Masterwork vs magic weapons/armor

[kenmeister]

My thought for the day:

If I had created D&D, I would have started magic weapons and armor at +3 and higher, reserving +1 for well-made items and +2 for masterwork.

[Deleted]

I'm curious as to why you proceed this way as opposed to magic weapons. This is not an attempt to stir up trouble, btw. I'm genuinely interested in why you choose this route. TIA.

[yesmar]

Words like "masterwork" make me cringe. I suppose I associate it too much with 3E, which ends up being diametrically opposed to the kind of gaming I like.

[dwayanu]

I think it's pretty neat that the magic armor with the biggest bonus in the original set is the Shield +3. The worst chance to hit Armor Class 2 hand-to-hand is 17+ on 1d20. Thus, only long-range missile fire with a penalty from Dexterity makes the best armor impenetrable. That magic weapons also reach (rarely) up to +3 is a neat symmetry.

[chgowiz]

Dec 29, 2008 15:32:12 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I'm curious as to why you proceed this way as opposed to magic weapons. This is not an attempt to stir up trouble, btw. I'm genuinely interested in why you choose this route. TIA.

I can tell you for a couple of reasons why I have chosen to go with this route.

This blog post: oldguyrpg.blogspot.com/2008/12/addendum-to-how-to-dm-identification-of.html has some links found around the web that influenced me to go with "plussie" only items being more about craftsmanship and materials than truly magic items.

I wanted magic items to have pizazz and powers. A shield +2 is a finely crafted, once in a lifetime 'Hanzo' type of item. A shield +2 of storm bringing is a special shield that is not only made of the finest materials, but the Mage Zachunus also imbued some of the northern storms in it's essence, allowing the bearer to bring the fury of the winds and thunderous lightning upon an enemy once a day.

This allows me to exploit a "reward" of "plussie" type items without diluting what a truly wonderful and rare thing a magic item is.

[harami2000]

Dec 29, 2008 17:11:40 GMT -6 yesmar said:

Words like "masterwork" make me cringe. I suppose I associate it too much with 3E, which ends up being diametrically opposed to the kind of gaming I like.

Rolemaster for one is just a tad pre-3e and was originally designed ground-up from a combat supplement to xD&D (although it was somewhat tactful about that ). Guidelines therein for bonuses/costs relating to material, magic, craftsmanship and design (heavier/lighter).
Nothing conflicting with "old school ethos" in this, IMHO.

d.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2008 18:07:26 GMT -6 @chgowiz said:

I can tell you for a couple of reasons why I have chosen to go with this route.

Thanks for the information.

[coffee]

And you wouldn't even need to limit it to Human craftsmanship. Tolkien isn't the only source to include elvish blades (although in D&D terms, this crosses the line between magic and craftsmanship, but I think you see where I'm going with this.)

And Dwarves craft axes like no others do.

[Ghul]

Interestingly, I once had this discussion with Mr. Gygax while developing adventure material under his guidance. An editor of the Yggsburgh hardback had changed a bowyer's limited supply and availability of +1 arrows to being "masterwork" arrows. When I inquired about it, he was annoyed that it had happened. He had a great dislike for weapon and armor having bonuses outside of magic, and so he was opposed to the concept of "masterwork" items.

His reasoning was this: it cheapens the craftsmanship of other craftsmen. For example, if you have a weaponsmith who is able to forge +1 swords by sheer virtue of his expertise, then what about the cooper? Can he not craft +1 casks? Now, don't get me wrong, I was never opposed to arguing a point with Gary if I thought I was right, and we certainly had more than one debate, but in this instance he made a believer out of me. He went on to explain that, sure, there are some weaponsmiths who might be better than others, but their works should not confer a "to hit" or damage bonus; rather that they should be sturdier, and are able to withstand greater stress. Likewise, the master cooper is able to produce casks of the highest quality. And so on. This makes good sense to me. You know, IMO.

Best,
Jeff T.

[harami2000]

Dec 29, 2008 19:45:13 GMT -6 Ghul said:

His reasoning was this: it cheapens the craftsmanship of other craftsmen. For example, if you have a weaponsmith who is able to forge +1 swords by sheer virtue of his expertise, then what about the cooper? Can he not craft +1 casks?

Well, having suggested balrogs as missile weapons elsewhere, pass me over one of those +1 casks and I'll give that a try for a change.
Apple meet orange? ^^

d.

[kenmeister]

I think finely crafted items fill a critical gap in D&D. Right around 2nd-3rd level, adventurers have retrieved a fair amount of gold and they have bought all the standard equipment that they want. It is only natural that they now want to start saving up for something better to buy. Either you allow them to buy finely made but non-magical items, or you have magic shops. Or, you know, you go the AD&D route and rob the characters of their money via training fees.

Another reason I made the original post is that I'm not a fan of low-magic. I get a magic sword ... and it only improves my chance to hit by 5%? Now I realize that in OD&D this 5% boost is better than in other versions because of the lack of a strength to-hit, but still. I remember when 3.5 D&D came out and cut down elven boots to adding only +5 or +10 to move silently checks. It just waters down the concept of magic, and I prefer magic wondrous.

[kenmeister]

Dec 29, 2008 19:45:13 GMT -6 Ghul said:

His reasoning was this: it cheapens the craftsmanship of other craftsmen. For example, if you have a weaponsmith who is able to forge +1 swords by sheer virtue of his expertise, then what about the cooper? Can he not craft +1 casks? Now, don't get me wrong, I was never opposed to arguing a point with Gary if I thought I was right, and we certainly had more than one debate, but in this instance he made a believer out of me. He went on to explain that, sure, there are some weaponsmiths who might be better than others, but their works should not confer a "to hit" or damage bonus; rather that they should be sturdier, and are able to withstand greater stress. Likewise, the master cooper is able to produce casks of the highest quality. And so on. This makes good sense to me. You know, IMO.

I know I always feel like I'm on shaky ground when I disagree with Gary, but ... but ... nobody cares about +1 casks. In the rare event that a masterwork cask had to save vs fireball or something, I'd be more than happy to give it a +1 to its save.

As for masterwork weapons and armor being sturdier, since there are no core rules for equipment wear and tear, this rarely comes into play. Item saving throws don't occur that often. Now if a DM regularly forced players to purchase new armor & weapons after each major adventure if the items were mundane, that would be different.

But really, a masterwork weapon is weighted better, is probably sharper, and might be custom-fitted to a combatant's hand. It should give a +1 to hit at least.

[snorri]

Dec 29, 2008 21:11:58 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Another reason I made the original post is that I'm not a fan of low-magic. I get a magic sword ... and it only improves my chance to hit by 5%? Now I realize that in OD&D this 5% boost is better than in other versions because of the lack of a strength to-hit, but still.

That's why od&d works fine with the 2d6 of Chainmail... I guess most modifiers have been designed before the jump from 2d6 to d20 realized by Gary. Same thing with shield protection... a +1 on 2d6 is just fine. That's why I use 2d6 for my french clone.

[dwayanu]

Is this not perhaps just a semantic problem? "Magical" is a term describing whatever is wondrous and awe-inspiring. It would apply to traditional perceptions of the common kris or keris knife of Indonesia and related areas, and in ancient times to blacksmithing in general wherever the craft was known.

The notion that the work of a master swordsmith (or weaver, calligrapher, painter, or what have you) is "non-magical" seems anachronistic, an imposition of a post-medieval point of view in which gods and spirits are safely locked outside of "ordinary" experience.

[harami2000]

Getting 25+ year old conversation déjà vu here... Not least with that barrel.
Will be splitting out to discuss bonuses to hit vs. bonuses to damage next, if that follows the pattern...

Dec 29, 2008 21:56:10 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

The notion that the work of a master swordsmith (or weaver, calligrapher, painter, or what have you) is "non-magical" seems anachronistic, an imposition of a post-medieval point of view in which gods and spirits are safely locked outside of "ordinary" experience.

Know where you're coming from and with that cited example, but not convinced. A trained "medieval" fighter in a typical gaming milieu would typically expect some ability to determine whether a weapon is poorly balanced, made from inferior material, etc. Such a weapon would not be shunned as "non-magical" but treated in a manner which would indicate that they know there's a danger of getting negatives to hit and/or to damage and/or an increased chance of breaking.
Taking a normal "best available" as +0/+0 and working downwards is no different to shifting the scale up a notch or two. Nothing "magical" in that, IMO.

02c/ymmv, anyhow.
d.

[chgowiz]

Dec 29, 2008 19:45:13 GMT -6 Ghul said:

His reasoning was this: it cheapens the craftsmanship of other craftsmen. For example, if you have a weaponsmith who is able to forge +1 swords by sheer virtue of his expertise, then what about the cooper? Can he not craft +1 casks? Now, don't get me wrong, I was never opposed to arguing a point with Gary if I thought I was right, and we certainly had more than one debate, but in this instance he made a believer out of me. He went on to explain that, sure, there are some weaponsmiths who might be better than others, but their works should not confer a "to hit" or damage bonus; rather that they should be sturdier, and are able to withstand greater stress. Likewise, the master cooper is able to produce casks of the highest quality. And so on. This makes good sense to me. You know, IMO.

That's a really interesting conversation.

I think that it's a comparison of apples to oranges. A cooper might not create a "+1" cask that does +1 to attack, but a cooper *might* create a special, once-in-a-lifetime cask that is the culmination of his expertise so that the rarest and finest of wines will ferment and age to perfection causing XYZ to happen when a glass is drunk.

I don't expect that the mechanics of a master craftsman or someone who creates a work of art to work the same as the other. Is it possible? Yes. If we need to imagine it for our campaign, can we do so within a "non-magical, but nod to those who might create works of mastery or art" framework? I think so, which is why I like the "plussie" things to be of a non-magical, but rare, unique experience.

That's just MO, of course, take it for what it's worth.

[jjarvis]

I've gone the fine and very-fine weapons route now and again in campaigns. As long as that fine weapon doesn't allow one to harm creatures one needs a magical weapon to harm then magical weapons do indeed stay special.

minor rant: I hate the now common miss-use of "masterwork". A masterwork item is produced by pretty much each and every smith when they are capable of moving up to the rank of master in their craft. It's simply a well made, ordinary item that any master (one deemed capable of training new apprentices) would be capable of manufacturing.

[kenmeister]

Dec 29, 2008 21:56:10 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Is this not perhaps just a semantic problem? "Magical" is a term describing whatever is wondrous and awe-inspiring. It would apply to traditional perceptions of the common kris or keris knife of Indonesia and related areas, and in ancient times to blacksmithing in general wherever the craft was known.

The notion that the work of a master swordsmith (or weaver, calligrapher, painter, or what have you) is "non-magical" seems anachronistic, an imposition of a post-medieval point of view in which gods and spirits are safely locked outside of "ordinary" experience.

I suppose it would be a semantic problem with one exception: Monsters that require "magic weapons to hit" - should an exceptional craftsman be able to fashion a weapon that can injure a demon?

Edit: kinda ninjad by jjarvis

[kenmeister]

Dec 29, 2008 21:42:52 GMT -6 snorri said:

Dec 29, 2008 21:11:58 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

Another reason I made the original post is that I'm not a fan of low-magic. I get a magic sword ... and it only improves my chance to hit by 5%? Now I realize that in OD&D this 5% boost is better than in other versions because of the lack of a strength to-hit, but still.

That's why od&d works fine with the 2d6 of Chainmail... I guess most modifiers have been designed before the jump from 2d6 to d20 realized by Gary. Same thing with shield protection... a +1 on 2d6 is just fine. That's why I use 2d6 for my french clone.

That sir is a VERY good point.

[harami2000]

Dec 30, 2008 9:42:46 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

I suppose it would be a semantic problem with one exception: Monsters that require "magic weapons to hit" - should an exceptional craftsman be able to fashion a weapon that can injure a demon?

"Only if the weapon is created from an inherently magical material" would be the answer IMC. i.e. additional enchantments not required.

(This is the point at which the party starts eyeing up the dragon they just killed...)
(Sorry; not enough plusses... *g*)

[dwayanu]

Should an exceptional craftsman be able to fashion a weapon that can injure a demon?

In my opinion (which is relevant only to my own game), yes.

Unfortunately, attempts at clarification tend to be taken as contention by people who simply hold different opinions. I think it wise to leave my own contributions to the discussion as merely suggestive as they are.

[coffee]

Dec 30, 2008 18:15:18 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Should an exceptional craftsman be able to fashion a weapon that can injure a demon?

In my opinion (which is relevant only to my own game), yes.

Unfortunately, attempts at clarification tend to be taken as contention by people who simply hold different opinions. I think it wise to leave my own contributions to the discussion as merely suggestive as they are.

Very good point!


As far as the question goes, I'd say it might even take a singular craftsman to forge such a blade. Possibly with some supernatural involvement anyway.

I'm thinking here of the smith, Jason Ogg, in Pratchett's Discworld books. He has the ability to shoe anything. But the catch is: He has the responsibility to shoe anything anybody brings him.

He once was challenged to shoe an ant. Rumor has it that you can still hear the ant's tiny shoes clicking around in the smithy at night...

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2008 18:15:18 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Should an exceptional craftsman be able to fashion a weapon that can injure a demon?Unfortunately, attempts at clarification tend to be taken as contention by people who simply hold different opinions. I think it wise to leave my own contributions to the discussion as merely suggestive as they are.

Well I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I'm reasonably certain I'm not alone in this regard.

[badger2305]

A few comments:

• I agree with others about the non-word "masterwork" - it's genuinely anachronistic and not that useful in OD&D terms.
  
• I don't really agree with Gary's characterization of "+1 casks" as somehow bad. Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems to me that allowing non-magical "pluses" for weapons is perfectly fine - just not that common.
  
• This leads pretty directly to referees being able to decide what sort of bonus or advantage a well-crafted weapon might have. You can keep it simple in terms of a plus to hit and/or damage, or you could do any number of other things: make it lighter, provide some benefit to disarming an opponent, be well-known enough to strike fear in opponents who recognize the history and/or craftsmanship, etc.
  
• if some items are well-made, that also allows for items to be badly made. IIRC, dwarven assessment of goblin craftsgoblinship in LOTR was that some items were well-made, but others were junk.
  
• It may be the case that well-made items eventually become magical, or magical items are ordinary in craftsmanship, but the precise relationship is really up to the referee to decide, rather than being a cut-and-dried relationship, or so it seems to me.
  

Just some thoughts.