PDA

View Full Version : Why DM's hate the 'Magic Item Creation' section



Kel_Arath
2007-05-15, 09:30 PM
So looking at the magic item creation section of the DMG, I got to thinking of how useful 8000gp can be. Here are some crazy things I can think of.
For the purposes of alot of these, * = ammy, ring, etc.
And in the ( ) is caster level x spell level x gp cost x(or +) misc.
* of Truestrike: Constant +20 on attack rolls, pretty much auto hit.=
(1 x 1 x 2000 x 4) 8000
* of Cure Light Wounds: Fast healing 1d8+1, never bad.
Same price, but not sure if it would work because the duration is instantanious. If not though, then just make it use activated and it would be cheaper, full heal on everyone after every battle.
And now to list spells to make *'s of: Mage armor, shield, summon monster/natures ally would be fun, silent image, animate rope (ooh), enlarge/reduce person, endure elements, obscuring mist (with blindsight or something, so you are peanalized), produce flame, bane, bless, command, sanctuary.
You get the point, and some of those are cheaper, but think of the possibilities for 8k or less that are very helpful (and very overpowered).

Tellah
2007-05-15, 09:35 PM
Guidelines, DM supervision, etc.

ocato
2007-05-15, 09:35 PM
Now, I'm not going to claim to be an expert, but you may've done that wrong. I don't think you can make a ring of constant effect spell for 8000gp. But the DMG could have godlike items for 50cp. You're the DM, you rule with an iron fist. If you say that all items in that book cost 50% more, then they do. If none of the merchants in the area can make a ring of constant effect true strike, tough cookies.

Don't be afraid to be the boss.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-15, 09:47 PM
Most DM's have 1 big problem.

They try to justify their actions as by the rules. If you don't like something just say "Rule 0 says it doesn't work that way. So drop it if you want to keep playing."

As for item creation, most people assume those guidelines are rules and the DM should be quite firm in stating that they are guidelines.

And the DM shouldn't follow them as they are far to broken.

Citizen Joe
2007-05-15, 09:51 PM
I don't think true strike works the way you think it does. It would be more akin to a constant effect magic missile spell.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-15, 10:04 PM
Actually you don't want constant effect or continuous truestrike. What you want is use activated with an activation condition of "Whenever I attack (or swing my sword, or breath, or any other condition that you can be sure will be satisfied pretty much continuously)". The very first attack you make won't be Truestriked but the rest will be.

Yechezkiel
2007-05-15, 10:15 PM
Guidelines, DM supervision, etc.

Seriously. This should have been "Why DM's Love the 'Magic Item Creation' section... that's the book that says DM's can go key the players cars and take their lunch money.

Renx
2007-05-16, 03:50 AM
Besides,
1) The items would be X uses/day or Y uses, total. There's a reason why armor/weapon special effects cost tens of thousands of GP. If you want a precedent, check the ring of invisibility in the DMG. Level 2 spell, 20,000 GP, uses 1/day. Though the *crafting cost* might be half that :P

2) Item creation should be an adventure by itself, you should hunt down exotic components -- or at the very least people who will sell you such items. Cure Light Wounds? A drop of troll blood. Truestrike? Filaments of a weapon used by a legendary warrior. Invisibility? Something from an invisible stalker/something from the God of Trickery. Displacement? Hello-o, displacer beasts... Etc. Etc. Etc. The point is, a DM shouldn't even let his players think about going "I make a Cure Serious Wounds ring, it'll cost X gp and Y exp, I'm fine with that. *rolls* A 16, I succeed".

Personally, I'm all for magic item creation, as long as it's done right. And for a final note, as it's one of the more basic things in any fantasy world, players should get exp from creating items... provided, of course, that they actually manage to play through it.

lord_khaine
2007-05-16, 05:14 AM
actualy you got unlimited uses from a ring of invisibility.

as for the special component stuff, i must admit i dont like it anymore, the problem with it, is that it takes focus away from the campaign, and splits the group up, when suddenly the fighter wants to chase down some frost giant blood, while the druid is questing for some blue dragon scales.

i much prefer to let them hand over a bag or 2 of gems to the local arcmage, who then says they can come back in a month or 2.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-16, 07:10 AM
And you can't have a continuous spell with a instantaneous duration.

Here's a funny one, that might not seem that bad: Boots of expeditious retreat.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-16, 07:41 AM
And you can't have a continuous spell with a instantaneous duration.

Here's a funny one, that might not seem that bad: Boots of expeditious retreat.

Boots of Speed are better and already exist.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-16, 07:56 AM
2) Item creation should be an adventure by itself, you should hunt down exotic components -- or at the very least people who will sell you such items. Cure Light Wounds? A drop of troll blood. Truestrike? Filaments of a weapon used by a legendary warrior. Invisibility? Something from an invisible stalker/something from the God of Trickery. Displacement? Hello-o, displacer beasts... Etc. Etc. Etc. The point is, a DM shouldn't even let his players think about going "I make a Cure Serious Wounds ring, it'll cost X gp and Y exp, I'm fine with that. *rolls* A 16, I succeed".
Someone's stuck in second edition thought!

And it didn't even work out that well back then! As lord_khaine said, it could derail a campaign if you had to do that for every single magic item. There's no way magic items would be as common as they prove to be in play if they required so much effort. (Yes, I mean that. I can't think of a published adventure where magic items where anywhere near as rare as they were implied to be in the rules text.) Especially expendable items such as potions and scrolls! ("I just went on a quest where I lost and subsquently healed a cumulative total of 250 hp to make this potion that heals 1d8+1 hp!")

And, stepping back into third edition—you have to spend a feat to even get the ability to make a magic item. If you let your player take a particular feat, you better darn well let the player use the feat. Can you imagine a DM only allowing a player to use Power Attack once per adventure arc? That's effectively what making every magic item into an über-quest does for those folks that took Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

Of course, your last point is correct to a certain extent. The DM must approve any custom magic items, such as healing rings, before the player can try to make it. Not sure what you're going on about with the "rolls" bit, though.

Bagera
2007-05-16, 07:56 AM
So looking at the magic item creation section of the DMG, I got to thinking of how useful 8000gp can be. Here are some crazy things I can think of.
For the purposes of alot of these, * = ammy, ring, etc.
And in the ( ) is caster level x spell level x gp cost x(or +) misc.
* of Truestrike: Constant +20 on attack rolls, pretty much auto hit.=
(1 x 1 x 2000 x 4) 8000
* of Cure Light Wounds: Fast healing 1d8+1, never bad.
Same price, but not sure if it would work because the duration is instantanious. If not though, then just make it use activated and it would be cheaper, full heal on everyone after every battle.
.

For the first true strike does not work like that, the closest you would be to getting what you want would be unlimited usage so you can probabally hit every 2 turns. I think thats balanced.

For the second, this item would be pretty useless in battle, and out of battle why not have an object of cure minor at will much better at (1 * .5 * 2000) = 1000g for unlimited healing out of battle. But most DMs I've played with would disallow it.

Hunter Noventa
2007-05-16, 07:57 AM
What I find horribly amusing is that the MIC has an item that casts true strike 1/day...and it costs more than a use-activated one with unlimited uses per day would, by RAW.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-16, 08:13 AM
That section really only became a problem for me when someone HAD to play an Artificer. Its not that easy to shoot people down.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only DM whose players get angry when told they can't do something.

Renx
2007-05-16, 08:16 AM
Especially expendable items such as potions and scrolls! ("I just went on a quest where I lost and subsquently healed a cumulative total of 250 hp to make this potion that heals 1d8+1 hp!")


We're not talking about potions and scrolls, those are specifically handled otherwise. We're talking about ridiculous constant-effect items that a player wants.


Someone's stuck in second edition thought!

Well ex-cuse me if I think that having a character actively and creatively use the skills he's learned over the course of his career IS CAUSE FOR LOSING EXP. Sheesh.

lotofsnow
2007-05-16, 08:36 AM
Besides,
2) Item creation should be an adventure by itself, you should hunt down exotic components -- or at the very least people who will sell you such items. Cure Light Wounds? A drop of troll blood. Truestrike? Filaments of a weapon used by a legendary warrior. Invisibility? Something from an invisible stalker/something from the God of Trickery. Displacement? Hello-o, displacer beasts... Etc. Etc. Etc. The point is, a DM shouldn't even let his players think about going "I make a Cure Serious Wounds ring, it'll cost X gp and Y exp, I'm fine with that. *rolls* A 16, I succeed".

I actually like this idea. I'm gonna pitch it to my DM to see if he would be willing to implement it. Is this something you normally do in your campaigns?

Rock Roller
2007-05-16, 08:57 AM
What I find horribly amusing is that the MIC has an item that casts true strike 1/day...and it costs more than a use-activated one with unlimited uses per day would, by RAW.

RAW is that the magic item section provides guidelines and that there are no RAW for custom item creation. I've seen several players quit because they wanted to have magic items that were just, plain, flat out broken. Constant effect mage armor costs the same as bracers of armor, regardless of what you make them from (ring, headband, cloak, whatever). Even if you take the Magic Item Creation guidelines as gospel truth, they specifically state that items that grant an armor bonus have specific values (bonus squared × 1,000 gp). They specifically point out certain costs for certain, highly sought after, bonuses.

The other thing that people miss is the part where continuous use item cost, according tot eh guidelines, cost more based on spell duration. A spell with a duration measured in rounds costs (spell level X caster level X 8000), a spell with a 1 minute per level duration is (spell level X caster level X 4000) and a spell with a 10 minute per level is (spell level X caster level X 3000). Of course, a 24 hour duration spell, made into a permanent continuous use item is (spell level X caster level X 1000).

The once per day True Strike feature, according to the guidelines, should be something like (1 X 1 X 16,000)/5 = 3200. The 16000 is for a use activated item that doesn't take a slot. You might argue that it stacks on to a magic weapon, and if your GM buys that, then you might start your haggling at 2400. That's also assuming that you allow 1st level caster level for the item.

Jayabalard
2007-05-16, 09:09 AM
There's no way magic items would be as common as they prove to be in play if they required so much effort. (Yes, I mean that. I can't think of a published adventure where magic items where anywhere near as rare as they were implied to be in the rules text.) Perhaps magic items shouldn't be that common then, eh?

Since I'm not a fan of published adventures, I don't really care whether they have no magic items or are monty haul playstyle, or anywhere in between... it doesn't affect me or anyone else I play with.

item creation absolutely should be an inconvenience for the campaign... if creating the item is actually that important to the players, then they'll have to make a decision: chase the current storyline, or go get the stuff to make YYY item... and a smart GM will incorporate their decision into the campaign.

Talya
2007-05-16, 09:23 AM
No player actions in the DMG are "RAW" unless the DM says it is.

It's not a book that is technically accessible or usable by players.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-16, 09:24 AM
What I find horribly amusing is that the MIC has an item that casts true strike 1/day...and it costs more than a use-activated one with unlimited uses per day would, by RAW.
No it doesn't. Most items adhere to the following paragraph, taken from RAW:

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. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
(Source: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicItemsCreation.html#other-considerations; emphasis mine)

Clearly, the "actual worth" of even a 1/day item of true strike is far greater than what the formula would indicate.


We're not talking about potions and scrolls, those are specifically handled otherwise. We're talking about ridiculous constant-effect items that a player wants.
You said, "Item creation should be an adventure by itself..." without specifying anywhere that the statement did not apply to certain cases of item creation. Therefore, the statement must be taken as referring to all cases of item creation in general.


Well ex-cuse me if I think that having a character actively and creatively use the skills he's learned over the course of his career IS CAUSE FOR LOSING EXP. Sheesh.
Xp cost could not be further from the point. You can certainly create a system that doesn't use XP costs without resorting to an über-quest for every item. (Indeed, if your only concern is the XP cost, you can probably just eliminate that without making any other changes at all. There are a number of factors that make the cost meaningless anyway.)

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-16, 09:39 AM
No player actions in the DMG are "RAW" unless the DM says it is.

It's not a book that is technically accessible or usable by players.

Doesn't stop most people. When all the books are accessible, and many of the players often DM as well as play, they can use it all they want.

The "DM" makes the rules thing is not applicable all the time, espicially when the players are equally as expereinced and have thier own take on things.

PinkysBrain
2007-05-16, 10:04 AM
Constant effect mage armor costs the same as bracers of armor, regardless of what you make them from (ring, headband, cloak, whatever)
I disagree, I think the lower level bracers of armor are way overpriced. Having a set of good spell item guidelines allows you to see what items are overpriced and what spells are overpowered ... either the bracers of armor (less than +5) are overpriced or mage armor is overpowered, either way very few people actually invest money in bracers of armor at low level.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-16, 10:06 AM
Perhaps magic items shouldn't be that common then, eh?
You know very well that all depends upon the type of campaign you wish to play, thank you very much.

Just realize that base assumptions about the style of the world, as reflected by the rules, make magic items relatively common among those who can afford such items. But mind you, such folk are not particularly common in the world. As such, the items them selves aren't particularly common on an absolute level.

Magic Items in D&D have the ubiquity that cell phones had 15 or so years ago in the real world. They're all over the place if you hang with the right crowd, but are damn rare otherwise.

Matthew
2007-05-16, 10:06 AM
Doesn't stop most people. When all the books are accessible, and many of the players often DM as well as play, they can use it all they want.

The "DM" makes the rules thing is not applicable all the time, espicially when the players are equally as expereinced and have thier own take on things.
Veh? Rule 0 pretty much says the exact opposite. Experienced Player Characters are not part time Dungeon Masters. If anything, they should be more understanding about the hows and whys of not exploiting and breaking the game.

Quietus
2007-05-16, 10:27 AM
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only DM whose players get angry when told they can't do something.

Nope, you aren't - I had an argument with a player of mine in an IRC game because he wanted one of those rings of use-activated cure minor, and provided the formula as proof of the fact that it was legal. I proceeded to inform him that A) I thought unlimited healing, even outside of battle, was far too powerful for like 1,000 GP, and B) it doesn't matter, because in my world, certain spells simply fail to "stick" to magical items in certain ways, because of how the energy of the spell works. This is one of those cases.

Matthew
2007-05-16, 10:34 AM
If Players get angry over a ruling in D&D it's time to take a step back, in my opinion. The game is meant to be fun, not a blood pressure raising excercise. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it really needs to be addressed seperately from the individual issue at hand ["Look, I'm not letting you be a Half Dragon; there are none in my world, alright?"] and put into a larger context ["I understand you have invested money in that book Bob, and I agree that it should be used at some point, but I don't feel its suitable for this campaign. We could try it in a Greyhawk game, if you'd like"]

Latronis
2007-05-16, 10:56 AM
Yea i must agree with Matthew

Diplomacy plays a part between players and DMs aswell as characters.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-16, 11:18 AM
If Players get angry over a ruling in D&D it's time to take a step back, in my opinion. The game is meant to be fun, not a blood pressure raising excercise. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it really needs to be addressed seperately from the individual issue at hand ["Look, I'm not letting you be a Half Dragon; there are none in my world, alright?"] and put into a larger context ["I understand you have invested money in that book Bob, and I agree that it should be used at some point, but I don't feel its suitable for this campaign. We could try it in a Greyhawk game, if you'd like"]

I agree with you, but the problem is is that often, players want what they want and won't listen otherwise. This is usually an issue when you are friends with your players outside the game as well.

I generally comprimise and all is well, I'm just tired of hearing "This won't be a problem with balance if your DM is any good."

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-16, 11:22 AM
Veh? Rule 0 pretty much says the exact opposite. Experienced Player Characters are not part time Dungeon Masters. If anything, they should be more understanding about the hows and whys of not exploiting and breaking the game.

The problem is when you have players who all have very different ideas on how one should be a Dungeon Master, and feel their view is just as valid ( And it is) as your own.

I've played for a decade, so I've been through all this before. Rule Zero is a wonderful thought, but its not heeded by everyone.

Indon
2007-05-16, 11:28 AM
I think the SR calculation is also pretty absurd. It's something like 80,000 GP + 10,000 GP per point over 10 SR. It's practically the only calculation with a flat price scale. Though, I guess the epic limit helps to curtail abuses of it.

Matthew
2007-05-16, 11:30 AM
It's an unfortunate situation (and by the sounds of it not an uncommon one). I just don't see how it gets past the stage of Player asking and DM ruling, though. The only times I have witnessed such exchanges it's been in a larger context (one or both guys has a chip on his shoulder).
In general, I only play with people who are my friends outside of the gaming group (and if not, then I usually find they become my friends in short order). Hard to say without knowing the specifics, but genuine anger over a ruling sounds as though there a bigger issues within the group dynamic.

Jayabalard
2007-05-16, 11:30 AM
"I understand you have invested money in that book Bob, and I agree that it should be used at some point, but I don't feel its suitable for this campaign. We could try it in a Greyhawk game, if you'd like"]even better: "I understand you have invested money in that book Bob; if you'd like to run a campaign that uses it, you're more than welcome to, but It doesn't work in my game world, nor am I interested in starting up a new game that uses it."


The problem is when you have players who all have very different ideas on how one should be a Dungeon Master, and feel their view is just as valid ( And it is) as your own.There's a reason why RPGs use a DM/GM/Referee/Storyteller (or whatever the system you're playing calls it. When there is a dispute, they settle it... period. it doesn't matter what the rules say, a ruling is final, and ends any argument.


but the problem is is that often, players want what they want and won't listen otherwise. Then they are welcome to run their own game, or to find someone else's game. Games are fun, arguments are not. If you can't abide by the rulings of the referee, find a different game.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-16, 11:40 AM
I think the SR calculation is also pretty absurd. It's something like 80,000 GP + 10,000 GP per point over 10 SR. It's practically the only calculation with a flat price scale. Though, I guess the epic limit helps to curtail abuses of it.

Wait, are you saying that it's too expensive, or too cheap?

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-05-16, 12:31 PM
Something I should probably note- people in my group get annoyed when deined, not so much angry. I might have made it sound harsher then that...

LotharBot
2007-05-16, 01:59 PM
Item creation should be an adventure by itself
.....
players should get exp from creating items... provided, of course, that they actually manage to play through it.

I mostly agree. Players gain XP for completing challenges which are appropriate for their character.

In my games, this means if you've built your character with crafting in mind, crafting certain items is treated as a CR X encounter (where X relates to the difficulty of the crafting itself; you gain XP for any monsters you slay questing for components separately.) If your character isn't built with crafting in mind, crafting items isn't an appropriate challenge for you. It's distracting from your combat lifestyle, so you lose XP as you get to be out-of-practice, and you need to slay a few trolls to get your edge back.

This means you can't just take a single random crafting feat at 12th level or whatever and start getting half-price items "because I have the feat"... but if you've taken a couple of crafting feats and invested some skill points in related craft skills and expressed in-character interest in crafting, and you play through the crafting as an appropriate challenge/adventure, you gain XP through crafting items (except those with high XP costs, where you just end up losing less than normal.) That also means I'll be making little side-quests specifically for you to complete in order to craft stuff.

I've also houseruled that, instead of 1000gp/day, you can craft up to level*1000gp/day, so higher-level characters can craft things faster. It still takes longer to craft level-appropriate stuff at high levels (10 days for a L20 character to craft a +10 weapon, vs. 2 days for a L9 character to craft a +3 weapon) but it doesn't take nearly the ridiculous levels of time the RAW say it should.

Jayabalard
2007-05-16, 02:09 PM
It still takes longer to craft level-appropriate stuff at high levels (10 days for a L20 character to craft a +10 weapon, vs. 2 days for a L9 character to craft a +3 weapon) but it doesn't take nearly the ridiculous levels of time the RAW say it should.while I agree that the RAW specifies ridiculous levels of time for crafting, I think it's ridiculous for the opposite reason (ie, it's too fast). That's a matter of preference to be sure...

OzymandiasVolt
2007-05-16, 02:21 PM
Because it is extremely fun to be incapable of crafting any magic items during the campaign since nobody has five years to spare.

Suzaku
2007-05-16, 02:23 PM
Wait, are you saying that it's too expensive, or too cheap?

I think he means too expensive because by the time you could afford it spell casters will already be able to make it like 90% of the time anyway. It's just there so you could sell the armor <.<.

Indon
2007-05-16, 02:26 PM
Wait, are you saying that it's too expensive, or too cheap?

Both!

Since wealth increases non-linearly, but SR cost per point increases linearly, it's too expensive at low levels to be effective even without things like Assay Spell Resistance, and it's too cheap at high levels to be defeated without things like Assay Spell Resistance. Only the epic magic item limit prevents, say, an item of 50 SR that costs somewhere in the realm of 450,000 GP.

LotharBot
2007-05-16, 02:27 PM
while I agree that the RAW specifies ridiculous levels of time for crafting, I think it's ridiculous for the opposite reason (ie, it's too fast). That's a matter of preference to be sure...

Of course... and this preference also depends on how fast your game progresses in general. If you take 6 months of in-game time to level, crafting should take a similar period of time; fast-crafting would allow one player to gain insane amounts of wealth while the others pick up a few gold per combat. If you take 3 days of in-game time to level but months to craft things, by the time you finish crafting your +2 chainmail, everyone else has picked up +5 vorpal swords from their epic quest on some other plane.

I tailor my craft rules to fit into the ongoing story/campaign. If someone took 2 feats of craft foo, I'd like them to be able to craft things fairly regularly, though certainly not in the middle of a dungeon crawl. If we go with DMG guidelines, we either have to put the story on hold for six months while we craft an item, or we make the character who took the craft feats very angry because their feats are useless.

I find 1000gp*level/day to be a nice "in-between" based on the speed I play the rest of the game at -- it allows players to take craft feats as a viable part of their character, but it doesn't allow them to unbalance the game too badly by getting overpowered magic gear.

Suzaku
2007-05-16, 02:39 PM
Both!

Since wealth increases non-linearly, but SR cost per point increases linearly, it's too expensive at low levels to be effective even without things like Assay Spell Resistance, and it's too cheap at high levels to be defeated without things like Assay Spell Resistance. Only the epic magic item limit prevents, say, an item of 50 SR that costs somewhere in the realm of 450,000 GP.

SR is no way worth it at any level

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#spellResistance

It's a +2 Bonus for a SR of 13, meaning the minimum cost of the armor is 9,000 GP which is entire cost of a 5th level character. Now let's raise it to level 8 who now has 27,000 (meaning he's paying 1/3rd of his total gold on one item),meanwhile a level 3 caster will make the SR save about 50% of the time. However I doubt anyone will be going up against 3rd level casters at level 8 so let's be conservative and say the enemy casters are all 6th level, he will have a 65% chance to over come spell resistance.

Spell Resistance is also a double edge sword that can prevent a cleric or self buffing yourself if you don't beat your SR and to lower it you need to use a standard action.


*edit*

A 19 SR is an Armor Bonus of +5 but by the time you can wear it and doesn't take significant amount of wealth nearly everything you'll be fighting will make its SR check more then 25% of the time.

Indon
2007-05-16, 02:52 PM
SR is no way worth it at any level

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#spellResistance

It's a +2 Bonus for a SR of 13, meaning the minimum cost of the armor is 9,000 GP which is entire cost of a 5th level character. Now let's raise it to level 8 who now has 27,000 (meaning he's paying 1/3rd of his total gold on one item),meanwhile a level 3 caster will make the SR save about 50% of the time. However I doubt anyone will be going up against 3rd level casters at level 8 so let's be conservative and say the enemy casters are all 6th level, he will have a 65% chance to over come spell resistance.

Spell Resistance is also a double edge sword that can prevent a cleric or self buffing yourself if you don't beat your SR and to lower it you need to use a standard action.

I don't mean SR to armor. I mean an item of SR (e.g. Mantle of Spell Resistance, cloak slot) SR to armor is just so horrible I forgot it exists.

Suzaku
2007-05-16, 02:56 PM
where is that from?

Indon
2007-05-16, 03:04 PM
where is that from?

It should be listed in the magical item creation guidelines, along with things like skill bonuses and junk.

d20srd is filtered out for me, but the price is something like 70,000+10,000 per point past SR 10 or something like that.

Edit: The mantles of spell resistance themselves are Wondrous Items.

Jasdoif
2007-05-16, 03:05 PM
d20srd is filtered out for me, but the price is something like 70,000+10,000 per point past SR 10 or something like that.It's 10,000gp per SR point past 12, minimum 13.

Suzaku
2007-05-16, 03:15 PM
Mantle of Spell resistance is 90,000 for 21 SR, meaning a caster level 11 will make it 50% of the time and there doesn't seem to be any variable. A Mantle of SR with SR of 30 (50% chance of over coming SR at level 20 barring any spell penetration feats or improve caster levels) is 180k. I'm not sure how much a level 20 character has (I'm at work so no DMG) but I'm pretty sure it's a big chunk of his gold.

*edit*

Typo my bad I wrote 280k instead of 180k
*/edit*

Indon
2007-05-16, 03:19 PM
Hmm... actually, the epic item limit is 300,000 GP, isn't it?

I guess that leaves an absolute max of SR 32, which I guess isn't that bad. Maybe they designed some of the items with the epic limit in mind...

Fourth Tempter
2007-05-16, 03:24 PM
The "epic limit" is in fact two hundred thousand gold pieces, not three.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-16, 03:35 PM
But remember that the 10 times pricing only affects certain epic items, not everyone of them. Although SR is one of the things it affects, IIRC.

Suzaku
2007-05-16, 03:42 PM
Not to mention to receive a beneficial spells from another ally such as Heal they would need to overcome your spell resistance or you take a standard action to reduce your SR.

Indon
2007-05-16, 03:45 PM
Eh, I guess items of SR aren't all that bad, then. Maybe not all that useful, but not bad.

Dausuul
2007-05-17, 08:27 AM
Perhaps magic items shouldn't be that common then, eh?

Since I'm not a fan of published adventures, I don't really care whether they have no magic items or are monty haul playstyle, or anywhere in between... it doesn't affect me or anyone else I play with.

item creation absolutely should be an inconvenience for the campaign... if creating the item is actually that important to the players, then they'll have to make a decision: chase the current storyline, or go get the stuff to make YYY item... and a smart GM will incorporate their decision into the campaign.

To the best of my experience, nobody ever quits an established storyline to go make magic items. The established storyline is usually something fairly urgent. All you're doing here is taking the players who picked up item creation feats and screwing them over for no good reason. If that's how things are going to be, I'd rather my DM just said at the outset, "In my world, you can't make magic items. Only NPC wizards have the time and skills. Pick some other feat."

Why would you put restrictions like this on players? How does it improve the game? My own attitude is that item creation, even by the rules as written, takes far too long and is unnecessarily disruptive of the story; I usually house-rule that you can work on magic items while travelling. That way people who pick up item creation feats actually get to use them, and the rest of the party doesn't have to wait around, and I don't have to figure out a way to squeeze in a week of down time in the middle of a time-sensitive mission.

spotmarkedx
2007-05-18, 09:20 AM
There's also the problem that I've experienced in 2nd Edition games. If you start having components required for the PCs to craft magic items be exotic monster bits, you can bet that your party will quickly flay every single corpse of every single new monster they fight for their body parts in the case that they need those components for their magic items later. Your parties will start stocking on small sharp knives and hacksaws to get at the pieces that they want, and will be more akin to apothecary shops than adventurers.

Then someone will come up with the bright idea: why, if wizards need monster pieces, is there not a market for these things? Surely there would be some enterprising merchants that would buy and sell from adventuring groups the Eye of Newt and Tongue of Bat, Blood of Troll and Tooth of Dragon. And it would be hard to dispute this as it has a pretty darn solid logical foundation.

Shockingly, this brings you to 3.5 SRD status. You go to a large city, find the magic apothecary, who has all sorts of weird body parts in jars of formaldehyde, spend your N x 1000 gp to purchase the weird stuff instead of derailing the entire plot to make your magic items.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 10:33 AM
To the best of my experience, nobody ever quits an established storyline to go make magic items. The established storyline is usually something fairly urgent. All you're doing here is taking the players who picked up item creation feats and screwing them over for no good reason. If that's how things are going to be, I'd rather my DM just said at the outset, "In my world, you can't make magic items. Only NPC wizards have the time and skills. Pick some other feat."How does it screw anyone over? I they can make magic items, it's just not going to be instant gratification. If you're going to spend all of your time out and adventuring, then obviously you don't have the time to devote to crafting magic items except when there's a break in the action.


Why would you put restrictions like this on players? How does it improve the game? Lots of ways; I prefer a game world that isn't overrun by magic item, and that means that that they must be hard to make.

I can understand that some people just want the to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet, and they want it now, but I don't really I think that works to create a believable world, nor do I find that very entertaining.


My own attitude is that item creation, even by the rules as written, takes far too long and is unnecessarily disruptive of the story; I usually house-rule that you can work on magic items while travelling. That way people who pick up item creation feats actually get to use them, and the rest of the party doesn't have to wait around, and I don't have to figure out a way to squeeze in a week of down time in the middle of a time-sensitive mission.whereas I believe that if you don't have the time available to devote to making magic items, then you shouldn't be able to make the items. They should be hard to make, not instant gratification; otherwise there'd be so many magic items that level 1 commoners would be tripping over them in their own houses.

It probably has alot to do with what games you play and how you play them... If you play D&D as if it's superheros with magic rather than mutations and gadgets, then that leads to a very magic heavy game, where everyone in the world has magic items.

I recall that in some other systems, that a single mage might take a year of constant work to make a single item... and that the most powerful items take an unbelievably long time to create (up to a century or more).

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 10:42 AM
Not to mention to receive a beneficial spells from another ally such as Heal they would need to overcome your spell resistance or you take a standard action to reduce your SR.


A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature’s next turn. At the beginning of the creature’s next turn, the creature’s spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

You can lower it!

lord_khaine
2007-05-18, 10:47 AM
and if you deside to play D&D low magic, you will demote all those players who wasnt smart enough to pick a primary caster, to the role of peon or cleanup guy, because some classes are a lot more dependent on gear than others.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 11:07 AM
and if you deside to play D&D low magic, you will demote all those players who wasnt smart enough to pick a primary caster, to the role of peon or mobup guy, becasue some classes are a lot more dependent on gear than others.Interesting claim, but it seems to be based on assumptions that aren't necessarily true; certainly hasn't been a problem in the games I've played in or DM'd.

Keep in mind that low magic is not the same as no magic, and that a believable level isn't necessarily either one of those (though they can both be believable).

A world where players can buy whatever they want (because it's available in shops in every town), and make whatever they want in short amounts of time while on the road stops being believable quickly; people who dedicate themselves to crafting items would be able to crank them out even faster, and at some point (50 years maybe, certainly less than 500) you have way more items in the world than there are people, so even the commoner butcher is cutting meat with his keen +5 meat cleaver.

That's not a game world that I'm interested in playing in; I'm sure it appeals to some people... just not me.

LotharBot
2007-05-18, 12:23 PM
Jayabalard,

how many of your players actually take item creation feats? Do they ever?

I can't imagine anyone taking them in a game where they have to take a 1-year break to craft the sort of item they can just as easily buy with the lewt from a 1-day adventure, or (even if they can't buy it) taking a 1-year break to craft the sort of item that will give far less of a boost than simply leveling up several times over the course of that year of adventuring.

There's something to be said for limiting magic item availability. But if you're going to allow the feats, you should make them worthwhile; otherwise, just outright ban them for PCs and don't worry about crafting times so much.

Suzaku
2007-05-18, 12:40 PM
You can lower it!

I have already stated that you can lower your SR by taking a standard action and it's even in your quoted text from me.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 12:44 PM
I have already stated that you can lower your SR by taking a standard action and it's even in your quoted text from me.

No, that wasn't me pointing out an inadequacy in your statement; it was me realizing that I could lower it.

...you'd be surprised at the things I don't know.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 01:01 PM
Lots of ways; I prefer a game world that isn't overrun by magic item, and that means that that they must be hard to make.
As I mentioned before, even a world in a standard game using basic wealth by level guidelines isn't "overrun by magic items". At worst, it may seem that way, but then the PCs are super-rich compared to most folks in the world. They're part of the crowd that can find/buy/make magic items quite easily compared to the rest of the population. PCs are special people in that regard.

It is a huge mistake to believe that just because the PCs have the luxury of seeing the world one way that the world must be that way.


I can understand that some people just want the to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet, and they want it now, but I don't really I think that works to create a believable world, nor do I find that very entertaining.
Yeah, cause you'd only be interested in using magic because of the game mechanics and not because you're interested in the aspects of the game that make it a fantasy world. :smallyuk:


I recall that in some other systems, that a single mage might take a year of constant work to make a single item...
Come up with a magic item that's worth the wait compared to what a spellcaster capable of creating such an item can do with just a single day and the right spells and go right ahead. Such an item will likely have a market price in excess of 365,000 gp, I'm guessing.

As it is, the most powerful items available already take over six months to make.


and that the most powerful items take an unbelievably long time to create (up to a century or more).
Items that powerful are generally referred to as artifacts and PCs are outright banned from creating those.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 01:39 PM
Jayabalard,

how many of your players actually take item creation feats? Do they ever?

I can't imagine anyone taking them in a game where they have to take a 1-year break to craft the sort of item they can just as easily buy with the lewt from a 1-day adventure, or (even if they can't buy it) taking a 1-year break to craft the sort of item that will give far less of a boost than simply leveling up several times over the course of that year of adventuring.

There's something to be said for limiting magic item availability. But if you're going to allow the feats, you should make them worthwhile; otherwise, just outright ban them for PCs and don't worry about crafting times so much.That's kind of a meaningless question, since most of my gaming is not in D&D, and even in D&D the majority has not been 3e. of the Characters that have been in 3.5 games with me who were an appropriate class and levels to take item creation feat(s), I think about 1/3 or 1/2 of them did.

Again, you're starting from false assumptions.

The long creation times appy to NPC item crafters as well, so those items cannot be generally not be bought at all, let alone with the loot from a "1-day adventure". They take too long to make, so their availability is very low; finding a seller of a particular item can be an adventure in and of itself.

I don't think I've ever run a "1-day adventure"; I tend to stay away from the "wander though the dungeon killing the randomly generating monster and taking their loot" type game, except for the couple of times that we got out the munchkin RPG.

Having a believable and entertaining game world is much more important than making the item creation feats "worthwhile" (whatever you mean by that, I have no idea); if they have them, then they get worked into the storyline, and generally require adventures specifically for components for the item.


Yeah, cause you'd only be interested in using magic because of the game mechanics and not because you're interested in the aspects of the game that make it a fantasy world.I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion; I think I was pretty clear in saying that's not the case, and that in fact it's the opposite. Specifically that I am not interested in getting magic items because of the game mechanics (ie increasing numbers on a character sheet), but that I instead would rather have the aspects of the game that make it a fantasy world hang together in a believable fashion.


Come up with a magic item that's worth the wait compared to what a spellcaster capable of creating such an item can do with just a single day and the right spells and go right ahead. Such an item will likely have a market price in excess of 365,000 gp, I'm guessing.

Items that powerful are generally referred to as artifacts and PCs are outright banned from creating those.magic items don't generally require their maker to be hanging around, so there's an advantage of any magic item over having the PC standing around with the right spells. And if you make it for yourself, you're increasing your own power, in a fairly safe environment... so it has some advantage over just random adventuring as well.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 02:13 PM
Again, you're starting from false assumptions.
Given that the thread title refers to DMs rather than more generic GMs, and the original post mentions both the DMG and D&D magic items, I was under the impression that applying these rules to D&D was context for the discussion rather than a baseless assumption.


I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion;
Stating that you prefer so few magic items in your game and then supporting your view with the statement, "I can understand that some people just want the to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet, and they want it now, but I don't really I think that works to create a believable world, nor do I find that very entertaining," tends to create the impression that you belive that players who want to play in a world with more magic "just want to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet" and have no interest in the world itself.

Do realize that the prevelance of magical items does not in itself make nor break the verisimilitude of a game setting.


magic items don't generally require their maker to be hanging around, so there's an advantage of any magic item over having the PC standing around with the right spells. And if you make it for yourself, you're increasing your own power, in a fairly safe environment... so it has some advantage over just random adventuring as well.
Yes, magic items do have those advantages, but that doesn't mean they will always be economical.

Keep in mind, ultimate effect of most magic items—killing something (faster), healing wounds, getting from point A to point B, etc.—can be accomplished through mundane methods. So that has to be factored into the economy as well. Is it really worth spending a year and a half doing nothing but working on my boots of teleportation in order to save a couple weeks of travel time per year? Or just to make a few thousand gold so the prince who wants to commission them can do that instead?

Of course, that example does bring us full circle. As it is the caster that creates the item, it once again comes down to what the caster thinks is the best use of his or her time. Is spending all that time working on a single item really worth it compare to what else he or she could be doing with that time?

PinkysBrain
2007-05-18, 02:59 PM
The long creation times appy to NPC item crafters as well
Luckily the overwhelming majority of them lived in the past, so they had plenty of time to create them already.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 03:10 PM
Given that the thread title refers to DMs rather than more generic GMs, and the original post mentions both the DMG and D&D magic items, I was under the impression that applying these rules to D&D was context for the discussion rather than a baseless assumption.The false assumptions were listed below that, not above it. They don't have anything to do with game system.

1. That 1 day adventures exist for all people playing D&D
2. That loot from an adventure is enough to pay for a magic item
3. That magic items are generally available to buy
4. That balance of some specific feat is as important as playing in a game world that you find entertaining and believable.
etc

DM, D&D (and game specific terms) apply just as much to non 3.x ed as they do to 3.x ed D&D...


Stating that you prefer so few magic items in your game and then supporting your view with the statement, "I can understand that some people just want the to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet, and they want it now, but I don't really I think that works to create a believable world, nor do I find that very entertaining," tends to create the impression that you belive that players who want to play in a world with more magic "just want to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet" and have no interest in the world itself."Not overrun by magic items" doesn't mean the same thing as "few magic tiems" ... at least, not the last time I checked.

Cutting down on item creation time, making them easy to create, and allowing people to do it while traveling leads to a world that is either A) overrun with magic items after a few hundred years or B) not believable. Mostly B, since magic items inb a world where they're that common can't hold the kind of value that's listed in the DMG guidelines.

certainly, I think a large portion of the the people who want a world overrun with magic items "just want to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet and have no interest in the world" ... but that doesn't descibe me or anyone I game with.


Do realize that the prevelance of magical items does not in itself make nor break the verisimilitude of a game setting.it's does break the verisimilitude if the items are only prevalent for the PCs and not for the rest of the world. If there's a magic shop in every small town selling dozens of magic items, then every tom, richard and harry is going to be buying them too, because something with a supply that high and only adventurers for demand can't keep high enough prices to avoid having the world overrun with magic items... and like I said originally: "That's not a game world that I'm interested in playing in"


Luckily the overwhelming majority of them lived in the past, so they had plenty of time to create them already.The overwhelming majority of all people have lived in the past, so that's not saying much.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:17 PM
it's does break the verisimilitude if the items are only prevalent for the PCs and not for the rest of the world. If there's a magic shop in every small town selling dozens of magic items, then every tom, richard and harry is going to be buying them too, because something with a supply that high and only adventurers for demand can't keep high enough prices to avoid having the world overrun with magic items... and like I said originally: "That's not a game world that I'm interested in playing in"

Most people in this world have a cell phone and a vehicle of some sort. Why shouldn't people in a D&D world have, say, a dagger +1 or a ring of sustenance?

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 03:20 PM
Because most people make about 12 gp in a year profit.

Unless *verismilitude is broken* they put ranks in a profession skill, in which case they make about 340 gp a year. Which means in 6 years, they could spend their life savings, as a superior farmer, to not have to eat or drink, and to sleep 2 hrs a day.

EDIT: Masterwork farming tools? Yeah, definately. Magical? No. Most cheap magic items are limited use. The more expensive ones are out of price range.

And most are just slightly gimmicky. None of the rings, rods, armour, or weapons are in the farmer's price range, or are any but the weakest of wondrous items. Wands and staffs would be dumb for a farmer.

Alchemical items, yes, and I can also see a farmer with maybe an item of presdigitition (Full of win. Flavor food, clean the house... what's not to like?)

When everything you can afford is worth less than 2000 gp, what you actually want is rather limited.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-18, 03:24 PM
Because most people make about 12 gp in a year profit.

Unless *verismilitude is broken* they put ranks in a profession skill, in which case they make about 340 gp a year. Which means in 6 years, they could spend their life savings, as a superior farmer, to not have to eat or drink, and to sleep 2 hrs a day.

Alright, so a ring of sustenance is out. But masterwork farming implements?

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 03:55 PM
Most people in this world have a cell phone and a vehicle of some sort. Why shouldn't people in a D&D world have, say, a dagger +1 or a ring of sustenance?Because it's not a game world I'm interested in playing in?

I would disagree that most people in this world have those things... perhaps in many countries, but there are plenty of places where most people not have one or the other of those (or both).


Because most people make about 12 gp in a year profit.

Unless *verismilitude is broken* they put ranks in a profession skill, in which case they make about 340 gp a year. Which means in 6 years, they could spend their life savings, as a superior farmer, to not have to eat or drink, and to sleep 2 hrs a day.Those are prices stop making sense once magic items start becoming common enough, and that's the sort of world you have if magic items are quick, easy and painless to make. Within a couple hundred years, every commoner family would have a few magic items, and the rich/nobility would have dozens or more...

I'm not sure why you say "Unless *verismilitude is broken* they put ranks in a profession skill, " ... I'd think that the vast majority of commoners would have some skill ranks in some profession

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 04:07 PM
No, because you see, they don't. Also, the ones who put ranks in skills are assumed to be living self sufficiently.

Really. It seems to be assumed that hardly anyone puts ranks in profession. Otherwise, you might have commoners that are as skilled as experts at farming! Also, the average income given for lower classes is 1 sp/day, or, the no profession skill profession.

It breaks verismilitude, because otherwise, commoners might have money!

Oh FFS. I was being sarcastic. Sorry it doen't carry over well.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 04:09 PM
Otherwise, you might have commoners that are as skilled as experts at farming! So... what part of that break verisimilitude? The most skilled farmers are the common folk who actually farm...it's not the non-existent college folk who go get a BS in agriculture.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 04:16 PM
The false assumptions were listed below that, not above it. They don't have anything to do with game system.
My bad, then.


DM, D&D (and game specific terms) apply just as much to non 3.x ed as they do to 3.x ed D&D...
Well, I don't believe the pricing guidelines referred to in the original post, existed in pre 3.x editions of the DMG anyway. So that does anchor us in a particular edition.


"Not overrun by magic items" doesn't mean the same thing as "few magic tiems" ... at least, not the last time I checked.
True enough. Those terms are relative. But our points of reference do appear to be very different.

In any case, I tend to take it you feel the game world presented by the 3.x DMGs is "overrun with magic items." My use of the phrase "few magic items" was, in turn made in relation to the frequency of magic items as recommended by the 3.x DMG. As such, the relative difference between the concepts is, to my frame of reference, nonexistent.


Cutting down on item creation time, making them easy to create, and allowing people to do it while traveling leads to a world that is either A) overrun with magic items after a few hundred years
Assuming such items last that long. The great majority of magic items are consumables. The rest could be easily destroyed by any manner of unfortunate events.


B) not believable. Mostly B, since magic items inb a world where they're that common can't hold the kind of value that's listed in the DMG guidelines.
That makes certain assumptions about the economy of the game world, I think. There can certainly be other factors that drive up the price of magic items.

And if not, the DM is certainly free to change the market price value of any items as he or she sees fit.


certainly, I think a large portion of the the people who want a world overrun with magic items "just want to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet and have no interest in the world" ... but that doesn't descibe me or anyone I game with.
And that's a very unfair assessment of the situation.

I think the one thing that unites players of D&D is a love of fantasy. We like hearing, imagining, and discussing the impossible. It helps up deal with harsh reality.

Now, the thing is, there are many different ways to approach fantasy. You have high Arthurian fantasy where spellcasters are rare and lone outcasts from society and magic is difficult and subtle. On the other end of the spectrum, you have fantasy where magic absolutely permeates the world and characters cannot take two steps without something fantastic happening. For the first, you can think about Arthurian legend or The Lord of the Rings or the Earthsea books. For the latter, you can think about Harry Potter, the Dealing with Dragons series or even the Shrek movies for that matter.

Now some people prefer the first brand of fantasy. Some people the latter. Roleplayers, of course, take their preferences with them to the table. Such preferences naturally color their perception of the game. However, wanting to play a game in a high magic setting where almost anyone can cast a spell or brew a potion is hardly indicative of wanting to do so only for in-game benefit. Heck, in such a world, you can't even count on the prevalence of magic to be a benefit, since such prevalence also affects your enemies.

Now, I myself possess rather eclectic tastes. I'm willing to try just about anything. As such, when I read or play fantasy, I chose what I read or how I play according to the mood at the moment. One day I may be up for a game in the magic-rich Eberron setting. Another day, I will try a game where there's only one spellcaster in every thousand square miles. These decisions have nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with flavor.

As for you, Jayabalard, I take it that you prefer to remain closer to the Arthurian rare-magic side of the spectrum. That's your preference, an you are, of course, free to stick to it as you see fit.

However, you must realise that the standard D&D world, as presented in the DMG is neither Arthurian nor Potteresque. It's somewhere in the middle of things. Magic is common enough to those with the resources to obtain it, but most folks will go their whole lives only dreaming about obtaining such fantastic abilities or items.


it's does break the verisimilitude if the items are only prevalent for the PCs and not for the rest of the world. If there's a magic shop in every small town selling dozens of magic items, then every tom, richard and harry is going to be buying them too, because something with a supply that high and only adventurers for demand can't keep high enough prices to avoid having the world overrun with magic items... and like I said originally: "That's not a game world that I'm interested in playing in"
First of all, what you attempt to describe is not the fault of the prevalence of magic items in itself. That is a matter of the prevalence of magic items combined with a number of economic and social factors.

Second, what you describe isn't true to begin with. At least, using demographics as recommended by the 3.x DMG. PC-type characters, including particularly high level NPCs, aren't very common. They represent, at best, 5-10% of the world population (ballpark estimate without any hard calculation on my part. May be a bit off). This is not enough to give any object with high relative prevalence among PC-types, enough absolute prevalence to overrun anything. After all, there is a relatively high prevalence of large, multi-acre estates among the richest 10% of the real world. But that's not driving property values down far enough to make such estates high prevalence to the world's population in general.

Ulzgoroth
2007-05-18, 04:16 PM
Those are prices stop making sense once magic items start becoming common enough, and that's the sort of world you have if magic items are quick, easy and painless to make.
Quick? Maybe. Easy and painless? As easy and painless as being a mid-level magic user, devoting one or more feats to it, and shelling out thousands of GP in materials. Again, thousands of GP in materials. Thousands of GP may come easy to dungeon-delving lunatics with the hand of an overdeity (DM) generally trying to keep them alive, but not so much for the rest of the world. As others have noted.

And what really makes no sense is setting it up so that people with enough currency to buy a small country have to spend weeks searching before they can buy something...that costs a tenth of their petty cash. Unless they're so unique that no one would never expect customers with their interests, and in that case 3/4 of the items in the DMG would never have been built, anywhere, ever. Because a Handy Haversack is an overpriced waste of time for normal people...

Also, I'd note that I'm not currently buried to the waist in primitive melee weapons, despite their having been fairly quick, easy, painless, and useful to make for hundreds of years. Because things break. Magic items break too...wondrous items, if I recall correctly, are no more durable than an equivalent mundane garment, and even arms and armor aren't that tough. What you use, you use up...

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 04:50 PM
In any case, I tend to take it you feel the game world presented by the 3.x DMGs is "overrun with magic items." My use of the phrase "few magic items" was, in turn made in relation to the frequency of magic items as recommended by the 3.x DMG. As such, the relative difference between the concepts is, to my frame of reference, nonexistent.Since it looks like you may have missed the poster I was responding to: "overrun with magic items" is in response to someone who is advocating allowing PCs to create magic items while traveling at a highly reduced time.

The guidelines in the DMG make item creation seem to easy as it is... but cutting that time like he's suggesting going to make the world either unbelievable, or overrun by items.


Also, I'd note that I'm not currently buried to the waist in primitive melee weapons, despite their having been fairly quick, easy, painless, and useful to make for hundreds of years. Because things break. Magic items break too...wondrous items, if I recall correctly, are no more durable than an equivalent mundane garment, and even arms and armor aren't that tough. What you use, you use up...
1. Rings and other jewelry aren't particularly likely to be broken, unless someone breaks or melts them down intentionally; in the real world it isn't hard to find jewelry that's pretty old... my wedding band is more than 60 years old, and my mother has some pieces of my great grandparent's jewelry (wedding rings I think) that are probably over 100 years old. Any that are made will last for centuries.
2. Magic weapons and armor are quite a bit more durable than non-magic ones, and even non-magic ones are pretty durable. As an example: there are literally thousands of Randall made knives (high quality, hand made knife maker) in the world today, and they've been in business for less than 100 years. If magic knives are quick and easy (ie, just buy the stuff and go) to make, then every household in the D&D world would have a few of them.
3. In the real world, those primitive weapons are not meaningful weapons anymore, they were supplanted by technology; so there was no reason to preserve them as weapons. In a D&D world, where technology doesn't advance (unless you play steampunk), those weapons aren't supplanted by guns.

LotharBot
2007-05-18, 04:56 PM
most of my gaming is not in D&D

I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about what you do in not-D&D, or what you do in a heavily modified D&D gameworld that's been houseruled such that magic items are extremely rare.

I'm operating from the assumption that my characters are somewhere near WBL in D&D 3.5, and I think that's a fair assumption to have made in this thread. Given that assumption, I think it makes far more sense to decrease, rather than increase, crafting time. And, of course, it makes sense for DM's to be careful not to allow players to create custom items without carefully weighing the costs.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 05:10 PM
The guidelines in the DMG make item creation seem to easy as it is... but cutting that time like he's suggesting going to make the world either unbelievable, or overrun by items.
As has been mentioned, there are plenty of other factors to consider other than time required. The fact that the spellcaster is paying the same material and xp cost is one of them.


1. Rings and other jewelry aren't particularly likely to be broken, unless someone breaks or melts them down intentionally; in the real world it isn't hard to find jewelry that's pretty old... my wedding band is more than 60 years old, and my mother has some pieces of my great grandparent's jewelry (wedding rings I think) that are probably over 100 years old. Any that are made will last for centuries.
All the same, I certainly don't find such jewelry common/prevalent/overrunning my corner of the world.

And doesn't antique jewlery appreciate in value?


As an example: there are literally thousands of Randall made knives (high quality, hand made knife maker) in the world today, and they've been in business for less than 100 years.
It should be noted that in a world of six billion people, one can hardly claim thousands of knives makes such knives particularly prevalent.

I should also hope that Randall knives are high quality and significantly more durable than other brands, given their price. I also doubt those knives are quick or easy to make. (EDIT: The five year waiting list (http://www.randallknives.com/faq.php#2) on new orders is testament to that.)

In any case, even the most durable of objects have nasty habits of being broken, sometimes intentionally, or lost. That's why so many of the old items wind up in ancient dungeons.


In a D&D world, where technology doesn't advance (unless you play steampunk), those weapons aren't supplanted by guns.
Where do you get the idea D&D technology doesn't advance?

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 05:26 PM
I don't recall mentioning any other system except as a reference; I was just pointing out "how many of your players take X feat" isn't really a meaningful to the discussion.

Nor have I recall mentioning any house rules that make magic items extremely rare; about the closest I came to that was mentioning that just finding a seller for a particular item isn't necessarily easy. I do find it kind of ... funny... that you are basically saying that "I don't care about how you houserule the game, but here is my houserule to speed up item creation"

I'm not particularly interested in RAW debates about something that has nothing to do with RAW, and everything to do with maintaining a believable game world. Whether you follow WBL or not, there's no reason to speed up item creation to the point that you can't realistically justify the prices of the items due to how common they've become.

"not overrun by magic items" does not mean "extremely rare"

Dausuul
2007-05-18, 05:32 PM
How does it screw anyone over? I they can make magic items, it's just not going to be instant gratification. If you're going to spend all of your time out and adventuring, then obviously you don't have the time to devote to crafting magic items except when there's a break in the action.

But you implied they are giving up adventuring opportunities, so there isn't in fact a break in the action. That's the point. They have to choose between being adventurers, which is after all the main focus of D&D, and using their abilities.


Lots of ways; I prefer a game world that isn't overrun by magic item, and that means that that they must be hard to make.

It ain't exactly easy. Most people in D&D don't have piles of gold and exotic components.


I can understand that some people just want the to increase the numbers written down on their character sheet, and they want it now, but I don't really I think that works to create a believable world, nor do I find that very entertaining.

Gee, thanks.

Let's phrase this another way. Some people want to play crafters of magic items. Their friends want to play rough-and-tumble adventurers. And indeed, most of those item crafters also want a chance to use their items, in rough-and-tumble adventures.

In order for the item crafters to do their thing, everyone else has to sit and wait. I regard this as a problem, because it makes the game less fun for everyone else. It also screws with the ability of the DM to plot out a campaign arc, because the DM has to build in some opportunities for down time, which may not fit at all with the storyline. Epic quests and down time do not generally coexist.

Therefore, for the sake of people who like to be crafters of magic items and for the sake of their companions, I allow them to craft while they travel. It takes the same amount of time, but the fighter and the cleric and the rogue don't have to cool their heels for three weeks while the wizard does it. It has no effect on the overall frequency of magic items in the world, because the vast majority of magic-item-making NPCs are stay-at-home wizards who wouldn't be doing other stuff anyhow.


whereas I believe that if you don't have the time available to devote to making magic items, then you shouldn't be able to make the items.

Okay. So why do you let PCs take item creation feats at all?

If you like a game where item creation takes a long time, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with letting PCs take certain abilities and then punishing them for using those abilities.


They should be hard to make, not instant gratification; otherwise there'd be so many magic items that level 1 commoners would be tripping over them in their own houses.

So in your world, level 1 commoners have thousands of gold pieces to spend on materials to make those items? Not to mention hundreds of experience points? The time required for making magic items is not a limiting factor for the NPC wizards who do most of the item crafting in the world. It's only a limiting factor for PC wizards who have to go out and do battle with Evil all the time. For the NPCs, the big limitation is all the money and experience they have to spend.

Jayabalard
2007-05-18, 05:34 PM
Where do you get the idea D&D technology doesn't advance?There are no guns in the game (at least, none of mine), and Elves and dwarves have been using the same weapons and materials for thousands of years. Obliviously the laws of physics in the D&D world are different enough that they can't advance any further technologically... it's probably something related to magic.

Of course that's different if you're going to play steampunk of some flavor...

Arbitrarity
2007-05-18, 05:40 PM
If they want to craft on the go, get an artificer. Then everyone has magic items, and the artificer uses his homunculus to craft.

Or, use Craft Points, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm)

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 06:25 PM
I'm not particularly interested in RAW debates about something that has nothing to do with RAW, and everything to do with maintaining a believable game world.
In that case, you wish to move the discussion even further off topic. The primary subject of this thread very much deals with the RAW of a specific edition of a specific game. If you're not interested in discussing those details, perhaps you're in the wrong place.


There are no guns in the game (at least, none of mine)..
There were no guns in 900 CE. Therefore, technology doesn't advance!


and Elves and dwarves have been using the same weapons and materials for thousands of years.
There are still plenty of objects and materials in use in 200 BCE that are used today. Some of them have been improved upon. But a hammer's still a hammer, a bow is still a bow, iron is still iron, and wood is still wood. Doesn't mean technology hasn't advanced or that there haven't been occasional alterations and substitutions along the way.


Obliviously the laws of physics in the D&D world are different enough that they can't advance any further technologically...
Not quite sure what physics has to do with something that's a function of intelligence, creativey, social conditioning, and blind luck.


...it's probably something related to magic.
Unless you drag that into it. The great thing about a fantasy world is that there's always room to hand wave it with "A Wizard Did It!" :smallwink:

In any case, it's just silly to think that technology in an alternate world must follow a pattern or rate of development that in any way matches the pattern and rate of development in the real world.

fortebraccio
2007-05-18, 08:47 PM
As a side note, a lenient DM could possibly allow this:

Ring of True Strike: CL 9, SL 5 (Quickened True Strike) x 2000 GPs; x4 (the spell's original duration is 1 round at most). For 360.000GPs, you get a +20 bonus to your first attack roll each round.