of the feature of the Artillerist was the Eldritch Cannon mobile turret, not a wand,

The art for it in Tasha's is a big old style chinese dragon firework cannon carried on the shoulder. "Mobile turret" doesn't exactly give off the same vibes as "a big fancy tube that shoots magic".

and even the single wand-related feature is named Arcane Firearm.

Right, but it's not actually a gun, is it? It's a wand, rod, or staff with magic runes on it:

At 5th level, You know how to turn a wand, staff, or rod into an arcane firearm, a conduit for your destructive spells. When you finish a long rest, you can use woodcarver's tools to carve special sigils into a wand, staff, or rod and thereby turn it into your arcane firearm. The sigils disappear from the object if you later carve them on a different item. The sigils otherwise last indefinitely.

Not a great name, I'll grant you, but what it actually is? It's a magic wand.

Or a magic staff, I guess.

DruidAlanon

2023-03-05, 04:58 PM

JackPhoenix

2023-03-05, 05:21 PM

The art for it in Tasha's is a big old style chinese dragon firework cannon carried on the shoulder. "Mobile turret" doesn't exactly give off the same vibes as "a big fancy tube that shoots magic".

You mean the illustration doesn't match the text? I'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked.

Anyway, this entire discussion is off-topic, I'm bowing out.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 05:41 PM

You mean the illustration doesn't match the text? I'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked.

Anyway, this entire discussion is off-topic, I'm bowing out.

Going by the artillerist description it's more than reasonable that 'creating' a cannon involves setting it up and placing it next to you. Or just digging it out of the bag and changing the settings. The one in the picture is probably a Tiny cannon 'helf in one hand'.

It actually seems to be pretty darn accurate to the text.

Ogre Mage

2023-03-05, 06:56 PM

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-05, 07:31 PM

I normally prefer point buy but one attribute rolling method I liked was all the players roll 4d6 drop lowest six times. Then the group decides which set of scores will be used. This means everyone has the same base numbers to start with. The set we chose was 17, 16, 13, 13, 12, 11. This was done in front of the DM of course. I have seen instances where the players "rolled" 4d6 drop lowest in private and someone had three 18s. :smallsigh:

It happens occasionally. By which I mean it being a legit roll, and it becomes more likely if a player invests in cheap dice and bias tests them (I have a bunch of d6s biased towards 2, 3, and 6). Oh sure, bias testing your d6s is unsportsmanlike, but people do it because the rules encourage it (and even altering your dice if you can get away with it, or using dice which aren't even marked correctly). Biased dice are actually pretty common, but each batch of dice should be randomly biased, and if you just honestly use a mixture of dice, let them wear from use, and don't actively seek out theme advantageous ones it should probably even out.

But yeah, that player probably cheated. Could have done things with funky dice, more likely just jotted down an unlikely set of stats.

More seriously, 'roll at home' is basically in practice just letting players choose their stats. Which if you let players do honestly will probably eventually trend towards being a bit higher than the standard array. Honestly the biggest stat discrepancy I've seen was from honest in front of the GM rolled stats (with a method I've complained about on this forum several times, including in this thread), personal experience vary wildly on how this one turns out (it works better in story-focused groups than char-op ones).

Ogre Mage

2023-03-05, 11:37 PM

It happens occasionally. By which I mean it being a legit roll, and it becomes more likely if a player invests in cheap dice and bias tests them (I have a bunch of d6s biased towards 2, 3, and 6). Oh sure, bias testing your d6s is unsportsmanlike, but people do it because the rules encourage it (and even altering your dice if you can get away with it, or using dice which aren't even marked correctly). Biased dice are actually pretty common, but each batch of dice should be randomly biased, and if you just honestly use a mixture of dice, let them wear from use, and don't actively seek out theme advantageous ones it should probably even out.

But yeah, that player probably cheated. Could have done things with funky dice, more likely just jotted down an unlikely set of stats.

More seriously, 'roll at home' is basically in practice just letting players choose their stats. Which if you let players do honestly will probably eventually trend towards being a bit higher than the standard array. Honestly the biggest stat discrepancy I've seen was from honest in front of the GM rolled stats (with a method I've complained about on this forum several times, including in this thread), personal experience vary wildly on how this one turns out (it works better in story-focused groups than char-op ones).

Rolling three 18s during a six set of 4d6 drop lowest is technically possible but so statistically unlikely that I would have to see it to believe it. According to this statistical analysis (https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/) the chance of it happening is .01% (lol).

I've never had the opportunity to pick my own stats in 5E. How high I pushed them would depend on how hard I knew the DM to be. In a "average" campaign I'd probably go something like 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10. That way with racial bonuses I could start with an 18 in my main stat. It is indeed higher than the standard array.

Slingbow

2023-03-06, 06:54 AM

+1 as a player. My DM banned monstrous races, in a game starting at lvl1, with min maxers playing a Watcher Paladin, a Twilight Cleric, a multiclass Gloom Stalker Ranger/ Forge Cleric, a chronurgy wizard, and me, a poor Spores Druid. No Tortle, not aven a Loxodon, because "you can't look like a "teenage mutant ninja turtle". :confused:

Exactly. Cause the GM could give a poop about players having fun. I mean, if they cared about everyone having a good time above all else, what could motivate the statement "You can't look like a ninja turtle."?

Next time play a Halfling. I promise after the 4th nat 1 you get to re roll, they will be banned.

Xervous

2023-03-06, 08:04 AM

Exactly. Cause the GM could give a poop about players having fun. I mean, if they cared about everyone having a good time above all else, what could motivate the statement "You can't look like a ninja turtle."?

Next time play a Halfling. I promise after the 4th nat 1 you get to re roll, they will be banned.

The thing is you get to choose who is at the table outside of scenarios like AL. If Jimmy will only play if he gets to be a ninja turtle I simply invite another player who will have fun with the unaltered campaign premise. If the restaurant has enough regular customers what need does it have for vegan options on the menu?

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-06, 08:35 AM

It might be fun to go the other way, at session 0 have every player pick a separate race for their character from the full list*, and then create a setting where those are the only races. This could wind up with anything from a standard humans/elves/dwarves/halflings setting, but you could also get a world of entirely animal people, or bizarre results like having only the four half-human races.

It's probably best when done with other game creation stuff, instead of an authoritarian 'the GM creates the world' style. I'd probably steal from the way Fate does it, with player input on issues, Faces & Places, and potentially even cosmology and metaphysics. So yeah, it's definitely not for everybody in this thread, but it might be how I run my next game.

* Or just all those the GM has the book for.

Mastikator

2023-03-06, 08:42 AM

Exactly. Cause the GM could give a poop about players having fun. I mean, if they cared about everyone having a good time above all else, what could motivate the statement "You can't look like a ninja turtle."?

Maybe the DM wanted a more serious tone? One of the main rewards of being a DM is that you get to play the kind of game you enjoy. If the players don't enjoy that they're free to find a new DM or become the DM.

diplomancer

2023-03-06, 09:04 AM

I hate free feat at level 1. I know its harmless and the game can handle it but I'm just not interested in that sort of direct power creep.

Not even from a DM-curated list? Sure, it's still technically power-creep, but it brings into the game abilities that otherwise probably would not see the light of day.

stoutstien

2023-03-06, 09:15 AM

Not even from a DM-curated list? Sure, it's still technically power-creep, but it brings into the game abilities that otherwise probably would not see the light of day.

Eh I'd rather just give them the feature in question them rather than try to modify the tangled mess of feats.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-06, 09:38 AM

Nothing like that. {snip thorough analysis} Most of the action limits are likely place to prevent them from stacking the action in their favor via feats and other strategies but as long as the player isn't doing that you could avoid most of which by removing some lines. Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for that. For Jack Phoenix: thanks for your analysis as well.

Artificers don't have to be magitech, at their core they're specialised wizards who are really good at magic items. As I said when Artificer was in UA, they are (or ought to be) a sub class of wizard).

This is 5e, not 3e. Yes, there is no Magic Mart. WBL is dead.

I'm going by the statements in the DMG, which are very clear that magic items, in the main, are the relics of lost ages and are hoarded/carefully protected by rulers or hidden in dungeons and that the primary (and almost exclusive) method of getting them is by adventuring. One of the whole points of this 'adventuring' thing is to find treasure and magic items.
------------

And last time I've checked, the main feature of the feature of the Artillerist was the Eldritch Cannon mobile turret, not a wand, and even the single wand-related feature is named Arcane Firearm. It is not a wand. It's a little fella made of {something} with an AC of 8 that can walk on its own or be small enough to be perched on the Artificer's shoulder. (And the Temp HP boon, in a close fight, is pretty awesome).

Next time play a Halfling. I promise after the 4th nat 1 you get to re roll, they will be banned. I seriously doubt that.
Experiential note: some of the most hilarious and best moments at our table, during my first campaign with Phoenix, was our halfling dex paladin rolling a 1, and then rerolling, and getting a much better roll. The number of times she rolled a 20 as a re roll started a couple of us wondering about small sample sizes and 'what are the odds?"
I got to the point that I rarely gave her bardic inspiration because the player had, it seemed to me, that amazing halfling luck at a whole new level. But I did use cutting words quite a bit to keep the paladin from getting hit.

Slingbow

2023-03-06, 11:55 AM

I seriously doubt that.
Experiential note: some of the most hilarious and best moments at our table, during my first campaign with Phoenix, was our halfling dex paladin rolling a 1, and then rerolling, and getting a much better roll. The number of times she rolled a 20 as a re roll started a couple of us wondering about small sample sizes and 'what are the odds?"
I got to the point that I rarely gave her bardic inspiration because the player had, it seemed to me, that amazing halfling luck at a whole new level. But I did use cutting words quite a bit to keep the paladin from getting hit.

Yup, I love them so much. It's a challenge to play another race. Every time I roll a 1 I kick myself.

animorte

2023-03-06, 12:14 PM

Yup, I love them so much. It's a challenge to play another race. Every time I roll a 1 I kick myself.
Did I already subscribe to this exact statement in this thread? Just making sure. :smalltongue:

Also this:

* I'm not allowed to play a halfling with new players at the table. I may or may not use Nimble to play croquet with everyone's legs.

Slingbow

2023-03-06, 01:24 PM

Did I already subscribe to this exact statement in this thread? Just making sure. :smalltongue:

Also this:

Fine, the DM grants you 1 inspiration

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-07, 11:22 AM

Psionics are pretty common in fantasy As a kind of fictional magic, sure. Psionics in D&D are an import from SF into F (EGG spelled that out during an interview) ...but... if you look at the origin of D&D it was dreamed up by SF&F fans in the first place. (Science Fiction and Fantasy (Peterson's Elusive Shift explains this way better than I can). There was going to be some fusion organically, if you look at who was putting it all together. Check out the original Blackmoor Supplement: The little module/adventure in the back of that (Temple of the Frog, Dave Arneson) was SF/F fusion. The Clone spell likewise. (Per a brief article by Rob Kuntz). I think that the influence of Lovecraft, Vance, Carter, Howard, Lieber, et al (Appendix N, if you will) was going to weave some SF themes into the game back when it was wide open.
The implementation has been clunky, though, and 5e is no exception. (Not sure if psionics was better in 4e, no experience with that edition).

Telwar

2023-03-07, 11:45 AM

did they at least remove the 1 per turn limitation, like in 3e?

I'm pretty sure no. But this was like five years ago minimum.

Lord Torath

2023-03-07, 12:50 PM

One DM in a 1e/2e game allowed my new 3rd level PC to spend his xp total on any magic items in the DMG, as long as no item cost more than 1250 xp. Really gave me a reason to check out the low-xp/high-value items – daggers of throwing, magical quarterstaves, ioun stones... lots of hidden gems in there. That was a lot of fun!

Another DM had me roll 7 sets of 4d6k3, keeping the lowest and the five highest totals for my ability scores. A fair number of high rolls, and one low one. (I thwarted that by rolling three 12s as my lowest rolls - my six-siders seem to love me when it comes to rolling ability scores, but hate me when it comes to rolling high for getting first turn in table-top wargames)

As far as psionics, I love 2e Complete Psionics Handbook version. Fantastic, and properly distinct from magic. 3e and later made the two systems interact a lot more.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-07, 08:47 PM

As a kind of fictional magic, sure. Psionics in D&D are an import from SF into F (EGG spelled that out during an interview)

It might have been where Gygax got it from, but with a rename and removing some of the imagery (maybe all this crystal stuff, but crystals are to some extent a fantasy thing). It's also not like they're two unconnected genres buly literary terms, in fact they're generally lumped together. Most of the 'psionics are too SF' stuff feels like a mixture of genre gatekeeping and 'the younger person wants to be a special snowflake', but I just like psychic powers and limited powersets. Plus we have like eight different sources of magic just in the PhB these days, what's wrong with one more. I understand mentalism is a bit more of a romantic fantasy deal, but eh heroic fantasy traditionally presents magic as evil, we're already playing a bit loose with tropes.

Also easier gender switching and similar stuff, although I understand that such things really aren't universally appealing. But it's part of why I like Changelings.

5e is a bit weird in this regard due to how it's 'psionic caster' option is a Sorcerer with light flavouring, although I find the Psi Knight* and psionic feats much more appealing (although I wish there was also support for psychic divination and clairvoyance in particular). I think a lot of the issues WotC has had with psychic powers is the assumption that they should be similar to and have as much oomph as spells, whereas they probably provide a good basis for a limited breadth with short bursts of power. At the same time it feels like they really wanted to use spell points to be different, but weren't willing to cut back on raw power or reserves in exchange for the added flexibility.

I should really get back to writing that class.

As a side note to 4e psionics, I never got to play with them but in theory they were fine. Apart from the Monk their big gimmick was that they lacked Encounter powers, and instead had Psi Points to buff their At-Wills. It mostly worked out the same but you got to use the same Encounter power multiple times if you wanted. The Monk instead got what was probably planned as the Ki power source gimmick of their powers having both attack and movement options.

* Grrr, give them the ability to wield swords with their mind.

diplomancer

2023-03-08, 08:21 AM

It might have been where Gygax got it from, but with a rename and removing some of the imagery (maybe all this crystal stuff, but crystals are to some extent a fantasy thing). It's also not like they're two unconnected genres buly literary terms, in fact they're generally lumped together. Most of the 'psionics are too SF' stuff feels like a mixture of genre gatekeeping and 'the younger person wants to be a special snowflake', but I just like psychic powers and limited powersets. Plus we have like eight different sources of magic just in the PhB these days, what's wrong with one more. I understand mentalism is a bit more of a romantic fantasy deal, but eh heroic fantasy traditionally presents magic as evil, we're already playing a bit loose with tropes.

Also easier gender switching and similar stuff, although I understand that such things really aren't universally appealing. But it's part of why I like Changelings.

5e is a bit weird in this regard due to how it's 'psionic caster' option is a Sorcerer with light flavouring, although I find the Psi Knight* and psionic feats much more appealing (although I wish there was also support for psychic divination and clairvoyance in particular). I think a lot of the issues WotC has had with psychic powers is the assumption that they should be similar to and have as much oomph as spells, whereas they probably provide a good basis for a limited breadth with short bursts of power. At the same time it feels like they really wanted to use spell points to be different, but weren't willing to cut back on raw power or reserves in exchange for the added flexibility.

I should really get back to writing that class.

As a side note to 4e psionics, I never got to play with them but in theory they were fine. Apart from the Monk their big gimmick was that they lacked Encounter powers, and instead had Psi Points to buff their At-Wills. It mostly worked out the same but you got to use the same Encounter power multiple times if you wanted. The Monk instead got what was probably planned as the Ki power source gimmick of their powers having both attack and movement options.

* Grrr, give them the ability to wield swords with their mind.

I really liked the Psionic Die mechanic, it was both unique and simple, and if some of the Feats on that old UA were over-tuned, it was still a very decent attempt to make Psionics its own thing. Too bad so many people complained "it's too difficult to keep track of one die". The Tasha's implementation is a sad copy of Battlemaster maneuvers.

Rynjin

2023-03-08, 08:53 AM

As I said when Artificer was in UA, they are (or ought to be) a sub class of wizard).

I feel like if some 5e players had their way we'd be going back to the days of "Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief (if you're lucky)"

"Barbarian should be a Fighter subclass, Artificer should be a Wizard subclass, Paladin and Druid should be a Cleric subclass" like, come on. Subclasses are such a ****ing clunky way to handle a character that has unique class features because the features are locked in at levels that are way too far apart.

Amnestic

2023-03-08, 09:00 AM

I feel like if some 5e players had their way we'd be going back to the days of "Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief (if you're lucky)"

"Barbarian should be a Fighter subclass, Artificer should be a Wizard subclass, Paladin and Druid should be a Cleric subclass" like, come on. Subclasses are such a ****ing clunky way to handle a character that has unique class features because the features are locked in at levels that are way too far apart.

Yeah, there's zero way you could have infusions as they are on top of wizard spellcasting, ditto for all the paladin stuff with clerics.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-08, 09:07 AM

I feel like if some 5e players had their way we'd be going back to the days of "Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief (if you're lucky)" It would work, but as you pointed out, it would take a lot more effort to get the features balanced.

Barbarian as a stand alone class works, and for my money, Monk must be a stand alone class, not a sub class of cleric as originally presented.

The way 5e made the warlock is a good enough split from Wizard, but sorcerer is still utterly unnecessary.
Start as a wizard, and at level two wild magic happens: the wizard and his book are fused together. All of his cantrips and spells in that book become innate spells for the sorcerer. They gain Metamagic points as now. At level 3 they have grow into this new way to do magic and another wild magic thing happens: their origin is chosen/happens to them (DM and Player work out the details). This is just as most PCs choose a sub class at level 3.
Sorcerer from level 2 and up learns one new spell per level up just as a warlock does now. All wizard spells are sorcerer spells (arcane spells).
Go forth and do great things. Neato stuff based on sorc Origin a levels 6, 10 and 14. That's a 'back of the napkin conversion' and obviously needs a bit of polish. Origin spells (sp levels 1-5) are on each based on a shortened thematic list that are more or less "bonus spells" but they can't be swapped out. They are a permanent part of the sorcerer.

As to bards.
My 'bard half caster' project will now probably never get done for Lore, Valor and Glamour. IMO Whispers Bard can hit the shredder.
The original bard (Strategic Review) was its own class, and I agree with that but bard needs to be INT based as a caster, let their Charisma boost be in the skills and spells chosen scheme.

stoutstien

2023-03-08, 09:16 AM

Yeah, there's zero way you could have infusions as they are on top of wizard spellcasting, ditto for all the paladin stuff with clerics.

Honestly they should divulge all spells casting from artifice as a theme.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-08, 07:50 PM

I really liked the Psionic Die mechanic, it was both unique and simple, and if some of the Feats on that old UA were over-tuned, it was still a very decent attempt to make Psionics its own thing. Too bad so many people complained "it's too difficult to keep track of one die". The Tasha's implementation is a sad copy of Battlemaster maneuvers.

Honestly I never tried it, but I get both sides. It's not complex, but it does require remembering triggers in a way other subsystems doesn't. As it is I don't think WotC is really willing to pay more than lip service to psionics, although that's still better than most of the fantasy RPGs I own.

Luckily Advanced Fighting Fantasy is 100% compatible with the species creation, robot, and psionics rules from it's companion game, even if you can't be a psychic robot. Plus many games, such as The Fantasy Trip, have the bonus of just not being as complex as D&D.

I feel like if some 5e players had their way we'd be going back to the days of "Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief (if you're lucky)"

"Barbarian should be a Fighter subclass, Artificer should be a Wizard subclass, Paladin and Druid should be a Cleric subclass" like, come on. Subclasses are such a ****ing clunky way to handle a character that has unique class features because the features are locked in at levels that are way too far apart.

D&D at this point is pretty much all clunk. I own elegant and even beautifully crafted RPGs, unlike them D&D is a series of bodges to keep a setup focused on large party dungeon exploration working when people prefer small group storytelling. Even throwing out the base rules thrice hadn't helped, because previous bodges have become sacred cows.

The elegant way to do subclasses would have actually been closer to the 2e setup, with it's three levels of customisation. The four class groups become the four base classes, and then the existing classes become your subclasses. So you have a core Warrior class which decides how combat characters work, then your Barbarian or Cavalier subclass builds on top of that. If that's still not quite what you want you then apply kits to swap out or alter abilities, which could even theoretically be compatible with multiple subclasses. But, and here's the key thing, subclasses would get MORE FEATURES than they do now.

Or maybe something more like Shadow of the Demon Lord's three class setup. I need to actually nab a copy of that

Under such a system the Artificer would probably be a subclass of Expert rather than Mage, sacrificing most of its spellcasting in exchange for more attunement slots and the ability to 'fake' having the requirements to use or create a magic item. They might even have their casting limited entirely to infusions.

animorte

2023-03-08, 08:13 PM

Or maybe something more like Shadow of the Demon Lord's three class setup. I need to actually nab a copy of that
I remember this crossing my path some time ago. Thanks for the reminder, I meant to look into that more.

Telwar

2023-03-09, 11:19 AM

Amechra

2023-03-09, 01:15 PM

Magic items don't exist in your world? Wild. I mean, I guess it's whatever floats you+your players' boat!

Artificers make a bunch of assumptions about how magic items work, though, like the assumption that temporary, non-consumable magic items are possible or that constructs are a thing you can just make all willie-nillie. If you're in a setting where magic items are the result of superior crafting techniques or one-off wonders (like this little known series called Lord of the Rings), Artificers stick out like a sore thumb. That said, this has a lot to do with the particular subclasses they decided to publish for the Artificer — something like an Alchemist or Maverick is going to sit more nicely in most settings than the Artillerist's "HERE ARE MY COMBAT ROBOTS, ROBOTS MADE FOR COMBAT".

Then again, I'm the mean ol' DM who banned Wizards from one of my games because "mortals can develop magic through study" didn't fit with the setting (if you wanted to play something like that, you could play an Int-based Tomelock whose patron was the genius loci of the Imperial Library — maybe that'd develop into something like Wizardry later, but that was centuries off) and where the only Cleric domains available to start with were Arcana, Grave, Knowledge, and Life (because it was a mono-theistic setting... kinda-sorta. It's complicated). So what do I know?

(Also, I dunno about other people, but if I'm making a setting where Artificers don't fit, any subclass based around similar themes are probably banned unless there's a very specific reason not to).

What's next, Orcs?

Dang it, I hope so. So much better than half-orcs, because that gets that one guy to shut up about my character's parents.

(People playing half-elves never have to deal with this nonsense, honestly...)

... And I'm going to leave it there so as not to have this thread descend into a discussion on fantasy race sexuality.

Aww, come on!

Puts away dozens of pages of setting notes on the role of gender and sexuality in my conworld's cultures, each filled with obsessive anthropological levels of detail.

I kid.

I haven't actually written most of that stuff down. It's mostly just an excuse to do some hardcore research.

only the four half-human races.

That'd actually be kinda neat in a sort of "post-human fantasy" sense.

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-09, 07:04 PM

Dang it, I hope so. So much better than half-orcs, because that gets that one guy to shut up about my character's parents.

(People playing half-elves never have to deal with this nonsense, honestly...)

I mean it's not like humans have never, um, overly enthusiastically courted elves. It's always been kind of weird how much half-orc origins tended to skew towards that, as most settings tend to have human tribes with similar attitudes to your stereotypical or.

Aww, come on!

Puts away dozens of pages of setting notes on the role of gender and sexuality in my conworld's cultures, each filled with obsessive anthropological levels of detail.

I kid.

I haven't actually written most of that stuff down. It's mostly just an excuse to do some hardcore research.

I mean, I'm no anthropologist, but I think about it. But it would be worth an entire thread in the World-building section.

That'd actually be kinda neat in a sort of "post-human fantasy" sense.

Oh yeah, and on reflection I think I miscounted. There's five plus a couple borderlines.

It's one of those that the more I think about it the more it makes sense. You could do a very silly game, but I think you go dead serious with your idea. No race survived the apocalypse with their numbers high enough to be viable, but as they're all cross-fertile anyway...

Xihirli

2023-03-09, 07:22 PM

Artificers make a bunch of assumptions about how magic items work, though, like the assumption that temporary, non-consumable magic items are possible or that constructs are a thing you can just make all willie-nillie. If you're in a setting where magic items are the result of superior crafting techniques
Is that not exactly what Artificers use?

or one-off wonders (like this little known series called Lord of the Rings)

There are MANY magic rings in that world. None of them are to be taken lightly, but I’d hardly call ALL of them one-off wonders. And when you add in Wizard Staves, Narcil, all Morgul blades, the star-in-a-pocket, Merry and Pippins’ daggers, magic elvish rope, the halflings’ cloaks, mithril, black arrows, dwarf doors that are invisible when unopened and can only be opened under certain conditions, maps that can only be read on one phase of the moon, black scrying orbs, and bread that fills your stomach in one bite…

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-09, 07:48 PM

diplomancer

2023-03-09, 08:01 PM

About twenty rings, and magic in Tolkien's setting isn't that simple. The hobbits see the cloaks as magical, but the elves don't. They're just really well made cloaks. Narsil/Anduril is just a really good sword, and that's almost certainly 90% of what goes into the glowy anti-orc swords (the other 10% is the secret elven orc-detecting alloy). You can make a decent argument that LotR doesn't have magical items, just supremely well made ones.

LotR has magical toys, made by Dwarvish craft. Bilbo distributes them generously to the Hobbit
children at his party. "Some of them obviously magical", I believe is the phrase used.

Sounds very artificery to me.

Edit: ah, found the exact quote:

On this occasion the presents were unusually good. The hobbit-children were so excited that for a while they almost forgot about eating. There were toys the like of which they had never seen before, all beautiful and some obviously magical

Mastikator

2023-03-09, 08:17 PM

JellyPooga

2023-03-09, 08:21 PM

There are MANY magic rings in that world. None of them are to be taken lightly, but I’d hardly call ALL of them one-off wonders. And when you add in Wizard Staves, Narcil, all Morgul blades, the star-in-a-pocket, Merry and Pippins’ daggers, magic elvish rope, the halflings’ cloaks, mithril, black arrows, dwarf doors that are invisible when unopened and can only be opened under certain conditions, maps that can only be read on one phase of the moon, black scrying orbs, and bread that fills your stomach in one bite…

And yet none of that is on-the-fly one-shot magic items/effects, let alone mecha-death-robots or guns. Artificer fits in to some settings that are, to my mind, pretty niche but are a far cry from an auto include to even your standard kitchen-sink fantasy setting which typically espouses the height of technology being plate armour, crossbows and large-scale guns (cannon, mortar, etc.), with anything beyond prototypes or rare cultures having any hand-held firearms being an extreme rarity if not unique. It's also worth bearing in mind, whilst we're talking about LotR, that all of the things you mention are made across literal Ages (capital "A) of time, many of which either made by some of the greatest craftsmen of said Ages or gifted by some of the most powerful and/or influential people in the narrative. The "star-in-your-pocket", for example is literally a unique legendary artefact made by a de facto demi-god (depending on your point of view). The morgul blades might be plural, but they're not held or made by your local gnome artificer, they were forged in the mists of ancient Ages passed and wielded by some of the most powerful and feared nemeses of the narrative's time-span. There's a world of difference between the "magic items" of LotR and anything an Artificer does, to a degree that other aspects of that IP don't even come close (e.g. D&D Wizards vs. LotR Wizards; yes, there's a significant disparity between what they are and how they function, but there's a much closer resemblance on that front than the way Artificers function on the same level).

For me, CRPG's have diluted the importance and dimmed the excitement of owning a magic item. 3e D&D's "Christmas tree effect" of expecting your average adventurer to be dripping with the things certainly didn't help either. A magic sword should be something to get excited about, even a minor one. The fact that just having a +1 Sword is nothing to shout about is a crime against the narrative, let alone expecting it as a given by a certain level. Magic items should have a story, a history and an importance to the setting, even if only in a minor way. Creating a magic item is a whole other prospect; it should be an endeavour, a challenge, a quest or even an entire campaign to assemble the required research, people and items to forge something of that quality. Not just a bit of a kip and "ta-da!" here's a bag of holding I made out of some scrap leather and this weird twig I found on the road. I very much dislike the conceit of the Artificer (or similar concepts, such as the screw-ball gadgeteer) in contemporary or sci-fi settings that go beyond merely MacGuyver-ing something smart out of unexpected finds and into the realm of "you made that from what" because it stretches the boundaries of disbelief to accept an ability or function of a character that clearly violates the expectations of the setting. That isn't to say the setting can't include that kind of thing, but for me those settings are rare indeed and I tend to avoid them, personally.

Sounds very artificery to me.
It took the death of a legendary dragon, the rebuilding of a civilisation and the co-operation of two disparate societies, one of which was notoriously stingy with sharing their knowledge and resources, to even have those magical toys be available to the entire setting, let alone an individual or locality. It also took the kind of wealth possessed by someone that owned a 13th share of said legendary dragon's hoard (plus a little extra, as collected by some mountain trolls) to be able to afford even some toys of that calibre. Hardly the kind of thing knocked out by your local village blacksmith. Those toys were imported across an entire continent, including a dangerous mountain range, at great expense. Never forget just how wealthy Bilbo was in this context; he may have lived a relatively humble life after his "back again", but he was ludicrously well endowed in the money department. Like "I have a mail shirt that literally does not have a monetary value because it's worth that much" rich.

Xihirli

2023-03-09, 09:24 PM

Oh I basically never have magic items available for purchase; you want a magic item you gotta kill an enemy who’s using it against you.
As for the Artificer, how much they count as the village blacksmith and not the dwarven mithril-smith or elven cloak-weaver is I suppose a matter up for interpretation.

diplomancer

2023-03-10, 04:57 AM

It took the death of a legendary dragon, the rebuilding of a civilisation and the co-operation of two disparate societies, one of which was notoriously stingy with sharing their knowledge and resources, to even have those magical toys be available to the entire setting, let alone an individual or locality. It also took the kind of wealth possessed by someone that owned a 13th share of said legendary dragon's hoard (plus a little extra, as collected by some mountain trolls) to be able to afford even some toys of that calibre. Hardly the kind of thing knocked out by your local village blacksmith. Those toys were imported across an entire continent, including a dangerous mountain range, at great expense. Never forget just how wealthy Bilbo was in this context; he may have lived a relatively humble life after his "back again", but he was ludicrously well endowed in the money department. Like "I have a mail shirt that literally does not have a monetary value because it's worth that much" rich.

Bilbo did not take a 13th share of Smaug's hoard, he took two small chests, one filled with gold, one with silver. A respectable amount of money, sure, but nowhere near what you're saying (remember, money in D&D is very inflated, that's not the case in Middle-Earth). And the money he got from the Trolls he gave it away.

As to transportation costs: the "dangerous mountain range" had become a lot less dangerous after the Battle of the 5 Armies, so that Gandalf and Bilbo cross it entirely uneventfully, as does Balin later. And the Dwarves were definitely grateful enough to Bilbo to waive those costs.

Yes, his mail-shirt was incredibly expensive, but neither he nor anyone in the Shire knew that, which is why he was able to lend it to a museum without too much fuss.

And an Artificer is not "your local village Blacksmith". Whether Artificers are rare has nothing to do with whether Artificers exist. I think it's safe to bet that the Dwarves were not spending years making toys for Bilbo's farewell party.

And all of that is still ignoring the fact that we're talking about toys, I.e, superfluous items. If Dwarves can make magic toys, it's pretty safe to assume that they can make other magic items, though those might be more time consuming to create.

Mastikator

2023-03-10, 05:16 AM

Artificers only get better at making magic items at level 10. And only get expert tool use at level 6. Below that they're no better at making magic items than anyone else.

JackPhoenix

2023-03-10, 08:06 AM

And an Artificer is not "your local village Blacksmith". Whether Artificers are rare has nothing to do with whether Artificers exist. I think it's safe to bet that the Dwarves were not spending years making toys for Bilbo's farewell party.

And all of that is still ignoring the fact that we're talking about toys, I.e, superfluous items. If Dwarves can make magic toys, it's pretty safe to assume that they can make other magic items, though those might be more time consuming to create.

There's also no description of what was magical about the toys. To the hobbits, purely mechanical devices could've look like magic. And no, one does not imply the other. Just because they can make "magic toys" does not mean they can make magic weapons, armor or whatever.

diplomancer

2023-03-10, 12:15 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-10, 03:33 PM

Artificers only get better at making magic items at level 10. And only get expert tool use at level 6. Below that they're no better at making magic items than anyone else. Might want to read this feature:
Infuse Item

At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Only Forge Cleric has a comparable skill at level 2. And then look at this:

Replicate Magic Item (AT LEVEL 2)

Using this infusion, you replicate a particular magic item. You can learn this infusion multiple times; each time you do so, choose a magic item that you can make with it, picking from the Replicable Items tables. A table’s title tells you the level you must be in the class to choose an item from the table. Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.

In the tables, an item’s entry tells you whether the item requires attunement. See the item’s description in the Dungeon Master’s Guide for more information about it, including the type of object required for its making.
Hey, look, in the class feature:

Replicable Items (2nd-Level Artificer)
Using this infusion, you replicate a particular magic item. You can learn this infusion multiple times; each time you do so, choose a magic item that you can make with it, picking from the Replicable Items tables. A table’s title tells you the level you must be in the class to choose an item from the table. Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.

Magic Item.........................Attunement
Alchemy jug.......................No
Bag of holding....................No
Cap of water breathing........No
Goggles of night.................No
Rope of climbing.................No
Sending stones...................No
Wand of magic detection.....No
Wand of secrets..................No
Might want to read up on all that before you take a position.

JNAProductions

2023-03-10, 04:00 PM

Those are infusions-while infused they operate the same as a magic item. But their magic is very much temporary.

Amnestic

2023-03-10, 04:22 PM

Might want to read up on all that before you take a position.

Perhaps you should have read their post? They said make magic items. Infusing magic items - which is temporary - is clearly not the same thing. Otherwise magic weapon spell (which makes a non-magical weapon into a +1-+3 weapon) would be 'making magic items'.

Tanarii

2023-03-10, 04:34 PM

Those are infusions-while infused they operate the same as a magic item. But their magic is very much temporary.
So? It's still making a magic item.

Mastikator

2023-03-10, 06:08 PM

Perhaps you should have read their post? They said make magic items. Infusing magic items - which is temporary - is clearly not the same thing. Otherwise magic weapon spell (which makes a non-magical weapon into a +1-+3 weapon) would be 'making magic items'.

I was going to say that dammit!

Yes, infusion is something artificers can do. It's very unlike crafting magic items. It's more akin to a single use of permanent Magic Weapon spell. For example Enhance Weapon infusion is basically the Magic Weapon spell but without concentration and lasts until you die (or infuse something else). An artificer level 2 can infuse 2 items, that's it, they can't make any more without removing the current infusions.

It's not at all like crafting magic items, it's more akin to the Warlock's feature Pact of the Blade, and Improved Pact Weapon. Where they can create a magic +1 weapon, but only ever one weapon, they can recreate it at any time as any kind of weapon, but only one.

Crafting magic items requires proficiency and knowledge and lots of time and lots of gold. (and if you use Xanathar's, can be risky). But ultimately it's either something everyone can do, or no one can do. Which is a choice the DM decides. At 10th level artificers do it faster and cheaper, if the DM allows the players to do it at all.

Honestly I think it's totally fair. If anything creating a magic item should be a special event, one that costs an enormous amount of money, takes a long time, and involves a whole lot of people. Whether that even fits within the campaign parameters is up to the DM in the end.

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-10, 06:09 PM

JNAProductions

2023-03-10, 06:12 PM

Do you also ban Pact of the Blade warlocks? Or want them banned?

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-10, 06:15 PM

Do you also ban Pact of the Blade warlocks? Or want them banned? No, but I do ban hexblades.
Pact of the blade's ability is one of the key benefits of that pact, is limited to the PC, and is thematically coherent.

Captain Cap

2023-03-10, 06:29 PM

Hey look, they make another magic item. And as they go up in level these get to be better items.
You mean new and better magic items that let the artificer keep up with the other classes? And at most Rare, so none of the most powerful stuff is accessible this way to the character.

Honestly, I don't see magic items being any more special than high level spells, especially an Artificer's infusions, which are mere shiny toys with respect to the repertoire that full casters can get access to.

Mastikator

2023-03-10, 06:46 PM

I agree. This ability short circuits that.

How? And what about Improved Pact of the Blade? Or do you also think that should be banned where artificers are banned?

KorvinStarmast

2023-03-10, 08:37 PM

How? And what about Improved Pact of the Blade? Or do you also think that should be banned where artificers are banned? No, I do not think pact of the blade needs anything done to it, other than a slight adjustment at level 3 to provide medium armor proficiency (like valor bard).
(And again, the hexblade was an obvious overcorrection for some perceived shortcomings of the Pact of the Blade ...)
You do realize that the patron grants that, right? It's part of the PACT.
Pact of the blade fits.

Let's go back to something you and I agree on

If anything creating a magic item should be a special event, one that costs an enormous amount of money, takes a long time, and involves a whole lot of people What the DMG provisions for creating magic items does is support what you point to, right there.

And, it also presumes a campaign style game where the party, at various junctures, takes time off and does ... something. (Granted, there's a lot of soft edges to that).
This is a time to take all of that gold (having found the recipe) and hire a bunch of just the right folks, and have a few party members inclined to arcane pursuits, and spend day after day after day of finally creating that rare thing: a magic item.

And while they are doing that, the game world continues to spin and they, or at least some of them, aren't out adventuring to find stuff that someone made X hundred years ago. (Taking that thought somewhat further, a West Marches group is a great fit for this for other reasons)

Anonymouswizard

2023-03-11, 05:34 PM

Well, feel free to disagree with either Tolkien, Bilbo, or Frodo (since it's one of those three who said that the toys were obviously magical). I'll stick to the text, that makes it clear that Dwarves can make magic toys, and that they are the kind of thing that Bilbo gives away for free.

Later in the same book the four hobbitsa consider the elven cloasks magical, but the elves do not.

This sugges6tsa that magic in Middle-earth may be more about interpretation than anything else. They dopn't understand how the toys can do what they do, therefore they're magic.

diplomancer

2023-03-11, 07:44 PM

Later in the same book the four hobbitsa consider the elven cloasks magical, but the elves do not.

This sugges6tsa that magic in Middle-earth may be more about interpretation than anything else. They dopn't understand how the toys can do what they do, therefore they're magic.

Well, those cloaks are, in a D&D context,actually magical items that exist in the game

That Tolkien decided to use this to make a philosophical/philological point about the nature of magic changes nothing of the fact that these are actually the original Cloaks of Elvenkind (uncommon magical item).

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-11, 07:51 PM

Well, those cloaks are, in a D&D context,actually magical items that exist in the game

That Tolkien decided to use this to make a philosophical point about the nature of magic changes nothing of the fact that these are actually the original Cloaks of Elvenkind (uncommon magical item).

No...just no.

D&D post-dates Tolkien. The D&D Cloaks of Elvenkind were made as a loose imitation of the Tolkien ones. Knowing stuff about the D&D ones tells you nothing about the Tolkien ones--to say otherwise is to reverse causality entirely and say that effect precedes cause.

And do note that what people are objecting to here is aesthetics and thematics, not mechanics. Rejoinders based on mechanics miss the entire point.

diplomancer

2023-03-11, 07:53 PM

No...just no.

D&D post-dates Tolkien. The D&D Cloaks of Elvenkind were made as a loose imitation of the Tolkien ones. Knowing stuff about the D&D ones tells you nothing about the Tolkien ones--to say otherwise is to reverse causality entirely and say that effect precedes cause.

And do note that what people are objecting to here is aesthetics and thematics, not mechanics. Rejoinders based on mechanics miss the entire point.

Well, obviously it post dates Tolkien; which is why I said those Cloaks are the origins of Cloaks of Elvenkind. My point is that those Cloaks would be considered magical in a D&D game. And there is no reason, from the books, to assume otherwise for the Dwarven made toys.

But if it's just being magical that bothers you about Artificers... well, be like the Elves and say it's not actually magical to access an extradimensional space with a bag, or to make a Cloak that shifts colors to suit the background...
Apart from unnecessarily nerfing the magic weapons Artificers can make, very little else would change.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-11, 07:56 PM

My point is that those Cloaks would be considered magical in a D&D game. And there is no reason, from the books, to assume otherwise for the Dwarven made toys.

Except that the dwarven-made toys aren't in D&D at all. Neither are the cloaks. Knowing anything about the mechanics of those cloaks in LotR tells you nothing about D&D and vice versa. Knowing about the aesthetics of those items might tell you something about how some people want the D&D aesthetics to be.

diplomancer

2023-03-11, 08:00 PM

Except that the dwarven-made toys aren't in D&D at all. Neither are the cloaks. Knowing anything about the mechanics of those cloaks in LotR tells you nothing about D&D and vice versa. Knowing about the aesthetics of those items might tell you something about how some people want the D&D aesthetics to be.

Well, I wasn't one who brought up Tolkien in the first place. Someone brought it up, saying "Artifices don't fit Tolkien"... when they actually fit Tolkien better than:
Clerics
Wizards (no Tolkien Wizard has a spell book or needs it for his spells. And all Tolkien Wizards actually have their magical powers from their supernatural nature, not from their studies)
Paladins
Barbarians
Etc.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-11, 08:06 PM

Well, I wasn't one who brought up Tolkien in the first place. Someone brought it up, saying "Artifices don't fit Tolkien"... when they actually fit Tolkien better than:
Clerics
Wizards (no Tolkien Wizard has a spell book or needs it for his spells. And all Tolkien Wizards actually have their magical powers from their supernatural nature, not from their studies)
Paladins
Barbarians
Etc.

Aesthetically, barbarians fit just fine. No full caster (or even really half-caster) does at all, because magic, for Tolkien, wasn't something mortals really did. Magic was about authority over things, understanding them. There are no spells, no "magic items" as we understand them (ie objects with defined, limited powers). There were artifacts of power that represented some fraction of one's self poured into an item, but they weren't creatable by normal mortals. At most they were revealed by them. So D&D magic is already just way off the Tolkien scale even at the cantrip level.

But that's ok, since D&D is not Tolkien and Tolkien is not D&D.

Unoriginal

2023-03-11, 08:36 PM

There's also no description of what was magical about the toys. To the hobbits, purely mechanical devices could've look like magic. And no, one does not imply the other. Just because they can make "magic toys" does not mean they can make magic weapons, armor or whatever.

While it's true one does not imply the other, Tolkien's Dwarves definitively can make magic weapons and armor.

Aesthetically, barbarians fit just fine. No full caster (or even really half-caster) does at all, because magic, for Tolkien, wasn't something mortals really did. Magic was about authority over things, understanding them.

Several mortals do use their authority/understanding to do things that are magic, in the LotR alone. But yes, it is *far* different from the Vance-inspired magic D&D uses.

There are no spells

Gandalf disagrees on that:

‘I do not know,’ answered Gandalf. ‘But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.

[...]

‘What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces.

Fellowship of the Ring

no "magic items" as we understand them (ie objects with defined, limited powers). There were artifacts of power that represented some fraction of one's self poured into an item, but they weren't creatable by normal mortals. At most they were revealed by them.

Define "normal mortals".

As the song says:

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells
While hammers fell like ringing bells

But that's ok, since D&D is not Tolkien and Tolkien is not D&D.

Very true.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-03-11, 09:05 PM

Gandalf disagrees on that:

Same word, very different meaning. A "spell" in that context isn't a packaged bit of magic that does the same thing over and over again. It's an exercise of authority over the world. Effectively pitting one's authority over the world against someone else's. The two are completely uncomparable.

Unoriginal

2023-03-11, 09:41 PM

Same word, very different meaning. A "spell" in that context isn't a packaged bit of magic that does the same thing over and over again. It's an exercise of authority over the world. Effectively pitting one's authority over the world against someone else's. The two are completely uncomparable.

I would not go that far.

While Tolkien's magic and 5e's magic and spells are *immensely* different, they still share a common ancestor, that being the belief shared by many real-life culture that you can affect the world by saying the right things while commanding the right forces.

Tolkien's world operate on the principle that it's the authority of the person over the world that matters most, while 5e has the spoken just be one part of a ritual/"password" used to unleash a specific effect selected in advance, without what is being spoken having any meaning on its own most of the time. But the way Gandalf says that he knows many spells to keep doors locked (and how earlier in the book he says he once knew all the spells in the elven and dwarven languages) indicates that sometime, a formulaic way to impose one's authority to do something specific was used. Otherwise Gandalf would just have said "doors, stay closed", the same way he prevented the Balrog from crossing the bridge by declaring "you cannot pass".

So yes, very, very distinctive execution, but a shared ancestor none the less, and as such not incomparable.

Funny thing about the magic = authority thing in the LotR is how many people miss Frodo using it.