Only useable by X

[Ranting Fool]

Could someone point me in the right direction of how you make items "Only useable by X" as use magic device gives DC for items useable only by another race.

Are there rules? Would crafting it cost more GP and XP? if anyone knows the right book and page I'd be grateful or if there is some good homebrew out there I should know about :smallbiggrin:

Cheers

[VGLordR2]

It's in the DMG, in the custom magic items section. It's tucked away in a sidebar. Restricting an item to a particular class reduces the price by 30%.

[HunterOfJello]

It's in the DMG, in the custom magic items section. It's tucked away in a sidebar. Restricting an item to a particular class reduces the price by 30%.

I hadn't noticed that before. That's awesome! I'll resrict all my magical item creations to specific races now.

[Telonius]

It's also available in the SRD, here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#otherConsiderations).

I would note that many DMs are extremely leery of introducing this kind of item to the game. One special item is usually fine. But making lots of magic items with "Alignment: mine, Skills: something I have" is just asking to start finding magic swords that are only usable by Chaotic Evil orcs who have ranks in Craft (underwater basketweaving).

[Alienist]

Just an FYI



Other Considerations
Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use
Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use
Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the cost by 30%.


Once more, with emphasis:




Other Considerations
Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use
Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use
Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the cost by 30%.


Note the singular in the second limitation.

Contrast with the following, which is how the cost reduction guides (incorrectly) interpret this section:



Other Considerations
Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if any of the following conditions apply:

Item Requires Skill to Use
Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use
Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, these limitations cut the cost by 30%.

[Arcanist]

It's also available in the SRD, here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#otherConsiderations).

I would note that many DMs are extremely leery of introducing this kind of item to the game. One special item is usually fine. But making lots of magic items with "Alignment: mine, Skills: something I have" is just asking to start finding magic swords that are only usable by Chaotic Evil orcs who have ranks in Craft (underwater basketweaving).

I remember one time I made a single use Wondrous Item that could only be used by a level 20 Artificer, named Jill, that required 1,000 souls, required Dark Speech, that is Good alignment. It allowed you to true mind switch permanently with an Overdeity that has immunity to Mind-Effecting abilities... I never used it once :smallsmile:

[hoverfrog]

I would note that many DMs are extremely leery of introducing this kind of item to the game. One special item is usually fine. But making lots of magic items with "Alignment: mine, Skills: something I have" is just asking to start finding magic swords that are only usable by Chaotic Evil orcs who have ranks in Craft (underwater basketweaving).As an artificer why would I make an item for general use....ever? If I'm commissioned to make a wand of fireballs I'll reduce the costs by fitting it to the client's specifications. If it is for me then I'll make sure that only I can use it. If it's ever stolen I don't want it used against me and if I'm killed I don't want those who loot my corpse to benefit from it.

Of course a high UMD will get around these restrictions but why would I ever want to make it easy?

[GolemsVoice]

Sure it's sensible business to do it, and Telonius applies just that logic to NPCs. Why should THEY do it any other way? And since killing folks and stealing their stuff is an essential part of many D&D games, it could be a bit dissapointing to have the same tactic turn on the player who thought he was being clever.

[Ranting Fool]

If it's ever stolen I don't want it used against me and if I'm killed I don't want those who loot my corpse to benefit from it.

Of course a high UMD will get around these restrictions but why would I ever want to make it easy?

I can quite easily see a bunch of dwarves making their weapons Dwarf only so no evil orc runs off and hits people bringing dishonor to their clan :smalltongue:

If the item was made by Bob the Shopkeeper and seller of shiny things then restrictions would limit your ability to sell.

My players where very unhappy to hear that the full plate worn by a cleric of Hextor covered in Hextor symbols and scripture was evil use only :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

My players where very unhappy to hear that the full plate worn by a cleric of Hextor covered in Hextor symbols and scripture was evil use only :smalltongue:
That's what UMD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm) is for.:smallbiggrin:

[Andezzar]

If the item was made by Bob the Shopkeeper and seller of shiny things then restrictions would limit your ability to sell.True, if Bob makes the items in bulk. If he only made them to order it is a different story.


My players where very unhappy to hear that the full plate worn by a cleric of Hextor covered in Hextor symbols and scripture was evil use only :smalltongue:Ha Ha![/Nelson's voice]

[dascarletm]

Super powerful items do make sense to be made to order, but with a wand, scroll, potion, or any other item used by almost anyone, you probably would want to have them on hand. An adventurer isn't going to want to wait months while you make all these items.

Lets say I, the level 15 half-orc barbarian, have a large sack of gold from killing a dragon, and currently need to save the king from X. Well X needs to be killed by (insert special material I don't have), have a +3 bonus, and is vulnerable to (insert energy type). I'd probably have to wait on that item being made. Though I'm also going to need more health pots, maybe a ring of freedom of movement to stop giant squids, etc etc.

Well if you are spending like 3 weeks on crafting my Big ol' weapon, and have every item made to order; you just lost business, lots of business.


It makes sense sometimes, but not always.

also a mighty wizard will know that his item will probably outlast his customer, and what better way to be known about forever than to have some epic item you made last forever.

Less people will care about said magic item if only half-celestial gnome barbarians can use it.

[Drelua]

As an artificer why would I make an item for general use....ever? If I'm commissioned to make a wand of fireballs I'll reduce the costs by fitting it to the client's specifications. If it is for me then I'll make sure that only I can use it. If it's ever stolen I don't want it used against me and if I'm killed I don't want those who loot my corpse to benefit from it.

There's a slight problem with this reasoning. Or rather, a problem with the rule when you look at it like that. Why should adding a security feature make the item cheaper and easier to make? You want to make a Belt of Strength +6? That's gonna cost 18,000 gp worth of materials and take 18 days. You want to make the exact same item with the added bonus that it won't function when worn by someone who isn't pure of heart? Well, then it only takes 12,600 gp worth of materials you can have it done inside of 13 days!

Sure, it's RAW, but it also makes absolutely no sense. How does giving the belt some way to know the alignment of the guy wearing it and knowing that it shouldn't work unless he's Good make the item cheaper to make? :smallconfused:

Personally, I'd probably rule the price reduction to only effect market value since it's less generally useful, especially if you're selling it to a store so they can sell it to their customers, but I see no reason it should be easier or cheaper to make. But that's just me, and I've been proven to be a terrible DM.

[LordBlades]

I'd be OK with the players wanting some added protection vs. theft (or simply screwing over any potential looters of their dead bodies) and making items they alone can use. However, in my campaigns, everything you use can and will be used against you at some point, so if they go with that, many NPCs that are smart and wealthy enough will be doing that as well. So if they go that route, they should expect quite a significant chunk of their loot to be unusable without a hefty UMD check and have next to 0 resale value (not many people would buy a sword that can only be used by gray orcs with pink hair named Bob with at least 3 levels of barbarians and 5 levels of sorcerer)..

I wouldn't be particularly worried about cost reductions if their enemies employ same tactics. They can craft items cheaper, but they will also be getting much less for at least part of the loot. And WBL tends to go out of the window past a certain level unless you monitor it carefully anyway.

[planswalker]

Why should adding a security feature make the item cheaper and easier to make? You want to make a Belt of Strength +6? That's gonna cost 18,000 gp worth of materials and take 18 days. You want to make the exact same item with the added bonus that it won't function when worn by someone who isn't pure of heart? Well, then it only takes 12,600 gp worth of materials you can have it done inside of 13 days!


Personally, I'd probably rule the price reduction to only effect market value since it's less generally useful, especially if you're selling it to a store so they can sell it to their customers, but I see no reason it should be easier or cheaper to make. But that's just me, and I've been proven to be a terrible DM.

your BONUS is LESS USEFUL?

:smallconfused:

Bonuses make things MORE useful, not less.

[Drelua]

your BONUS is LESS USEFUL?

:smallconfused:

Bonuses make things MORE useful, not less.

It's a bonus if you and all of your friends are Good. This just makes it useless to your enemies without making it less useful to you. It's a bonus to you, but it's still less generally useful; more useful to you and your friends, less useful to the general populace. It's all a matter of perspective, really.

[planswalker]

so you're gonna punish the players for making their items less generally useful?

okay, if you really want to...

My tactic is to NEVER tell my pc's about that rule option and strongly discourage any that know about it from using it. My RL group has gentlemen's agreements that we don't abuse RAW. The DM never feels the need to change the rules to punish players.

[Jack_Simth]

so you're gonna punish the players for making their items less generally useful?Yes, because they're making it less generally useful and more specifically useful.

If the party consists of a Good-aligned Cleric, a Good-aligned rogue, a good-aligned Wizard, and a good-aligned Paladin, all human who (for RP reasons... yes...) all have ranks in Perform, and the party crafters make it so that any item made for anyone in the party requires ranks in perform, that they be human and good-aligned, looking for a 70% discount (and thus, about three times as much useful equipment - a +6 Belt of Giant Strength for the Fighter (normally 36k) when he'd otherwise only be able to afford a +4 (16k); a Vest of Resistance+5 (normally 25k) for the Rogue when he'd otherwise only be able to afford a +3 (9k), and so on), then yes, the bad guys are going to be doing the exact same thing, and the only one who'll be able to use the equipment from the dead baddies will be the rogue, and shopkeepers will laugh at them when they try to sell stuff so they can afford to upgrade.

[planswalker]

If I hadn't just rule 0 banned that discount altogether (my default state), I'd allow players who coordinate their characters so closely like that to reap the benefits of creating custom items for themselves at discounts...

it's not like they have 100% control over who all they want to give items to.

[Duke of URL]

I've always ruled that restrictions might affect market price, but that they don't affect the base cost to create. Remember also that the entire section on creating custom items is presented as guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules, so everything is up to GM discretion, even without invoking Rule 0.

[panaikhan]

There exists, at our gaming table, one golden rule.
"If the PC's bring it to the table, the GM can use it"
This rule is the reason no PC has ever tried Disjunction. Or why none of them make magical items "That can only be used by..." (with the exception of the Artificer, all of who's items are only useable if someone makes their UMD roll - including HIM).
There are, of course, existing items "that can only be used by X" in any game - but the players are not penalized for it when trying to get rid of them (i.e. "The mace can only be used by evil clerics, so it's worth 60% less").
RP-wise, restrictions are fine, and often make sense. As a pure mechanic to make things cheaper? Doesn't wash with us.

[Siosilvar]

Note the singular in the second limitation.

Contrast with the following, which is how the cost reduction guides (incorrectly) interpret this section:

That's inaccurate. "Alignment restriction" is one limitation that reduces the cost by 30%. Putting a "these" there makes absolutely no sense.

That "either" is a good catch, though.

[Fitz10019]

It makes sense to me that the selling price would be reduced, but not that the creation price would be reduced. I would think you create the item (at full price [gp and xp]), and afterwards restrict it's usability (at no extra cost).

That's how I would call it -- fully admitting it's a houserule.

[ericgrau]

Technically the reduction to cost is the market price cost not the cost to create. Though presumably the cost to create is half of that.

More to the point these guidelines are meant to find a reasonable price for the power of a new item. Intentionally finding ways to lower the price without lowering the power (heck, keyed items are better for the original owner) is a direct violation of that principle.

Fitz has a good idea to handle this and while it's not technically the RAW way, something must be done to keep the cost vs. power reasonable.

[strider24seven]

Technically the reduction to cost is the market price cost not the cost to create. Though presumably the cost to create is half of that.


1) Cost to create is based on market price. For all crafting purposes, they are one and the same (just varied by a factor of 2).


An item’s market price is the sum of the item cost, spell component costs, and the base price.

(The base item and spell components don't change so item cost and spell component costs stay the same.)



Creating a ring generally costs half the ring’s market price



Creating a rod costs half the ring’s market price



Creating an [wondrous] item costs half the market value listed.


Do people not bother reading the rules before they post any more?

2) I would say that limiting one's items to a specific use is a good reason to limit the price. Having your wand restricted to Good-only is a limitation when your rogue and Fighter are both Neutral. It would suck to try to pass that wand off to a Neutral Cleric for healing later only to find out he can't use it. Versatility is a huge component of power. Raw Strength + Versatility= Power... that's why Tier 1's are Tier 1's and why Tier 2's are Tier 2's.

3) Why does everyone seem in favour of Rule 0 banning everything? If your PC's are going to "abuse" things... why are you playing with them? I only with players that are mature enough to play the game in a way that is fun for everyone. When I DM, I ban nothing- even Candles of Invocation and Gate... i.e. I ban players, not material.

[danzibr]

Actually this can totally fit into flavor. The creator of an item could want most of their things to be usable *only* by them (or a very select few). I mean, you don't want someone to gank your stuff at night then use it on you.

[Andezzar]

Actually this can totally fit into flavor. The creator of an item could want most of their things to be usable *only* by them (or a very select few). I mean, you don't want someone to gank your stuff at night then use it on you.Wanting that is totally reasonable, what's questionable is that such items cost less.

[hoverfrog]

It makes sense to me that the selling price would be reduced, but not that the creation price would be reduced.I don't see it this way. One man's limitation is another man's feature. To be honest I'd scrap the rule about reducing the base price of items but allow them to add whatever restriction they like to items that they create. If the dwarven artificers want to make items only for dwarves because the orcs that they are at war with keep using the magical axes of defeated dwarves against them then let them. Sadly the human allies of the dwarves don't benefit but this is a trade off. Reducing the cost seems overly generous though.

I would reduce the costs for exotic materials though.

i.e. Dwarves mine mithril so using mithril to make the magical axes that they are known for will reduce the base cost of an item by 20% (for example) but they'll still need to add the cost for exotic materials and masterwork items to the sale price.

A Wand of Fly made from the leg bone of a Roc might cost 20% less as well.

The idea is that the PCs use item creation as an excuse for some adventuring.

[Duke of URL]

Do people not bother reading the rules before they post any more?

You do realize that the people you're complaining about specifically stated that this is what their personal ruling or houserule would be, right?

And if we're talking about rule reading, see:


Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.

As previously noted, the whole section on costing custom magic items is essentially a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. It is entirely up the the referee to determine the final value of an item (and hence its creation cost) based on its actual power, not on the formulae.

So a perfectly valid response to "I get to reduce the cost to create by X% because the rules say I can" is "but I get to decide the final value of the item based on its relative power".

[strider24seven]

You do realize that the people you're complaining about specifically stated that this is what their personal ruling or houserule would be, right?






Technically the reduction to cost is the market price cost not the cost to create. Though presumably the cost to create is half of that.



You do realize that I wasn't complaining about them? I was simply pointing out a post where someone either misremembered, misunderstood, or didn't read- as you apparently didn't read mine. I'm sorry if that sounds aggressive or derogatory- the internet doesn't translate intonation very well and what is said can sometimes be read into the wrong way... if that's the case then I apologize.

If one is to discuss the rules system on a public forum then one should stick to the rules when discussing them. I'm not referencing, degrading, or insulting the homebrew fixes presented here- I'm just the rules presented in the DMG/SRD.



As previously noted, the whole section on costing custom magic items is essentially a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. It is entirely up the the referee to determine the final value of an item (and hence its creation cost) based on its actual power, not on the formulae.

So a perfectly valid response to "I get to reduce the cost to create by X% because the rules say I can" is "but I get to decide the final value of the item based on its relative power".

And if you're not using the guidelines, then why bother asking questions about them? The entire point of the guidelines are so that everyone at the table have a common ground from which to base their custom magic items.

Note that I'm not saying that a DM shouldn't have the final say... just that "I get to reduce the cost to create by X%" is a perfectly valid thing for a player to say... if you've all agreed to play D&D 3.5 and not "So & So's Custom Tabletop RPG loosely based on D&D 3.5"

[planswalker]

Note that I'm not saying that a DM shouldn't have the final say... just that "I get to reduce the cost to create by X%" is a perfectly valid thing for a player to say... if you've all agreed to play D&D 3.5 and not "So & So's Custom Tabletop RPG loosely based on D&D 3.5"

your hyperbole aside, that's what every campaign I've ever played in has been. So and So's custom tabletop rpg heavily inspired by 3.5 . I've never met a dm who didn't fix the stupidity of the rules.

[Ranting Fool]

your hyperbole aside, that's what every campaign I've ever played in has been. So and So's custom tabletop rpg heavily inspired by 3.5 . I've never met a dm who didn't fix the stupidity of the rules.

Well I've never met a DM who didn't tinker with rules that they thought were broken/didn't fit into their campaign world. My players know I take a very dim view on trying to use an ambiguously worded rule for something that clearly goes against what the vast majority of people seem to think as standard "Locate City: Bomb of doom" I'm looking at you!

But back to the topic at hand. The Only useable by X costing less.... would that stack with feats that make crafting 50% cheaper? (I personally would never let it but only because of how broken that would make crafting, low level guys all running around with a shiny Belt of Battle ect)

[Slipperychicken]

If any DM of mine put his trollface on and started making all items restricted to CE Goblin Factotums with 7 ranks in Lucid Dreaming, I would make a deep sigh, pump my UMD check, then enjoy 40% off all magic items. Either that or play an Artificer, and just cannibalize every item into one our party could use (for an appropriate fee, of course).

[Ashtagon]

And if you're not using the guidelines, then why bother asking questions about them? The entire point of the guidelines are so that everyone at the table have a common ground from which to base their custom magic items.


Everyone at the table?

Last time I checked, those rules were in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Which means only the Dungeon Master should be using them. They're a tool for the DM to build stuff to make the campaign come alive, not a tool for munchkins to minmax the hell out of the game.

[TuggyNE]

Last time I checked, those rules were in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Which means only the Dungeon Master should be using them.

I think you'll have to expound on this a bit more. PCs can take crafting feats, and it's more efficient by a long shot (not to mention more logical from an in-character standpoint) if they can figure out how much a given item would cost to craft before trying to make it; otherwise, you're stuck asking the DM, "so how much does this cost? What about that?" and so on. Now, it's sensible (and in the rules) to require all custom items to be approved, but that's not the same thing as saying "I control all information, you don't get to know anything about crafting unless I tell you, and even then it can change on a moment's notice. Be glad I even let you try to make items at all!"

[planswalker]

I think you'll have to expound on this a bit more. PCs can take crafting feats, and it's more efficient by a long shot (not to mention more logical from an in-character standpoint) if they can figure out how much a given item would cost to craft before trying to make it; otherwise, you're stuck asking the DM, "so how much does this cost? What about that?" and so on. Now, it's sensible (and in the rules) to require all custom items to be approved, but that's not the same thing as saying "I control all information, you don't get to know anything about crafting unless I tell you, and even then it can change on a moment's notice. Be glad I even let you try to make items at all!"

actually, I once played a game where the dm basically did that.

[dascarletm]

Last time I checked, those rules were in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Which means only the Dungeon Master should be using them. They're a tool for the DM to build stuff to make the campaign come alive, not a tool for munchkins to minmax the hell out of the game.

Damn, wish I could play an Archmage, but I guess that is only for NPCs being in the DMG n' all.

[Jack_Simth]

Damn, wish I could play an Archmage, but I guess that is only for NPCs being in the DMG n' all.
Correct. The DMG PrC header is actually quite clear that PrC's are world-building tools for the DM to use.

[Ashtagon]

Damn, wish I could play an Archmage, but I guess that is only for NPCs being in the DMG n' all.

I don't recall talking about prestige classes.

[planswalker]

I don't recall talking about prestige classes.

... the ones listed in the back of the DMG

[dascarletm]

I don't recall talking about prestige classes.

Just pointing out that your blanket statement of the DMG being for DMs only is incorrect. By being in the DMG it does not make it only for DMs necessarily.

Bit of a straw-man because I'm ignoring your point, but you know. I felt I had to point it out.

[planswalker]

I do agree with you, though, that the rule in question was never meant for players to use.

[Thurbane]

I would note that many DMs are extremely leery of introducing this kind of item to the game. One special item is usually fine. But making lots of magic items with "Alignment: mine, Skills: something I have" is just asking to start finding magic swords that are only usable by Chaotic Evil orcs who have ranks in Craft (underwater basketweaving).
Agree with this 100% - if you try to use this to "break" (or at least bend) the game, as a DM, I would feel 100% justified to use the exact same "trick" against the PCs. In fact, if I was DM, when you pointed out that rule in the DMG, my answer would be a polite "Nice try...no.".

Just pointing out that your blanket statement of the DMG being for DMs only is incorrect. By being in the DMG it does not make it only for DMs necessarily.
I take it you never played pre 3E? In earlier editions, particularly AD&D 1E, the books were very clear that the DMG is intended for DMs only.

Not that it is 100% relevant to the debate at hand, though...

[Reluctance]

I take it you never played pre 3E? In earlier editions, particularly AD&D 1E, the books were very clear that the DMG is intended for DMs only.

Not that it is 100% relevant to the debate at hand, though...

Did that ever stop players from reading the item and monster descriptions? Most games know to expect a certain amount of PC savvy by now.

Besides, the "rules" are still guidelines, as anybody who ever thought about use-activated True Strike items is well aware by now. The farther you get from clearly published items, the more discretion the DM is allowed. "Items only I can use" are clearly discretionary, and while I wouldn't charge more for them (on the grounds that you prevent resale or having an ally use it), the DM is under no obligation to give a discount either. Not unless the ability/feat/skill req carries a real cost on its own (E.G: User must have Endurance.)

[Ashtagon]

It's reasonable to assume the players know the rules as well as the GM. But not reasonable for players to expect to have direct use of a rule that is in the DMG.

[TuggyNE]

It's reasonable to assume the players know the rules as well as the GM. But not reasonable for players to expect to have direct use of a rule that is in the DMG.

I'm still confused. What do you mean by "direct use of a rule"? The idea of labeling them as guidelines seems to me to be to encourage stronger DM oversight, not to seal them away so the players can't use them for planning. You seem to be saying "sure, the players can find out all about the rule, but can't actually do anything with it or act on this information in any way", but I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding that. Yes, a DM has the right to override the guidelines, and in a lot of cases, should do just that, but how does that equate to "look but don't touch", and how do you "not directly use" a set of price calculation guidelines?

The only thing I can think of is that you're saying the players don't make the final decision on item pricing, which is ... not in any kind of disagreement with me, or Reluctance as far as I can tell.

[Andezzar]

Let's think it through what would happen if the PCs as well as the GM used the cost reductions.

The PCs would spend less gold on functional magic items but will also get less for the unusable loot. Wouldn't that balance itself out?

The other thing is the GM will be less likely to include effective tools against coming encounters among the loot of vanquished foes (like flaming swords if the PCs would soon encounter ice creatures). Then again if the PCs build their own items, they won't complain about not finding the stuff they want.

So what's so "bad" about it?

[Thurbane]

Not inherently "bad", but it sure does effect the more common dynamic of finding and using magical loot. It might work in a game, or it might not. I'd sure not like to go down this road in games I play or DM in, but each to their own...

[Ashtagon]

I'm still confused. What do you mean by "direct use of a rule"?

Put it this way. I see the magic item creation rules in the same way that I see the rules for determining the max gp value of magic items available in a town, or the rules for determining a city size, or the rules for costing traps. They are tools for designing the campaign setting and the toys that fill the setting, not tools for the players to build things with.

[TuggyNE]

Put it this way. I see the magic item creation rules in the same way that I see the rules for determining the max gp value of magic items available in a town, or the rules for determining a city size, or the rules for costing traps. They are tools for designing the campaign setting and the toys that fill the setting, not tools for the players to build things with.

OK, I think I get where you're coming from. Players can craft standard items, but should have no more expectation of being able to make custom items than they should of being able to set their own traps.

I personally prefer a different, more open style, but I suppose either could work in a game, as long as communication is clear.

[planswalker]

OK, I think I get where you're coming from. Players can craft standard items, but should have no more expectation of being able to make custom items than they should of being able to set their own traps.

I personally prefer a different, more open style, but I suppose either could work in a game, as long as communication is clear.

having read the DMG cover to cover, it does assume that Ashtagon's view of the rules presented there. With different groups, I've had great success with both styles of play.

[Debihuman]

Players should have access to the online SRD and all the rules for item creation are there. No reason the players shouldn't be aware of the rules. Just because something is in the DMG doesn't mean the Players can't or shouldn't know about it. It's not a secret.

Debby

[planswalker]

yes, that is your interpretation.

It's not how the DMG recommends doing things.

not to say you are WRONG, as this is an issue where right and wrong are determined by how much fun people are having, not how you handle the rules.

There are a whole slew of things on the SRD I will never let my players use.