Crafting, general philosophy

[Ronan]

Actually you can get up to +2. I believe magic (in most instances) is required for +3 skill items.

Since the special materials are going to be virtually required for fighter-types to defeat some monsters in NWN2, I'd focus on that first. However, ATD actually has a few different options defined as "masterwork" in the standards, presumably to make masterwork items less desirable for their cost. This allows a range of options.

[Fionn]

I have put out MW armor that had no weight reduction, but reduced the skill penalites by 1 (or at least some of them). Some skills can be a mundane bonus even (cf. Hunters Cloak - +1 Hide). 80% is certainly good for almost anything. +1 ATT &/or Dmg, and Jeweled would also be good options.

I like the idea of tying in MW crafting to magical crafting. Require a sword set with Rubies to make a Flametongue. Hopefully we can get a couple creative peeps to come up with immersive combos for most everything we'd wish to have scripted. When we get some time, we can actually script the more complex stuff. Hopefully it'll be a month or two after live before we start seeing a lot of magical crafting ;)

[Mulu]

This is actually starting to look doable, with the materials Ronan listed. Interesting how 3.5 is essentially going back to 1st edition AD&D, where cold wrought iron did extra damage to demons, silver for lycanthropes, etc. Though there is an encumbrance and realism breaking point when you are carrying a dozen greatswords of different materials.

One thing that is obvious, though: Crafting will simply not be a viable option for folks with limited playtime. We should just make that concession up front so that there's no whining about how only peeps with lots of time can craft under our system. I don't see any way to make a system that is best described as "busy work" that could also be done in limited play time. Well, somebody has to go adventuring to buy all this junk off the crafters.

And on that note, I thought we were eliminating selling crafted items to NPC merchants? You may be able to make a suit of MW plate, but only another PC will buy it off you. *That's* the most effective economic limitation, OOC as it is. Alternatively there could be an NPC buy back, but at pawn shop rates, basically just enough to cover your costs of raw materials, so you could practice crafting without losing too much (assuming you were successful).

[Fionn]

It may take you a year to make a MW Longsword, but you don't need to be logged in 80+ in order to craft. You need to do that to craft a LOT ;)

RE: Selling. If the system is balanced, then there's no reason not to sell to an NPC. If the system is borked, then the plot tag only serves to glut the market with unsellable items - thus we get crafters unloading 'spare suites of MW Full Plate" on PC1.

I see no reason to consider preventing the sale of crafted items to merchants. Even if we were to plot tag them, there'd be demand for a consignment merchant so PCs didn't have to actually talk to one another ;)

[Ronan]

Thinking about this a bit more, I'm liking the of crafting things better than masterwork with ordinary materials less and less. One of the pillars of this crafting system is supposed to be that it encourages RP, character interaction, and maybe even adventure. Another is that some valve on gain rates. We can achieve the later by tweaking the time needed to craft, but that only works on a global scale.

If we force crafters to seek out rare materials in order to make items of good power, we encourage RP, exploration, and character interaction. If we allow them to craft more powerful versions of masterwork gear from common materials, they can do so on their own without interacting with (N)PCs. Finding enough mithral to make a suit of platemail could very well be more difficult than making the mail itself, and would certain be far more interesting than emoting the forging of armor.

Gain rates can easily be throttled by adjusting rare resources, but we have no IC way of really preventing a PC from securing a supply of high-quality iron or steel. Requiring that artistry scale with enchantment certainly is interesting, as long as the artistry doesn't produce anything stronger than a masterwork item on its own.

I can go with more mundane stuff. Just need a lot of imagination. Maybe if jewels were added you could make fancier more vaulable swords.

Magic of Faerun has rules of adding gemstones to wands, by the way. Many have significant and scriptable effects. But keep in mind a lot of what we want is to define the ambiguities left by 3.5's ruleset, which include a lot of "special materials" needed to craft magical items. These special materials could easily be jewels. I'll also try and find more canon references to special materials we could add to my list to spice things up.

ATD wants more character advancement not tied to levels, since we've decided to level so slowly in ALFA compared to PnP. I can't say I blame him, but I'm not sure it has a place here. I'd really prefer crafting skills to be mutually exclusive to skills in killing things, and that means making them a part of the level-up process. We could of course require "lore" of how to work specific materials in mundane ways just like we'll require it for magical enchantments, but I still think the skill DCs for special materials should differ from ordinary ones.

[darrenhfx]

I don't think that gem magic is a widely known art, but it would be very cool to see ingame in some form. Another interesting way to alter an item could be to find someone who was adept in rune magic and have a sword etched with runes... but that may be on a level or two above what is being proposed here.

[Ronan]

Another interesting way to alter an item could be to find someone who was adept in rune magic and have a sword etched with runes... but that may be on a level or two above what is being proposed here.

Not really. The specifics of how items are enchanted is never defined in the rules. Things like gems, runes, imbued souls, etc. are all possibilities.

[Fionn]

If we force crafters to seek out rare materials in order to make items of good power, we encourage RP, exploration, and character interaction. If we allow them to craft more powerful versions of masterwork gear from common materials, they can do so on their own without interacting with (N)PCs.

I really don't see those as exclusive. If a Flametonge requires a MW Longsword inset with a MW Ruby, both those rare components must be joined and procured by the enchanter. He is unlikely to be skilled at forging or gemcrafting, so he will need two other players (or NPCs). A MW Longsword with a large ruby in the pommel isn't any more powerful than any other MW Longsword, it simply has the ability to become so.

That is totally separate from allowing variations on MW. This sword could be MW +0, MW +1 ATT, MW +1 Dmg, MW +1/+1, MW 80% Weight, MW +1 Parry, ...

I think it's a grand idea to tie the two systems together. We just need to be clear where one system stops, and the other starts. Mages/Priests will be required to enchant, but the ones that can will be unlikely to be crafting the MW components, nor seeking out the rare materials required for either of the crafting systems.

[Maeva]

Actually you can get up to +2. I believe magic (in most instances) is required for +3 skill items.

Since the special materials are going to be virtually required for fighter-types to defeat some monsters in NWN2, I'd focus on that first. However, ATD actually has a few different options defined as "masterwork" in the standards, presumably to make masterwork items less desirable for their cost. This allows a range of options.

You could add a touch of realism and a bit of common sense.

Normal steel is iron annealed with carbon, it would be the base steel one would use to make a regular sword.

Celestrium is chromium steel, adds a base +1

Elinvar is a chrom/nickel steel, adds a base +2

No enchanting or imbeuing required, it's just base science or knowledged. Though these are mondern day types of steel, you could use the materials Ronan suggested to fabricate different types of alloys.

Yet, if you want that +1 sword made of celestrium to be a flaming +1 longsword, that requires magical enchantments to add in the fire element. A holy +1 longsword requires divine intervention to add in the positive energy bounses.

So basically, any base increase less than +3 can be obtained through alloys or expertise craftmanship. Any extra abilities or properties requires magical enchantments or divine intervention.

[Fionn]

Another interesting way to alter an item could be to find someone who was adept in rune magic and have a sword etched with runes... but that may be on a level or two above what is being proposed here.

Not really. The specifics of how items are enchanted is never defined in the rules. Things like gems, runes, imbued souls, etc. are all possibilities.

No reason to have only one recipe for a particular process. If we support 3 ways to make a +1 weapon, your toon can research the one that suits.

Ronan - how hard would it be to tie every item property separately? Can we properly calculate the upgrade cost so PCs don't make a +1 Flametongue, but instead a MW Longsword that is then Enhanced to +1, and then later imbued with d6 Fire? If we do so, how do we handle items that make no sense (if we bork the restrictions)?

[AlmightyTDawg]

ATD wants more character advancement not tied to levels, since we've decided to level so slowly in ALFA compared to PnP. I can't say I blame him, but I'm not sure it has a place here. I'd really prefer crafting skills to be mutually exclusive to skills in killing things, and that means making them a part of the level-up process. We could of course require "lore" of how to work specific materials in mundane ways just like we'll require it for magical enchantments, but I still think the skill DCs for special materials should differ from ordinary ones.

Just to clarify, I didn't want to make it entirely mutually exclusive, but I did want it to make a substantial impact. To differentiate the two:

- Tie Craft DC (or maybe aggregate over X-rolls yielding an "average roll DC") to overall value of the proposed finished item. In a certain sense, this is kind of The Elder Scrolls-ish, in that in Morrowind, you have the difference between Excellent and Exquisite shirts able to support different levels of enchantment. In this case, the craft DC represents artistry and experience, but not necessarily experience with say Darksteel.

- Separately, tie to specific recipes the necessity of understanding the working of a particular material. This is something that can legitimately be learned independently, and may require by materials minimum craft ranks to even acquire. For example, Darksteel (basic) requires a minimum of 3 craft ranks, plus the tutelage of a group specifically used to working with Darksteel. Tie the total number of "materials" ranks to the number of ranks equal to your highest class skill - sort of like how languages work off of INT bonus.

Alternately, if a recipe calls for the crafting of a ring interweaving silver and darksteel, and requires Darksteel (basic) knowledge on the part of the craftsman, you can attempt to wing it as though untrained (taking a -4 penalty). If it called for Darksteel (intermediate), you could do it untrained with a -8, or if you had Darksteel (basic) with a -4. And so on.

Like I said, possibly too complex. Just more discrete character advancement points and actually makes character choices/development in crafting a conscious character decision and point of uniqueness.

Ronan - how hard would it be to tie every item property separately? Can we properly calculate the upgrade cost so PCs don't make a +1 Flametongue, but instead a MW Longsword that is then Enhanced to +1, and then later imbued with d6 Fire? If we do so, how do we handle items that make no sense (if we bork the restrictions)?

One could make the items with the maximum supported enchantment already attached - in description perhaps, and if not described, assume it cannot be enchanted further without rework.

A crafter could always conceptually rework an item, at the risk of disturbing the pre-existing dwoemer (if they roll for a new craft value at lower skill, they disturb the enchantment). Or the rework of the item could support this new, higher enchantment. Kind of makes picking your crafter kind of important (and think of all the liability/tort insurance possibilities!).

[Mulu]

Another possibility is to add mundane (MW) crafting feats for Use Forge or Cut Gems or whatever, and make those feats mandatory to make classes of items. That would limit the scope of crafting available to any one PC, *and* make the choice to be a crafter bite into your other professional skills. It would unfortunately tend to reward human fighters the most, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Depends on how much deviation you're willing to go from the 3.5 ruleset. The balance issue is that wizards have to take crafting feats for magical crafting, so why not mundane crafters?

[Rusty]

That's one flavor of MW armor, but I am sure we can come up with more. Here is another question, is adding a +1 skill magical? Say a MW armor had +1 parry? Or +1 fort save? Can we consider that MW? (Naturally armor wouldn't have will or reflex, but possibly fort due to the protection factor), Just throwing out some thoughts for variety.

Potential MW Armour Properties:
80% Weight Reduction
Single +1 skill bonus
+1 skill bonus to three armor check penalty skills (AC 3 or higher)

Potential MW Shield Properites:
80% Weight Reduction
Single +1 skill bonus
+1 skill bonus to three armor check penalty skills (AC 1 or 2)

Potential MW Melee Weapon Properties:
+1 damage (physical)
Massive Criticals 1, 2, 3, or 1d4
Single +1 skill bonus
80% WR (added to any of above)

Potential MW Ranged Weapon Properties:
80% Weight Reduction
Mighty +1
Massive Criticals 1, 2, 3, or 1d4

MW Ammunition Property:
+1 damage (physical)

* Each possible masterwork ability in each subgroup is exclusive from the others, except for 80% WR on weapons.

^ Mighty property is +75gp for light xbow/shortbow, +100gp for heavy xbow/longbow for each +1 of mighty.

Give 'em a browse sometime. Might be a few other surprises.

[AlmightyTDawg]

I think the skill system does provide a decent crack at this already - depending on how broad the skill system is. For example, the distinctions drawn with actual "gear" relevance would be:

• Armorsmithing
• Bowmaking
• Blacksmithing (much more limited, only thing that came to mind were magic horseshoes)
• Calligraphy/Painting (again limited, probably only of use with writing fine runes or across uneven surfaces etc)
• Gemcutting
• Leatherworking
• Trapmaking
• Weaponsmithing
• Weaving

I think you'd break it down by equipment slot probably to about six to eight skills. This would, considering other basic skills, create a real barrier to entry for all those 2 + INT classes. Most of the classes with more skill points are heavily built on using those points to actual class-specific skills.

I'm not sure on the general case. I think one of the main reasons it's not feat based in general is that masterwork crafting in and of itself isn't a terribly high "margin" or rich activity, or wasn't intended to be. If its value starts to rival magical crafting, perhaps that'll be a point of concern.

Pertaining to Rusty's post, one thought on expanding the concept of masterwork in line with the higher-DC / artistry / etc. is to actually possibly permit stacking some of the pre-exisitng MW bonuses on top of one another as a function of skill.

[Ronan]

Keep in mind, we won't have discipline or parry. That leaves more skills left over for 2+ int classes. As far as the skill lists, I was thinking of many of those either wouldn't be included, or wouldn't be used in crafting. Something like:

• Armorsmithing
• Leatherworking
• Bowmaking
• Trapmaking
• Weaponsmithing
• Alchemy
• Weaving

I'm not sure we need anything more specific. If we did I agree we'd have to go to skills outside the d20 system, or add some generous synergy. Weaving has no MW bonuses, but could provide things like +1/+2 hide/ms bonuses, and of course support for enchantment.

So if someone wants to be a master crafter, they'd need to take a class like expert or rogue with a lot of skill points. If a dwarf fighter wanted to be a master smith, he'd probably want an INT of at least 12, and would focus on weaponsmithing and armorsmithing. Overall I'm not seeing anything wrong with this?