Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JamesMaissen 02-02-06, 12:21 AM	I know it's been suggested before, but can we let PCs use the Craft skill to make mundane items? For time and cost simply use core D&D rules from the PhB. For access and book-keeping we can use the MIC rules. It would seem that most of the framework would already exist to make it happen. Why have an artificial rule system for making money via craft skills as opposed to using the actual rules and letting people craft? Let's get beyond the old RUP system and back to book D&D as much as we can. Thank you for your time in monitoring the draft, James Maissen
GreySector 02-02-06, 09:24 AM	Seconded! -Michael Eshleman
smickra 02-02-06, 11:59 AM	I would also second this. I have 5 ranks in craft bowyer fletcher, access to a limited supply of blunt arrows (RW) but i cannot under the rules remove the arrowheads from broken blunt arrows and put them on newly crafted shafts. please allow us to use our craft skills Thomas
Eric_Pittsburgh 02-02-06, 12:12 PM	The Blackmoor MMRPG has rules for allowing crafting of mundane items that are fairly straight forward and could certainly serve as a model or starting point for us here in Living Greyhawk. Does anyone think it would honestly break the game to spend a TU making a couple flasks of Alchemists Fire for half price? Eric Kiefer Pittsburgh, PA
GreySector 02-02-06, 12:29 PM	Does anyone think it would honestly break the game to spend a TU making a couple flasks of Alchemists Fire for half price? Eric Kiefer Pittsburgh, PA Well, it's 1/3 price, but still not in the least game breaking. -Michael Eshleman
Moryath 02-02-06, 12:31 PM	I know it's been suggested before, but can we let PCs use the Craft skill to make mundane items? For time and cost simply use core D&D rules from the PhB. For access and book-keeping we can use the MIC rules. It would seem that most of the framework would already exist to make it happen. Why have an artificial rule system for making money via craft skills as opposed to using the actual rules and letting people craft? Let's get beyond the old RUP system and back to book D&D as much as we can. Thank you for your time in monitoring the draft, James Maissen Agreed. It's beyond silly that someone who spends a feat can craft a +1 set of armor, but someone with ranks in Craft(Armor) can't make a simple masterwork armor set.
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 12:43 PM	Agreed. It's beyond silly that someone who spends a feat can craft a +1 set of armor, but someone with ranks in Craft(Armor) can't make a simple masterwork armor set. Assuming that you still have to take 10 instead of rolling, you would have to have +10 Craft(Armorsmithing) bonus to be able to make masterwork armor. That probably puts you around level 6 or so. Using the RAW, the time to make a suit of masterwork full plate would be (3000)/(20*20) + (15000)/(18*20) = 46 TUs (rounded up) Are you really sure you want to do that?
curseofgnome 02-02-06, 01:38 PM	Assuming that you still have to take 10 instead of rolling, you would have to have +10 Craft(Armorsmithing) bonus to be able to make masterwork armor. That probably puts you around level 6 or so. Using the RAW, the time to make a suit of masterwork full plate would be (3000)/(20*20) + (15000)/(18*20) = 46 TUs (rounded up) Are you really sure you want to do that? Spending 46 TUs to get masterwork full plate at 1/3 cost on a secondary character? You bet! :D
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 02:04 PM	Spending 46 TUs to get masterwork full plate at 1/3 cost on a secondary character? You bet! :D You're spending 46 TUs to save 1100 gp. You could just as easily have made that 1100gp (and some extra). by playing 3 adventures at APL 2 or 2 adventures at APLs 4-6 (not to mention that nifty thing called XP you've gained along the way). As for me, the point of the game is to play my characters, not put them on the shelf for a year so that they can get a discount on mundane items that can be aquired with no effort.
SteveMND 02-02-06, 02:07 PM	Sure, if you're using one of the most expensive craftable mundane items as an example. There are lots of mundane items -- alchemical in particular -- that even some primamry PCs could make use of. As mentioned, there would be very little needed to incorporate crafting mundane items into the campaign -- maybe a few sentences at most -- and i've yet to really see a substantial argument against having the ability to craft mundane items in LG (somebody saying they personally don't think it's worth the TUs isn't a valid reason, IMO).
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 02:31 PM	Sure, if you're using one of the most expensive craftable mundane items as an example. There are lots of mundane items -- alchemical in particular -- that even some primamry PCs could make use of. As mentioned, there would be very little needed to incorporate crafting mundane items into the campaign -- maybe a few sentences at most -- and i've yet to really see a substantial argument against having the ability to craft mundane items in LG (somebody saying they personally don't think it's worth the TUs isn't a valid reason, IMO). Sure, but you can pretty much just buy whatever alchemical items you want from the PHB, and would still AR access for items from other sources. I'm going on my instinct that says PCs wouldn't be allowed to roll craft checks, they'll have to take 10. This means that you won't be able to craft a lot of things until you are in the mid level range. Nothing says that things like tanglefoot bags aren't useful (they're broken (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060120a)), but can you really not spare the 20 gp for alchemist fire at APL 6? Actually playing an adventure and buying the mundane item at full cost nets you a much better gp/TU ratio than the discount earned by mundane crafting. Crafting magic items earns you a discount of up to 2500 gp/TU and costs XP to boot, meaning you earn even more gp before retirement comes knocking. Additionally, you get increased access to purchase items for your character just by taking a feat. Much more worth it IMO. I believe that mundane crafting is so not worth it, that the Circle shouldn't waste their time coming up with rules for it.
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 02:48 PM	One other reason the Circle might not want mundane crafting is that the time requirement depends on the skill of the crafter and not just the value of the item. They could very well be concerned that too many people would botch the calculation and end up paying the wrong number of TUs
JamesMaissen 02-02-06, 03:01 PM	I believe that mundane crafting is so not worth it, that the Circle shouldn't waste their time coming up with rules for it. I think there are a good number of people here that feel bad that thier character cannot make this or that item even though they have the skill. Whether or not it would be good for their character to do so, or whether or not they ever would do so, doesn't matter as much as the feeling they have because they CAN'T do so. It attacks thier feeling of immersion. Is it more profitable for them to adventure? YES. And that's GREAT! It reinforces WHY they ARE adventuring! As to the amount of work it would require, it's not much. Just a few slight changes to expand from 'Magic' Item Creation to 'Item Creation'. It adds to the flavor of the game rather than it's lack detracting from it. It seems most worthwhile to me. Worth much more than if a random spell gets included or (if in doubt) restricted. If nothing else it moves us away from an artificial crutch we don't need, which seems more important to me than the latest supplemental feats, spells and PrCs (as there'll always be more of them to come), James
GreySector 02-02-06, 03:02 PM	Actually playing an adventure and buying the mundane item at full cost nets you a much better gp/TU ratio than the discount earned by mundane crafting. Crafting mundane items might not have a great gp/TU ratio, however whether or not to take that lesser ratio should be a choice for individual players and characters. After all, I hear a lot of complaints about munchkins and cheese weasles, but if you don't allow somebody to 'waste' their TU making mundane items aren't you just encouraging people to 'optimize'? Allowing mundane crafting will encourage more people to put ranks in 'useless' skills like Craft. If characters are crafting mundane items, they aren't crafting magic items or adventuring, so the power level of the campaign isn't increasing. So it would seem to me that allowing mundane crafting would help put some breaks on the campaigns power level (if you are worried about that). I have at least one character that fancies herself an alchemist, and would love to craft all sorts of neat alchemical items. That wouldn't necessarily be really eficient, but it is definitely much more satisfying than rolling a Craft (alchemy) check and collecting some gold pieces. To me (and her) the time is worth the satisfaction of having something she made with her own hands. To pre-empt the inevitable response: No, buying something with gp and 'saying' my character made it isn't remotely the same as actually having my character craft it. One is satisfying, the other is a pale imitation. -Michael Eshleman
Eric_Pittsburgh 02-02-06, 03:03 PM	Actually playing an adventure and buying the mundane item at full cost nets you a much better gp/TU ratio than the discount earned by mundane crafting. Crafting magic items earns you a discount of up to 2500 gp/TU and costs XP to boot, meaning you earn even more gp before retirement comes knocking. Additionally, you get increased access to purchase items for your character just by taking a feat. Much more worth it IMO. I believe that mundane crafting is so not worth it, that the Circle shouldn't waste their time coming up with rules for it. Yeah, that's all well and good, but sometimes, it's much better for roleplaying to say that the Keg of Beer I have strapped to my mule was brewed by me. But then, I play a Keg Priest of Wenta with maxed ranks in Profession (Brewer). For me (and many other ROLE players), the increased cost in TUs IS worth it. We're literally talking about adding about 2 or 3 paragraphs of text. It's not that much effort of the Circle's part. H-E-double hockey sticks, I'll volunteer to write it for them. Eric Pittsburgh (For the record, I've got nothing against ROLL players, and have been known to do a bit of that myself from time to time.)
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 03:11 PM	Yeah, that's all well and good, but sometimes, it's much better for roleplaying to say that the Keg of Beer I have strapped to my mule was brewed by me. Then say it. Do you think anyone is going to ask for campaign documentation or report you to your triad for saying your character brewed the beer on his own? Here's an idea. Use the current crafting rules to make money and then use that money to buy the beer you "crafted". You can always simulate crafting mundane items in this way. Spend 1 TU with craft(armorsmithing) and make some money. When you've done it enough times and made enough money doing that, buy the armor that you crafted.
GreySector 02-02-06, 03:19 PM	You can always simulate crafting mundane items in this way. Spend 1 TU with craft(armorsmithing) and make some money. When you've done it enough times and made enough money doing that, buy the armor that you crafted. To quote my own post of a couple of messages ago: "To pre-empt the inevitable response: No, buying something with gp and 'saying' my character made it isn't remotely the same as actually having my character craft it. One is satisfying, the other is a pale imitation." -Michael Eshleman
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 03:38 PM	To quote my own post of a couple of messages ago: "To pre-empt the inevitable response: No, buying something with gp and 'saying' my character made it isn't remotely the same as actually having my character craft it. One is satisfying, the other is a pale imitation." -Michael Eshleman Sure it is. The result of your craft check becomes the value of the portion of item you have crafted so far. It goes on your character sheet as gp, but you don't have to think of it that way. When you've gathered up enough value, you "purchase" the item. If it's a roleplaying thing, why should it trouble people to be creative by using the existing rules in imaginative ways?
GreySector 02-02-06, 03:53 PM	If it's a roleplaying thing, why should it trouble people to be creative by using the existing rules in imaginative ways? Because I have to take several extra mental steps that aren't matched by gaming reality. Doing things your way is an intellectual rationalization, not an emotional fulfillment. -Michael Eshleman
crimsonsky 02-02-06, 04:04 PM	To avoid any more point/couterpoint argument on this thread, I will leave it with one final question. Given that: 1. You can buy pretty much any mundane item you want. 2. You can simulate crafting with the current system. What do you think justifies the the need for the Circle to create new rules to address this?
SteveMND 02-02-06, 04:32 PM	All right, then, here's a new wrinkle to why allowing mundane crafting into the game might be valuable that goes beyond the personal opinion aspect of "Oh, I think it's worth it/Oh, I don't think it's worth it." In LG, a character with the Craft Magical Doohicky feat can make a magical doohicky themselves even if they have passed beyond the access window (adventure, etc.) for it, so long as they have had access to the item at some point in time previously and otherwise meet the requirements. That courtesy is not extended to mundane items in such a fashion at the moment, but if mundane items were allowed to be crafted, they could, and very easily. Say you come across some nifty alchemical items from Complete Adventure, and they have access: adventure. You had better stock up as best you can now, because even if you are a master alchemist, you'll never be see them again unless you are lucky enough to find access once more. But allowing crafting of mundane items in the same fashion as magical ones allows a person to potentially make them themselves later on, just like a magical-item crafter might be able to. And let's say you have a character that finds access:adventure to a nifty Double-hafted Dwarven Whatzit. He thinks that's a terribly cool weapon, buys one and devotes prestige classes/feats/money/whatever to it. Then one mod, it gets irrevocably destroyed. He may never come across access to that mundane (but unusual) weapon again, but if the mundane crafting rules were allowed, he could be putting points into Craft (weaponsmithing) so that if the need arises, he can craft a new one to replace the old one. Just like a magic-item crafter can create a new item to replace an older one that's been lost. Yes, the RP aspect is important, but there are more tangible 'numbers' issues to be dealt with here as well, if that's only what you're looking at.
Mattastrophic 02-02-06, 06:55 PM	Myself, I am all for allowing the Crafting of mundane items into LG simply because the rules exist within D&D, and there's no reason to take them away! My Virtuoso would love to Craft his own musical instruments or Masterworked Symphonies or even mundane pieces of apparel! On the flip side however, we probably shouldn't 'enforce it.' Example: Player1: "He [my PC] wears a harlequin mask made of silver." Someone else at the table: "Did you pay TUs to Craft it?" Player1: "Well... no..." Someone else at the table: "Then you don't have it!" Now we don't want that. My personal opinion is that the lifestyle system, particuarly the Year 1 descriptions within the mod boilerplates, are enough to end any of that. The rules exist within D&D, they only have to be fit within the existing MIC system to work within LG. Heck, I'll even volunteer to write the rules myself! Crafting mundane items encourages roleplaying and creativity. And that's a good thing. -Matt
haferka 02-03-06, 02:13 AM	In LG, a character with the Craft Magical Doohicky feat can make a magical doohicky themselves even if they have passed beyond the access window (adventure, etc.) for it, so long as they have had access to the item at some point in time previously and otherwise meet the requirements. That courtesy is not extended to mundane items in such a fashion at the moment, but if mundane items were allowed to be crafted, they could, and very easily. I agree with Steve!
paigeoliver 02-03-06, 02:47 AM	Also, using craft to make money and then buying the item is not the same thing. First off using craft to make money is something that can only be done after regional adventures set in the character's home region (an extremely arbitrary rule about a really minor thing that I cannot begin to fathom). Let's say you live in Verbobonc region. In year 5 you had access to 36 modules total (not counting intros or interactives). Of those 36 a mere 7 of them were regionals. Giving a Verbobonc character a big 7 chances per year to craft for gold. Of course most people have three characters, so that is really more like 2 or 3 chances per year. You get to do it so little that it might as not be on there.
CaiasWard 02-04-06, 02:01 AM	You know, adventurers should do things with their time like, I don't know... adventure? Crafting mundane items just seems like a waste of TUs for little reward. And if you can't make a leap between an abstact 'crafting for gold' system, can you accept hit points? Does my character with 200+ hp actually have the ability to take 20+ sword thrusts to the body? D&D has many abstracts, from hit points to "10x10" horses. The Circle created a simple abstract outside of core rules that allows 'crafting' if you can just think of it as an extra step. It also has an advantage of taking far less time than calculating out crafting DCs, etc. LG is about heroic fantasy. I'm sure there's a Living Merchant game out there that can be played.
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 03:51 AM	You know, adventurers should do things with their time like, I don't know... adventure? LG is about heroic fantasy. I'm sure there's a Living Merchant game out there that can be played. In D&D, you should do what is fun. If crafting is fun, craft. People think stealing is fun, and they can steal between adventures for money. So why not craft. Or is it that stealing is more "adventurous" than building and selling a musical instrument or sword? LG is about playing D&D. And about having fun with others. Most of the arguments I've seen against this have been along the lines of "No. I don't want that in the game cause it's dumb!" Which isn't a very good reason to exclude something that would be fun for others. Matthew Schad
Markbanang 02-04-06, 09:19 AM	It would be relatively easy to turn the Magic Item Creation section into add an Item Creation section. Most of the rules would stay the same. Most sections already talks about 'the item' rather than 'the magic item'. A few which are actually magic item specific (such as the XP cost) would need to be adjusted to specify 'the magic item' instead, and the raw materials cost would need to be listed differently, but the changes would be quite minimal. The only sections which would need any work is where it talks about the TU cost, the DC for crafting and whether you can roll or have to take 10 on crafting checks. To keep things simple, I would just suggest that crafting takes as long as it would take to earn the 1/3 of the cost of the item using the calculation from "Benefits from Nonadventuring Activity". Take care, Mark..........
Samwise 02-04-06, 12:20 PM	In D&D, you should do what is fun. If crafting is fun, craft. People think stealing is fun, and they can steal between adventures for money. So why not craft. Or is it that stealing is more "adventurous" than building and selling a musical instrument or sword? To me, that is more of a reason to just delete the entire "Benefits from Nonadventuring Activity" section, than to expand it with another page just to account for crafting mundane items. None of that is particularly adventurous, or, except in one or two cases for particular prestige classes, directly relevant to game play. Yes, in D&D you should do what is fun. But past a certain point you switch from Living Greyhawk to, as Caias noted, Living Merchant.
Elfen_Archangel 02-04-06, 12:32 PM	To me, that is more of a reason to just delete the entire "Benefits from Nonadventuring Activity" section, than to expand it with another page just to account for crafting mundane items. None of that is particularly adventurous, or, except in one or two cases for particular prestige classes, directly relevant to game play. Yes, in D&D you should do what is fun. But past a certain point you switch from Living Greyhawk to, as Caias noted, Living Merchant. In Geoff a lot of the backstory and flavor of the region comes from the geoff_online yahoo group where people roleplay with one another and with NPC's that the Triad tosses at us. At hot times we sometimes have over 200 posts a day. At no time did I ever think of this as Living Roleplay. We're doing things outside of modules that are fun to us. I'm sorry if you disagree with other people having fun, but you haven't listed a good reason for not allowing it. Matthew Schad
Samwise 02-04-06, 01:00 PM	In Geoff a lot of the backstory and flavor of the region comes from the geoff_online yahoo group where people roleplay with one another and with NPC's that the Triad tosses at us. At hot times we sometimes have over 200 posts a day. At no time did I ever think of this as Living Roleplay. We're doing things outside of modules that are fun to us. I'm sorry if you disagree with other people having fun, but you haven't listed a good reason for not allowing it. Matthew Schad 1. Roleplay is not crafting items. One is interaction with people, the other is an exercise in math and dice rolling. There is no equating the two. 2. A yahoo group is not a sanctioned adventure, or have campaign administered rules. You will note that you do not have "200 posts a day" encounters in any sanctioned adventure. Likewise, you do not get an AR, or any other in game benefits, for participation in a discussion group. 3. I sanctioned the creation of a meta-org, and developed guidelines for building things for the organization because some players thought it would be fun to build a village. However, none of it gained any in-game benefits. (At least not until it started becoming a feature in sanctioned adventures. But even then, the rewards were based on activities in the adventure only.) 4. I did give a reason - we don't need more rules just because "it can be done." Just because you don't think that is a good reason does not make it so. I have no problem with people having fun with non-standard activities. I don't think it is necessary to grant in-game benefits from them, or add on endless rules to accommodate every possible alternative activity.
CaiasWard 02-04-06, 01:13 PM	In Geoff a lot of the backstory and flavor of the region comes from the geoff_online yahoo group where people roleplay with one another and with NPC's that the Triad tosses at us. At hot times we sometimes have over 200 posts a day. At no time did I ever think of this as Living Roleplay. We're doing things outside of modules that are fun to us. I'm sorry if you disagree with other people having fun, but you haven't listed a good reason for not allowing it. Matthew Schad I don't disagree with people having fun. And I've listed reasons you just happen to not agree with. We don't roll for hit points, we have standardized rules for ability scores, and other elements that keep LG from devolving into a series of home games. I personally think the Geoff RP what has in-game consequences outside of modules is wrong since it allows people with more free time and better internet access to influence storylines as compared to people who can only play modules. Shouldn't the flavor actually come from play in the modules and interactives? The Circle created a system to allow for the generation of gold by using crafting, perform and other skills. It's a single roll to determine the results of what would otherwise take more time at the end/beginning of a slot. It opens beyond crafting as well, which is actually more inclusive than just using the crafting rules. If you can't take the step to go 'hey, I put in these TUs to do this much work which translates out to me having this sword/sunrod/wagon', I'm not sure how you handle the stretch of "ok, this AR gave me this gold which I can spend on the access I have for items". Would you prefer the grossly unfair cert system instead, where you are given the item directly? You may want to consider the reasons why you want to 'craft' mundane items, especially when the value of doing so compared to the play opportunities (actual roleplaying and combat encounters) you are missing by spending those TUs is so low. Especially when there are LG rules to allow a wider series of options more inclusive than the crafting rules.
Rawveggie 02-06-06, 03:23 AM	I think this is a great idea and hope it gets included in the LGCS 5.0. I would definitely create characters with crafting ability to take advantage of a great source for flavor and utility. For all the nay-sayers I would ask, what is your primary concern(s)? Do you think this is going to break the game? Do you think it will really take that much extra time to include the rules for mundane item creation? Are you really that concerned with how other people spend their TUs and/or money? As was pointed out already, it's not going to break the game. This would be especially true if the item creation rules required a character to Take 10 on the check (which I would agree with to keep the rules simple). I don't see the argument that it would take "so much extra" time to include the rules because, as has been pointed out, the magic item creation rules could be used as a foundation. Assuming the "Take 10" rule is enforced during creation I really only see two potentially difficult problems: which items could be crafted (along with DCs, if not in the PHB) and the question of access for creation purposes, both of which are solved relatively easily (see below). As to the argument of "it's a waste of TUs" and the like I'd simply say, "they are my TUs to waste". I don't yet have a character that crafts magic items and I could consider folks that spend TUs to craft magic items (which is certainly not _lowering_ the power level of the campaign) to be "wasting" their TUs but I don't because I'm sure to them they are not "wasted". Saying that my character crafting a mundane shortbow for himself is more of a waste of time than your character crafting one 1st-level scroll (both of which would require about 1 TU of work using the crafting rules in the PHB for the Craft skill), I'm afraid I have to disagree. If my character is a fighter he could simply buy the scroll for a magic-user to cast on him later and still spend the time to craft himself a bow and kill two birds with one stone (the money saved on buying the bow at full price could go toward purchasing the scroll). It makes perfect sense to me. And finally, to me it's not even about the money. Saying that I could just go spend the full gp cost to buy a mundane item isn't a valid argument because I could tell you the same thing regarding a magic item. Why favor magic item creation characters and leave everyone else out in the cold? If I'm not a magic item crafter why can't I spend my skills/feats (Skill Focus anyone?) in a different area and reap a benefit? Besides, it's not like even half of my characters will bother crafting anything, but for those whom I really think it could work, I'd like to have the option there (as I'm sure any magic item crafter likes having the option, even though not all magic users craft). The whole review process is to dicuss the things we would like to see added to the LGCS, so the Circle already has at least some time set aside for revision. Talking about "wasted time" for added/modified rules is really pointless because if they don't have the time to add something, they won't, it's just that simple. -Raw Proposed Solutions for Mundane Item Creation The Simple Solution: To keep things *really* simple the LGCS could include a short list of items that could be crafted (referencing tables in the PHB) and the DCs for each item (by table or per item). This list could be considered "Core" access and would satiate a lot of players desire for mundane item crafting while not getting into sticky/tricky non-PHB item or access issues. The Flexible Solution: This solution would be the same as The Simple Solution but would have the option to increase mundane item access in the future. All that would be necessary is to specify how to denote access on an AR/metaorg document for mundane item creation. This could easily be handled by listing the name of the item (including which book it is located in), the DC to craft it and the necessary Craft skill (such as Craft (Weaponsmithing)). This could be noted in a universal format for easy reference/visibility such as "Mundane Item Creation Access: Item Name (book): DC xx; Craft skill required."
solbergb 02-06-06, 12:37 PM	It's impossible to use cash from "crafting" to buy much of anything...there just aren't enough regional adventures. You earn a max of less than 100gp a year, and that is if you try really hard. People would craft for three reasons, and none have to do with saving money. 1. Pure roleplay. Want to use stuff they made themselves. 2. Access. Want to craft a large greatclub darn it! 3. "I'm not using these TU's for anything anyway" I have several characters that didn't use all their TU's last year. Some barely adventured at all. What, incharacter, were they doing with their time? Given that even if I had used the current pathetic crafting rules, they'd still have tons of TU's left...I guess they just all went fishing. It makes it harder to have a character story when your character didn't actually do a years worth of activities last year. Whereas if your L2 dwarf that has only played 3 intro mods spent 46 time units making armor for himself, it explains what he was doing while waiting for your main guy to retire and give him some more attention.
rogerd 02-07-06, 01:19 PM	Craft: You may use your crafting skill to create items when you spend 1 TU immediately after playing a regional LIVING GREYHAWK adventure set in your current home region. You may only spend 1 TU per adventure this way. You must own a set of artisan’s tools in order to practice your trade. You must have campaign documentation allowing you access to the item in order to craft it. The only items that may be crafted are alchemical items, armor, weapons, ammunition and shields. Crafting the item follows the procedure in the Player's Handbook. Multiple items may be made at once, but no item is considered complete until all of them are. Raw materials are purchased as for any item, and if raw materials are ruined, this should be noted as well, and the raw materials must be replaced before any more progress can be made. Note the progress in crafting (including completion) in the Play Notes section of the AR. You may elect to use your craft skill as a profession skill instead.
Doogles5628 02-07-06, 07:17 PM	Besides the fact that allowing mundane crafting would have no ill-effects on the campaign, is not difficult to implement, and is wanted by so many, wouldn't this also simplify certain classes that require special rules now? Case in point, battlesmith. As it stands, you can satisfy the crafting r/q by owning a dwarvencraft item, but 10 ranks of craft: armorsmithing or craft: weaponsmithing. Wouldn't it simplify the class and make it more appealing in the process, to allow mundane crafting such that you could use those ranks towards something besides just getting access to the PrC. Just my 2 cents. I believe allowing mundane crafting would be nothing but good for Living Greyhawk players. Doug