I have seen mentioned in other threads that if you put a limitation on a magic item you are crafting, you can bring down cost of creating the item.
However, I have looked in the book and the SRD under magic item creation and just cannot find the modifier (in cost) for the limitation. I am sure I am just not seeing it, could someone please point out the page number in the book or link the SRD?
Thank you.
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 price by 30%.
Link, under the chart after multiple similar, multiple different and 0-level spell instructions.
Link, under the chart after multiple similar, multiple different and 0-level spell instructions.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 price by 30%.
Ok, as I figured, I just completely missed it.
Thanks!
To LazarX: Yes, I understand that and agree. The item I am thinking of doesn’t fall under that.
Remember that class based restrictions should not be allowed if the design of the item already imposes such restrictions. i.e. no discount for designing a Wizard-Only restriction for the Staff of the Magi.
Related to the general rule: No bonus for limitations that aren't really limitations.
Remember that class based restrictions should not be allowed if the design of the item already imposes such restrictions. i.e. no discount for designing a Wizard-Only restriction for the Staff of the Magi.Related to the general rule: No bonus for limitations that aren't really limitations.
And what kind of limitations would those be considered as? I understand what LazarX was referring to, but could you give an example for yourself?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Also, I believe one of the Devs stated that limitations would only reduce the market value, not any other costs.
|
And what kind of limitations would those be considered as? I understand what LazarX was referring to, but could you give an example for yourself?Remember that class based restrictions should not be allowed if the design of the item already imposes such restrictions. i.e. no discount for designing a Wizard-Only restriction for the Staff of the Magi.Related to the general rule: No bonus for limitations that aren't really limitations.
A Wizard crafting a ring of protection for himself trying to get a discount by putting in a Wizard-only type restriction on it.
Remember that class based restrictions should not be allowed if the design of the item already imposes such restrictions. i.e. no discount for designing a Wizard-Only restriction for the Staff of the Magi.
But there is a discount for a wizard only metamagic rod, since it can be used by many different spellcasting classes. Right?
|
|
As a gamemaster I dislike the class restriction discount intensely because of abuse. I won't prevent a player from putting one on, but I won't allow a discount when it does not impact the player.
I would allow a discount where it actually impacts use of the item itself, say a change to 2 uses per day, or 3 uses per week. That's a discount that will save you coin.
A Wizard crafting a ring of protection for himself trying to get a discount by putting in a Wizard-only type restriction on it.And what kind of limitations would those be considered as? I understand what LazarX was referring to, but could you give an example for yourself?Remember that class based restrictions should not be allowed if the design of the item already imposes such restrictions. i.e. no discount for designing a Wizard-Only restriction for the Staff of the Magi.Related to the general rule: No bonus for limitations that aren't really limitations.
Well, this also wouldn’t apply to the item I am thinking about. However, why wouldn’t that be considered a restriction? Considering if you decided to let another party member (besides a Wizard) use it or even tried to sell it, it would limit your potential users/buyers.
As a gamemaster I dislike the class restriction discount intensely because of abuse. I won't prevent a player from putting one on, but I won't allow a discount when it does not impact the player.
I would allow a discount where it actually impacts use of the item itself, say a change to 2 uses per day, or 3 uses per week. That's a discount that will save you coin.
Please take no offense to this, but I wouldn't want to be your player, at least in regards to creating magic items. :)
I find putting that kind of restriction on too limiting.
Edit: That came across more harsh than intended, LazarX. I wasn’t trying to say or give any indication I felt you are a bad DM. I was just saying reducing uses is something I feel is a restriction not worth it to get a discount.
But I think part of it is I am not a big fan of magic items in general that have limited uses per day and especially per week.
|
|
But I think part of it is I am not a big fan of magic items in general that have limited uses per day and especially per week.
I guess you're not a big fan of metamagic rods then.
I'm not big on using economic values to justify cost discounts on restrictions, mainly because my campaigns are those that favor a heroic campaign over paper and paychecks. If characters are getting items made it's because their need is the overriding factor. I might allow such restrictions to shorten the time needed for crafting without a cost reduction.
Part of my attitude may be my long 10 year recess from D+D during which I skipped all of 2nd edition and a good deal of 3rd. My time on Ars Magica and White Wolf systems may have colored my view on magic in a fantastic world. I am also more open to changing such rules depending on what I feel the magic level of the world is. For a world where magic is super abundant to the point where it replaces and surpasses 21st century tech, I'd have different rules. (it would also change a lot of other things but that's neither here nor there)
Please take no offense to this, but I wouldn't want to be your player, at least in regards to creating magic items. :)I find putting that kind of restriction on too limiting.
I see where you're coming from, and if you're not abusing the system, that's one thing. But this opens the door for the caster to create rings of protection limited to each unique party member. One for female gnome rogues only, one for male half orc sorcerers only, one for male dwarven fighters only... heck you can even add alignment into the mix.
If a caster tries this, the cost is not reduced. It's arbitrary, but the rules allow too much abuse, and magic item creation is something that needs to be heavily adjudicated by the GM, lest you get a set of magic items, all activated by the same command word, which the intelligent headband speaks, giving, among other things, true strike every round for no action on the player's part.
The magic item creation rules are GM guidelines, not player rights. The restriction stuff governs the value of treasure. Honestly, given the fact that a caster will always restrict it to himself or his companions, I am of the mind that this cost reduction should NEVER apply to players.
Yes, you're making it more restrictive, but in a very "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" way.
You decrease uses per day, or times of day at which you could use it, that's another thing. Alignment, class, race, and the like should never result in a reduction for the creator. Only if it's found as random treasure.
The following is my opinion and not RAW or, as far as I know, RAI.
"Its cheaper because only X class can use it" is something for the DM to use, to reflect the fact that its harder to sell something that has such a narrow potential customer base.
It was Not put into the books for PC's to use to neuter the cost of otherwise expensive items. Keep in mind that the magical item section- and the magical item creation section- used to be in the DMG. Dungeon. Master. Guide. Now I am glad they combined them into one book but it bears remembrance that it used to be separated based on *who* would be using which book.
Now if your DM wants to let you use the modifier then that is his/her business but overall I think that mod was really for the *DM* to use to price magical items they put into the campaign. Afterall, a (+5 Holy Keen vorpal Scythe of Dragon Slaying (Wizard Only)) isn't worth anywhere near what a similar item without that restriction would be worth. The modifier helps reflect that, as a DM aid to pricing the items. Not as a way for he PC's to skate by with a price break.
A wizard making an item for his personal use that he never intends to sell or give away is already making a "wizard only" item and shouldn't get a price break for doing so.
Again, just my .02.
-S
But I think part of it is I am not a big fan of magic items in general that have limited uses per day and especially per week.
I guess you're not a big fan of metamagic rods then.
I'm not big on using economic values to justify cost discounts on restrictions, mainly because my campaigns are those that favor a heroic campaign over paper and paychecks. If characters are getting items made it's because their need is the overriding factor. I might allow such restrictions to shorten the time needed for crafting without a cost reduction.
Part of my attitude may be my long 10 year recess from D+D during which I skipped all of 2nd edition and a good deal of 3rd. My time on Ars Magica and White Wolf systems may have colored my view on magic in a fantastic world. I am also more open to changing such rules depending on what I feel the magic level of the world is. For a world where magic is super abundant to the point where it replaces and surpasses 21st century tech, I'd have different rules. (it would also change a lot of other things but that's neither here nor there)
You are correct, Metamagic Rods would not be one of my first choices. It’s one thing if we find one in a treasure hoard, I’m not going to turn down a free rod that I can use. But I can say I would be spending my hard earned money and time crafting something else I can use more consistently and often.
My DM loves the Eternal wands (never run out of charges) from 3.5. But I don’t like them as you can only use them a couple times a day (maybe it’s 3). I would much prefer to get myself a 50 charge wand that I can use as many times as I want (up to its charges, of course) than have one that is good for one combat, maybe two.
But I’m not saying they are bad wands, they just aren’t my preference. Now again, it’s not just a encompassing rule of not liking any magic item that has limited uses per day/week, it’s just in general I would prefer something more ‘permanent’.
But I can see your viewpoint. To be honest, being a crafter (for magic items) is going to be a new experience for me and I do not plan on trying to take advantage of every item to reduce costs, if any of them. More than likely will just craft them out of the book straight up, it’s just the first item I plan on crafting it is something that would be beneficial to take a limitation as I only plan on using it in a very specific instance and think taking the limitation (and reduced cost) would be fair. But of course, as always, it is my DM’s decision in the end and I will abide and respect whatever he decides.
But I can see your viewpoint. To be honest, being a crafter (for magic items) is going to be a new experience for me and I do not plan on trying to take advantage of every item to reduce costs, if any of them. More than likely will just craft them out of the book straight up, it’s just the first item I plan on crafting it is something that would be beneficial to take a limitation as I only plan on using it in a very specific instance and think taking the limitation (and reduced cost) would be fair. But of course, as always, it is my DM’s decision in the end and I will abide and respect whatever he decides.
That's a great attitude. I've too often seen players try to badger a GM into letting them craft ridiculous items because they followed the crafting rules to the letter. Every time someone crafts something not found in a book, something they came up with, it is subject to GM veto. Too few players realize this. Glad to see you take that view.
That's a great attitude. I've too often seen players try to badger a GM into letting them craft ridiculous items because they followed the crafting rules to the letter. Every time someone crafts something not found in a book, something they came up with, it is subject to GM veto. Too few players realize this. Glad to see you take that view.
Thanks!
I’ve been good friends with my DM, as well as the other players at our table, for a long time now, so there are no concerns of anyone ‘screwing’ each other out of anything. We have had our spats, but nothing ever major.
My DM has always been pretty stringent on money and wealth in general, so it’s not going to be easy being a crafter. And it’s going to be even more stringent with just the kind of campaign we are in, but I kind of like it that way and look forward to the challenge.