Magic item rules - why so specific? (PF)

[Altair_the_Vexed]

It seems to me that the rules for magic items (creation by PCs and invention by GMs) might be over-specific.

We have general rules for the cost of adding an enhancement bonus to a weapon, and to armour - so why do we need specific rules to tell us that again? Would it not be acceptable to say that in addition to the basic bonuses to hit and damage, a weapon can also be enchanted as a wondrous item?

Similarly, why do we need rules for staves, and wands as separate items? Aren't they both spell-completion items with a set number of charges?

For that matter, why do we have a bunch of different categories at all? Potions seem to just be drinkable wondrous items. Scrolls are just one-use, papery spell completion wondrous items.

I understand that certain combinations have been worked out for us in advance by these special rules for each item category - and that's helpful, thanks. On the other hand, what would we really lose by having just one set of rules: wondrous items - and folding all the categories into that set?

It seems so obvious, and so much easier, that I suppose there must be a reason we don't do it like this.
So tell me why I'm wrong if you think this a terrible idea. I'm sure I'll learn.

[Endarire]

It's legacy. PF comes from 3.x which comes from 1E and 2E. Apparently, people in charge thought it wise to make such distinctions because it made them feel better.

I'm in the process of overhauling metaphysical items. Instead of the + system, I'm using a Diablo-esque affix system. Want to add fire resistance to your sword? You can. And at a strict gold cost!

Feat-wise, I just use "Craft Consumable Item," "Craft Continual Item," and "Craft Construct/Wondrous Architecture." (Having played with contingent items, they should be a separate feat which shouldn't exist.)

Maybe it was because magic items in stories seem "specialer" where you don't need a Christmas tree full of increasingly powerful trinkets to keep up, and instead have, at most, a single set of magic items that, together, grant the user/wielder super powers.

[Answerer]

Human beings categorize things for a reason. It saves space and is easier to learn: instead of having to read the details on every item (and instead of Wizards having to waste space repeating themselves), they use categories of items that all behave the same way. That makes it much simpler to list examples of each, and elominates any need to check how each one works.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

...
I'm in the process of overhauling metaphysical items. Instead of the + system, I'm using a Diablo-esque affix system. Want to add fire resistance to your sword? You can. And at a strict gold cost!

Feat-wise, I just use "Craft Consumable Item," "Craft Continual Item," and "Craft Construct/Wondrous Architecture." (Having played with contingent items, they should be a separate feat which shouldn't exist.)
...
That's kind of why I was asking the question: I'm planning something similar.

The way I see it, all magic items follow the wondrous items rules - with just a few specific mentions for things like enhancement bonuses to hit and armour, and so on.


Human beings categorize things for a reason. It saves space and is easier to learn: instead of having to read the details on every item (and instead of Wizards having to waste space repeating themselves), they use categories of items that all behave the same way. That makes it much simpler to list examples of each, and elominates any need to check how each one works.
I suspect that if you only had one set of rules for item creation, then you'd have less material in the rules, and less repetition.

Example: I make a magic sword - it has a +1 enhancement (which we only need to list once, same as before) and I add a special feature to it using the wondrous items rules (which we only list once, instead of having a set of special features each for weapons, armour and shields).
Another example: I make a magic ring - it allows me to walk on water by permanently running the water walking spell. This is practically the same as if I make a magic pair of shoes that do the same thing. We really don't need to give the rules for two types of magic item category for an item that is worn.

Sure, it might be handy to list items in categories, for ease of reference - but those categories don't have to dictate what we can do with our magic items, do they?