silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I go to a weekly Adventure's League at my FLGS, and this week our DM couldn't find a babysitter and wasn't able to show up. So I get a text an hour before it's supposed to start "We don't have a DM, come to the store and fix this." So I pull myself together in record time (I work nights, so I'd just gotten up), haul ass over there, and start pouring over the campaign book from where we left off last week. After about 45 minutes, stopping briefly to build a new person's character, I have the first two legs of an encounter sketched out with DCs and monster stat blocks, and I'm ready to give it a shot.
All I can say is what a blast. One of the players was extremely experienced (and a little paranoid), so as the party made their way from the start to the building where the ambush was set up, he kept asking to roll Stealth and Perception, and he kept "succeeding" when there was nothing to worry about and time was ticking on the encounter timer. Finally, after dispatching the guards around the building, everyone can see the writing on the wall that something's going to happen in the building, but no one can beat the DC to find the well hidden enemies.
The party, which is mostly level 1 characters and new to DnD to boot, ends up facing a surprise round of 10 guards raining spears from above. The round goes mixed, with some hits, some critical misses (those assailants fall from the rafters and take fall damage), and one crit gibbing the Rogue before he gets an action. Fortunately the newly level 2 Ranger has Cure Wounds to get him back on his feet, and he becomes a whirling dervish of steel and blood, until he gets whittled down and knocked unconscious again, prompting the Paladin to blow her lay on hands to get him up again.
Towards the end it was touch and go, and the Cultists started breaking away from engagement, provoking free attacks of opportunity, because they wanted to "target the healers," and instead got picked off. I didn't want to kill new players on their first week. I guess I'm a carebear DM.
That said, now I want to brew my own campaign, since DnD Encounters only goes up to level 3, apparently? I'm wondering what the point of the rest of the Campaign book is.
I go to a weekly Adventure's League at my FLGS, and this week our DM couldn't find a babysitter and wasn't able to show up. So I get a text an hour before it's supposed to start "We don't have a DM, come to the store and fix this." So I pull myself together in record time (I work nights, so I'd just gotten up), haul ass over there, and start pouring over the campaign book from where we left off last week. After about 45 minutes, stopping briefly to build a new person's character, I have the first two legs of an encounter sketched out with DCs and monster stat blocks, and I'm ready to give it a shot.
All I can say is what a blast. One of the players was extremely experienced (and a little paranoid), so as the party made their way from the start to the building where the ambush was set up, he kept asking to roll Stealth and Perception, and he kept "succeeding" when there was nothing to worry about and time was ticking on the encounter timer. Finally, after dispatching the guards around the building, everyone can see the writing on the wall that something's going to happen in the building, but no one can beat the DC to find the well hidden enemies.
The party, which is mostly level 1 characters and new to DnD to boot, ends up facing a surprise round of 10 guards raining spears from above. The round goes mixed, with some hits, some critical misses (those assailants fall from the rafters and take fall damage), and one crit gibbing the Rogue before he gets an action. Fortunately the newly level 2 Ranger has Cure Wounds to get him back on his feet, and he becomes a whirling dervish of steel and blood, until he gets whittled down and knocked unconscious again, prompting the Paladin to blow her lay on hands to get him up again.
Towards the end it was touch and go, and the Cultists started breaking away from engagement, provoking free attacks of opportunity, because they wanted to "target the healers," and instead got picked off. I didn't want to kill new players on their first week. I guess I'm a carebear DM.
That said, now I want to brew my own campaign, since DnD Encounters only goes up to level 3, apparently? I'm wondering what the point of the rest of the Campaign book is.
Nah, you've got the makings of a great DM that players will want to play with. Building trust with players by showing that you aren't out to get their characters killed to the point of ripping up the character sheet goes a long, LONG, way to getting reliable players that want to experience the story instead of just murdering things because they got in the way of loot.
It's in the Equipment section of the PHB also, but I figured I would preface the rules with the mention it was on the free .pdf to avoid getting called out for posting rules.
Check me out with the missing things completely. Ladies
Party completed chargen yesterday, and it looks like there's going to be no healer, which should be super interesting. And also means I will have to be fairly liberal in distributing potions.
No healer at all? Or no primary healer? We've got a ranger and a bard in my group, and that's seemed good enough to not have any real issues.
No primary. I'm playing a paladin in that game, so I have Lay on Hands. I can grab Cure Wounds at level 2, and I've set it up so dipping into Cleric wouldn't be an issue if extra heelz/whatever are needed.
We also have 2 Warlocks with differing pacts, and a Ranger. I'm not sure what the Ranger plans on picking up for spells at level 2 (I'm sure he won't know either until it comes up), but we could likely convince him to grab Cure Wounds as well if we are hurting. I imagine the potions will be a stop-gap for first level.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
"All healing consumables" is a lot of items to disallow
In a 3.5 game we were rolling higher level characters. I rolled a monk (I was young and naive, don't judge me!) and she rolled for random loot. I got a pair of kamas, one of which only did non-lethal damage. I told her I wouldn't have kept it, I would have sold it. She said, "you can't, they're a matched pair." so I said I would have sold them both at that rate, my character simply wouldn't have wanted the item.
So then she busts out with, "well....it has unlimited uses of cure light wounds on it." and so yeah my monk became the party healer.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
Eh. In 3rd player crafted gear was accessible at level 1 for scrolls. The stick of infinite healing could be made at 5th with two people working together or 6th by any cleric/druid.
Though that isn't anywhere near the top of the list of problems with the magic item creation rules.
I guess 5th shoved all this over into the DMG as an "option" which makes it a bit easier to not use I guess.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
"All healing consumables" is a lot of items to disallow
I don't have to disallow all healing consumables, I just have to disallow sticks of infinite healing! As far as player crafted items, last I checked they still had to get permission from me to craft it anyway.
Besides, I doubt my party would want one anyway. I only mention it because (for some reason?) Ardent decided to recommend that crimsoncoyote procure one.
I really don't like lots of healing, either as a player or GM. My aim is to reproduce fantastic/heroic fiction, and continuous magic healing was never a part of that. Also, from a dramatic point of view, it trivialises damage.
Most of the 'resource management' aspects of D&D and other RPGs I try to minimise. So I'd MUCH rather have a game with no cleric and weaker monsters than a game with a cleric and stronger monsters.
I don't mind out-of-combat healing, because that too reduces the resource management of HPs.
Basically, I've never read a cool fantasy novel about resource management, and I don't want my D&D games to be that.
The same dichotomy creates problems in the 'hero with a speciality weapon' and 'cool magic weapons are everywhere' thing. Fictitious heroes don't usually gain many magic items. Most are characterised by one particular item. So I think D&D should choose: speciality weapon choices and abilities to support that OR cool magic swords under every bush. Not both.
Wands of Cure. I actually use those with my Clerics a lot since they save spell slots for spontaneous domain casts. Actually, any good Cleric is going to have a belt of Wands because they're way more efficient than trying to keep spells memorized for situational use.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
"All healing consumables" is a lot of items to disallow
I don't have to disallow all healing consumables, I just have to disallow sticks of infinite healing! As far as player crafted items, last I checked they still had to get permission from me to craft it anyway.
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
That's never how I played at all. I've never used item creation rules without explicit DM permission. It's always like "here's what I want to buy with my gold next time we get the chance" and then they hit you with a sheet of notebook paper.
And then whoever the DM is looks over the list and goes "cool, looks reasonable," or "can't have that one, it doesn't exist" or something. I don't see that as a house rule, so much as a ruling.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
I've always felt that Item Creation rules were a very DM fiat based aspect of those systems, but they were an entirely core part of the system (4th explicitly so). They are subject to DM fiat, but by RAW you can make whatever the hell you want as long as it was legally published. I just stopped giving a shit in 3rd edition because it was like playing whack a mole trying to fix it. You fix one problem and it simply makes another.
I've always felt that Item Creation rules were a very DM fiat based aspect of those systems, but they were an entirely core part of the system (4th explicitly so). They are subject to DM fiat, but by RAW you can make whatever the hell you want as long as it was legally published.
Sure, and the important bit of this, as you've said: They're always subject to DM fiat.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
However, so is being able to make an attack roll or use an ability at a given point (if I disagree with it).
Restricting them is still making a houserule, because all item creation feats IIRC were in the PHB - not the DMG. So those rules were not at the whim of the DM to use in the first place, they were clearly intended to be used by players. Saying it's up to "DM Fiat" is tacitly admitting that the system as written was entirely broken.
I think we need more nuanced terms than 'Mother-may-I?' and 'DM-fiat'.
DMs have to be involved in creating, and adjudicating. They have to have power. They also have to not be dicks, so I don't like that the terms for 'consulting with the DM' are so negative and loaded.
For example, RP is essentially 'DM fiat'. The DM can have the NPCs do whatever he/she wants. But it's a core part of the game, and not really subject to many rules.
But I can't think of a more positive phrase. 'Hey DM let's collaborate on an enjoyable narrative, my friend' lacks something. Lots of somethings.
I disagree fundamentally that there is no difference between creation of a magical item and making an attack against a thing. Just because they are both rules as written and just because neither of them explicitly say "ask your DM before attempting this at home" does not mean there is not a context to be obeyed.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited October 2014
"Mother-may-I?" is generally the negative connotation given for how martial characters have to ask increasingly absurd or silly things of the DM to give them any chance whatsoever of being relevant at the table at high levels. "DM-Fiat" is usually used as a way of saying "This shit is known to be entirely broken, but your DM could decide it just doesn't work or whatever".
Anything else doesn't have a specific name because it doesn't need one outside of just being a decent DM.
I disagree fundamentally that there is no difference between creation of a magical item and making an attack against a thing. Just because they are both rules as written and just because neither of them explicitly say "ask your DM before attempting this at home" does not mean there is not a context to be obeyed.
The thing is, you are making up that context into the RAW. By RAW, you can make pretty much whatever the hell you want as long as you have the time, gold, experience and ability to cast the spells in question.
In a 3.5 game we were rolling higher level characters. I rolled a monk (I was young and naive, don't judge me!) and she rolled for random loot. I got a pair of kamas, one of which only did non-lethal damage. I told her I wouldn't have kept it, I would have sold it. She said, "you can't, they're a matched pair." so I said I would have sold them both at that rate, my character simply wouldn't have wanted the item.
So then she busts out with, "well....it has unlimited uses of cure light wounds on it." and so yeah my monk became the party healer.
Saying it's up to "DM Fiat" is tacitly admitting that the system as written was entirely broken.
No. This is a roleplaying game. This is simply 100% untrue. People at different tables run different games, and some tables won't jive with some aspects of the game. DM Fiat is not an indication of a broken game, it's an acknowledgment that things are not one-size-fits-all.
Why should there be context to be obeyed? The rules explicitly state I can do this if I take the feat. You are changing the rules by telling me I can't.
+6
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Saying it's up to "DM Fiat" is tacitly admitting that the system as written was entirely broken.
No. This is a roleplaying game. This is simply 100% untrue. People at different tables run different games, and some tables won't jive with some aspects of the game. DM Fiat is not an indication of a broken game, it's an acknowledgment that things are not one-size-fits-all.
As I get older and have less and less time to learn the nuances of a system, I am less and less tolerant of this point of view. I really just want a functional rules set out of the box.
+11
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Saying it's up to "DM Fiat" is tacitly admitting that the system as written was entirely broken.
No. This is a roleplaying game. This is simply 100% untrue. People at different tables run different games, and some tables won't jive with some aspects of the game. DM Fiat is not an indication of a broken game, it's an acknowledgment that things are not one-size-fits-all.
I fundamentally disagree.
Answering something that is broken, like a wand of infinite healing, with "DM fiat it out" is admitting that the system is broken. The better thing to do is ensure the system cannot be busted by making a wand of infinite healing in the first place. This is what I am paying them to do and the sheer amount of completely broken stuff like that is why I won't touch 3.x ever again.
You also cannot use DM-Fiat as an argument precisely because of this very argument you made. We are discussing the way the rules are, not the way you feel the rules should be because you (or your DM) rules things a certain way. Hence why I go back to the RAW and the RAW flatly disagrees with you, just like how by RAW I can murder anything I want but my DM can very well decide otherwise at a moments notice. It's not intuitive that the town guard busting in and basically being nigh unkillable to beat you into a pulp for antisocial behavior is also DM-Fiat, but it's the same kind of application in "No, you can't do that".
I didn't actually look for magic item creation rules in 5E. If they are gone, my impression of this system just went up immensely.
Edit: And I agree with Hatchface. As I am older and considerably more grumpy, I care less and less for believing I want to be some kind of frustrated game designer through playing DnD. I want to buy a system, have it work and dedicate what limited time I have to my game to purely creative outlets (making NPCs, monsters, encounters etc). I view pawing through every element of the system to fix it so it wont break the game or cause issues at the table derailing everyones time to play as extremely detrimental things now. 5E has already shown me elements of these, but so far nothing that is quite as bad as 3.x in practice (which has been a pleasant surprise).
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
That's never how I played at all. I've never used item creation rules without explicit DM permission. It's always like "here's what I want to buy with my gold next time we get the chance" and then they hit you with a sheet of notebook paper.
And then whoever the DM is looks over the list and goes "cool, looks reasonable," or "can't have that one, it doesn't exist" or something. I don't see that as a house rule, so much as a ruling.
I see where you're going with this, but it opens a can of worms. If your player(s) put in the efforts (in 3.5 with the feats, gold cost, xp cost, etc.) then why can't they create what they want according to the rules? Item creation in 3.5 required some dedicated effort. For it to be wasted would really piss off a player, I would imagine.
If you don't have a really good in game reason for denying something ("You just don't have enough of the forbidden lore to create a Dark Altar Stone, sorry") its hard to say no.
As the DM run a huge risk of being a dick if its a common item like a wand. ("Want to make a Wand of Fireball and you paid all your costs? Sure, go nuts and blow shit up party wizard! Wait...now you want to make the cleric a wand of Cure Medium Wounds? Oh no. Hells no! THAT WILL BREAK THE GAME! YOU CAN"T DO THAT!") That's just silly.
How can you justify saying yes to one wand, and no to another. Especially when they are both (in my example) incredibly common spells?
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
That's never how I played at all. I've never used item creation rules without explicit DM permission. It's always like "here's what I want to buy with my gold next time we get the chance" and then they hit you with a sheet of notebook paper.
And then whoever the DM is looks over the list and goes "cool, looks reasonable," or "can't have that one, it doesn't exist" or something. I don't see that as a house rule, so much as a ruling.
I see where you're going with this, but it opens a can of worms. If your player(s) put in the efforts (in 3.5 with the feats, gold cost, xp cost, etc.) then why can't they create what they want according to the rules? Item creation in 3.5 required some dedicated effort. For it to be wasted would really piss off a player, I would imagine.
If you don't have a really good in game reason for denying something ("You just don't have enough of the forbidden lore to create a Dark Altar Stone, sorry") its hard to say no.
As the DM run a huge risk of being a dick if its a common item like a wand. ("Want to make a Wand of Fireball and you paid all your costs? Sure, go nuts and blow shit up party wizard! Wait...now you want to make the cleric a wand of Cure Medium Wounds? Oh no. Hells no! THAT WILL BREAK THE GAME! YOU CAN"T DO THAT!") That's just silly.
How can you justify saying yes to one wand, and no to another. Especially when they are both (in my example) incredibly common spells?
Wait, what? No. The player asks you to create the item before they start its creation. They say something like "I am going to begin creating a wand of fireball." Nobody is saying they pay the costs and get nothing in return.
In 3.5 the item creation feats have no mention of "ask your DM" while the Leadership feat specifically says so. Item creation is expected as wizards get a feat for it at first level (Scribe Scrolls).
I tend to agree somewhat with Rend that having to fix unlimited healing wands so your game feels a certain way does not indicate that the system is broken. A lot of DM didn't feel the need to fix this issue as it was just par for the course that a CLW wand would be needed. The number of consumables often found in official adventures also leads me to believe this out of combat unlimited healing wasn't really an accident. At least I hope so.
As magic items cannot be bought in 5th and are supposed to be much more rare.. I kind of hope there will be no item creation rules for players but as mentionned earlier in the thread, this is juicy content that I doubt they will avoid for long.
legallytired on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I honestly always had better things to do in 3.x systems than worry about wands of CLW. Adventuring days were always limited by casters spells, so things that actually kept an adventure going beyond a 5 minute dump and ropetrick were things I appreciated.
You guys are seriously going to give me an aneurysm.
"I do not generally allow sticks of infinite healing" I did not think was going to be a controversial statement, considering the thread's overwhelming opinion on sticks of infinite healing.
The DM runs the risk of being a huge dick all the time. That's part of the problem with the role.
I still think 'DM fiat' is quite negative, and puts a weird slant on the DM/player relationship.
There's a tremendous difference between a DM messing around with:
(1) all the things that aren't covered in the rules and can't be, (e.g. roleplaying an itinerant Ogre peddler, deciding what effects those mushrooms you bought off him have, suggesting appropriate funeral services).
(2) the things that are in the rules (e.g. magic item creation rules).
(3) the things that are supposed to be in the rules but aren't (e.g. how to balance encounters).
Messing around with the first thing is a good thing. It's your DM job. I don't want to call it 'fiat'.
Messing around with the second thing is something you should really hesitate to do, unless the game is so obviously badly designed that why are you playing it anyway instead of something good?
Messing around with the third thing is what I don't have time for as an adult with dependents.
There is no "wand of infinite healing" in 3.x*, there are wands with healing spells on them with 50 charges that cost time and money to make. If you disallow them, then you're disallowing applications of standard wand creation rules. Which, fine; now players move to healing potions and other alternatives that are more costly but have the same result, especially once levels get a bit higher because of how wealth curves. So those are gone too? Okay congrats, you got rid of consumable healing. Except that's what you weren't doing, right?
Like, this isn't even an exploit of the system. The very first 3.x game I played, with a table almost entirely full of complete greenhorns, used this method the moment we were able to procure a wand. I have difficulty imagining this wasn't directly intended by the designers in order to reduce the cleric's need to spend spell slots on all healing all the time. House ruling this stuff out makes spellcasters even more required, because now your non-casters just became huge liabilities (moreso than usual!). Every one of them that doesn't bring along spell slots for healing just added to the cleric's burden substantially while also weakening the cleric's ability to perform in battle.
Wiz - Clr - Drd - Drd was already a pretty stellar party setup (occasionally swapping a Drd for a Rog depending on campaign). Without healing wands, there's no excuse whatsoever to swap any of those out for a Ftr, Mnk, Brb, etc.
* Okay actually I think there were rules in some splat to make "endless" wands at really high levels that have low level spells on them but that's economically irrelevant by that point anyway.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
+3
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
But just to make it clear to me, there AREN'T currently item creation rules?
Because thank fuck if so. This actually really does (I am not kidding) improve my opinion of 5E a considerable amount.
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
That's never how I played at all. I've never used item creation rules without explicit DM permission. It's always like "here's what I want to buy with my gold next time we get the chance" and then they hit you with a sheet of notebook paper.
And then whoever the DM is looks over the list and goes "cool, looks reasonable," or "can't have that one, it doesn't exist" or something. I don't see that as a house rule, so much as a ruling.
I see where you're going with this, but it opens a can of worms. If your player(s) put in the efforts (in 3.5 with the feats, gold cost, xp cost, etc.) then why can't they create what they want according to the rules? Item creation in 3.5 required some dedicated effort. For it to be wasted would really piss off a player, I would imagine.
If you don't have a really good in game reason for denying something ("You just don't have enough of the forbidden lore to create a Dark Altar Stone, sorry") its hard to say no.
As the DM run a huge risk of being a dick if its a common item like a wand. ("Want to make a Wand of Fireball and you paid all your costs? Sure, go nuts and blow shit up party wizard! Wait...now you want to make the cleric a wand of Cure Medium Wounds? Oh no. Hells no! THAT WILL BREAK THE GAME! YOU CAN"T DO THAT!") That's just silly.
How can you justify saying yes to one wand, and no to another. Especially when they are both (in my example) incredibly common spells?
Wait, what? No. The player asks you to create the item before they start its creation. They say something like "I am going to begin creating a wand of fireball." Nobody is saying they pay the costs and get nothing in return.
What? Yes. The player has the feat, it says they can make the item given X resources, if they do have X resources, and put in whatever else the rule says they can do, it's not any different from them wanting to cast Fireball or Sleep. If it has broken results by just following the rules, that literally. Literally. Defines "broken system". But that is what the DM is for, just most people here are tired of having to fix a game they just spent 90$ on just so that Spike doesn't completely invalidate a whole section of the combat rules or pacing by making a fucking wand.
We'll see if there are rules in the DMG. They seem to want to avoid magic item saturation so hopefully they'll be consistent and not have item creation rules.
There is no "wand of infinite healing" in 3.x*, there are wands with healing spells on them with 50 charges that cost time and money to make. If you disallow them, then you're disallowing applications of standard wand creation rules. Which, fine; now players move to healing potions and other alternatives that are more costly but have the same result, especially once levels get a bit higher because of how wealth curves. So those are gone too? Okay congrats, you got rid of consumable healing. Except that's what you weren't doing, right?
Like, this isn't even an exploit of the system. The very first 3.x game I played, with a table almost entirely full of complete greenhorns, used this method the moment we were able to procure a wand. I have difficulty imagining this wasn't directly intended by the designers in order to reduce the cleric's need to spend spell slots on all healing all the time. House ruling this stuff out makes spellcasters even more required, because now your non-casters just became huge liabilities (moreso than usual!). Every one of them that doesn't bring along spell slots for healing just added to the cleric's burden substantially while also weakening the cleric's ability to perform in battle.
Wiz - Clr - Drd - Drd was already a pretty stellar party setup (occasionally swapping a Drd for a Rog depending on campaign). Without healing wands, there's no excuse whatsoever to swap any of those out for a Ftr, Mnk, Brb, etc.
* Okay actually I think there were rules in some splat to make "endless" wands at really high levels that have low level spells on them but that's economically irrelevant by that point anyway.
1. When I say a stick of infinite healing what I/we mean is a wand that cures you out of combat. A normal curing wand, since probably you can refresh it with a new one once it runs out. Functionally limitless.
2. I said specifically that I was NOT going to disallow potions. Potions not only take up more space but they're more expensive. I do not see them as a problem, because a potion is not going to have even close to the efficiency a wand will. Not by a long shot.
3. "there's no excuse whatsoever to swap any of those out" is incredibly indicative of the tone of this conversation. I am not talking about tables who create their party like an army list, which that phrase indicates quite strongly. If you ARE talking about those tables, then we are, essentially, talking about different games.
I dunno, as much as I'm in favor of the usual "Game should work as published or why did I spend my money?" line. I view access to loot as a fundamental part of world building and thus naturally part of "DM fiat."
The dumb thing is that it's not an "artifact of infinite and terrible power" that has to be watched it's a "wand that casts a lv 1 spell".
Really though, we should drop this at least until the DMG drops or a later book adds item creation back in.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
* Okay actually I think there were rules in some splat to make "endless" wands at really high levels that have low level spells on them but that's economically irrelevant by that point anyway.
Wait, what? No. The player asks you to create the item before they start its creation. They say something like "I am going to begin creating a wand of fireball." Nobody is saying they pay the costs and get nothing in return.
OK, but to get to that point they'd need to spend some feats and plan for their gold and xp costs and the like. But my question was more about how a DM can justify saying yes to Fireball sticks and no to Cure sticks. They are fundamentally the same thing. Take (1) stick. Add Spell. Use 50 times and then discard.
But we are veering away from 5e discussion. So, lets move along.
Posts
All I can say is what a blast. One of the players was extremely experienced (and a little paranoid), so as the party made their way from the start to the building where the ambush was set up, he kept asking to roll Stealth and Perception, and he kept "succeeding" when there was nothing to worry about and time was ticking on the encounter timer. Finally, after dispatching the guards around the building, everyone can see the writing on the wall that something's going to happen in the building, but no one can beat the DC to find the well hidden enemies.
The party, which is mostly level 1 characters and new to DnD to boot, ends up facing a surprise round of 10 guards raining spears from above. The round goes mixed, with some hits, some critical misses (those assailants fall from the rafters and take fall damage), and one crit gibbing the Rogue before he gets an action. Fortunately the newly level 2 Ranger has Cure Wounds to get him back on his feet, and he becomes a whirling dervish of steel and blood, until he gets whittled down and knocked unconscious again, prompting the Paladin to blow her lay on hands to get him up again.
Towards the end it was touch and go, and the Cultists started breaking away from engagement, provoking free attacks of opportunity, because they wanted to "target the healers," and instead got picked off. I didn't want to kill new players on their first week. I guess I'm a carebear DM.
That said, now I want to brew my own campaign, since DnD Encounters only goes up to level 3, apparently? I'm wondering what the point of the rest of the Campaign book is.
Nah, you've got the makings of a great DM that players will want to play with. Building trust with players by showing that you aren't out to get their characters killed to the point of ripping up the character sheet goes a long, LONG, way to getting reliable players that want to experience the story instead of just murdering things because they got in the way of loot.
R*SC: BladeCruiser
Check out my GTAV-PC custom race tracks inspired by real life racing circuits!
Now here is a frood who knows where his towel is.
I've never actually used or allowed a wand of infinite hp in any game I've played or DMed, and I don't really plan to start now
It's pretty easy to say "nah" to an item that trivializes an entire dimension of the game.
"All healing consumables" is a lot of items to disallow
In a 3.5 game we were rolling higher level characters. I rolled a monk (I was young and naive, don't judge me!) and she rolled for random loot. I got a pair of kamas, one of which only did non-lethal damage. I told her I wouldn't have kept it, I would have sold it. She said, "you can't, they're a matched pair." so I said I would have sold them both at that rate, my character simply wouldn't have wanted the item.
So then she busts out with, "well....it has unlimited uses of cure light wounds on it." and so yeah my monk became the party healer.
Eh. In 3rd player crafted gear was accessible at level 1 for scrolls. The stick of infinite healing could be made at 5th with two people working together or 6th by any cleric/druid.
Though that isn't anywhere near the top of the list of problems with the magic item creation rules.
I guess 5th shoved all this over into the DMG as an "option" which makes it a bit easier to not use I guess.
I don't have to disallow all healing consumables, I just have to disallow sticks of infinite healing! As far as player crafted items, last I checked they still had to get permission from me to craft it anyway.
Besides, I doubt my party would want one anyway. I only mention it because (for some reason?) Ardent decided to recommend that crimsoncoyote procure one.
Most of the 'resource management' aspects of D&D and other RPGs I try to minimise. So I'd MUCH rather have a game with no cleric and weaker monsters than a game with a cleric and stronger monsters.
I don't mind out-of-combat healing, because that too reduces the resource management of HPs.
Basically, I've never read a cool fantasy novel about resource management, and I don't want my D&D games to be that.
The same dichotomy creates problems in the 'hero with a speciality weapon' and 'cool magic weapons are everywhere' thing. Fictitious heroes don't usually gain many magic items. Most are characterised by one particular item. So I think D&D should choose: speciality weapon choices and abilities to support that OR cool magic swords under every bush. Not both.
In 3rd only so much as they had to get permission to make an attack roll or cast a certain spell. House rules are completely viable but once you make enough of them (or one big enough) you strike at the commonality of the experience that lets discussion threads like this come about.
5th seems to be pushing player created items out of the "core" experience which is probably a good choice for the game as they've laid it out. 3rd never resolved this issue, 4th side stepped it, 5th trying to toss it into a "Broken shit that you'll bitch about if it isn't somewhere" box wouldn't be surprising.
That's never how I played at all. I've never used item creation rules without explicit DM permission. It's always like "here's what I want to buy with my gold next time we get the chance" and then they hit you with a sheet of notebook paper.
And then whoever the DM is looks over the list and goes "cool, looks reasonable," or "can't have that one, it doesn't exist" or something. I don't see that as a house rule, so much as a ruling.
Sure, and the important bit of this, as you've said: They're always subject to DM fiat.
Restricting them is still making a houserule, because all item creation feats IIRC were in the PHB - not the DMG. So those rules were not at the whim of the DM to use in the first place, they were clearly intended to be used by players. Saying it's up to "DM Fiat" is tacitly admitting that the system as written was entirely broken.
DMs have to be involved in creating, and adjudicating. They have to have power. They also have to not be dicks, so I don't like that the terms for 'consulting with the DM' are so negative and loaded.
For example, RP is essentially 'DM fiat'. The DM can have the NPCs do whatever he/she wants. But it's a core part of the game, and not really subject to many rules.
But I can't think of a more positive phrase. 'Hey DM let's collaborate on an enjoyable narrative, my friend' lacks something. Lots of somethings.
Anything else doesn't have a specific name because it doesn't need one outside of just being a decent DM.
The thing is, you are making up that context into the RAW. By RAW, you can make pretty much whatever the hell you want as long as you have the time, gold, experience and ability to cast the spells in question.
Defacto Paladin; Lay On Hands.
No. This is a roleplaying game. This is simply 100% untrue. People at different tables run different games, and some tables won't jive with some aspects of the game. DM Fiat is not an indication of a broken game, it's an acknowledgment that things are not one-size-fits-all.
As I get older and have less and less time to learn the nuances of a system, I am less and less tolerant of this point of view. I really just want a functional rules set out of the box.
I fundamentally disagree.
Answering something that is broken, like a wand of infinite healing, with "DM fiat it out" is admitting that the system is broken. The better thing to do is ensure the system cannot be busted by making a wand of infinite healing in the first place. This is what I am paying them to do and the sheer amount of completely broken stuff like that is why I won't touch 3.x ever again.
You also cannot use DM-Fiat as an argument precisely because of this very argument you made. We are discussing the way the rules are, not the way you feel the rules should be because you (or your DM) rules things a certain way. Hence why I go back to the RAW and the RAW flatly disagrees with you, just like how by RAW I can murder anything I want but my DM can very well decide otherwise at a moments notice. It's not intuitive that the town guard busting in and basically being nigh unkillable to beat you into a pulp for antisocial behavior is also DM-Fiat, but it's the same kind of application in "No, you can't do that".
I didn't actually look for magic item creation rules in 5E. If they are gone, my impression of this system just went up immensely.
Edit: And I agree with Hatchface. As I am older and considerably more grumpy, I care less and less for believing I want to be some kind of frustrated game designer through playing DnD. I want to buy a system, have it work and dedicate what limited time I have to my game to purely creative outlets (making NPCs, monsters, encounters etc). I view pawing through every element of the system to fix it so it wont break the game or cause issues at the table derailing everyones time to play as extremely detrimental things now. 5E has already shown me elements of these, but so far nothing that is quite as bad as 3.x in practice (which has been a pleasant surprise).
I see where you're going with this, but it opens a can of worms. If your player(s) put in the efforts (in 3.5 with the feats, gold cost, xp cost, etc.) then why can't they create what they want according to the rules? Item creation in 3.5 required some dedicated effort. For it to be wasted would really piss off a player, I would imagine.
If you don't have a really good in game reason for denying something ("You just don't have enough of the forbidden lore to create a Dark Altar Stone, sorry") its hard to say no.
As the DM run a huge risk of being a dick if its a common item like a wand. ("Want to make a Wand of Fireball and you paid all your costs? Sure, go nuts and blow shit up party wizard! Wait...now you want to make the cleric a wand of Cure Medium Wounds? Oh no. Hells no! THAT WILL BREAK THE GAME! YOU CAN"T DO THAT!") That's just silly.
How can you justify saying yes to one wand, and no to another. Especially when they are both (in my example) incredibly common spells?
Wait, what? No. The player asks you to create the item before they start its creation. They say something like "I am going to begin creating a wand of fireball." Nobody is saying they pay the costs and get nothing in return.
"This is the biggest possible object (as long as you ignore any objects that are larger)."
I tend to agree somewhat with Rend that having to fix unlimited healing wands so your game feels a certain way does not indicate that the system is broken. A lot of DM didn't feel the need to fix this issue as it was just par for the course that a CLW wand would be needed. The number of consumables often found in official adventures also leads me to believe this out of combat unlimited healing wasn't really an accident. At least I hope so.
As magic items cannot be bought in 5th and are supposed to be much more rare.. I kind of hope there will be no item creation rules for players but as mentionned earlier in the thread, this is juicy content that I doubt they will avoid for long.
"I do not generally allow sticks of infinite healing" I did not think was going to be a controversial statement, considering the thread's overwhelming opinion on sticks of infinite healing.
I still think 'DM fiat' is quite negative, and puts a weird slant on the DM/player relationship.
There's a tremendous difference between a DM messing around with:
(1) all the things that aren't covered in the rules and can't be, (e.g. roleplaying an itinerant Ogre peddler, deciding what effects those mushrooms you bought off him have, suggesting appropriate funeral services).
(2) the things that are in the rules (e.g. magic item creation rules).
(3) the things that are supposed to be in the rules but aren't (e.g. how to balance encounters).
Messing around with the first thing is a good thing. It's your DM job. I don't want to call it 'fiat'.
Messing around with the second thing is something you should really hesitate to do, unless the game is so obviously badly designed that why are you playing it anyway instead of something good?
Messing around with the third thing is what I don't have time for as an adult with dependents.
Like, this isn't even an exploit of the system. The very first 3.x game I played, with a table almost entirely full of complete greenhorns, used this method the moment we were able to procure a wand. I have difficulty imagining this wasn't directly intended by the designers in order to reduce the cleric's need to spend spell slots on all healing all the time. House ruling this stuff out makes spellcasters even more required, because now your non-casters just became huge liabilities (moreso than usual!). Every one of them that doesn't bring along spell slots for healing just added to the cleric's burden substantially while also weakening the cleric's ability to perform in battle.
Wiz - Clr - Drd - Drd was already a pretty stellar party setup (occasionally swapping a Drd for a Rog depending on campaign). Without healing wands, there's no excuse whatsoever to swap any of those out for a Ftr, Mnk, Brb, etc.
* Okay actually I think there were rules in some splat to make "endless" wands at really high levels that have low level spells on them but that's economically irrelevant by that point anyway.
Because thank fuck if so. This actually really does (I am not kidding) improve my opinion of 5E a considerable amount.
What? Yes. The player has the feat, it says they can make the item given X resources, if they do have X resources, and put in whatever else the rule says they can do, it's not any different from them wanting to cast Fireball or Sleep. If it has broken results by just following the rules, that literally. Literally. Defines "broken system". But that is what the DM is for, just most people here are tired of having to fix a game they just spent 90$ on just so that Spike doesn't completely invalidate a whole section of the combat rules or pacing by making a fucking wand.
R*SC: BladeCruiser
Check out my GTAV-PC custom race tracks inspired by real life racing circuits!
1. When I say a stick of infinite healing what I/we mean is a wand that cures you out of combat. A normal curing wand, since probably you can refresh it with a new one once it runs out. Functionally limitless.
2. I said specifically that I was NOT going to disallow potions. Potions not only take up more space but they're more expensive. I do not see them as a problem, because a potion is not going to have even close to the efficiency a wand will. Not by a long shot.
3. "there's no excuse whatsoever to swap any of those out" is incredibly indicative of the tone of this conversation. I am not talking about tables who create their party like an army list, which that phrase indicates quite strongly. If you ARE talking about those tables, then we are, essentially, talking about different games.
The dumb thing is that it's not an "artifact of infinite and terrible power" that has to be watched it's a "wand that casts a lv 1 spell".
Really though, we should drop this at least until the DMG drops or a later book adds item creation back in.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
What I could find poking around suggests they'll be in the DMG but as an "optional" tool kit.
There aren't!
On the other hand, the DMG isn't out yet, so there's still time!
Eberron Campaign Setting; 2 charges / day.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
OK, but to get to that point they'd need to spend some feats and plan for their gold and xp costs and the like. But my question was more about how a DM can justify saying yes to Fireball sticks and no to Cure sticks. They are fundamentally the same thing. Take (1) stick. Add Spell. Use 50 times and then discard.
But we are veering away from 5e discussion. So, lets move along.