Why are specific items cheaper?

[Necroticplague]

O.k., this just a short fluff justification question:why is it that making an item an item more restricted in who can use it (adding race or alignment requirements) make something cheaper? it seems like that would be something that would make it more costly, because it makes it less useful to thieves, or your enemies against your friends. To use an analogy, would you pay more for a lock that only is opened by one key, or one several keys can open?

[Erik Vale]

Using the Hellbow [Name may be wrong] used by Orthorn's as a example, perhaps people of race/alignment/class X can 'power' the item. Continuing the example it'd be like making a laser rifle, but not including a battery, letting others plug it into themselves to provide power.

[tyckspoon]

It's one of the many places in the rules where the designers did not think through everything they wrote down, AFAICT. If you think of them as market value reductions, they kind of make sense - an item that has restricted possible users is less valuable to a merchant, who must now put in extra work to find somebody who will buy it and probably have to hold onto it for longer as a result. So he'll discount it to try and entice those who *can* use it into taking it off his hands. The nonsense happens when you then do like D&D does and directly tie the cost of creation to the market value.. and then you go from 'I found this widget that only works for purple Muckrakers who smell like dogs. Maybe I can get a few gold off somebody for it as a conversation piece' to 'I'm a purple Muckracker with a Riding Dog animal companion. I just made this for myself for 1/10 the cost it should be!'

[HighWater]

It's one of the many places in the rules where the designers did not think through everything they wrote down, AFAICT. If you think of them as market value reductions, they kind of make sense - an item that has restricted possible users is less valuable to a merchant, who must now put in extra work to find somebody who will buy it and probably have to hold onto it for longer as a result. So he'll discount it to try and entice those who *can* use it into taking it off his hands. The nonsense happens when you then do like D&D does and directly tie the cost of creation to the market value.. and then you go from 'I found this widget that only works for purple Muckrakers who smell like dogs. Maybe I can get a few gold off somebody for it as a conversation piece' to 'I'm a purple Muckracker with a Riding Dog animal companion. I just made this for myself for 1/10 the cost it should be!'

Quoted for Truth.

It's one of the item creation guidelines that should be discarded outright. Don't fluff it, just throw it in the trash. (Say the benefits definitely offset the selling-problems if someone objects.) It leads to crazy-broken item-pricing.


And remember, the item pricing guidelines are just guidelines. The suggestions in the Magic Item Compendium are far more reasonable: think up the item, compare it to other items in the book, see what price makes sense in comparing benefits and costs (it shouldn't be the worst item for its price, it also shouldn't be the best item for its price). Sadly, that's no hard and fast rule, but the hard and fast rules lead to crazy prices, such as the price-construction tyckspoon presented.

[Chronos]

The key is to remember that DMs develop new magic items, not players. I wouldn't pay more for a magic item usable only by dwarves; I'd pay considerably less for it. Why? Because I'm not a dwarf. All I can do with it is hope to meet a dwarf to sell it to. And I can't just make an equivalent item usable only by gnomes (my current character's race), because I'm not the DM. If the DM wants me to find a gnome-only item, I can, but given our current adventures, we'd be much more likely to find a goblin-only or dragon-only item, which isn't usable by any of us.

[Andezzar]

Unless of course one of the characters has an item creation feat. If the DM has not discarded the rule beforehand he will incur some ill will from the players when he tells them that the restricted item is as expensive or even more expensive to make than an unrestricted item.

[Diarmuid]

Any new items require DM approval, period. He could simply say "no", rather than not letting them use shenanigans to get stuff cheaper then it should be.

[OldTrees1]

Supply and Demand
Only Pelorites can use the relics of Pelor, so there is less demand for such relics. Thus the adventurer cannot sell them for as much.

Although relics are a bad example because in 3.5, WotC realized that specific items should not be cheaper without requiring another cost.

[Chronos]

Unless of course one of the characters has an item creation feat.
Someone with an item creation feat can make any item that the DM has approved. At most tables, this includes the specific items published in the books, but it does not include any custom items unless the DM decides so. If your half-elf wizard with ranks in craft: basketweaving wants to make an item that works only for half-elf wizards with ranks in craft: basketweaving, the DM is not cheating them out of anything by saying that such items do not exist.

[Andezzar]

Someone with an item creation feat can make any item that the DM has approved. At most tables, this includes the specific items published in the books, but it does not include any custom items unless the DM decides so. If your half-elf wizard with ranks in craft: basketweaving wants to make an item that works only for half-elf wizards with ranks in craft: basketweaving, the DM is not cheating them out of anything by saying that such items do not exist.Not unless he starts giving out similarly restricted items to the opposition. If items with such restrictions are impossible to make for the PCs they should be just as impossible to be made by and for NPCs.

[Fitz10019]

O.k., this just a short fluff justification question:why is it that making an item an item more restricted in who can use it (adding race or alignment requirements) make something cheaper? it seems like that would be something that would make it more costly, because it makes it less useful to thieves, or your enemies against your friends. To use an analogy, would you pay more for a lock that only is opened by one key, or one several keys can open?

That lock is a wacky analogy -- a lock's purpose is too specialized. Think tools -- image a hammer that only works for some people. That's a head-scratcher. In real life there's a company marketing a gun that recognizes the owner's fingerprint and won't fire for another person. Like you're saying, I imagine this gun feature costs a bit more.

As others have said, I wouldn't allow those cost-reduction rules to be used in magic item creation. On the other hand, it can be a handy to DMs for giving a magic item to the party while keeping it's value low. When the mayor of Whosville asks the party to retrieve some magical doohickey, they're less likely to runnoft with it if it's not incredibly valuable or easily cashed out.

I could see allowing race/alignment restrictions in the magic item creation process as an increased cost to create. It is another step, afterall, so it should have more material component costs, and it has the advantages Necroticplague mentions.

[Chronos]

Quoth Andezzar:

Not unless he starts giving out similarly restricted items to the opposition. If items with such restrictions are impossible to make for the PCs they should be just as impossible to be made by and for NPCs.
That's only a problem if he says that no items exist that work only for elves, or only for good characters, or the like. If, instead, he says that there are some (but not all) items that work for elves, and some (but not all) items that work for goblins, and so on, he can still give enemies such items occasionally without hypocrisy.

[Andezzar]

That's only a problem if he says that no items exist that work only for elves, or only for good characters, or the like. If, instead, he says that there are some (but not all) items that work for elves, and some (but not all) items that work for goblins, and so on, he can still give enemies such items occasionally without hypocrisy.At best this sounds arbitrary, at worst it sounds as a deliberate attempt to give the PCs less valuable loot than they are supposed to get from encounters. If NPCs can craft such items, why wouldn't PCs be able to do it?

[Chronos]

They can, for those specific items that the DM has decided are possible.

[ngilop]

O.k., this just a short fluff justification question:why is it that making an item an item more restricted in who can use it (adding race or alignment requirements) make something cheaper? it seems like that would be something that would make it more costly, because it makes it less useful to thieves, or your enemies against your friends. To use an analogy, would you pay more for a lock that only is opened by one key, or one several keys can open?

Just wanna point out your anology is backwords

it should be
'Would you pay more for a key that only unlocks one lock or one that unlocks all the locks?'

and the answer to that is I would pay more for the key to everything.

[Andezzar]

They can, for those specific items that the DM has decided are possible.So you are saying that the humanoid PCs could make +1 spears that can only be used by ogres, because they were in the loot at some point/the DM deemed them possible, but they could not make spears that can only be used by humanoids? To me that sounds like a weakly disguised attempt to give the PCs less loot.

[Abithrios]

That's only a problem if he says that no items exist that work only for elves, or only for good characters, or the like. If, instead, he says that there are some (but not all) items that work for elves, and some (but not all) items that work for goblins, and so on, he can still give enemies such items occasionally without hypocrisy.

Looting dead enemies keeps the DM more honest. It forces the DM to consider the consequences of giving the enemies more powerful items. With race or alignment specific items, the DM can make the enemies much tougher while reducing the benefits to players for killing them.

[HighWater]

Just wanna point out your anology is backwords

it should be

'Would you pay more for a key that only unlocks one lock or one that unlocks all the locks?'

and the answer to that is I would pay more for the key to everything.

Actually, that's wrong too. The analogy should be:

Here's a key that opens the locks to your castle (or to any castle, doesn't matter). Now this key only works for people who are Lawful Good Half-Elves worshipping Heironeous, with at least an 18 in Charisma and ranks in the skill Craft(SoopahCheesyCheapItemz), cause I specifically made it that way and I "happen to fit" that description. Should it cost MORE or LESS to create this key, than a key that can be used by anyone to enter your SooperSecretFortressOfCheese? I'm going to go with MORE for the following reasons:

- It required the implementation of extra restrictions. This means extra customisation and in all likelihood a lot of extra work. This should cost more time and more components because it is a more complicated item.
- It's safer, because your enemies are very unlikely to use your 'key' against you. Added security costs you extra.

Now if you then go and sell this key you made, it's possible you won't get a decent price, because nobody else can use it. Therefore nobody else wants to have it. As the designers considered this the "Open Market Price", it deflates the real worth of the item. And as they then attached craft costs to market prices, the crafting costs are much too low. What the designers failed to realise is that, in spite of the smaller marketbase, the price would be driven upwards: those people able to use it are MORE interested in buying it (thanks to the restrictions) and would pay MORE, not less. The fingerprint handgun comparison made earlier is spot-on, as DnD items are generally intended to aid in killing anyhow...

This rule is broken and DM's ánd Players should not use such "discount tricks" to deflate the price of items. It leads to all kinds of camembert. Instead they should consider what would be a fair price, and there's no hard and fast (discount) rule on that. The Magic Item Compendium recommends comparing it to other existing items and boldly states that the original item creation guidelines should be ignored if the derived price makes an item too desirable, or completely undesirable. It states outright that there is no hard and fast rule. Still, if people want to adhere to the DMG guidelines anyhow, at least scrap the discount rule. It just doesn't make any sense and leads to cheese.