What about Crafting?

What will it look like in D&D Next?

What I liked in 3.5's system is that crafters paid a fraction of the cost as crafting materials then invested some time to actually craft it. They then could sell those crafted items to their full value since they were the ones who made it. (which is not the half-value of a used/found/looted object). But in 4E, crafters had to pay the full price of an item to craft it. How can the NPCs have a viable economy if they can't make profits? And aside from some class-related items, there was no mundane crafting in 4E.

I think crafting is one important feature of downtime between adventures. 
I hate crafting rules.  That said, they're easily removable so I assume they will be included as an adjunct to whatever skill system is being used.

If skill points are used, we'll see the return of CraPPer.
If 4e style Skills are used, we'll see a Martial Practice with crafting
If 2e NWPs are used, there will be crafting NWPs
If 1e Secondary Skills are used, we'll probably see crafting backgrounds or themes.
I would like to have the option of realistic and balanced crafting rules for pcs.
But in 4E, crafters had to pay the full price of an item to craft it. How can the NPCs have a viable economy if they can't make profits?



The rules presented in 4E for crafting are not how the world itself operates, regarding prices. It's how the common adventuring Murder-Hobo works in regards to crafting with buying and selling.



This.

NPCs don't have rules.  Whatever they do or don't do is determined by the needs of the plot.  If the plot needs Bob the Blacksmith to make record profits, then he does.  If the plot needs Bob the Blacksmith to go belly-up, he does.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
What will it look like in D&D Next?

What I liked in 3.5's system is that crafters paid a fraction of the cost as crafting materials then invested some time to actually craft it. They then could sell those crafted items to their full value since they were the ones who made it. (which is not the half-value of a used/found/looted object). But in 4E, crafters had to pay the full price of an item to craft it. How can the NPCs have a viable economy if they can't make profits? And aside from some class-related items, there was no mundane crafting in 4E.

I think crafting is one important feature of downtime between adventures. 


I'm with you on this.
Yeah I'd like rules too.  They don't have to be super perfect but just some abstractions for both NPCs and PCs who want to delve into something outside of adventuring.

 
For me, the considerations worth exploring are:

  1. Is it easily ignorable?

  2. Will it give characters disproportionate wealth at lower levels?

  3. Is it simple enough that it can be handled by the craftsman alone so as to avoid the DM and craftsman working out crafting while the rest of the party twiddles its thumbs?

  4. If a goal is verisimilitude, can it as easily handle a diversity of crafts, from weaponsmithing to jewlery-making to carpentry that would reasonably have wildly differeing rates of return?

  5. Does it explain why itinerant adventurers may be less profitable than dedicated craftsman?

  6. Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?

For me, the considerations worth exploring are:

  1. Is it easily ignorable?

  2. Will it give characters disproportionate wealth at lower levels?

  3. Is it simple enough that it can be handled by the craftsman alone so as to avoid the DM and craftsman working out crafting while the rest of the party twiddles its thumbs?

  4. If a goal is verisimilitude, can it as easily handle a diversity of crafts, from weaponsmithing to jewlery-making to carpentry that would reasonably have wildly differeing rates of return?

  5. Does it explain why itinerant adventurers may be less profitable than dedicated craftsman?

  6. Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?




7. What is the opportunity cost? If it is a skill, do I have to sacrifice adventuring abilities for underwater basketweaving?

If it exists, it should be seperate from the skill system. I would be fine with it as an optional subsystem seperate from the actual skill system.
For me, the considerations worth exploring are:

  1. Is it easily ignorable?

  2. Will it give characters disproportionate wealth at lower levels?

  3. Is it simple enough that it can be handled by the craftsman alone so as to avoid the DM and craftsman working out crafting while the rest of the party twiddles its thumbs?

  4. If a goal is verisimilitude, can it as easily handle a diversity of crafts, from weaponsmithing to jewlery-making to carpentry that would reasonably have wildly differeing rates of return?

  5. Does it explain why itinerant adventurers may be less profitable than dedicated craftsman?

  6. Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?




I have to agree with this.  I tried using them in 3.x and it just was not worth the time.  Finally in the end I let the players pick a craft skill and allowed them to spend time making stuff for 1/2 the cost out of the book. 

We really did not use it often.  Mostly to make arrows and the occasional weapon.  If the PC's found a rare or (say Mithril) then they had a quest to find someone who could teach the party smith to forge Mithril.  Made it much better than the book rules.
One scoop of creamed potatoes. A slice of butter. Four peas. And as much ice cream as you'd like to eat.
Personally I like 4e's way of just not having any crafting skills and such.  Leave it to RPing and the DM and players.  I mean if you're a crazed hermit who's lived his life in the mountains you probably don't know how to blacksmith, or make lovely pottery.  But all the crafting stuff can be taken care of between the DM and player without needing some rules or annoying skill requirements.

That being said since 5e seems to be able a small core rule set and a bunch of add ons I wouldn't be against them putting crafting rules in as an add on to the core system.  I just don't want them as part of the core rules. 
while the PHB lists the base price of an item, it further states up to a 10-40% markup for items purchased to be the merchant's "profit"

in essence the 50 GP plate armor would really cost between 55-70 if you're trying to buy it from a merchant. 

not that the cost itself actually matters. 50 GP is a drop in the bucket at best when you're dealing with values of 1000s of GP. 

now as for rules for crafting the first thing i would ask is: what is the purpose of these rules?

that's the No.1 thing you should ask yourself when adding a rule to a game "what problem does this solve?". if you're adding a rule simply because a rule didn't exist, you're looking to solve a problem that itsn't there.

you'll obviously not be crafting to feed yourself: D&D has historically thrown enough money at the players that they could build themselves a house with their pocket change. not purchase one, but simply stack that cash until it's in a house-like shape, then live in it.

even as far back as 2nd ed you have big piles of cash (which assumed the players would have enough cashflow to support the castle and minions/followers/peasants their fighter is given at around level... 10 i believe?). 

needing to make wickerbaskets is probably a hobby at best, unless 5th ed decides to radically alter the cash flow of a D&D adventurer. 

the second is rate of success. using the 3rd ed crafting rules your 1st level character could easily have between a 50% success (10 int, 4 ranks) up to an auto-success (16 int, 4 ranks, mwk tools, assistant to aid another, skill focus) on making a DC 15 longsword. 

now... would you call a craftsman with a 50% failure rate a proper craftsman? and remember this has a 25% chance of potentially failing so hard that all the materials are ruined? what about 40% failure? 30%? 

if someone is so bad at crafting that their chance of failure is properly represented in 5% chunks, i wouldn't call him a "craftsman" and at best a hobbyist of moderate to mediocre skill.

the 4th ed system covers exactly what i want from crafting: if your character was trained to be a craftsman pre-adventurer, he can make items regarding his craft. period. 

the third thing i would require of a crafting system would be the quality of the item. 

and this also does nothing to say about the actual quality of the item. using the 3rd ed system, the difference between a longsword made by our 2 characters VS some sort of supersmith with a +50 or other stupidly high skill is nothing.  note that the same can be said about 4th ed, the longsword made by two fighters will, mechanically speaking, be the exact same.

i've heard some people allow characters to use trained skill checks to "customize" weapons, like using theivery for minute details or add a hidden compartment in the pommel, religion/arcana/history/nature for imagery, and whatnot. this way, say, a paladin might have a simple yet evocative scene depicting his god's wrath on the blade of his sword or a rogueish nobleman might have complex stitching and embroidery on his cloaks. 

it might not add much mechanically, but it does allow a "craftsman" character a personal flair to his gear.

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

honestly, i would like to see crafting handled like a skill challenge:

if your character's background is one where he can craft items, under normal circumstances, he succeeds. if he's not trained, he simply doesn't know how.

if stressed for time and needs to work overnight, crappy materials that need further refining, the need to borrow certain tools or wants to add his own special trademark to the weapon, then he needs to roll for endurance, athletics, diplomacy, theivery or whatnot.

if he fails these rolls, at this point he doesn't get the item done on time, it's frail and could break on a crit fail (like in Dark Sun), simply not be able to make the weapon as he's missing the tools or the imagery comes out wrong/just plain ugly.
Crafting for me was always that it took too long when I was in a hurry and was too quick when we were letting the campaign calendar pass.  I do miss the skill though.

I like the idea of a Skill Challenge, without 4e Skill Challenge rhetoric.  They need a Next name for things that take multiple skill checks.  Would make the expenditure of resourcs and success failure more entertaining.

I also miss Perform, didn't know we used it so often until 4e removed it.
I would be alright with Craft mechanics returning as long as:

1) You don't have to give up combat feats, combat features or combat skills in order to get something which may or may not see regular use.

and

2) The rate at which money directly equates to power via magic items is handled differently from 3e and 4e. In these systems, if you got a ton of extra money it directly made you more powerful because you could own more and/or better stuff. 
I think a generic abstract system with some good examples to guide the DM is fine.  

@Samrin
In the past, if you took crafting as a PC weren't you choosing to accept the opportunity cost?  I mean no PC was required to take the craft or profession skill.   I'm ok if we had a dual system but I'm ok with paying some roleplay costs as long as it isn't essential to being a successful character.  

@wrecan

Is it easily ignorable?


I think this is a good requirement for a lot of optional rules.  I think individual skills that are NOT directly adventure related are all easily ignored.


Will it give characters disproportionate wealth at lower levels?


Adventuring should always be more profitable.  You are risking your life against monsters.  If staying in town and pounding a peace of metal was more profitable there would be no adventurers.


Is it simple enough that it can be handled by the craftsman alone so as to avoid the DM and
craftsman working out crafting while the rest of the party twiddles its thumbs?


In my games this kind of stuff is almost never handled in the game session.  I will admit that my group and I have a very vibrant game outside the sessions that is handled by phone calls and emails.  My players would call and say "While we've been resting the last month I wanted to craft a longsword.  Can I roll my craft skill." and I would reply (while rolling a d20) "Sure.  You roll a 15.  Good job."   I made this example up based upon no DC or no crafting time limit just as an example but you get the gist of it.


If a goal is verisimilitude, can it as easily handle a diversity of crafts, from weaponsmithing to jewlery-making to carpentry that would reasonably have wildly differeing rates of return?


Thats why I like a system that can be applied to anything.  Abstract is fine here because it isn't the main thrust of the game.  I like it existing though for NPCs even when the PCs might not have that many craft skills.


Does it explain why itinerant adventurers may be less profitable than dedicated craftsman?


Unless you are able to forge the axe of the dwarvish lords you aren't richer than a PC group at high level.


Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?


However you gain xp you get to use it how you want.  The assumption is that you are training on the side between adventures.


 
I think a generic abstract system with some good examples to guide the DM is fine.  

@Samrin
In the past, if you took crafting as a PC weren't you choosing to accept the opportunity cost?  I mean no PC was required to take the craft or profession skill.   I'm ok if we had a dual system but I'm ok with paying some roleplay costs as long as it isn't essential to being a successful character.   



Yes, and I found that to be a huge problem. Crafting is better suited to backgrounds and themes than it is the skill system. I shouldn't have to sacrifice perception, stealth, and thievery as a Rogue to say I am also a blacksmith. That's what I'm getting at. 

I'm not opposed to rules for crafting. I'm just opposed to those rules working against your archetype. 
Adventuring should always be more profitable.  You are risking your life against monsters.  If staying in town and pounding a peace of metal was more profitable there would be no adventurers.



If there were no adventurers there'd be nobody to pound metal for.
I think a generic abstract system with some good examples to guide the DM is fine.  

@Samrin
In the past, if you took crafting as a PC weren't you choosing to accept the opportunity cost?  I mean no PC was required to take the craft or profession skill.   I'm ok if we had a dual system but I'm ok with paying some roleplay costs as long as it isn't essential to being a successful character.   



Yes, and I found that to be a huge problem. Crafting is better suited to backgrounds and themes than it is the skill system. I shouldn't have to sacrifice perception, stealth, and thievery as a Rogue to say I am also a blacksmith. That's what I'm getting at. 

I'm not opposed to rules for crafting. I'm just opposed to those rules working against your archetype. 



Ok so I'm asking these questions mainly because you said it was a huge problem.  I am intending no offense.
1.  Did you decide to not take craft because you didn't want to be less good at some other skill?
2.  Did you take craft knowing it was going to hurt your stealth or whatever?
3.  Would more skill points have helped? Meaning lower the opportunity cost.
4.  Was part of it the cross class thing?  If removed would that help?  (I am against cross class anything by the way).

 

Will it give characters disproportionate wealth at lower levels?


Adventuring should always be more profitable.  You are risking your life against monsters.  If staying in town and pounding a peace of metal was more profitable there would be no adventurers.


Right.  That's why the rules should make sure even adventuring craftsmen make more money adventuring than crafting.

Does it explain why itinerant adventurers may be less profitable than dedicated craftsman?

Unless you are able to forge the axe of the dwarvish lords you aren't richer than a PC group at high level.


I think you misunderstood me.  I meant is crafting more profitable for adventuring craftsmen than for sedentary dedicated craftsmen?  This is tied into the "getting better at Crafting by killing things", which can result in Ogmar the adventuring smith, who is, as you say, "training on the side between adventures", being better than Wymar the full-time smith. 

Even though Ogmar and Wymar began an apprenticeship at the same time, and even though they have identical physical and mental Abilities, Ogmar, who spends most of his time traveling in caves, killing monsters and taking their stuff, is a better craftsman than Wymar, who spends every day in the smithy pounding away at the anvil.  Why?  Because pounding away at the anvil doesn't garner XP, and certainly doesn't garner as much XP as Ogmar gets by adventuring.  So Ogmar can spend a good chunk of his XP increasing his Craft skill while Wymar is not getting better at all.

I find such systems to be counterintuitive.  But no D&D crafting system has ever tackled this issue.

In BECMI, AD&D and 4e, it was impossible to improve at crafting.  You either knew how to craft or you didn't.  So it was entirely up to the DM to decide how good you are.

In 2e, you can get better by dedicating more non-weapon proficiency slots to your craft as you gained levels.  This means that Ogmar was always going to improve at smithing facter than Wymar.

In 3e, you get better at Smithing by placing more dots in the Craft skill as you gained levels.  Moreover, since your maximum rank in a Skill wa s limited by your level, and Wymar in his safe little smithy was never going to gain levels as quickly as adventuresome Ogmar, Ogmar would always improve at smithing faster than Wymar.
I think a generic abstract system with some good examples to guide the DM is fine.  

@Samrin
In the past, if you took crafting as a PC weren't you choosing to accept the opportunity cost?  I mean no PC was required to take the craft or profession skill.   I'm ok if we had a dual system but I'm ok with paying some roleplay costs as long as it isn't essential to being a successful character.   



Yes, and I found that to be a huge problem. Crafting is better suited to backgrounds and themes than it is the skill system. I shouldn't have to sacrifice perception, stealth, and thievery as a Rogue to say I am also a blacksmith. That's what I'm getting at. 

I'm not opposed to rules for crafting. I'm just opposed to those rules working against your archetype. 



Ok so I'm asking these questions mainly because you said it was a huge problem.  I am intending no offense.
1.  Did you decide to not take craft because you didn't want to be less good at some other skill?
2.  Did you take craft knowing it was going to hurt your stealth or whatever?
3.  Would more skill points have helped? Meaning lower the opportunity cost.
4.  Was part of it the cross class thing?  If removed would that help?  (I am against cross class anything by the way).

 



It was just the idea of it costing the same resource as everyday adventuring skills. Crafting is a situational sidegame, basically. It just doesn't belong in the same pool of abilities that are vital to adventuring. More skill points wouldn't have helped, unless it allowed me to max everything until I got to that. This goes for craft, profession, perform, etc.

I really feel that they don't fit as skills. I think 4e handles this type of thing much better, leaving it to roleplaying and falling back on page 42 if necessary. Then the addition of martial practices was nice for it.

Except for, you know, the legions of workers of all professions that need tools. Like... hammers. Axes. Plows. And the countless other tools of the trade...


I think StupidFatHobbit was implying that without adventurers, all those carpenters, woodsmen and plowmen would be dead from marauding humanoids and monsters.
I really feel that they don't fit as skills. I think 4e handles this type of thing much better, leaving it to roleplaying and falling back on page 42 if necessary. Then the addition of martial practices was nice for it.

Plus a background.


I think you misunderstood me.  I meant is crafting more profitable for adventuring craftsmen than for sedentary dedicated craftsmen?  This is tied into the "getting better at Crafting by killing things", which can result in Ogmar the adventuring smith, who is, as you say, "training on the side between adventures", being better than Wymar the Smith. 

In 3e, you get better at Smithing by placing more dots in the Craft skill as you gained levels.  Moreover, since your maximum rank in a Skill wa s limited by your level, and Wymar in his safe little smithy was never going to gain levels as quickly as adventuresome Ogmar, Ogmar would always improve at smithing faster than Wymar.



I do think that the way we represent non-combatant non-magical NPCs needs to be managed in a special way.  So that you can have a legendary craftsman that is better than a PC unless that PC puts ever last skill point into craft.  I'm not so upset though if the PC wants to spend some skill points a be a good craftsman.  He is likely exceptional. It's kind of like being a McDonalds worker.  I could do that on the side and still do it a lot better than the ones working there do.  I don't because the pay is crap and I have a lot better options.  Now I know that crafting is a real skill so not equating it to McDonalds.   But compared to a legendary swordmaster or wizard, I'm not sure it doesn't at least apply somewhat.

 
Except for, you know, the legions of workers of all professions that need tools. Like... hammers. Axes. Plows. And the countless other tools of the trade...


I think StupidFatHobbit was implying that without adventurers, all those carpenters, woodsmen and plowmen would be dead from marauding humanoids and monsters.



Actually I was implying that without adventurers, pounding metal would be far less profitable. In a world where crafting magic swords get's you more platinum than using said swords to lop off beholder eye stalks, you still need adventurers willing to lop off those beholder eye stalks in order for such a magic sword making endeavor to be profitable in the first place. Billy the beet farmer can't afford the magic sword, he can barely afford to replace his beet harvesting combine more than once a decade. Yes a world without adventurers will still need beet harvesting combines, but they are purchased far less frequently than magic swords.
But in 4E, crafters had to pay the full price of an item to craft it. How can the NPCs have a viable economy if they can't make profits?



The rules presented in 4E for crafting are not how the world itself operates, regarding prices. It's how the common adventuring Murder-Hobo works in regards to crafting with buying and selling.



This.

NPCs don't have rules.  Whatever they do or don't do is determined by the needs of the plot.  If the plot needs Bob the Blacksmith to make record profits, then he does.  If the plot needs Bob the Blacksmith to go belly-up, he does.


There are assumptions going on.. they could be made more explicit..
Them Murder Hobos Knights Errant, seem to spot purchase supplies (in relatively small quantities) and rent facilities when needed instead of building up supply chains for material so they can get it for less than premium rates and all aquired from people who know how rich they seem ofcourse they also dont pay monthly stipends to upkeep their facilities and train apprentices and keepers to maintain it on a professional basis when they arent there and similar complex set of things like establishing purchase and distribution relationships.

Shrug I suppose you might be an adventurer whose family owns and controls smith shops, but you know the guys that work at the shop constantly are probably better than the wandering knight who learned it as a kid (although maybe not if he has some extreme talent which in 4e would be purchased using Martial Practices and the gift would allow him to construct magical items... not just normal ones.)

I am wondering how popular a game of accountants and shopkeeps, supposedly is. When my player wanted a custom item back in 1e he drew it up and we had questing to aquire pieces and craftsmen required things that were not even money to get those jobs done... ie it wasnt magic shop purchase and it wasnt sim game at the crafting shop either.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

It was just the idea of it costing the same resource as everyday adventuring skills. Crafting is a situational sidegame, basically. It just doesn't belong in the same pool of abilities that are vital to adventuring. More skill points wouldn't have helped, unless it allowed me to max everything until I got to that. This goes for craft, profession, perform, etc.

I really feel that they don't fit as skills. I think 4e handles this type of thing much better, leaving it to roleplaying and falling back on page 42 if necessary. Then the addition of martial practices was nice for it.



Having played many skill-based, point-buy systems (as opposed to class/level systems), I just don't get this mentality. Skills should cover the multitude of different things that characters can be skilled at--regardless of whether it has an impact on combat, exploration, or roleplaying.
 
Having played many skill-based, point-buy systems (as opposed to class/level systems), I just don't get this mentality. Skills should cover the multitude of different things that characters can be skilled at--regardless of whether it has an impact on combat, exploration, or roleplaying.


rules should only cover things significant to adventuring, the rest is background and we can do that better by suitable application of imagination, they are off camera.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm in the crowd that thinks crafting non-magical items is mainly something that works best as background for roleplaying purposes and not as some complex mechanical system to take up valuable gaming session time. That being said, though, I think it would be nice to have some simple guidelines as to what abilities or skills apply when a player says "I'd like to make a new bow/sword/wagon/piece of armor,etc". Provide in the appropriate skill descriptions some simple examples or rules for setting difficulty numbers for that skill to craft the item and roughly what the cost would be relative to the cost of a normal item (eg. does it cost the full amount? do you get a discount based on the degree of success on your skill roll?) And ideally these crafting mechanics use skills and abilities that are also useful outside of crafting. (That way if you want to be able to reasonably craft something you can do it without sacrificing training in skills that apply to greater bulk of the game.)
 
I think something like that would provide enough detail for players who like to say "my character is making such-and-such" useful guidelines on their chance of success and cost without making it something that is either too complicated to be fun or that becomes something like an imbalanced cash cow, etc.

On a related note, I think this kind of system could also be used for other sorts of side activities characters might do between adventures. Characters who run a tavern when they get home, for instance, might use something like the Diplomacy skill to determine how successful they are at attracting customers and making some coin on the side. Mercenaries could do some freelance work as collection agents using Intimidate. Artists might use Perception and Insight or Diplomacy to make better more realistic creations, and scholars might make some money on the side with History and Religion tutoring nobles and teaching or spreading the word.
Only recently, in the 'define class' thread, I proposed a new power source: Nobility. By this I mean all the trappings of Affluence, Status, Title, Deed, Resources, Inheritance, and the trappings of Aristocracy. Nobles sponsor knighthood, fund wars and Quests, and back potentially profitable business ventures or magical/technological curiosities. Their level represents expanded dominion, respect of peers, titles, and gossip or spy networks dealing in information. Whereas the Rogue deals in illigitimate wealth based power structures and hierarchy, Nobility deals in Legitimate, or recognized structures and wealth.

While the thief takes money that is not his,
the noble's face and name is on his money.

After thinking about it, The way wealth works, you are either born with it, you come upon it randomly, you steal it, or it is given to you, with or without effort.

Let's talk Cash
40 out of 1000 business ventures succeed. That means even if you manage to start with enough money to set up a solid profit oriented business, you have a 96% chance of failure. Most of the start up businesses still have to come from some other income source. If you do succeed, you become the other primary source of Aristocratic wealth - who may represent your initial investors.

Randomly tripping over a large sum of money, such as the lottery, sunken treasure, or perhaps a dragon's horde (happens when the actual dragon is killed while out hunting and the slayers don't know the horde location), is extremely rare but it does happen, about the same frequency as being born into or elevated to the status of nobility.

Quests with rewards or prize money for competitions, or constructing useful devices is a variant of the business venture. Building something for sale is an artisan's life, and doesn't tend to pay much unless the skill level is very high, you have rich friends, or magic is involved. Quests are more likely in a Fantasy setting but you still end up going to the existing Rich to get paid, otherwise it's just another treasure hunt, like the search for the city of Gold.

Possible Classes of or dealing with Nobility
Aristocrat, Noble, Scholar or Sage, Artist/Musician/Chef/Stylist or Prodigy, Debuntante, Socialite, Advisor/Vizier, Tax Collector, Bureaucrat/Eunuch, Administrator, Scribe, CourtierKnight, and Officer

Underlined classes tend to be Nobility by birth, wealth or marriage, while Italicized classes tend to exercise the powers of Nobility or Regency but are not themselves so titled, and can be removed from office by legal process or the fiat of those who appointed them.

It should be noted that inventors, alchemists, and wizards were also heavily mixed into the financial/political aspect, although wizards draw more on Magic as their primary power source. In MLP, the protagonist Twlight Sparkle is an excellent example of that Wizard/Nobility connection. Alchemy is a bit more obvious since the equipment is so expensive. Harry Potter inherited a giant pile of gold to afford his magical training, and you'll find AD&D charged an average of 5000 gold per spell book, with wizards expected to have at least 1-2 at low levels, and several at higher levels. At $1630 an ounce, a wizard spell book is $2,608,000. Even the average starting spell book for a 1st level wizard comes to between $400,000 to $900,000+. A fighter's starting money by comparison came to $52,160 on average, and included all his equipment and transport. Even dusty old merlin was in constant dealings with kings, court, and knights of the realm.
Options are Liberating
 
Having played many skill-based, point-buy systems (as opposed to class/level systems), I just don't get this mentality. Skills should cover the multitude of different things that characters can be skilled at--regardless of whether it has an impact on combat, exploration, or roleplaying.


rules should only cover things significant to adventuring, the rest is background and we can do that better by suitable application of imagination, they are off camera.


For some of us there's a lot more to D&D than being murder-bots, and things that are off-camera to you are on-camera to others.
 
Having played many skill-based, point-buy systems (as opposed to class/level systems), I just don't get this mentality. Skills should cover the multitude of different things that characters can be skilled at--regardless of whether it has an impact on combat, exploration, or roleplaying.


rules should only cover things significant to adventuring, the rest is background and we can do that better by suitable application of imagination, they are off camera.


For some of us there's a lot more to D&D than being murder-bots, and things that are off-camera to you are on-camera to others.



murder-bots is a little harsh but otherwise I agree.  :-)
 
Having played many skill-based, point-buy systems (as opposed to class/level systems), I just don't get this mentality. Skills should cover the multitude of different things that characters can be skilled at--regardless of whether it has an impact on combat, exploration, or roleplaying.


rules should only cover things significant to adventuring, the rest is background and we can do that better by suitable application of imagination, they are off camera.


For some of us there's a lot more to D&D than being murder-bots, and things that are off-camera to you are on-camera to others.


So your definition of adventuring is "murder botting" you have limited premise.
If there is no conflict there is no need for mechanics (that doesnt mean combat)

Man vs Man (and Monster same dif we are just the worst monsters in real life)
Man vs Machine (or any truly complex system created by man including political and social bodies)
Man vs Nature (basically the exploration stuff)
Man vs Self... well hmmm that has limits  ... ooh look I am gonna roll my id vs my ego till my super ego gets off its lazy ass and takes sides. 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).


I agree.  In fact, in 4E, a fighter needs only the following to do so:
1.   The Arcana skill (which is not a class skill for fighters but can be chosen as an associated skill from any one of several backgrounds).
2.  The Ritual Caster feat (which can be flavored for any specific purpose of the player/DM).
3.  Acquiring the ritual Enchant Magic Item (at a cost of 175gp).
4.  Achieving 4th level (so that the ritual can be mastered).
5.  The gp amount of the item to be enchanted.

Voila!

-DS

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).

I like this idea, and I'd take it even further: you shouldn't need a spellcaster to create any sort of magic weapon or armor.  It can be all about the materials you use.

For example, a master smith could make a flaming sword using Efreet bronze (heated in a forge containing a spark of flame from the elemental chaos, or perhaps a red dragon's flame). 

I like the idea of questing for rare reagents.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).

I like this idea, and I'd take it even further: you shouldn't need a spellcaster to create any sort of magic weapon or armor.  It can be all about the materials you use.

For example, a master smith could make a flaming sword using Efreet bronze (heated in a forge containing a spark of flame from the elemental chaos, or perhaps a red dragon's flame). 

I like the idea of questing for rare reagents.


Yeah, I prefer that as well.  I forget what the book was (IIRC, it mostly dealt with artifacts), but I was first introduced to that concept by an AD&D 2e book as a way to replace xp cost for crafting.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).

I like this idea, and I'd take it even further: you shouldn't need a spellcaster to create any sort of magic weapon or armor.  It can be all about the materials you use.

For example, a master smith could make a flaming sword using Efreet bronze (heated in a forge containing a spark of flame from the elemental chaos, or perhaps a red dragon's flame). 

I like the idea of questing for rare reagents.



I agree with this as well.  In fact, it is my personal experience (as both a player and a DM in 4e and AD&D in the long, long ago) that the additional flavor of collecting rare ingredients really makes all the difference for bringing a world to life. [Edit:  It also gives more uses for knowledge skills!]

-DS

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).



ive suggested that crafting magic items are basically rituals, and a feat chain should be available to Artists and Smiths, matching their Craft. For example, a Swordsmith/Weapon Smith would have access to the Magic Sword/Magic Weapon feat chains without penalty, while a Scribe/Book Binder might know how to prepare blank spell books or even a variety of seals, read magic, etc. An Alchemist isn't necessarily a wizard but they could probably make potions. Blacksmiths might have a tome of glyphs and runes they can imprint into their implements.

I still say any character who constantly works around a forge or oven should have some measure of fire resistance or saving throw bonuses.

Options are Liberating
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so I'm gonna come out and say it: I want non-casters to be able to craft magic items.  I'm not saying fighters should be able to make wands or rings or such things, but there is no good reason why a fighter can't craft a sword or shield or armor that is of such exceptional quality that it is treated as magical (in past editions I would say it could be a +X item).


I agree.  In fact, in 4E, a fighter needs only the following to do so:
1.   The Arcana skill (which is not a class skill for fighters but can be chosen as an associated skill from any one of several backgrounds).
2.  The Ritual Caster feat (which can be flavored for any specific purpose of the player/DM).
3.  Acquiring the ritual Enchant Magic Item (at a cost of 175gp).
4.  Achieving 4th level (so that the ritual can be mastered).
5.  The gp amount of the item to be enchanted.

Voila!

-DS




Or one feat and the Martial Practice that provides the ability to craft Magical  Weaponry ok its also level 4 but there isnt any need for Arcana or reflavoring.. but I do agree with others and dont think that it needs to be bland vanilla magic items even with the Martial Practice.

In fact I have opened this weapons core up now go and kill a Salamader and be sure and make a heart blow so that it can be immersed in the flame it will become the weapon of fire I am sure of it gut instinct ofcourse not Arcana.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 

Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?


However you gain xp you get to use it how you want.  The assumption is that you are training on the side between adventures.
 


Realistically the time to become better at periphera skills would be inverse to the amount spent actively travelling about fighting evil etc...  its not simulationist its opposite of that. 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

So your definition of adventuring is "murder botting"



Of course not, but the manner in which you used the word sounded suspiciously entirely like the murder-botting that some people on this forum seem to abscribe to. If that wasn't the definition that you meant, then allow me to rephase: There's more to D&D than just the adventure aspect--there's other interactions within the fictional setting being done that contribute to a sense of story.

If there is no conflict there is no need for mechanics (that doesnt mean combat)

Man vs Man (and Monster same dif we are just the worst monsters in real life)
Man vs Machine (or any truly complex system created by man including political and social bodies)
Man vs Nature (basically the exploration stuff)
Man vs Self... well hmmm that has limits  ... ooh look I am gonna roll my id vs my ego till my super ego gets off its lazy ass and takes sides.


And crafting would fall under "Man vs. Machine". And there is "conflict" as the success of crafting is not always assured.

 

Do you get better at Crafting by killing things?


However you gain xp you get to use it how you want.  The assumption is that you are training on the side between adventures.
 


Realistically the time to become better at periphera skills would be inverse to the amount spent actively travelling about fighting evil etc...  its not simulationist its opposite of that. 



Really, the 4E system allows for TOTAL non-combat experience gain with the Skill Challenge system and the Quest system combined.
My personal preference allows for large passages of time between adventures and I have always had a system to give experience for non-adventure time.  [Aside: My easy (read "LAZY") system for doing that is 1xp/day earned in training (whatever is appropriate to the class), coupled with -1xp/day for every day spent NOT doing so (such as in indulgence or convalescence).  Former adventurers becoming fat and lazy fits this model well as does the studious wannabe: in 4E, the diligent soldier who trains every day for thirty years would end up at 7th level and middle age without ever having faced any of those teeming humanoids on the other side of the impassable mountains. /Aside]
Anyway, my point is that I like the flavor of a bit of time (double entendre) spent making the home base seem real, with lively (believable) commerce and industry, even if it is based on large doses of magic.  The whole crafting, profession, performing (CraftProPer) business is taken care of by letting the players choose anything they feel is necessary to their character concept, but if they want to be really great at one (or more) of these skills, they can spend Background Points (from a small pool -- an equal amount for all players) to do so.
This kind of stuff is ripe for a modular add-on for D&DNext (Hell, why wait?  Do it for 4E!).  Call it "D&D SandBox" or somethingWink.

-DS