Magic Item Creation Costs - Concern (pg 112)


Combat & Magic


The feature of discounting prices on magic items if the item has a skill requirment or some other restriction such as class or alignment is one that I feel is a problem. Here is the wording for the discount on page 112:

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure,
reduce that number if either of the following conditions
applies:
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific
skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the
cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more
restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the
cost by 30%.

I don't feel this discount should exist - or perhaps if it does exist it should only reduce the resale price of the item, not the initial costs to create. Otherwise every time a player wants to create an item, he can make it have a class or alignment restriction and benefit from the 30% cost discount.


Eric Tillemans wrote:
. . .Otherwise every time a player wants to create an item, he can make it have a class or alignment restriction and benefit from the 30% cost discount.

If my understanding is correct, the Magic Items Gold Piece Values section is a guide for appropriately pricing new items that a GM or player designs, not to determine the cost of an item a character wishes to craft. Gold values for existing items are already determined.

For example, a wizard wouldn't be able to craft a belt of incredible dexterity and simply add a class restriction to gain a discount to the cost involved; that item has already been designed. In addition, when designing new items I would say it's up to the GM to determine is such a restriction, and the associated discount to cost, is valid in a given situation. A class restriction may be called for in an item designed to specifically interact with a class ability, but would probably be inappropriate for an item that provides a generic bonus to a character's attributes, HP, etc.


Heaven's Agent wrote:

If my understanding is correct, the Magic Items Gold Piece Values section is a guide for appropriately pricing new items that a GM or player designs, not to determine the cost of an item a character wishes to craft. Gold values for existing items are already determined.

For example, a wizard wouldn't be able to craft a belt of incredible dexterity and simply add a class restriction to gain a discount to the cost involved; that item has already been designed. In addition, when designing new items I would say it's up to the GM to determine is such a restriction, and the associated discount to cost, is valid in a given situation. A class restriction may be called for in an item designed to specifically interact with a class ability, but would probably be inappropriate for an item that provides a generic bonus to a character's attributes, HP, etc.

The problem is the quoted text I use is in the area of the rules used to determine the cost of the item and the discounts specifically call out 'cost' not 'price'. Pricing comes a couple of paragraphs later where it states price is double the cost.


Eric Tillemans wrote:
The problem is the quoted text I use is in the area of the rules used to determine the cost of the item and the discounts specifically call out 'cost' not 'price'. Pricing comes a couple of paragraphs later where it states price is double the cost.

This is true, but your missing my point. This section is not for determining the cost or price of items that have already been designed. These rules deal with new items that a DM or player is designing. There is no issue, because price is not a factor at that particular point in the item design process; price is determined by an item's cost, and as such can only be calculated after cost.


Heaven's Agent wrote:
This is true, but your missing my point. This section is not for determining the cost or price of items that have already been designed. These rules deal with new items that a DM or player is designing. There is no issue, because price is not a factor at that particular point in the item design process; price is determined by an item's cost, and as such can only be calculated after cost.

The entire reason I brought this up was because it's a section for determining new items, so I understand the point. If the cost to make the item can be descreased by 30% by adding a restriction, then it's abusable. Pathfinder seems to be trying to reign in areas where the rules are unclear enough to cause player/DM strife and I believe this is one such area.

As a DM I don't have a problem with it because I just say NO, but there's quite a few things I don't have a problem with as a DM in 3.5 that are being changed in Pathfinder RPG and I thought I'd help out by pointing out another possible area to fix.


Yes, but by their very definition, newly designed items have to be given an OK by the GM before a character can create them anyway.

If this allowed a crafter to add a class prerequisite or similar limitation to an already designed item they wanted to craft, I would agree with you. But what you're bringing up is purely a GM-player issue, and as a result can't be covered adequately by the basic rules; such situations are going to be different every time they surface, and cannot be foreseen or accounted for by any game's designers.


Heaven's Agent wrote:

Yes, but by their very definition, newly designed items have to be given an OK by the GM before a character can create them anyway.

If this allowed a crafter to add a class prerequisite or similar limitation to an already designed item they wanted to craft, I would agree with you. But what you're bringing up is purely a GM-player issue, and as a result can't be covered adequately by the basic rules; such situations are going to be different every time they surface, and cannot be foreseen or accounted for by any game's designers.

The entire section on magic item pricing is there to provide guidelines for designing new magic items. This particular discount should not be included in the rules at all if the process is supposed to be a GM-player issue. Either leave it out or do it right.


Eric Tillemans wrote:
The entire section on magic item pricing is there to provide guidelines for designing new magic items. This particular discount should not be included in the rules at all if the process is supposed to be a GM-player issue. Either leave it out or do it right.

You're right, it's a guideline; in the past, pricing and costs of new items have always been a murky concept at best, and traditionally it's been one of the most problematic concepts for GMs to overcome. Even during the RPG Superstar contest, the question of item worth came up constantly. Paizo is setting out to do something about it, and I'm glad that they are.

The discount is a valid factor in pricing such items. That said, you should note the section says nothing about when such a discount would be relevant. This is something only the GM can do, and only on a case-by-case basis.

It's not the rules that are a GM-player issue. What is such an issue is how the rules are utilized or interpreted, and this is something that can't be designed into a system.


Heaven's Agent wrote:

You're right, it's a guideline; in the past, pricing and costs of new items have always been a murky concept at best, and traditionally it's been one of the most problematic concepts for GMs to overcome. Even during the RPG Superstar contest, the question of item worth came up constantly. Paizo is setting out to do something about it, and I'm glad that they are.

The discount is a valid factor in pricing such items. That said, you should note the section says nothing about when such a discount would be relevant. This is something only the GM can do, and only on a case-by-case basis.

It's not the rules that are a GM-player issue. What is such an issue is how the rules are utilized or interpreted, and this is something that can't be designed into a system.

I contend the rule is pretty clear and allows a player to craft new items at a 30% discount if they add in alignment or class restrictions. Earlier you stated that these restrictions would 'probably' be inappropriate in an item that provides a simple bonus such as an ability increase. Well, I would be much happer if the things which are appropriate and inappropriate were spelled out instead of leaving it up to GM interpretation.


Eric Tillemans wrote:
I contend the rule is pretty clear and allows a player to craft new items at a 30% discount if they add in alignment or class restrictions. Earlier you stated that these restrictions would 'probably' be inappropriate in an item that provides a simple bonus such as an ability increase. Well, I would be much happer if the things which are appropriate and inappropriate were spelled out instead of leaving it up to GM interpretation.

That's the thing, though. There are bound to be times when such a restriction would be valid. There's no way a game designer can foresee every situation that will arise, and that's why definitions of what would and wouldn't be appropriate are impossible to include. To maintain the game as one that embraces growth through the imagination, one cannot limit that imagination by core design.

This is one of the reasons why the game doesn't work as well as a single-player hobby; the rules are nothing more than a guideline, and need a moderator (the GM) to keep them in balance. If you're looking for a game that tells the GM what can and can't be done when it comes to creating new content, you're in the wrong hobby; that's the realm of video games, though in some ways it does seem to be the route 4E is headed in as well (and as a result, why I'm so interested in Pathfinder).


Heaven's Agent wrote:

That's the thing, though. There are bound to be times when such a restriction would be valid. There's no way a game designer can foresee every situation that will arise, and that's why definitions of what would and wouldn't be appropriate are impossible to include. To maintain the game as one that embraces growth through the imagination, one cannot limit that imagination by core design.

This is one of the reasons why the game doesn't work as well as a single-player hobby; the rules are nothing more than a guideline, and need a moderator (the GM) to keep them in balance. If you're looking for a game that tells the GM what can and can't be done when it comes to creating new content, you're in the wrong hobby; that's the realm of video games, though in some ways it does seem to be the route 4E is headed in as well (and as a result, why I'm so interested in Pathfinder).

Come on now, I'm not asking for EVERY situation to be covered. I pointed out a rule I feel is clearly ripe for abuse such that it could use a bit more clarification (maybe an example of what is and is not appropriate) and call it good. The Alpha rules so far are setting out to tighten loopholes and if that wasn't true, then the shape change spells wouldn't be getting the treatment they are (among other changes).


Eric Tillemans wrote:
Come on now, I'm not asking for EVERY situation to be covered. I pointed out a rule I feel is clearly ripe for abuse such that it could use a bit more clarification (maybe an example of what is and is not appropriate) and call it good. The Alpha rules so far are setting out to tighten loopholes and if that wasn't true, then the shape change spells wouldn't be getting the treatment they are (among other changes).

I'm only talking about this one situation. It's a guideline designed to facilitate the creativity inherent in the game, in this case the development and addition of new content. Could it be abused by players? Yes, all such guidelines could. That's why they're in a GM section of the rules.

Should these guidelines be excluded due to the possibility of abuse. No, I don't think so. It's a very valuable GM resource, and the players won't have use of any use of these guidelines unless the GM allows it. Even then, it's recommends the GM carefully considers the implications of any such additions before allowing them in play.


The restriction is abusable and should IMHO be cut from the rules.

Even if the DM has to give an okay to designed items, the rule stinks: It increases the load on the GM's shoulders by another factor to be considered. As a DM, I just don't want to argue with a Player if this or that item qualifies for a discount because of some restriction with no impact on the game.

And even if the DM himself designs an item - what's the restriction discount for? Equipping his NPCs with more payload without breaking the GP limit? Giving out discounted items to the players?
If you want to build a restriction into an item, the reasons will / should not be about price, but about balance (give a bland character some shiny special only he can use) or control (making the fabled Sceptre of Undead Domination unusable by the heroic PC's).

There's a realism problem, too: If restricted use items are cheaper, almost every magic item should be restricted in some way. As there's no mass production and every item is crafted to customer specifications, there's little need for general purpose items. And which good aligned cleric would create a magic weapon without a "good alignment" restriction? It's cheaper AND keeps it out of the evil guys' hands.

The discount is just superfluous.


After the long back and forth, it's nice to see someone agrees with me.


I don't have a problem with the discount, but I think the idea of discounts need to be worded better with some examples.

For example, I my planescape game, the players had an item created that could open a planar gate (transport version only of the gate spell). They added the skill requirement discount requiring 5 ranks in Knowledge (the planes). I allowed this as it made sense and only two players had 5 ranks in the skill.

Having said that, I think the discount should be based on either a minimum number of ranks or a skill roll to activate.

In the case of class and alignment restrictions, I think race needs to be added as well and I think some serious guidelines as to when to apply this discount should be included. The holy avenger is a good example of this type of limitation.


The Lifedrinker and the Lyre of Building are, I think, examples of working restrictions. The Holy Avenger... well... good PC's don't feel the restriction at all. Ever.

The Lifedrinker can AFAIK only be safely wielded by Undead (rare among PC's, but achievable through Shapechange - better forms are, though), Warforged from Eberron (IMHO a result of their overpowerdness, not the axe's) or when protected by Death Ward (or some other spell), which has only a short duration.
The Lyre of Building requires Perform (String Instruments), which besides from bards, few PC's have or need, and Bards need a break anyhow. A non-bard can buy some ranks in Perform, slap on a Circlet of Persuasion and get a decent chance to use the Lyre, but that are investments that really compensate for a discount.


I would have to agree that the Skill minimum should be switched out for a Skill check requirement to use the item. Possibly a DC like 10 + caster level of the item or some-such.

The alignment, race, and class restrictions are iconic to the game (class restrictions less so), and I don't see the restrictions being all that abusive.

(I call to mind an item I designed, the holy symbol of inquisitorial agency, that gave you the ability to smite good, but was only useable if you had good alignment.)


Eric Tillemans wrote:
After the long back and forth, it's nice to see someone agrees with me.

Yes, you are absolutely right about the discounts. Those should not be discounts in the creation costs--they should only affect an item's resale value (or simply be removed entirely).


Restrictions are usually a bonus, not a penalty. After all, it's usually a good thing to an elven nation if an item can only be used by the chaotic good, because then orcs who seize it in battle cannot use it. And limiting a magic item's utility often would take more work, not less; you have to modify the magic to detect who is using it and refuse to work for others.

Obviously, the same thing limits the market price of an item with the restriction; there's a lot higher demand for a staff of power that anyone can use than a staff of power specifically restricted to lawful good wizards.

Suggestion: +50% cost to make a class or alignment limited item, with market price equal to cost.

However, if an item requires use of a specific class feature with limited uses to be activated, or only enhances a class feature directly, then a 30% discount is justified, by analogy to the necessity to use a skill.


These alignment and skill discounts amount to the same sort of situation with the drow "decays in sunlight" rules from 3.0. Those were tossed, and I think it would probably be correct to remove these as well.


Stephen Klauk wrote:
These alignment and skill discounts amount to the same sort of situation with the drow "decays in sunlight" rules from 3.0. Those were tossed, and I think it would probably be correct to remove these as well.

The "drow items decay in sunlight" rules were tossed because it made the rewards worthless. Most of the class/race limited treasure can still be used by someone, or sold for money.

The following are some of the restricted items in the SRD:

Holy Avenger (most abilities usable only by a paladin)
Harp of Charming (requires a Perform skill check)
Horn of Valhalla (requires class abilities or weapoon proficiencies to use)
Lyre of Building (requires a Perform skill check)
Marvelous Pigments (requires a Craft (painting) check)

Allowing a creation cost discount because of those limitations is fair to me as in limits other players from being able to use them in emergencies or fits with the nature of the item.

I *DO* feel that the rules need some examples as to when such a discount should be allowed by the DM.


Thraxus wrote:
... I *DO* feel that the rules need some examples as to when such a discount should be allowed by the DM.

Yes, either get rid of the rule or provide more guidance to DMs. Even just one example with a note of caution to the DM about pricing items with the discount would be enough in my mind.


I have to agree that the cost reductions should go.

In my opinion the universe does not and should not care what class, race or moral code you follow.

I also believe in symmetry and by that I mean GM created and player created items should follow the same rules. Going to two sets of rules would add needless complexity.

I think the only reason we still see those cost reductions is because they already existed in 3.5. If the community does not express a clear bias towards keeping them in I think they will be gone in the final edit.


It never seemed to be about the universe caring: at least in theory it was because the user having a particular quality made it easier to create an item for them to use: thus a spell storage item that required a spell trigger was easier to make than an otherwise identical miscellaneous magic item that had 50 charges of the same spell but did not require a spell trigger: it was more expensive to make it easier to use in the same way that a “book” that can read itself to someone who’s blind and paralyzed and has to use vocal commands is more expensive than a standard book that requires functional hands and eyes to use effectively.

Ergo, the limitation should be applicable if it makes the design simpler. A sword that blasts evil and is usable by evil characters? Now you’ve got to shield the user against his or her own weapon; this should be more complicated and more expensive. A sword that blasts evil and is only usable by good characters? Well, you can draw on the user’s natural link with the outer planes of good for part of the power you need, making such an item probably should be easier. The default? A sword that blasts evil and is usable by either good or neutral characters.

If the player puts some thought into it, and comes up with a decent reason why such a restriction is relevant to his proposed item, then he or she ought to be rewarded for that effort.

Silver Crusade

Quentyn wrote:
It never seemed to be about the universe caring: at least in theory it was because the user having a particular quality made it easier to create an item for them to use: thus a spell storage item that required a spell trigger was easier to make than an otherwise identical miscellaneous magic item that had 50 charges of the same spell but did not require a spell trigger: it was more expensive to make it easier to use in the same way that a “book” that can read itself to someone who’s blind and paralyzed and has to use vocal commands is more expensive than a standard book that requires functional hands and eyes to use effectively.

Makes sense to me!

I always interpreted this rule to mainly be for when the GM is designing new items -- Say there's an in-game group of spellcasters who for some reason need an item to do a specific task -- it would make sense that they find ways to optimize its use for themselves -- sort of like how a bunch of computer programmers can more easily put together something less user-friendly that only they can use than put together something everyone can use easily.

That said I really like Quentyn's way of putting it, it makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately it still needs GM calls to adjudicate it: If the party is good, and they fight a lot of evil monsters, should they really be able to make a bunch of super-evil-monster-fighting gear cheap?


As I recall, Monte Cook posted on his website that those discounts were a bad idea and should probably be inverted. After all, a weapon that's attuned to you and stops many other people using it would probably cost more.


Arakhor wrote:
As I recall, Monte Cook posted on his website that those discounts were a bad idea and should probably be inverted. After all, a weapon that's attuned to you and stops many other people using it would probably cost more.

Arakhor almost had it. This is an RPG. When creating the item with restrictions, it would probably cost more to make. But if I'm buying it, you should role play the whole supply and demand thing. Who is selling it? Who is buying it? Am I trying to unload it?

Example A) I'm a human thief who 'acquired' this cool dagger that can only be used by Wizard. Useless to me and I want the cash. I guess I'll drop my price.

Example B) I'm the shop keeper who bought said dagger. In walks a party just back from an Orc lair with this beat up Wizard. Who needs the dagger now? Ka-ching!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / Combat & Magic / Magic Item Creation Costs - Concern (pg 112) All Messageboards
Recent threads in Combat & Magic