| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
unseenmage
Seeker
61 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Sep 2017 : 14:02:04
|
When crafting how exactly does the magic get into the Magic Item or Construct?
Are there canon examples in adventures or novels of how it all goes down?
This is something that gets glossed over by the crafting rules, which I have no problem with.
However, when roleplaying this aspect or even simply explaining how it works in your gameworld how does infusing magic into items or Constructs work?
I suspect opinions may differ and that this gets handled differently at every table when it does come up.
For my part I once had a goblin artificer who'd gnaw and chew on magic items to Retain Essence them.
When crafting he'd make sure to get his snot or spit or even blood on or even in the materials, to him every magic creation was akin to a homunculus.
Also had a gnome techsmith who would hire NPCs to assist with crafting who had the necessary feats or skills he wanted to imbue in a given Construct.
|
Flying monkeys will eat your eyes. |
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2017 : 15:04:01
|
| granted, its written for 2e, but check out Volo's Guide to All Things magical. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
 |
|
|
BadCatMan
Senior Scribe
Australia
401 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2017 : 15:31:58
|
| Pages from the Mages, for Daltim's Tome of Fire, gives an account of psionic item creation, with some comparison to magic item creation. |
BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2017 : 16:58:39
|
Pretty much every time magic item creation is addressed, it gets a different spin. I prefer the version in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, for the sheer flavor of it.
Given different rule sets and all, though... I'd personally go with the rules as written in whatever your preferred edition is, for a standard magical item, but the Volo's Guide rules for either weird stuff or more powerful versions of standard stuff. (By more powerful, I mean the either automatically regains a few charges, or has a slight bonus on damage dice, or maybe is harder to save against...) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Sep 2017 : 19:52:42
|
| Midi-chlorians. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 00:38:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Midi-chlorians.
Midi-Chlorians..... Is that that Nintendo music from the 80's & 90's? You know, like the music from the original Mario Brothers [:P} |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 00:45:23
|
D&D (circa 1E and 2E) always viewed magic as an (external) energy source. Potential energy, it just sits there/everywhere doing nothing until converted into power (through spellcasting and ritual). Maybe the Weave is a big battery or reservoir filled with latent magical energy. Wielding magic is an "art" - not a "science" - it varies from individual to individual, sometimes not a lot (because they all learned the same spell from the same academy) and sometimes in completely fundamental ways (because the elven druid and the Larloch understand magic very differently).
Whatever the "spellcasting" or "ritual" might be, it basically somehow uses the "spellcaster" as a conduit to channel/funnel/shape external magical energy into a particular receptacle. 2E's Volo's Guide To All Things Magical had great flavour, Tome of Magic and Book of Artifacts didn't, but they all basically just expanded on the game rules presented in the DMG. Gygaxian magic was very limited and specific and exotic and mysterious, even the inks used to write spells onto scrolls had exotic formulae which required research, even the quills had exotic origins.
3E-era magic items were far more generalized. They handwaved away all the arbitrary complexities involved in every detail of magic and instead focussed on (abstracted) results. So they lost a whole lot of flavour but they became more readily accessible. A 2E character would prize every magical item, even those which were flawed or incomplete or intended for other things, because each one was truly a one-of-a-kind creation formed through the most painstaking and epic efforts. A 3E character would simply gear up with whatever magical items his gold/xp could purchase, similar to the way it works in any ARPG/MMORPG.
Every "new" splatbook which introduced a "new" magic - or new kind of magic or new magic-using class or new category of magical items or whatever - also published or republished or invented or reinvented "new" rules about item creation. And these are rarely consistent or compatible, even within the same D&D game edition. Pick one or invent your own.
I can't recall any FR novels in which characters produced magical items. Except perhaps for Szass Tam and his Dread Rings or the Shadovar reactivating Sossal's mythallar, lol, but these are the sorts of things better classified as "(godlike) artifacts" rather than mere "magical items". The process of creating magical items was too involved in 2E (and would take months or years of research in magical libraries and laboratories and workshops, not unlike an engineer writing a thesis in real life) or was too generic (and simply required the expenditure of sufficient gold/xp to equip the item, which isn't very exciting in a role-playing character-defining narrative sense).
All that being said - and not wanting to really launch a huge discourse on edition-specific magics - you need to decide which sort of general approach is the best fit for your gaming before you can get meaningful answers to the question. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 03:05:07
|
Sits under a tree shaded from the sun, the Wizard regards the young person that has come to him.
"So you wish to know about magic? This is a simple tale."
Smiles to you.
"Magic is all about you. It is as thin as the air and as powerful as the sun."
Conjurers a glass of wine in his left hand and takes a sip.
"Magic is just achieved by concentration of your intellect and training. Not all have the discipline to do so. Some prefer the blade or arrow, a quicker way to make a fortune or die."
Shakes head in dismissal.
"Though even the way I teach can not assure success either. Many of those first learning trust too much in their training that they fall as well.
The training you learn is that of learning to move the magic about you to what you desire to happen."
Takes another sip of wine and looks at you to see if you are really listening. For to use magic well you need patience and awareness of details.
"You have heard of things like balls of fire or magical swords I am sure. These are made possible by the use of magic directed well and to purpose. All that you do, if you learn well, is direct the magic all about you to a task. You will learn to collect magic and then direct it toward your will. If you wish a fire, the magic will make a fire that will last a short time."
Smiles
"Very useful for trolls bothering you too much."
Take another sip of wine.
"Directing a fire though is much more simpler then the flaming sword. For when one makes a sword, then use their skills to bind the magic to an item to stay there forever."
Sets his glass of wine down and looks at you to see if you understand.
"Every time you use magic you touch something or some person. The fire does not last long, a healing spell heals, a sword becomes more powerful. It is all the same magic, the difference is the results you direct the magic to do." |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 12:50:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
<snip>
3E-era magic items were far more generalized. They handwaved away all the arbitrary complexities involved in every detail of magic and instead focussed on (abstracted) results. So they lost a whole lot of flavour but they became more readily accessible. A 2E character would prize every magical item, even those which were flawed or incomplete or intended for other things, because each one was truly a one-of-a-kind creation formed through the most painstaking and epic efforts. A 3E character would simply gear up with whatever magical items his gold/xp could purchase, similar to the way it works in any ARPG/MMORPG.
<snip>
I can't recall any FR novels in which characters produced magical items.
I will give 3e/3.5e props, because while a lot of people didn't follow it, they DID go further than any other edition in detailing what skills and magics were needed in order to make a magic item. For instance, not everyone was running around crafting staves, wands, potions, rings, wondrous items, weapons, armor, and scrolls. Most people only knew how to do one maybe 2 of those things because of the feat requirements. That being said, while I think the core idea was good, I think they needed fewer item creation feats (like craft wand/staff/rod, and craft potions, scrolls, and gem magic, craft wondrous items and jewelry, craft arms, armor, and clothing... then they could have the other stuff like craft contingent spell, etc.. as either separate feats or ones which you can only do if you have 2 or more "core" feats to open up a new field of study such as crafting constructs or portals).
Also, 3e/3.5e took Ed's concept of figuring out what was needed to make an item and documenting it (but in the form of caster level, spells, feat, XP, and gold). That being said, they didn't get specifically into the materials and instead focused on the spells necessary, which could be limiting without help if the spell needed isn't one the caster can cast (though they did put in rules for cooperative casting). However, this doesn't limit a DM from using the rules in VGtatM and telling the players that X gold must be in the form of Y gems, the eyes of some magical beast, etc... This would of course be a lot of work for the DM, so most didn't do it.
This is the big difference I've seen between the different games of 3e/3.5e. On one hand, I've seen groups where the player takes the feat and barely makes anything because of the XP loss and how hard it is to get that XP (which generally means the rest of the party is leveling and they aren't). Then I've seen groups where this XP isn't tracked as closely, and here, the magic item creation goes rampant. With the former groups, I see the best method of allowing for creation to occur is to have some method to have WILLING participants allow the XP draw to come from them (i.e. you want that sword, let me take the XP from you instead of myself). This allows a party to see the benefit of having a spellcaster who can craft, while not outracing them in level. Of course, allowing this kind of ruling where XP isn't monitored closely would decimate games where DM's tend to be more fluid (and we've all played with the game where the DM just wants to say "and you all gain a level" rather than give out XP). I'm not saying either style of play is bad, but it depends on the type of minutiae your personal lives allow for. At this point in my life, I can honestly say I don't have a lot of time for such tracking and would need some program to do it for me. Still, I love discussing such things, and really like seeing such things used in novels, etc... so its a weird quandary.
Oh, and regarding novels with magic item creation.... I forget the name, but there was a guy in the Vilhon Reach in the yuan-ti held city who I remember was a masterwork craftsman who was making the materials for trollgut rope, and other similar low key magical items. There was also the creation of Wulfgar's hammer. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 05 Sep 2017 12:53:30 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2427 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 14:57:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I will give 3e/3.5e props, because while a lot of people didn't follow it, they DID go further than any other edition in detailing what skills and magics were needed in order to make a magic item.
Any other? Wasn't the same already done back before AD&D1, in Mystara books? Crude, but it's not like d20 is the shining perfection.
And without "XP economy".
quote:
For instance, not everyone was running around crafting staves, wands, potions, rings, wondrous items, weapons, armor, and scrolls. Most people only knew how to do one maybe 2 of those things because of the feat requirements.
How it's a good thing? |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 17:56:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I will give 3e/3.5e props, because while a lot of people didn't follow it, they DID go further than any other edition in detailing what skills and magics were needed in order to make a magic item.
While this is true, I think they did so at the cost of removing the magic from magic item creation, if you will. It made it a generic thing, just another form of crafting. There was no need of exotic components or special preparations; just take a feat, spend some gold, and cast a spell, and it's done.
There was no flavor at all to this approach. Sure, it simplified things -- but I'm not convinced that magic is a place where you need the same generic, one-size-fits-all approach applied to everything.
When just about any caster can create the same +2 sword of niftiness that any other caster could make, and when those and other magical items become some variation on "insert slot A into tab B" then it robs the game of the flavor and wonder of magic -- and thus a part of its appeal.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
There was also the creation of Wulfgar's hammer.
I was once considering how to create a system that allowed for non-spellcasters to make unique magical items like that... I didn't get very far into it when 3E came out, and the way magic was handled in that edition bugged me so much I lost interest in the project.
If I had to do it for that system, though... I think I'd say so many ranks in the relevant crafting skill, maybe 10 or so, and the use of special -- maybe even consecrated -- tools and such, would all be necessary (with a cost higher than what it would cost a spellcaster). Doing the deed would require one heck of a DC, cost a negative level or two (unrecoverable by any means aside from rest) for a while, and the permanent loss of a point or two off the relevant ability score (or maybe the level lost would be permanent, instead). This makes those one-off, unique items doable, but also reflects the tremendous cost required from the crafter. It also helps make it a one-off thing, which has been reflected in TSR fiction a couple of times: that once the crafter makes that one perfect item, they no longer want to craft because they know they'll never be able to reach that level of perfection again. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2017 : 23:32:15
|
| What about the frostburn Midgard Dwarves? Perhaps homebrew some ancestry from something like those into the FR North, and you'd explain the creation of Wulfgar's hammer. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 00:58:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I will give 3e/3.5e props, because while a lot of people didn't follow it, they DID go further than any other edition in detailing what skills and magics were needed in order to make a magic item.
Any other? Wasn't the same already done back before AD&D1, in Mystara books? Crude, but it's not like d20 is the shining perfection.
And without "XP economy".
quote:
For instance, not everyone was running around crafting staves, wands, potions, rings, wondrous items, weapons, armor, and scrolls. Most people only knew how to do one maybe 2 of those things because of the feat requirements.
How it's a good thing?
To my knowledge, no, the rules in Mystara were crude beyond belief and the magic spells were pretty much cruder. I've not seen anything I would call elegant magic in that adjunct of D&D. Nor can I recall ever reading any kind of truly creative magic item system for that ruleset. It was a starter path for many of us, but when I started seeing AD&D, I saw it as definitely more advanced.
Its a good thing because it limits how much abuse can be performed by someone. Essentially, its a controlling factor on how much magic a player can make for themselves at a cheaper rate or tailored specific to their needs. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 01:23:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvasI will give 3e/3.5e props, because while a lot of people didn't follow it, they DID go further than any other edition in detailing what skills and magics were needed in order to make a magic item.
While this is true, I think they did so at the cost of removing the magic from magic item creation, if you will. It made it a generic thing, just another form of crafting. There was no need of exotic components or special preparations; just take a feat, spend some gold, and cast a spell, and it's done.
There was no flavor at all to this approach. Sure, it simplified
things -- but I'm not convinced that magic is a place where you need the same generic, one-size-fits-all approach applied to everything.
When just about any caster can create the same +2 sword of niftiness that any other caster could make, and when those and other magical items become some variation on "insert slot A into tab B" then it robs the game of the flavor and wonder of magic -- and thus a part of its appeal.
Magic should be repeatable. That being said, I understand your feeling about the "feel" of 3e. What I can honestly say though is that it was the first edition where I actually saw players heavily interested in the crafting concept. What it lacked in finesse, a good DM could fill in the gaps of. For instance, NOT treating all the "gold" cost as simply gold for one thing is the quickest way to make the party have to actually consider what they need to do. In other words, convert that gold cost into items they would have to buy and/or acquire on their own. Maybe they even hire lesser adventurers to go out and get things for them. Fair warning though, if you start doing that, expect those adventurers to start skinning, gutting, and bottling body parts off everything they kill.... which hey, can be interesting if they now have to acquire a portable hole and some kind of self refrigerating box just to transport body parts. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 02:29:59
|
Science should be repeatable. Experimental proofs are (ideally) based on rigorous logic, careful observation, and the provision of all necessary details which allow others to reproduce the experiment and confirm/deny the proof firsthand. Good solid stuff: repeatable, reliable, predictable, invariable.
But magic, I think, should not be entirely repeatable. There's more than just the luck of the dice or Mystra's fickle moods and whimsies. There is mystery and unknown, there is the sense of wonder, there is always some element of risk, there is the strange and quirky and exotic and unexpected and even incomprehensible. Magic behaves very much like a living (often also a thinking) thing, and no matter how skillfully one might "tame" magic it will still tend to manifest and express itself in ways which differ from exactly what is expected or intended. This is the "feel" and "flavour" of magic which permeated the older AD&D Realms but was lost in the newer D&D Realms. But old magic was largely inaccessible unless one worked *really, really hard* for a *really, really long time* to get a shot at it - new magic was available to anyone willing to pay the price, gear up, and move on to the next adventure. Both systems have merit. And although one supplanted the other they are not incompatible.
|
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 06 Sep 2017 02:36:48 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 04:51:56
|
I actually don't mind magic being repeatable... It's the over-simplification of it that bothers me.
I'd rather take a stick from a tree felled by lighting, soak it in some liquid from a blue dragon, then cast a couple spells into it to get a 2E wand of lightning, rather than grab a random twig, cast a couple spells, and have a 3.x/PF wand of lightning bolts.
One you have to work for, and just having the skill wasn't enough -- you had to have the right ingredients, as well. The other is "mix readily available thing A with readily available thing B, and get something nifty but not as nifty as its predecessor."
It's like being able to bake a cake from scratch, as opposed to just dumping a box of premixed powder into a bowl and adding an egg and some milk. Anyone can do the latter, but the former takes some skill and knowledge. A skilled baker will know why to use one type of sugar over another, or that adding the egg at one point makes the cake fluffier than adding it at another point.
I want the Art to be an art.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 06 Sep 2017 05:01:45 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2427 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 11:35:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
To my knowledge, no, the rules in Mystara were crude beyond belief and the magic spells were pretty much cruder. I've not seen anything I would call elegant magic in that adjunct of D&D.
I've not seen anything I would call elegant in d20 magic. Including the half-baked Chinese Elements system and wherever there was difference between AD&D2 spells, it was replaced with "hurr, 1d6/level". And d20 magic creation is just as crude, with "hurr, Summon Monster I" dropped in place of any spell not in PHB.
quote:
Nor can I recall ever reading any kind of truly creative magic item system for that ruleset. It was a starter path for many of us, but when I started seeing AD&D, I saw it as definitely more advanced.
Well, yeah, there weren't even components spelled out. But magic item creation from Gazetteer 3 "The Principalities of Glantri" is not unlike d20, except without XP economy and with chance of failure. Take a look.
quote:
Its a good thing because it limits how much abuse can be performed by someone. Essentially, its a controlling factor on how much magic a player can make for themselves at a cheaper rate or tailored specific to their needs.
I have seen on 'net enough of "We should do [something] in a [stupid/clunky/meaningless/not fit into the setting/____fill the blank] way because otherwise OMG Abuse!", and enough of reports about tables Munchkins were allowed to overrun no matter what was used, to figure out that just about anything can be "justified" this way - and that it's never a good enough reason to do anything at all in a particular way.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11827 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2017 : 13:59:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
To my knowledge, no, the rules in Mystara were crude beyond belief and the magic spells were pretty much cruder. I've not seen anything I would call elegant magic in that adjunct of D&D.
I've not seen anything I would call elegant in d20 magic. Including the half-baked Chinese Elements system and wherever there was difference between AD&D2 spells, it was replaced with "hurr, 1d6/level". And d20 magic creation is just as crude, with "hurr, Summon Monster I" dropped in place of any spell not in PHB.
quote:
Nor can I recall ever reading any kind of truly creative magic item system for that ruleset. It was a starter path for many of us, but when I started seeing AD&D, I saw it as definitely more advanced.
Well, yeah, there weren't even components spelled out. But magic item creation from Gazetteer 3 "The Principalities of Glantri" is not unlike d20, except without XP economy and with chance of failure. Take a look.
quote:
Its a good thing because it limits how much abuse can be performed by someone. Essentially, its a controlling factor on how much magic a player can make for themselves at a cheaper rate or tailored specific to their needs.
I have seen on 'net enough of "We should do [something] in a [stupid/clunky/meaningless/not fit into the setting/____fill the blank] way because otherwise OMG Abuse!", and enough of reports about tables Munchkins were allowed to overrun no matter what was used, to figure out that just about anything can be "justified" this way - and that it's never a good enough reason to do anything at all in a particular way.
There was an elegance to the 3e/3.5e system. The math needed work in that the DC's rose TOO quickly, but the concept that its harder to resist a 9th level spell versus a 1st level spell does have merit. Of course, the math needed work in all of 3e/3.5e, but most of us didn't realize how bad until we actually started playing with upper level characters and comparing to low levels and realized that a shorter rise in numbers helps. That is one thing that could definitely be improved on in 5e, with say 1st-2nd level spells giving a +0 to the DC, 3rd-5th +1, 6th-8th +2, and 9th +3.
In fact the statement you put forth of multiple monster summonings, etc... is something I would call a strength. The greater monster summonings should be a different spell, and having them defined as to what you can get for the base ones makes it well defined. The weakness they instituted was in making the wizard spell list and the sorcerer spell list the same. Instead, sorcerers should have had magical "paths" that they could learn, and a given path should have introduced them to say a spell of each spell level along said path (with many paths having multiple lower level spells, and many spells being on multiple paths). Of course, this would make sorcerers have more spells available, but I honestly don't see that as as much of a problem. Of course, this would be more work to keep track of these different paths of magic.
In fact, I was discussing this concept a while back here where I was comparing the concept to Wolfgang Baur's Paths of Power article in dragon.
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=21561
The abuse factor I was talking about was comparing say 1e and 2e magic to 3e. The number of abuses I came up with, all without hardly trying, for 2e magic was enormous. Mainly it involved fire and forget magics in which you could cast spells and wait for them to be triggered in some fashion or another. It also involved spells with a base concept, but not enough disclaimers to explain what you Couldn't do with a spell. A lot of that was curtailed by feats. That being said, I do believe that in some instances feats for certain metamagics were overdone in looking back. For instance, the ability to do silent / still / without components / or extending the duration of spells shouldn't have been a feat. However, things like craft contingent spell, persistent spell, the mantle feat, gem magic, and other such things were improvements (though both could use improvements). Similarly, the concepts for having feats to manipulate faerzress, etc... as a learned skill were also good additions. The general problem became there were too many feats. The problem with 5e as I see it is that feats are considered an add-on option and generally haven't seen a lot of development (not dissing 5e from that perspective, just pointing out areas they can improve).
While we're discussing kind of spells used to create things, another weakness I've seen in 5e IS the undead creation and summoning spells. They aren't specific enough, and the undead creation ones don't cover creation of many types of undead that exist. 5e's dearth of spells is the one thing that makes me yearn for earlier editions to be remade into 5e.
Of course, as you point out, there will always be the problem of folks who won't thoroughly read the rules. I've read enough stuff on boards for various versions with people going into rules as written versus rules as designed, and they come up with the stupidest excuses for how to get into prestige classes, etc.. (my favorite is all the people that used a race that could cast an X level spell to qualify as "can cast X level spells"... and the fact that "sage advice" upheld this only made me shake my head at the time and ask "why"). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
How does the magic get in there?
