Random rule question - spell(s) in/on items

[Uskardx42]

I was talking with a friend about 3.5 rules and crafting magic items and he claimed that in 3.5 only one copy of any one particular spell could be placed on any one item.

For example, one could not put two copies of haste on the same pair of boots (see Boots of Speed in the 3.5 DMG pg. 250) to use it for 20 rounds per day. As opposed to the 10 rounds stated in the DMG.
Or, as another example, if the spell "Burning Hands" was built into a gem as a one (1) time use per day wondrous item that another copy of the same spell could also not be put into the same gem.

If these examples do not make sense I will try and explain the source of the confusion in a better fashion.

If this is true that only one copy of any one spell can be put into any one item, can you direct me to where this rule is found in which book.


Thank you for any help.

Uskardx42

[Venger]

"copies of spells" aren't really a thing for magic items. what you're referring to is uses per day. you're allowed to make magic items with more uses per day if you like, you just pay the relevant cost (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm) according to the formula as normal.

[Uncle Pine]

2/day items, as well as at-will ones, exist. Your friend is wrong. You can find the relevant rules for creating custom magic items in the back of your DMG (as well as the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)). Magic Item Compendium expands on these rules, but it's not strictly necessary.

[BowStreetRunner]

Note that while rules exist for allowing higher and lower numbers of uses per day, you still only need one copy of the relevant spell to create the item. So the person using the relevant Item Creation feat doesn't need to have more than one copy of the spell on-hand during the process.

[Uskardx42]

Thank you for all of the replies thus far.

I suppose I wasn't super clear in my question.

Yes, I understand the uses per day aspect, though my question is related to that.


So if I enchant a gem with one copy of "Burning Hands" usable one time per day, I believe that the cost for making such an item would be as follows:

--> Feat : "Craft Wondrous Item" (since this is not a weapon or armor or wand or scroll)

--> Caster level = 1 * Spell level = 1 = (1*1*1,800 gold) (because same as command word) = 1,800 Base Price
BUT since the spell in the gem is set to only be usable 1/day then the base price is adjusted by dividing by 5.
**( please see 3.5 DMG pg. 285 : Table 7-33 : line under SPECIAL labeled "charges per day)

This takes the base price (1,800 gold as above) and divided that by the quantity of (5 divided by the number of charges per day.) In this case that would be (5 / 1) = 5. Then the base prices is divided by that amount ( 5 ) in this case.

So 1,800 / 5 = 360 Base Price Gold and thus cost of item is 360 gold

--> Crafter out of pocket gold cost = 1/2 cost of item's Base Price = 360/2 = 180 gold

--> XP cost = 1/25 of cost = 360/25 = 14.4 XP

--> Time = 8 hrs / 1000 gold = 8 hrs

So this creates one copy of a 1/day use "Burning Hands" spell that is stored in some item.


The actual question then is :
If I put this copy in the gem could I then make another copy, through this same process, and add it to the gem.
So basically adding one copy to the gem per day.

If the answer is yes, then are there any RAW related to the number of copies of the above construction that could be placed in the gem?
(Citations please as I would like to read the rules myself.)

If multiple copies of the same spell CANNOT be placed into the same item, please provide RAW and citations as well.


Thank you in advance and I really appreciate any advice and insight that can be offered.

Uskardx42

[BowStreetRunner]

The Magic Item Compendium has rules for Improving Magic Items on page 233. Basically, the process is exactly the same as if you were crafting the item from scratch, but the cost is reduced by the cost of the original item. So to make a 2/day gem of burning hands from a 1/day gem of burning hands the cost is going to be the price of a 2/day gem minus the cost of a 1/day gem.

[Venger]

There are no "copies." That's not a thing. There are daily uses of the spell. I already cited the relevant rules


"copies of spells" aren't really a thing for magic items. what you're referring to is uses per day. you're allowed to make magic items with more uses per day if you like, you just pay the relevant cost (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm) according to the formula as normal.

Your use of the formula is correct. If you wanted it to be 2/day, the cost is 720gp.

[Uskardx42]

There are no "copies." That's not a thing. There are daily uses of the spell. I already cited the relevant rules



Your use of the formula is correct. If you wanted it to be 2/day, the cost is 720gp.

So this is a situation where if I started with a 1/day burning hands gem and then wanted to increase it to 2/day I just pay the difference between the two?

Is there any upper limit to the number of uses per day that could be put on the item?
Or could it eventually end up being a "gem of burning hands" with 20/day uses with each use only being added one at a time?

[BowStreetRunner]

Is there any upper limit to the number of uses per day that could be put on the item?
The upper limit is an unlimited use item.

[Venger]

So this is a situation where if I started with a 1/day burning hands gem and then wanted to increase it to 2/day I just pay the difference between the two?

Is there any upper limit to the number of uses per day that could be put on the item?
Or could it eventually end up being a "gem of burning hands" with 20/day uses with each use only being added one at a time?

yes, that is correct.

while there is no limit, once you reach 6 charges a day, it is cheaper to go for an unlimited item instead.

[Uncle Pine]

So this is a situation where if I started with a 1/day burning hands gem and then wanted to increase it to 2/day I just pay the difference between the two?

Is there any upper limit to the number of uses per day that could be put on the item?
Or could it eventually end up being a "gem of burning hands" with 20/day uses with each use only being added one at a time?

The upper limit is an unlimited use item.

BowStreetRunner is correct. However, note that an at-will item is priced exactly as a 5/day one. This means that if you upgraded your 1/day burning hands gem to 2/day, then 3/day, and eventually 4/day, the most sensible upgrade would be to at-will burning hands gem rather than 5/day.

[Falontani]

Unlimited Use is awesome, how about continuous, where each round it activates until commanded to stop?

[Venger]

Unlimited Use is awesome, how about continuous, where each round it activates until commanded to stop?

burning hands is instantaneous. it cannot be made into a continuous item.

[BowStreetRunner]

burning hands is instantaneous. it cannot be made into a continuous item.
Besides, would you really want it to be continuous? I mean seriously, try putting THAT in your pocket!!! :smalleek:

[Blu]

Doesn't said gem also cost x2 since it does not occupy a body slot?

[BowStreetRunner]

Doesn't said gem also cost x2 since it does not occupy a body slot?
Good catch.

[Uskardx42]

Doesn't said gem also cost x2 since it does not occupy a body slot?


Good catch.


Why would this be a factor?
It is a gem that I am holding, not my boots.
How would it be different then holding a wand?

[Blu]

Why would this be a factor?
It is a gem that I am holding, not my boots.
How would it be different then holding a wand?

That's kind of the point. It's not a wand, it's a wondrous item, and as such it must abide by the body slot affinities rules.
Since the gem is not taking any of the body slots of your character(headband, hat, cloak, and etc...), even tough it is being held, it's cost gets doubled.

It is a little weird since there is no distinction between held items and other slotless items(like ioun stones for example). But, still it does not occupy one of your body slots.

[Uskardx42]

That's kind of the point. It's not a wand, it's a wondrous item, and as such it must abide by the body slot affinities rules.
Since the gem is not taking any of the body slots of your character(headband, hat, cloak, and etc...), even tough it is being held, it's cost gets doubled.

It is a little weird since there is no distinction between held items and other slotless items(like ioun stones for example). But, still it does not occupy one of your body slots.

So if I were to put that spell on a sword it wouldn't have the cost doubled simply because I am holding it and would have made it with the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat instead of Wondrous Item?

That makes little sense to me.

If I craft a magic speaking pane of glass, that is built into a window that I am not holding, that has unlimited use of the Whispering Wind spell, that would also be doubled?

Additionally, what if I buy a Wand of Burning Hands and I put the use activated Craft Wondrous Item Burning Hands on that wand.
Does it now also have to be doubled even though the item it is on was intended to cast the spell anyway?

Just trying to make sense of the rules.
:-)

--------------------------------------------------

Now I am even more confused by the crafting rules.

In the DMG it states that the Market Value for Heward's Handy Haversack is 2,000 g.
But it also states that the Caster Level to craft that item is CL 9 and thus the Spell Level would be 5.

So the crafting equation should look like :
CL = 9 * SL = 5 * 2,000 (for continuous) so 9x5x2,000 = 90,000 g yet it only costs 2,000g.
How is that figured?

[Blu]

So if I were to put that spell on a sword it wouldn't have the cost doubled simply because I am holding it and would have made it with the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat instead of Wondrous Item?

If you were to put the same 1/day burning hands on a sword, you would actually still be using craft woundrous item feat and rules since it's not a magical enchantment.


That makes little sense to me.

If I craft a magic speaking pane of glass, that is built into a window that I am not holding, that has unlimited use of the Whispering Wind spell, that would also be doubled?


It's not using one of your body slots. So yes.


Additionally, what if I buy a Wand of Burning Hands and I put the use activated Craft Wondrous Item Burning Hands on that wand.
Does it now also have to be doubled even though the item it is on was intended to cast the spell anyway?

Just trying to make sense of the rules.


If you put the 1/day burning hands then said wand would also be a wondrous item and the cost for it's enchantment on the wondrous part would be double since it does not use a body slot.

[Venger]

So if I were to put that spell on a sword it wouldn't have the cost doubled simply because I am holding it and would have made it with the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat instead of Wondrous Item?

That makes little sense to me.

If I craft a magic speaking pane of glass, that is built into a window that I am not holding, that has unlimited use of the Whispering Wind spell, that would also be doubled?

Additionally, what if I buy a Wand of Burning Hands and I put the use activated Craft Wondrous Item Burning Hands on that wand.
Does it now also have to be doubled even though the item it is on was intended to cast the spell anyway?

Just trying to make sense of the rules.
:-)

--------------------------------------------------

Now I am even more confused by the crafting rules.

In the DMG it states that the Market Value for Heward's Handy Haversack is 2,000 g.
But it also states that the Caster Level to craft that item is CL 9 and thus the Spell Level would be 5.

So the crafting equation should look like :
CL = 9 * SL = 5 * 2,000 (for continuous) so 9x5x2,000 = 90,000 g yet it only costs 2,000g.
How is that figured?

Do you know what a body slot is?

[Blu]

Now I am even more confused by the crafting rules.

In the DMG it states that the Market Value for Heward's Handy Haversack is 2,000 g.
But it also states that the Caster Level to craft that item is CL 9 and thus the Spell Level would be 5.

So the crafting equation should look like :
CL = 9 * SL = 5 * 2,000 (for continuous) so 9x5x2,000 = 90,000 g yet it only costs 2,000g.
How is that figured?

The rules for creating magical items in the DMG are only for new magical items, other items don't necessarily use said formulas.
Handy Haversack is a good example, it uses a 5th level spell but is only 2.000 gp, because de dev's decided to do so.
Maybe the reasoning behind it was that only providing carrying capacity was not that much of a bonus to be counted for a high price.

There are a lot of examples that the formulas produce different prices than items already present.
Another example is the ring of protection VS a theoretical item of continous shield of faith(the spell used on the creation of the ring).
The ring costs (deflection bonus squared) * 2k gp, with a +2 ring costing 8k gp.
The theoretical item would cost 2.000 gp * 1(caster level) * 1(spell level) * 2(duration in min/lvl) for 4k gp for the same +2 bonus.

For some reason the devs tought a deflection bonus to AC should cost more than the spell would imply.

[Fizban]

The only rules for item creation are the costs in gp, xp, and time based on the market price. Everything else, from what the item does to what what the market price actually is, is all up to the DM.

Are there guidelines to help DMs price items that aren't just conversions of existing items? Sure. But magic item pricing cannot be made sense of because there are no rules for magic item pricing.

You want to complain about pricing problems? Yeah, the Handy Haversack and every other extradimenional storage item is massively underpriced for supposedly being based on a 5th level spell. So are Sending Stones. In fact, most of the Magic Item Compendium laughs in the face of any attempt at formula pricing, because formula prices don't exist (except for direct consumables- scrolls, potions, wands, staves). Go crunch the numbers on Anklets of Translocation, ha.

Now if you go to something like Iron Kingdoms which has the replacement of normal magic items with a sort of "magitech" system with explicit pricing rules that the character is actually building in-character, that's different. Except the one thing that would have been interesting in that setting, the component that would need to be used to provide buffs in place of the usual 3.5 magic item, well that component is missing some important language. And then their update goes and makes it practically un-usable, while also saying that you should just use DMG items with a cost increase, and oh they added an infinite power source because why not? Yeah those books bugged me.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The Magic Item Compendium has rules for Improving Magic Items on page 233. Basically, the process is exactly the same as if you were crafting the item from scratch, but the cost is reduced by the cost of the original item. So to make a 2/day gem of burning hands from a 1/day gem of burning hands the cost is going to be the price of a 2/day gem minus the cost of a 1/day gem.
It look to me like he is adding an effect to a magic item.

If I remember correctly the cost should be the lowest price + the price of everything else*2

[BowStreetRunner]

It look to me like he is adding an effect to a magic item.

If I remember correctly the cost should be the lowest price + the price of everything else*2

I think you are referring to this rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities): "If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%." Which would mean that if you wanted to combine a ring of burning hands and a ring of water walking then the lowest cost ability would cost 150% and the higher cost ability would cost 100%.

But here you are just taking a gem of burning hands 1/day and turning it into a gem of burning hands 2/day. So it's not a new ability (just increased uses of the existing ability) plus it's not an object that occupies a specific place on a character’s body.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think you are referring to this rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities): "If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%." Which would mean that if you wanted to combine a ring of burning hands and a ring of water walking then the lowest cost ability would cost 150% and the higher cost ability would cost 100%.

But here you are just taking a gem of burning hands 1/day and turning it into a gem of burning hands 2/day. So it's not a new ability (just increased uses of the existing ability) plus it's not an object that occupies a specific place on a character’s body.
It look to me like the OP want to make two diffrent 1/day items of burning hands insted of one item with 2/day.

Treat it like two different abilities(I will not allow it in my game).

[Uskardx42]

It look to me like the OP want to make two diffrent 1/day items of burning hands insted of one item with 2/day.

Treat it like two different abilities(I will not allow it in my game).


My original intent was to try and figure out the pricing for having a gem that started with no spells, do the pricing for a 1/day, and then try and figure out if the same pricing structure could be used to add more times per day to the item.
And yes, now that I have run the numbers on adding an additional use per day, yes, adding the 6th use does cost more then making it at-will / continuous. And I know understand that a player could do the individual add and then pay the continuous cost at some point.

And I understand that the DM has the final say in anything.
The issue for me is I am trying, within the rules as written, to build a character that has the abilities and magical tools that I envision.
I don't mind home-brew, and it defiantly has it's place, but the issue I take with that is a player can just make up whatever they want or the DM can rule against some aspect of home-brew without supporting evidence as to why. The same goes for me, the player. If I want to have my character be able to do / have something I would prefer that it aligns with the rules and thus has support under it to strengthen the argument for inclusion in the game.

Please keep in mind this is all speculative as well as I do not have the time to actually play and D&D. But I do enjoy learning they system and trying to figure out how all the parts fit together to build something within the context and "reality" of the worlds that are constructed with the rules.


Thanks to all of you that have commented.
So far this has been somewhat helpful in learning how the RAW are interpreted.

[Uskardx42]

The only rules for item creation are the costs in gp, xp, and time based on the market price. Everything else, from what the item does to what what the market price actually is, is all up to the DM.

Are there guidelines to help DMs price items that aren't just conversions of existing items? Sure. But magic item pricing cannot be made sense of because there are no rules for magic item pricing.

You want to complain about pricing problems? Yeah, the Handy Haversack and every other extradimenional storage item is massively underpriced for supposedly being based on a 5th level spell. So are Sending Stones. In fact, most of the Magic Item Compendium laughs in the face of any attempt at formula pricing, because formula prices don't exist (except for direct consumables- scrolls, potions, wands, staves). Go crunch the numbers on Anklets of Translocation, ha.

Now if you go to something like Iron Kingdoms which has the replacement of normal magic items with a sort of "magitech" system with explicit pricing rules that the character is actually building in-character, that's different. Except the one thing that would have been interesting in that setting, the component that would need to be used to provide buffs in place of the usual 3.5 magic item, well that component is missing some important language. And then their update goes and makes it practically un-usable, while also saying that you should just use DMG items with a cost increase, and oh they added an infinite power source because why not? Yeah those books bugged me.

-------------------------------------------------------------

As you point out, there are no rules for item pricing. ( There is no spoon as well, of course. )
And while we need some kind of system to help manage and balance how much stuff costs, it also makes following the rules insanely difficult when trying to understand how they work together and how one constructs a character that fits within the rules.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Now I am even more confused by the crafting rules.

In the DMG it states that the Market Value for Heward's Handy Haversack is 2,000 g.
But it also states that the Caster Level to craft that item is CL 9 and thus the Spell Level would be 5.

So the crafting equation should look like :
CL = 9 * SL = 5 * 2,000 (for continuous) so 9x5x2,000 = 90,000 g yet it only costs 2,000g.
How is that figured?

There's a final step in the crafting guidelines that is often overlooked or forgotten; the ad-hoc adjustment. The guidelines specifically call on DMs to, after flowing the formula, compare the proposed item to similar items and to consider the potency of the item's effect and make a final adjustment to reflect those considerations.

Take your handy haversack example; the formula does indeed work out to 90K (though you forgot to halve the cost for the extreme duration and double it for no body slot when you showed your work). However, a command word item of shrink object would only cost 27k and be far more effective for the task of making carrying objects without difficulty since even at minimum Cl each use would offer nearly the same amount of "storage."

Moreover, if you bought mundane transport and hired the services of teamsters and porters for an extended period, you could dramatically exceed the limits of a handy haversack. You could hire a porter to carry the amount of weight that the haversack does for nearly 55 years at the 2k price it was given. In fact, I'd wager that was probably the bar used to set the price; the cost of effectively buying a permanent porter based on a typical, standard array human's carrying capacity and life-span and rounded to the nearest neat number.

It's just not worth 90k, no matter how you look at it, so an ad-hoc adjustment was made to bring its price in line with its value.

[Uskardx42]

There's a final step in the crafting guidelines that is often overlooked or forgotten; the ad-hoc adjustment. The guidelines specifically call on DMs to, after flowing the formula, compare the proposed item to similar items and to consider the potency of the item's effect and make a final adjustment to reflect those considerations.

Take your handy haversack example; the formula does indeed work out to 90K (though you forgot to halve the cost for the extreme duration and double it for no body slot when you showed your work). However, a command word item of shrink object would only cost 27k and be far more effective for the task of making carrying objects without difficulty since even at minimum Cl each use would offer nearly the same amount of "storage."

Moreover, if you bought mundane transport and hired the services of teamsters and porters for an extended period, you could dramatically exceed the limits of a handy haversack. You could hire a porter to carry the amount of weight that the haversack does for nearly 55 years at the 2k price it was given. In fact, I'd wager that was probably the bar used to set the price; the cost of effectively buying a permanent porter based on a typical, standard array human's carrying capacity and life-span and rounded to the nearest neat number.

It's just not worth 90k, no matter how you look at it, so an ad-hoc adjustment was made to bring its price in line with its value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.
So with all of this in mind, how is a player supposed to accurately project how much gold they would need to accomplish something if at the end of the day its all just made up anyway.

Again, please keep in mind everything I am doing is speculative as I do not currently have the capability to actually play and D&D.......
But I do enjoy reading though the books and thinking about how to put things together and use the rules to justify what my potential character could, or could not do.
:smallsmile:

[Kelb_Panthera]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.
So with all of this in mind, how is a player supposed to accurately project how much gold they would need to accomplish something if at the end of the day its all just made up anyway.

Again, please keep in mind everything I am doing is speculative as I do not currently have the capability to actually play and D&D.......
But I do enjoy reading though the books and thinking about how to put things together and use the rules to justify what my potential character could, or could not do.
:smallsmile:

It's just good, old-fashioned logic and rationale. Take the time to think about how -else- you might accomplish the same task, both with and especially without magic, and how the effect you're devising compares to the normal effect of the spell if the item you're deriving from it differs in some way.

Definitely compare to existing items wherever possible. Take the bag of holding I as an example; it serves the same purpose as a handy haversack but for a couple differences; it only has one interior space but that space is bigger than the HH and it's more difficult to recover items from it if it's holding more than an ordinary sack of its size.

Now, a bag of holding type 1 uses the same secret chest that the HH does as its base spell. We've already established that the formula's 90k is too much for this function by a huge margin so we go by similar item; the HH. The type 1 being more than twice as large as the HH is definitely worth a markup (let's say double; 4K) but it isn't as versatile (knock off around 500) and is a bit less convenient in a way that matters in a fight (another 1k off). So 2500 seems about right.

After you've reverse engineered enough items, you start to get a feel for how the ad-hocs were "calculated" and can start to mirror them if you want your pricing to be consistent with the published material.

[Nifft]

Exactly.
So with all of this in mind, how is a player supposed to accurately project how much gold they would need to accomplish something if at the end of the day its all just made up anyway.

You're supposed to use the existing magic items as guidelines for pricing.

Want an at-will level 2 spell? Look at the price for a Ring of Invisibility as a start.

The item pricing guidelines are useful a secondary source of guidance, after existing items.

The only way to actually be sure of item pricing is to run the game yourself as the dungeon master.