The Item Creation Thread

[Stegyre]

I’ve been promising myself to start this thread for some time.

Purpose

(1) If you have any questions about item creation rules, whether for magic or psionic or any other type of item, please feel free to post it here. Yes, you may also ask such questions in the RAW thread, but (a) item creation, in general, is not well addressed by RAW; instead of having hard, fast answers, RAW really defers to GM judgment; and (b) the RAW thread is intended for succinct answers to succinct questions, no extended debate or discussion. In this thread, I encourage that discussion.

As in the RAW threads, please number your questions with bold numbers:
Q 1 (question)
Q 2 (question), etc.

Those responding, please follow the same pattern, of course.

(2) A second major purpose for this thread is to post proposed items for review and comment. Points to address, both by the initial poster and by respondents include but are not limited to (a) how to calculate an appropriate price for the proposed item (including how the existing rules address it, or should address it), and (b) particularly important (at least, IMHO) whether an item is overpowered, either for its calculated cost or otherwise.

(3) Feel free, also, to discuss item creation in general. Item creation debates that start in other threads are welcome to migrate here. Proposals, whether for interpreting the existing rules or for a home brew item creation process, are welcome here. And so forth.

The thread is open, and I will add some of my own posts soon enough.

Supplemental item creation rules derived from this thread:

Spoiler

Show

Pending discussion: 1. -1 attribute damage caused by a weapon hit is a +2bonus. Basis: wounding, which does 1 point of constitution damage on a successful hit.

Supplemental items derived from this thread:

Spoiler

Show

pending

[PinkysBrain]

Just want to point out that there is a very good argument to be made that the custom magic item pricing table is actually only there as a guideline for the DM, not an actual set of rules.

People on both sides of this are never going to agree with each other ... but two sides there are.

[Stegyre]

Just want to point out that there is a very good argument to be made that the custom magic item pricing table is actually only there as a guideline for the DM, not an actual set of rules.

People on both sides of this are never going to agree with each other ... but two sides there are.

If there are two sides to this argument, then you and I are on the same one. I think there's language explicitly on point, in the DMG if not in the SRD. This is why, IMO, item creation questions don't really belong in the RAW thread: RAW punts the question. This is why I wanted to set up a separate thread.

[ericgrau]

Like the pirates code, these are more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules. While you could tell someone exactly what the baseline price should be, from there it might be adjusted or the item might be disallowed entirely. There's a lot of opinion involved here, and in the end it's up to individual DM.

[Stegyre]

Like the pirates code, these are more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules. While you could tell someone exactly what the baseline price should be, from there it might be adjusted or the item might be disallowed entirely. There's a lot of opinion involved here, and in the end it's up to individual DM.

Again, this highlights the purpose for this thread. DMs, in particular (especially new DMs), can use guidance from the community as to whether a proposed item (a) duplicates an already existing item (and hence should have a comparable cost), or (b) is too imbalancing, for reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

I don't expect this thread to lay down the law on anything, but I do hope it will generate an interesting bank of new items, as well as more general rules on how item creation should be governed.

[subject42]

Q1
In the SRD the "wounding" enchantment does 1 point of CON damage per successful hit at a +2 cost. Should other ability damage to other stats have the same cost?

[Fitz]

con damage is considered to be the nastiest to face, so other ability damage probably should be lower in cost, however i suspect a) it would be a niche application and b) it won't make a full +1 differece down to a +1 ability, so would expect any other ability damage ability to cost the same as wounding

Fitz

[Croverus]

Q1My only question is how can a character with no caster level who is skilled at making weapons create anything beyond Mastrcraft weaponry? Is it possible for, say a 5th level expert with a total Craft(arms and armor) skill bonus in the mid-teens ever create a +1 morning star or stronger magic items? Without any levels as a spellcaster.

[ericgrau]

Again, this highlights the purpose for this thread. DMs, in particular (especially new DMs), can use guidance from the community as to whether a proposed item (a) duplicates an already existing item (and hence should have a comparable cost), or (b) is too imbalancing, for reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

I don't expect this thread to lay down the law on anything, but I do hope it will generate an interesting bank of new items, as well as more general rules on how item creation should be governed.

Fair enough. [Rereads first post]. Oh, you already said it; that's what I get for not reading a thread carefully enough. My apologies.

A2 (A1?). By the rules, no. He can only make masterwork items even faster. In general crafting tends to be too slow and minor to be worth it for PCs. It's better for NPCs with more time on their hands and a lower expected income. You could however house rule a method for non-caster creation of magic items, and I think I saw a recent thread discussing this.

[PinkysBrain]

Here's an item I think should exist :

Fusor
This appears to be a set of oversized scales. When 2 items are placed on either plate as well as sufficient gems it will transfer all the magic properties of both items to the item on the plate holding the gems, consuming the gems. Sufficient gems are necessary to cover the difference between the value of the original and the new items.

Strong Transmutation; CL 17; Craft Wondrous Item, Wish;Price 100.000 gp;Weight 100 lb

[Croverus]

Ok, thanks. Just curoius because I'm playing a PC who will start as the Expert class, and his background is that he's a blacksmith. I'll talk to my GM about maybe some houserule that would let me make magic items.

[Stegyre]

Q1My only question is how can a character with no caster level who is skilled at making weapons create anything beyond Mastrcraft weaponry? Is it possible for, say a 5th level expert with a total Craft(arms and armor) skill bonus in the mid-teens ever create a +1 morning star or stronger magic items? Without any levels as a spellcaster.

A2 additional
(Croverus, please edit to Q2; you were ninja'd for Q1.)
We can be hypertechnical and say be a psionic class and get Craft Psionic Arms & Armor. You don't need "caster levels" then, you just use "manifester levels," instead.
Somehow, I doubt that really addresses your issue. Ericgrau's answer is essentially correct: someone involved in the creation must have some sort of caster level or caster level equivalent (like manifester levels, for psionic items, or the artificer's ability -- although technically not a "caster" -- to create items as if he had a CL of artificer level +2).

However, the rule is really just that someone with the necessary CL needs to be involved in the process. Prerequisites for creating items may come from more than one person. It is not explicitly stated in RAW, but presumably, this could even include the XP cost. (IMO, a good houserule is that the character who is commissioning an item participates in its creation and supplies the XP, whether or not he may supply other prerequisites.)

[Random832]

I don't really understand the price adjustment.

The laws of the universe shouldn't care how useful someone finds something. A certain amount of material components (whose normal market price is 50% of the "base price" from the table) and a certain amount of XP (1/25 of the "base price") should be required for an item that has a given spell a given number of times with a given activation method, regardless of how useful or useless it is.

Now, you could argue that the usefulness would affect the market price. This is arguably true at first. But let's apply economics to D&D for a minute.

At "first", upon invention of a magic item that is particularly useful for its base cost, demand will skyrocket (because it is underpriced). This drives the price up. (to a lesser degree, it drives demand up for the material components, which will increase the price of _every_ magic item)

Now, since it is much more profitable to make these (since the price is up but the cost is not up by quite as much), the market will be flooded. Eventually this reaches a point where everyone has one (so demand is reduced back to lower levels, reducing the price, which reduces supply back to normal levels.) - Everyone having one also has the game-balancing factor of making it so that having one doesn't give you as much of an edge.

So the key to game balance isn't to apply arbitrary price controls, it's to just say "since this is so useful, everyone's going to have one, and it's not as game-breaking to have a cheap magic item if all your enemies are also going to have them"

[Stegyre]

I've added two additional edits to the OP, one for supplemental item creation rules; the other for good new magic items. In both cases, I'd like these to be for rules/items that have been vetted and discussed. While I have a "final say" in what gets included by virtue of my position as thread starter, I actually want these to ultimately include rules or items that, even if I don't agree with them, have a consensus. (That being said, I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, who will probably agree with anything that has good support.)

So far, I've just added one supplemental rule, arising out of Q1, which still should be discussed: -1 attribute damage caused by a weapon hit is a +2bonus. Basis: wounding, which does 1 point of constitution damage on a successful hit. While I think Fitz correctly notes that con. damage is among the most desirable, he's also correct in noting that there really isn't room to move downward from there without making other attribute damage too cheap.

Those who have an opinion, please discuss.

[Stegyre]

Here's an item I think should exist :

Fusor
This appears to be a set of oversized scales. When 2 items are placed on either plate as well as sufficient gems it will transfer all the magic properties of both items to the item on the plate holding the gems, consuming the gems. Sufficient gems are necessary to cover the difference between the value of the original and the new items.

Strong Transmutation; CL 17; Craft Wondrous Item, Wish;Price 100.000 gp;Weight 100 lb

The problem with this item is that it breaks some essential item creation mechanics:

First, no one is sacrificing the required time and XP. Multiple abilities in a single item are generally better than the same items, singly, distributed among multiple items. Consequently, such items typically require a 50% increase in material, XP and time costs, which helps limit their creation. With an item like this, characters can get better items, faster, and more cheaply than they otherwise could. While players may want that, IMO, it's not good for game balance.

Second, another rule this could break is the epic item rule: only epic items may have a creation cost in excess of 200,000. Use this device to combine only a few items and you'll likely violate that, especially as you should necessarily increase the creation cost of the cheaper item by 50% (the "multiple different abilities" cost increase).

I'd suggest revising and limiting this idea. Some revisions that may be workable: fuse potions, so a character can get the benefit of more than one type of potion by expending a single action. This could operate similarly to the {Scrubbed. If it's in the SRD or otherwise OGL, link to the SRD or WotC site. Don't link to that site or others where non-OGL material is posted in violation of copyright.}

[Stegyre]

The laws of the universe shouldn't care how useful someone finds something.

The laws of the universe may not care, but game balance does. Just giving the same, very good items to everyone, as you propose is a possible solution, but you should consider how that will change game play:

Let continuous "Protection from ____" items be purchased at their "rule" cost (it's 8,000, assuming an appropriate slot) and charm and other compulsion spells and SLAs are now worthless. Characters won't bother learning such spells if these items are common enough that opponents have them, and creatures whose CRs are boosted by such abilities are now over-rated.

You can still play the game and (if universally applied) that game can still be "balanced," but the more you do this, the farther and farther the game verges from a "standard" 3.5 game and the harder it is for veterans of other campaigns to adapt to yours (and vice-versa).

[PinkysBrain]

The problem with this item is that it breaks some essential item creation mechanics:

First, no one is sacrificing the required time and XP.

Time is money ... you're paying more money than if it was crafted (you pay the difference in item values, not crafting cost).

With an item like this, characters can get better items, faster, and more cheaply than they otherwise could.

Faster yes, cheaper no ... it costs them more money, less XP.

Second, another rule this could break is the epic item rule: only epic items may have a creation cost in excess of 200,000.

That's easy enough to fix ... but a gp limit alone isn't really a fix.

The MiC infinite combination limited only by gp rules are unstable to begin with ... if you just sweep together all the low gp high power items it's easy to overpower any character, before the MiC the power of these items were at least limited by slot availability ... but no longer.

[PinkysBrain]

I don't really understand the price adjustment.

Actually I completely agree with this.

With good item pricing guidelines it shouldn't matter (note that the DMG/SRD ones are lacking, for instance target/range doesn't enter into the equation at all ... personal buffs are significantly more powerful than targeted buffs, but end up costing the same with the guidelines). If the spell is appropriate for it's level/duration/target/etc it should be appropriate for an item priced with such guidelines ... if the item is too good it's because the spell is too good.

It's not like it's hard to make your character a gish and/or UMD user and get access to the spells that way ... it's just boring to be forced into it by a system which refuses to give anyone else nice things. Custom items should let everyone get nice things, instead of just casters. If it shows fault lines in the game fix them, it's nothing which couldn't be exploited anyway by hybrid casters.

Pricing items based on how good Skip Williams thinks items are ends up with rings of invisibility ... a ring a high level rogue might consider putting in his pocket if he finds it in loot. Buying it at a level where it's a significant part of your wealth and sacrificing an item slot for it? Never no way.

[Johel]

Now, you could argue that the usefulness would affect the market price. This is arguably true at first. But let's apply economics to D&D for a minute.^

While I agree with your market analyse of magical components, magical items and such, let's not forget a few facts :

• The number of spellcasters is supposed to be small.
• The higher the "level", the fewer the people.
• Magic is supposed to have been around for centuries.
• Create a magic item costs XP.
• "Create Magic X" is useless before level 5.
• "Create Magic X" becomes really usefull only past level 10.

If you combine these factors, that means the market has a very low offer because :

• There isn't many spellcasters to begin with.
• Most spellcasters can't create items or at least not a lot.
• Most of those who can are busy adventuring, searching new spells or doing something not related to the market.

On the other hand, the demand is so high than even double productions won't change the price much. Because magic has been around in its actual form for centuries, the market has already experienced several cycles and isn't reacting to offer and demand, since those aren't going to evolve much.

There's plenty of other threads about D&D economy. I agree with you, it's not realistic but it makes a good game as long as people aren't too logical about its inner working.

[PinkysBrain]

Let continuous "Protection from ____" items be purchased at their "rule" cost (it's 8,000, assuming an appropriate slot) and charm and other compulsion spells and SLAs are now worthless.

Quite a few of these items spread around WotC books.

PS. which is not to say that I think allowing a lot of continuous buffs is good for the game.

[Stegyre]

Fusor
It should be clear that I'm not saying the concept is hopeless but that it needs to be fleshed out and (almost certainly) limited. That being said:

Time is money ... you're paying more money than if it was crafted (you pay the difference in item values, not crafting cost).

But you're not (currently) paying anything for the saved time. By the existing rules, creating the combined item from scratch would almost necessarily take an amount of additional time equal to 50% of the time for the lower-cost item. At a minimum, why should we not require the Fusor to take that amount of time to complete its work?

Faster yes, cheaper no ... it costs them more money, less XP.

(a) How is it costing more money? From the base description, it sounds like the user only pays the difference between the cost of the two items and the cost of the combined item. That amounts to the same cost as if the character purchased the finished item.
(b) WHY should it cost less XP? That starts to smell like game-breaking Thought Bottle mechanics. Maybe I am alone in this opinion -- -- but items cost XP because they are worth XP. (Actually, they are probably worth substantially more XP than their cost, which is why the magic market is so hot; that and the fact that NPCs are probably underpaid for their XP at only 5 gp per.)

That's easy enough to fix ... but a gp limit alone isn't really a fix.

The MiC infinite combination limited only by gp rules are unstable to begin with ... if you just sweep together all the low gp high power items it's easy to overpower any character, before the MiC the power of these items were at least limited by slot availability ... but no longer.

Yet the fusor, as it presently stands, would be part of the problem, not part of any solution. It's a given that the item creation rules are neither determinative nor binding; they are at best guidelines. That's one of the reasons for this thread: to address points where those guidelines may lead players and GMs astray.

At a minimum, the epic limit sets a limit on how much awesumeness can be infused into one object. Because of the (IMO) incredible abundance of body slots, it does not place a real limitation on character power, only on item power. Using all body slots, a character may have 15*200,000 = 3M gp in magical potency, not counting weapons, tools, and everything else he carries in bags of holding (as well as in that ultra-enhanced belt-of-hidden-pouches-super-strength-energy-resistance-etc.)

Of course, that's really a side issue.

I do think a Potion Fusor is an idea that could have some legs. Potions otherwise are disfavored, but this could give them some real utility.

[Lysander]

All right. I have two questions:

Q3: Can any spell be tied to a magic item?
Q4: Could you make an object that permanently emits an anti-magic field?

[Johel]

Fusor
At a minimum, the epic limit sets a limit on how much awesumeness can be infused into one object. Because of the (IMO) incredible abundance of body slots, it does not place a real limitation on character power, only on item power. Using all body slots, a character may have 15*200,000 = 3M gp in magical potency, not counting weapons, tools, and everything else he carries in bags of holding (as well as in that ultra-enhanced belt-of-hidden-pouches-super-strength-energy-resistance-etc.)

Try to play a 14th level Bard, OGL only, without stuffing yourself up to the ears and I'm sure your idea of "abundance" will skrink.
For wizards, though, it's sure is a lot but, past level 10, in most settings, wizards on their way to godhood anyway.

I do think a Potion Fusor is an idea that could have some legs. Potions otherwise are disfavored, but this could give them some real utility

Unless you don't have UMD, potions are useless.
They are expansive and fragile.

So I like your idea, here.
Let's push it further :
Spellcasters should make potions first to create magical items.
The liquid would work as some sort of oil in which the item must be bathed for several days, with the caster casting the spells over the pool several times during the whole process.

Q3: Can any spell be tied to a magic item?
Q4: Could you make an object that permanently emits an anti-magic field?

A3 : Any spell *can* be tied to a wondrous object.
But the price is going to go up pretty quick.
Wands are limited to 4th level spells.
Potions are limited to 3rd level spells.
A4 : Yes... and your MD should allow it. If only for fighters to get a chance against spellcasters past level 10.

[Stegyre]

Quite a few of these items spread around WotC books.

PS. which is not to say that I think allowing a lot of continuous buffs is good for the game.

Yes, and this one even has a comparable, rule book price tag:
16,000: the price of an (intelligent) item that can create a "Magic Circle Against _____" at will. (SRD)

I'm in full agreement that some buffs are just too good to be available as items (particularly continuous-effect items), much though I lust for them as a player. My favorite is still a continuous Sanctuary effect.

The problem is not always that the spell is "too good." While low level, these spells often have very limited durations. Some buffs become overpowered when they are kept on even in situations where the player would otherwise never cast the spell (Sanctuary and Protection from being two very good examples). Now, the disguised vampire lord cannot subtly charm or suggest a key party member before the fighting breaks out; an assassin or scout has to make a saving role to even attack that sentry; etc.

Such items may still be available, but at a minimum, they need to be priced appropriately (i.e., much higher than the forumula values). Exotic component requirements, requiring quests to distant and dangerous locations would not be inappropriate, and would also help to explain why such products were not more commonplace.

[PinkysBrain]

My favorite is still a continuous Sanctuary effect.

This is like continuous True Strike ... I'd allow it as a DM, but the player wouldn't be too happy about the result (ie. it's active until discharged/interrupted ... and then it never works again).

Here is an old set of custom magic item guidelines in which I tried to bring some sanity to the DMG/SRD ones (I used to think that 1 continuous spell effect per item slot was enough limitation, but in retrospect that's way too much ... with 1 per ring it should be okay). I already fixed the continuous true strike/sanctuary stuff at the time.

[Akal Saris]

Q3: How do magic item creation cost reducers stack with each other? Potential cost reducers include the following:

Extroardinary, Legendary, Exceptional Artisan (EBCS)
Magical artisan (PGtF)
Cost reducers for class-based, alignment-based, or race-based restrictions (DMG)

For example, If I'm making a Ring of Protection +3 and have Extraordinary Artisan, Magical Artisan (Forge Ring), and I limit it to be usable only by LN Female Elven Wizards, what is the final GP/XP cost to create the ring?

I'm asking this because I think that % cost reducers are a function of item crafting that are easily confusing, and I tend to have trouble with them myself.

[Johel]

This is like continuous True Strike ... I'd allow it as a DM, but the player wouldn't be too happy about the result (ie. it's active until discharged/interrupted ... and then it never works again).

The price of a continuous True Strike is going to be reeeeally high, since you must refer to the "Effect" priceguide before the "Spell Effect" priceguide (see the examples in the SRD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm
20 * 20 * 2.000 = 800.000

[PinkysBrain]

But you're not (currently) paying anything for the saved time. By the existing rules, creating the combined item from scratch would almost necessarily take an amount of additional time equal to 50% of the time for the lower-cost item. At a minimum, why should we not require the Fusor to take that amount of time to complete its work?

It's irrelevant for balance ... time passing is just saying "time passes".

(a) How is it costing more money?

It costs more than crafting.

but items cost XP because they are worth XP.

Ever played an artificer?

Items cost XP because Skip Williams&Co thought it a good idea ... XP is worth very little though for an adventurer. Adventuring with a band of people merely 1 level above you will earn you the lost XP back very fast.

[PinkysBrain]

The price of a continuous True Strike is going to be reeeeally high, since you must refer to the "Effect" priceguide before the "Spell Effect" priceguide (see the examples in the SRD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm
20 * 20 * 2.000 = 800.000

You missed my point, that's not a continous True Strike ... that's a continuously reactivating true strike ...

Also I completely disagree with the line of reasoning. I believe that with good pricing guidelines the effects of the spell is irrelevant ... if you end up with items which are too good for their price it's because the spells are too good in the first place. If you don't fix it for the spells then don't begrudge the players who don't want to play gishes the items.

[Johel]

You missed my point, that's not a continous True Strike ... that's a continuously reactivating true strike ...

Also I completely disagree with the line of reasoning. I believe that with good pricing guidelines the effects of the spell is irrelevant ... if you end up with items which are too good for their price it's because the spells are too good in the first place. If you don't fix it for the spells then don't begrudge the players who don't want to play gishes the items.

Well, it's not reasoning, it's the way it's done for most items.
Whenever a spell's direct effect is to give a bonus listed in the "Effect" priceguide, it uses the "Effect" priceguide rather than the "Spelleffect" priceguide.

(also, I miscalculated the price. That's 800.000 x 4 because it's a 1 action duration. 3.200.000 gp. So that's really expansive...)