Some Stronghold info as well as Carousing!
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-downtime-activities
Imgur mirror:
Well now we know what to do with all the gold we won't be spending on magic items. I actually appreciate how simple the stronghold rules are. Really, the cost is the key piece, and the different buildings provide rough guidelines that can be expanded out to other buildings. Of course, for those preferring more crunch, there's obviously room for an expansion--either in an online article or a splatbook. (There's also the extremely comprehensive Pathfinder rules).
I wish the carousing table was longer, and I might have preferred it being on a d20. That said, the d100+level is a nifty way of letting your level impact the results.
The cost to build strongholds puts the economy into some perspective, I like it.
I prefer to role-play the Carousing bit, but it's still cool for those they may want to skip that stuff.
Dooflegna wrote:
My houserule allow warlocks/witches PC crafting magic items with spells out of his list, by means by a book of shadow, a sactum (special splace, like a arcane kitchen, studio, garage, and laboratory) and reverse engineering, but only unle-use magic items (scrolls, potions, tatoos, runes and talismans) or item could be recharged spending spell slots.
So if a PC is away no building project will ever be completed, as the total time needed reaches infinity :P
It looks like you have to be a spellcaster who uses spell slots in order to be allowed to create magic items. I'll be throwing that crappy restriction right out the window.
Well it looks like Bruenor will not be able to craft Aegis-Fang in 5e.
MechaPilot wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Dracones wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Honestly, I would probably keep most magic item crafting out of the hands of the PCs.
Instead they will need to track down a master craftsman (you know someone who spends their time crafting, not adventurin). Once they find such a legendary craftsperson, they will need to track down epic ingredients. For example, the fang from a red dragon might be needed to create a flaming weapon.
The PCs might be able to forge minor magic items on their own such as +0 items, potions, and minor wands, but that is about it. Oh yeah, and even martial characters can make magical +0 weapons if they have the appropriate magical components.
Mirtek wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I mean, just having the spell known and being ready to go is too simple for me; I prefer a 2E style crafting approach where you need components and it's basically a sidequest for anything more complicated than a potion or scroll.
But I don't think it is unreasonable to say that people who have no ability with magic cannot create magic items. If you want to put magic into an item, as a general rule, you should know how to use magic. Every single example I can think of of a nonmagical character creating a magic item (whether it's Aegis-Fang or from myth and legend) involves it being a once-in-a-lifetime thing that required special materials above and beyond what a normal magic item would take to craft. If you want there to be an exception, create an exception, but I don't think the general rule needs to be changed. The specific phrasing of 'spell slots' might be unfortunate, but I think the idea is clear, and if you want elemental monks crafting magic items (which I do) you go right ahead and let them.
But you don't just have master blacksmiths churning out +X swords, no matter how much mithril or adamantine or troll blood you give them. It takes the emerald heart of Koschei the Deathless or the Golden Fleece or some other item that has capital letters in its name for a nonmagical character to make a magic item.
Mirtek wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
For creation of (certain) magic items by classes without spell slots, taking one level (multiclassing) in a class which has spell slots at 1st level would also suffice: specific training in magic item creation with a few other things thrown into the pot! The requirements look to be based on rarity and character level, not spell level.
It looks to me like the rarity aspect can also be used to decide whether or not something can be made, and if so, by whom (according to DM's world flavor choice). I could also see a clause at 20th level which allows magic item creation for non-casters. The first, and main requirement seems to be the existence of a formula, which is totally the provenance of the DM. [Edit: In fact, the easiest way for a DM to deal with this on a case by case basis (or even generally, for that matter), is to have some formulae with exceptions to the general rule requiring a caster with spell slots. Done!]
-DS
Im sorry, but why dont you just hire a manager/foremen to run your project while your gone? i dont see why you have to be there for the construction. But those seem to be very long term, late level goals, and probably group goal as well. THose cost seem like something out of 4e if you expect a single person to get that kinda wealth. I guess you could probably cut cost in half for buying already created buildings. Though I suppose it depends on your setting and who can or cant own lands in certian kingdoms. I dont think an Elven lord would be happy with a bunch or humans and dwarfs bought land and started building their own castle in their borders. But anyways.
Magic Items, I will require special components any ways, and some type of mysticism. I may or may not let EK and AT craft items. More then anything, it will come down to item to item. I will probably also make between a divine creation of magic weapon and arcane creations. I mean, a flaming sword made by a paladin will be totally different from a wizard created flaming sword. Also, these are just rules for play characters. A blacksmith that has been devoted to the craft his entire life, then yeah, he will have a way of making magic items, via special components and probably ritual style magic.
Emerikol. wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Hire NPC wizards to do it for you. Then kill them when they're done. Grand Theft Alchemy: Baldur's Gate Wars.
Lawolf wrote:
I prefer a game with options, and there are stories where high skill and craftmanship can match whatever magic is available in the world.
Honestly, it would have been so much simpler and more inclusive if the DMG had said "the character may also have to be a spellcaster who is able to cast the spells the item reproduces" instead of "must be a spellcaster with spell slots."
Way to stumble on the DM customization tools by not using open language.
MechaPilot wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
The perfect rule; PC cannot craft magic items. Done.
Wuzzard wrote:
One big problem is that D&D has an implied lore. D&D is it's own fantasy genre. In that genre, spells are cast to create magic items. That is true even in the editions where it was super hard to make an item. (My preferred approach by the way). I could care less about what non-D&D fantasy works have to say on the matter.
I see a definite conflict between these two groups.
1. One group feels.....D&D is it's own implied setting. Vancian casting, level drain, magic item creation, and so forth are distinctive to the game.
2. Anothers group wants to model stories and novels from fantasy literature using D&D rules. This group is anti-anything that limits.
The problem is that #1 really is D&D. #2 is just generic fantasy 101 game.
Shasarak wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
JDizzleton wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Anyway, I, too, will be ignoring the whole "Spellcaster" requirement. Seems a hangover from 3.x and sorta 4E, since some classes, backgrounds, and even feats allowed non-magic classes to make magic weapons (even if most of those weapons/armor were simple +X versions).
I'll also be ignoring the whole "You need to be present to overview the construction because reasons" line. I figure the intention is to give PCs the choice to Carouse OR oversee their keep being built. But honestly, Downtime is and always has been fast-forwarded through. My home play isn't like in AL where you "accrue" downtime like a resource, so there's no need to "spend" it as such, in my games!
The price ranges are nice, though. But I'd LOVE to see that next page. Oh Wizards, you tricky folk, you!
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Thoughts on this.
1. Please fix the way the construction rules are written. "Add 3 days for every day you're away" just makes it sound like if I leave, the builders start making negative progress on my castle. Hell, just switch the numbers and you fix the problem. "Add a day of construction time for every 3 days you're away."
2. Eh, Im not a fan of a chart that tells you what happens to you when you're off on non-adventuring stuff. I can see how it's useful if the DM doesn't want to come up with smething on his own, but meh.
3. "Only spellcasters with spell slots can craft magic items." AAAAAAAAGGGHHHHH. Also, locks variant spellpoint spellcasters out of being able to craft magic items. Restriction I'll definetly be ignoring the **** out of.
Brock_Landers wrote:
I like the peek at magic item creation. I would make the formula part of the equation akin to using a scroll or something like that. You have to be able to read and decipher the formula. Maybe the energy released from the formula would be stored in the casters spell slot until they get to a point where they need to release the energy. I probably would of left out the spell slot rule and just said you need to be able to read and activate the formula or something along those lines. So if the formula was for a Cure Wounds wand you would have to be able to have that spell on your list in order to decipher the formula. Much like casting a scroll spell but using more resources to make a permanent item.
Honestly, if anything I think the ability to do rituals is wha should be required instead of spellslots.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like the downtime chart idea for the reasons Azzy stated. In fact I think it'd be cool to see more charts for various downtime activities. Party gets back from an adventure, decides to spend the next month in town, various players can pick different downtime things their PC is doing. Some might bar hop, some might go on theiving runs, others might go library delving.
The charts are an interesting way to see what happens to the PC during that downtime. The results can even lead to interesting adventures: "Tom's in jail, we gotta break him out."
But more charts is a pretty easy community creation. Hopefully we get a good central place to add that sort of stuff and maybe even rate the content.
Shasarak wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
What I wanna see is some benefits for characters who go through the hassle of creating castles, guildalls, and such. Why would someone whose made a career out of violence and thievery bother to build one of these before they retire?
Azzy1974 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
[quote="rampant"]
What I wanna see is some benefits for characters who go through the hassle of creating castles, guildalls, and such. Why would someone whose made a career out of violence and thievery bother to build one of these before they retire? [/quote]
+1
If they can set up a chart for things that happen when you spend downtime boozing, how about something that covers the benefits, opportunities, and drawbacks of strongholds?
Orethalion wrote:
But but but, he double dog swore they'd be in the DMG! 
It's stuff like this that makes it so company peeps never want to talk to the public about anything they're working on. God forbid something you mention in passing doesn't come to fruition and it's like you spent the summer up north clubbing baby seals.
Mistwell wrote:
Meh. Bland and uninteresting. The only thing that stands out are two glaringly obviously poorly conceived rules (negative progress on stronghold when PC is away and spell slot based requirement for crafting). Nothing here would add anything to my game. Unimpressed.
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Dooflegna wrote:
FFSAA wrote: