My apologies for being a little touchy on that point, and thank you for your kind words. =)

By saying “homebrew is just DM fiat by another name”, I was referring to a system that a single DM independently builds from the ground up for use in their home campaign, and only gets a chance to see how it works for themselves. I didn’t intend to diminish the excellent work you do here at Tribality, nor the work of others who post great 3rd party content for a wider audience.

You know, I think you just crystallized a “Harvesting” downtime activity for me, riffing somewhat on the recent UA downtime activities document. Spend up-front money and roll on a treasure table. You’re spending your own time and money while everyone else is pursuing THEIR own projects, and/or you’re supplying a party member who is doing the same. I can do something with that.

My plan is to do the herculean effort and publish it as a rules module. As a matter of existential necessity, I can’t agree that such a product would only be valid if WotC made it, any more than I could agree to that for any other OGL release. Similarly, if I agree that “a homebrew system is just DM fiat by another name,” then I can pretty well pack it in as a designer, because only WotC’s jobs are worthwhile and I am not moving to Washington.

I do think it should be strictly optional, in the same way that the DMG and UA are full of optional rules. The UA downtime activities document presents ways – between buying and selling magic items – for PCs to essentially keep re-rolling on the treasure table, so with in-game time and expenditure, that adds up to modest amounts of player agency. It’s documented and players can gain an understanding of the cost-benefit balance (even if only by spading out the system over repeated use), so it is a lot more than DM fiat… though with some room left for the DM to put their thumb on the scale.

I think the main reason that tabletop games can’t capture the fun of crafting that exists in video games is something you’ve already identified: it often requires putting one character’s needs ahead of the party’s needs. Farming drops and gathering materials in WoW and Skyrim is fun. The act itself is enjoyable, sometimes relaxing, and you get to enjoy the fruits of your efforts. But not every player in a tabletop game is going to be on-board with a mission to sneak into a Kobold mine in order to grab some rare minerals.

The “gather as you go” system you proposed doesn’t have that problem, but it does require a herculean effort for a DM to homebrew. It’s an iterative process to figure out how to balance drops and recipes in a way that gives the players some agency. I suppose that’s why it’s so important for Wizards to design an official version, as they have access to thousands of playtesters who can provide the feedback they need to tune such a system.

I understand the desire to keep 5e streamlined and flexible. A DM should be able to make D&D into a plot-heavy, time-sensitive experience or into a meandering, open-ended experience. By “forcing” a DM to accept a complex crafting system, it makes things much harder for a DM to run a focused campaign. But by failing to give DMs some reasonably robust official option for a crafting system, it’s almost impossible for a DM to give players meaningful agency when it comes to their special equipment. The system that exists requires nothing more than time, money, and DM fiat. But a homebrew system is just DM fiat by another name. There’s very little guidance in the official 5e rules for a DM who wants to give players what they want (within reason) but doesn’t want to think too hard about it.

On the Grave domain, to my mind the question of “cleric or warlock?” comes down to whether the entity that governs death is a God or something non-deific. The Grave domain is all about clerics who exercise compassion in ushering souls to their eternal reward, and who keep the living on the living side and the dead on the dead side. This is head-canon, not official for any D&D setting, of course – but warlocks are ALWAYS in violation of the natural order, because they are oath-breakers, ones who mar the peace.

Basically agree on Protection. I think the theme of a god about shielding, building walls, and the like has a place that is distinct from Life, Light, and War in some settings, but this version doesn’t express that all that well.

Nothing wrong with a dwarven craftpriest. Just one of the many interesting ideas in ACKS. =) Playing the trope as hard as possible also lets you explore the implications of the trope in-setting, or create minor wrinkles that wind up mattering all the more.

I don’t think the Protection domain has a role (in any of my games, at least) because it is already too similar to existing roles (even if the powers differ slightly). It feels less like its own idea and more like a Frankenstein’s monster built out of the limbs and abby-normal brain of other class features.

Forge domain is great though, sans immunity. I’d love to play a dwarf forge priest and be as tropey as tropes can be, because not all tropes are bad.

That’s one of the topics I keep hoping Simon & Garfunkel will tackle in a future UA article. I’ve done a lot of work on my own crafting system, trying to capture what’s fun about crafting in video games and port it into tabletop play. Turns out it is REALLY STINKING HARD.

Just a few links to my blog, in case you’re interested: http://harbinger-of-doom.blogspot.com/2012/03/crafting-more-than-just-find-item.html

http://harbinger-of-doom.blogspot.com/2015/05/d-5e-alternate-crafting-rules.html

http://harbinger-of-doom.blogspot.com/2015/06/d-5e-magic-item-economy.html

http://harbinger-of-doom.blogspot.com/2013/01/alchemy-system-for-d-next.html

Thank you for reading! If there are parts you think I’ve gotten wrong, this comments section is the place to hash it out. 🙂