|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking over the magic item thread that SKR made has really got me wondering if magic item creation as a whole needs an overhaul.
I know the DM can always say no if something comes up but sometimes a DM may not always catch it when someone creates a cheap magic item that's broken. Also, I wish classes such as the Wizard didn't have the item creation feats built in as an option. I would rather magic item creation be more optional.
Again, I know I can always say no but I like a lot of this stuff to be built into the system so I can play it right out of the box without having to change things here and there. Also, when something is presented in the book as the default, like item creation feats, then players can expect item creation to be part of the game and get taken back when you tell them that you want to change that.
Believe it or not, when something is presented as optional "officially" then you have players that know ahead of time that item creation may not be allowed in the game.
I would like the rules of creation to be overhauled and I want it to be presented as more optional than default.
It seems more like a request than a question.
Personally? Creating "custom" magic items is something the DM is in charge of. I mean come on, people are proposing "Wands of True Strike" and "Brooches of Shielding," and it's not so much that the rules for creating such powerful items are broken, it's that such items aren't included as part of the game to begin with for that same exact reason.
Now, there are rules that allow characters to expand and stack magical effects of one item type into another of the same time; I exercised such a rule, and to me it isn't broken at all in how much it would cost.
In regards to the "Custom Items" that the PC's propose, which are broken and/or cheating the system: Does a DM make a mistake here and there? Yes. Does he have the final say on what happens? Yes. Can a GM take back that item and give another, more suitable replacement? Most certainly. But would the PC be happy that the DM took away his broken, most favorite toy? Probably not.
Heck, with just the 2 examples I listed above, there are probably tens of hundreds more items (thanks to UE) that are being proposed now which are equally broken, if not more so. But the issue lies not with the rules, but with those who exploit them.
Also, Wizards getting Item Creation feats as Bonus Feats is optional; they could instead get Metamagic feats, and it would really help them out at times where they need it even more so than an item creation feat could.
|
|
Looking over the magic item thread that SKR made has really got me wondering if magic item creation as a whole needs an overhaul.
I know the DM can always say no if something comes up but sometimes a DM may not always catch it when someone creates a cheap magic item that's broken. Also, I wish classes such as the Wizard didn't have the item creation feats built in as an option. I would rather magic item creation be more optional.
Again, I know I can always say no but I like a lot of this stuff to be built into the system so I can play it right out of the box without having to change things here and there. Also, when something is presented in the book as the default, like item creation feats, then players can expect item creation to be part of the game and get taken back when you tell them that you want to change that.
Believe it or not, when something is presented as optional "officially" then you have players that know ahead of time that item creation may not be allowed in the game.
I would like the rules of creation to be overhauled and I want it to be presented as more optional than default.
People who think that players should have a degree of control of magic item acquisition play 3E/PF because it provides that.
People who think magic items should be solely DM territory play 1E/2E.
If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
|
|
How did you come to that conclusion?If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
Because if I come to a 3E/PF game (even more so a PFS game), I want to be sure that I can make wands of cure light wounds and +stat items. If I want to play a game where such stuff is handed out solely by a GM, I go play 1E/2E retroclone.
It's an edition paradigm. 3E gave us several things that differentate it from previous editions, and one of the major ones is a degree of player control of magic item creation. I'd prefer it to be hardwired in the ruleset instead of being optional.
I know that you prefer a more 1E/2E style of "DM decides everything" game, but I think there are quite a few people over here who play 3E/PF exactly because they are Not Fans of such approach to the game.
|
|
How did you come to that conclusion?If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
Because if I come to a 3E/PF game (even more so a PFS game), I want to be sure that I can make wands of cure light wounds and +stat items. If I want to play a game where such stuff is handed out solely by a GM, I go play 1E/2E retroclone.
It's an edition paradigm. 3E gave us several things that differentate it from previous editions, and one of the major ones is a degree of player control of magic item creation. I'd prefer it to be hardwired in the ruleset instead of being optional.
I know that you prefer a more 1E/2E style of "DM decides everything" game, but I think there are quite a few people over here who play 3E/PF exactly because they are Not Fans of such approach to the game.
I would have to disagree and say that there could be equally an amount of people who want magic items to be a bit more special and less expected. Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "most people around here etc...".
Magic Item creation is fun but it can also ruin a game. I would actually like for the rules to take a little of the burden off my shoulders when dealing with item creation and I don't think that's too much to ask for. In all my years of playing 3rd edition and being a member of the Wizards forums, I don't remember people flocking to the system because of it's item creation but that's another topic.
Magic items have gotten out of hand in Pathfinder and I think a rework of the system would help to clear that up. It's got nothing to do with a "power tripping" DM. Funny how that excuse get's thrown up a lot when discussions like this crop up. Some DM's like to have a bit of control when it comes to a level of magic that they want in their games and more emphasis on magic item creation being "optional" is a simple way to accommodate both sides of the fence.
How did you come to that conclusion?If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
Because if I come to a 3E/PF game (even more so a PFS game), I want to be sure that I can make wands of cure light wounds and +stat items. If I want to play a game where such stuff is handed out solely by a GM, I go play 1E/2E retroclone.
It's an edition paradigm. 3E gave us several things that differentate it from previous editions, and one of the major ones is a degree of player control of magic item creation. I'd prefer it to be hardwired in the ruleset instead of being optional.
I know that you prefer a more 1E/2E style of "DM decides everything" game, but I think there are quite a few people over here who play 3E/PF exactly because they are Not Fans of such approach to the game.
I would have to disagree and say that there could be equally an amount of people who want magic items to be a bit more special and less expected. Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "most people around here etc...".
Magic Item creation is fun but it can also ruin a game. I would actually like for the rules to take a little of the burden off my shoulders when dealing with item creation and I don't think that's too much to ask for. In all my years of playing 3rd edition and being a member of the Wizards forums, I don't remember people flocking to the system because of it's item creation but that's another topic.
Magic items have gotten out of hand in Pathfinder and I think a rework of the system would help to clear that up. It's got nothing to do with a "power tripping" DM. Funny how that excuse get's thrown up a lot when discussions like this crop up. Some DM's...
If you go by RAW for DM magic item handout, you can get quickly shafted. Oh look the DM rolled up a bunch of magic item loot for the party, too bad the dice gods hate you and all of it is worthless/useless/can't be used/gives everything you DON'T need. Magic item crafting gives the players the control of not getting shafted by bad percentiles
|
|
Some DM's like to have a bit of control when it comes to a level of magic that they want in their games and more emphasis on magic item creation being "optional" is a simple way to accommodate both sides of the fence.
Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "some DM's". :)
Back on the topic. I think I made my point clear, I want magic item creation hardwired and not subject to somebody's whim. As much as I believe that creation of custom magic items is wonky and honestly could be done away with, being able to craft "big six", consumables, wands etc. is so deeply ingrained in 3E paradigm that I consider it to be something that the game won't be the same without.
|
|
...How did you come to that conclusion?If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
Because if I come to a 3E/PF game (even more so a PFS game), I want to be sure that I can make wands of cure light wounds and +stat items. If I want to play a game where such stuff is handed out solely by a GM, I go play 1E/2E retroclone.
It's an edition paradigm. 3E gave us several things that differentate it from previous editions, and one of the major ones is a degree of player control of magic item creation. I'd prefer it to be hardwired in the ruleset instead of being optional.
I know that you prefer a more 1E/2E style of "DM decides everything" game, but I think there are quite a few people over here who play 3E/PF exactly because they are Not Fans of such approach to the game.
I would have to disagree and say that there could be equally an amount of people who want magic items to be a bit more special and less expected. Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "most people around here etc...".
Magic Item creation is fun but it can also ruin a game. I would actually like for the rules to take a little of the burden off my shoulders when dealing with item creation and I don't think that's too much to ask for. In all my years of playing 3rd edition and being a member of the Wizards forums, I don't remember people flocking to the system because of it's item creation but that's another topic.
Magic items have gotten out of hand in Pathfinder and I think a rework of the system would help to clear that up. It's got nothing to do with a "power tripping" DM. Funny how that excuse get's thrown up a lot when discussions like this
Magic Item creation shouldn't be a fix.
Why not just take what you didn't want and sell it to save up for what you did want or maybe trade it with someone etc?
|
|
Some DM's like to have a bit of control when it comes to a level of magic that they want in their games and more emphasis on magic item creation being "optional" is a simple way to accommodate both sides of the fence.Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "some DM's". :)
Back on the topic. I think I made my point clear, I want magic item creation hardwired and not subject to somebody's whim. As much as I believe that creation of custom magic items is wonky and honestly could be done away with, being able to craft "big six", consumables, wands etc. is so deeply ingrained in 3E paradigm that I consider it to be something that the game won't be the same without.
Consumables is fine, I don't have a problem with these except for wands. I would knock the charges down to about 20 or 10.
...How did you come to that conclusion?If you make magic item creation optional, I believe there will be many folks who will abandon the game because crafting is something that drew them to it in the first place, and they don't want to be at mercy of some arbitrary power trippin' Mister Cavern there.
Because if I come to a 3E/PF game (even more so a PFS game), I want to be sure that I can make wands of cure light wounds and +stat items. If I want to play a game where such stuff is handed out solely by a GM, I go play 1E/2E retroclone.
It's an edition paradigm. 3E gave us several things that differentate it from previous editions, and one of the major ones is a degree of player control of magic item creation. I'd prefer it to be hardwired in the ruleset instead of being optional.
I know that you prefer a more 1E/2E style of "DM decides everything" game, but I think there are quite a few people over here who play 3E/PF exactly because they are Not Fans of such approach to the game.
I would have to disagree and say that there could be equally an amount of people who want magic items to be a bit more special and less expected. Let's face it, you don't have any more numbers to back you up than I do so let's just skip with the "most people around here etc...".
Magic Item creation is fun but it can also ruin a game. I would actually like for the rules to take a little of the burden off my shoulders when dealing with item creation and I don't think that's too much to ask for. In all my years of playing 3rd edition and being a member of the Wizards forums, I don't remember people flocking to the system because of it's item creation but that's another topic.
Magic items have gotten out of hand in Pathfinder and I think a rework of the system would help to clear that up. It's got nothing to do with a "power tripping" DM. Funny how that excuse get's thrown up a lot when
Because those ugly percentile rear their heads once again.
"okay you sold all the magic items that you couldn't use/useless to you at half of what their worth, and you want to use that money to get something actually worthwhile *rolls* well looks like the only person available can do at best a +1 to weapons and armor sorry"
and again, GM's will vary on that but this is by RAW and dice. RAW and chance can SHAFT you, and when the players aren't rolling the dice for crud they NEED it makes them a little rustled.
And to shift away from the whole "magic items crafting is broken" squawking, some people write up the Builder concept. The character that makes the stuff that the party uses to save the world. I've done it a few times myself and had a blast with it.
Sure it can get cheesy, but so is basic RAW. Heck a while back (quite a while) I was doing PFS, a level 8 run with a level 4 character (everyone else but me was the right level, and majority won) and we made it to the final fight, massive BBEG wizard type. He was a CR 9, I shut him down with two words. Grapple, and Pin.
I'm running a little off topic with that anecdote, but my point is, sure Magic item crafting can be cheesy, but so is EVERYTHING ELSE
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gold isn't infinite I'm afraid, well at least not in my games.I would knock the charges down to about 20 or 10.What does that achieve, other than eating up more lines in the inventory on charsheet because you have to buy multiple wands?
Ah, so you want to knock down the number of charges while keeping the price. Again, what's the idea behind?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so you want to knock down the number of charges while keeping the price. Again, what's the idea behind?Gold isn't infinite I'm afraid, well at least not in my games.I would knock the charges down to about 20 or 10.What does that achieve, other than eating up more lines in the inventory on charsheet because you have to buy multiple wands?
this is a standard staple of low fantasy or rare magic settings when the DM wants to make magic items seem rarer/more awesome then they actually are, bad GMs that do this end up TPK'ing their groups because those wands of healing they bough brand new that they needed were full price for 1/2 or 1/4 of the charges it's supposed to have.
In other words its just another lazy way to make PC's "feel" weak
Should I point out that 20 scrolls of cure light wounds only cost 500 gp, half that if you scribe them yourself?
@ Deus
The issue the OP is having with wands is that he feels the 50 charges are excessive.
Honestly? A Wand isn't a potion, in that's it's quickly consumed. A wand lasts for a while. You think a Wizard or Magus is going to walk around with 20 different types of wands weighing 5 lbs each with his gimpy strength of 10, give or take, when he has other equally important gear to carry, such as scrolls, potions, rods, and other utility/magical goodies? Have fun only being able to move 5 feet in a given round for your entire turn, with your wands taking up 200 lbs, when you can only carry 50-100 at the maximum, and even if you had a chance to use a wand, by the end of that combat the wand would be used up, meaning you have to spend/sell even more resources that you obtained from that encounter just to be burdened up again.
@ OP
If you want to change the rules as to how they work into some other pre-written/predecessor system, then do so for your games. PF and PFS runs fine with its magic item creation and statistic rules as it is, and the items they write out (99% of the time) aren't broken. It's the clowns who look for loopholes and put inexperienced and/or unsuspecting GM's that "break" or "obsolete" this system, which is something the GM needs to maintain.
Don't pawn problems of the system out on the system itself, especially considering the problems don't begin with the system, they begin with the players, who are gaming the system.
|
|
Ah, so you want to knock down the number of charges while keeping the price. Again, what's the idea behind?Gold isn't infinite I'm afraid, well at least not in my games.I would knock the charges down to about 20 or 10.What does that achieve, other than eating up more lines in the inventory on charsheet because you have to buy multiple wands?this is a standard staple of low fantasy or rare magic settings when the DM wants to make magic items seem rarer/more awesome then they actually are, bad GMs that do this end up TPK'ing their groups because those wands of healing they bough brand new that they needed were full price for 1/2 or 1/4 of the charges it's supposed to have.
In other words its just another lazy way to make PC's "feel" weak
What is this lazy "s*^t your talking about?
It's got nothing to do with being a lazy DM, it's about running a particular type of game. Pathfinder is not designed to the extent that it assumes you have about 20 wands of cure light wounds in your bag of holding at all times, that's just excessive healing.
The point of having less charged wands is to make the PC's think more about their actions in combat and not just run in head first knowing they are packing enough healing to heal a continent.
If they game was dead set on you having a certain number of cure light wound wands then "everyone" would be carrying them around. We sometimes carry around one but that's it and we still do fine.
|
|
@ OP
If you want to change the rules as to how they work into some other pre-written/predecessor system, then do so for your games. PF and PFS runs fine with its magic item creation and statistic rules as it is, and the items they write out (99% of the time) aren't broken. It's the clowns who look for loopholes and put inexperienced and/or unsuspecting GM's that "break" or "obsolete" this system, which is something the GM needs to maintain.
Don't pawn problems of the system out on the system itself, especially considering the problems don't begin with the system, they begin with the players, who are gaming the system.
There is a problem with the system, that's a fact. You can look at any of the magic item threads and see that there is a problem and the usual answer is to just let the DM handle it. If we had that attitude then we really wouldn't need any errata because we would just let the DM handle what's not working.
Is there really a problem with the system, or is there a problem with clowns gaming the system in a way that RAW allows but does not include as an actual item in the game? Because this seems to be the main concern regarding the thread topic here.
Those are situational issues, something which the RAW does not cover or answer upon. What the RAW doesn't cover or answers directly, is left to GM FIAT. And what's left to GM FIAT, is by no means RAW or anything of the sort, which is what the unexplained Rules for Magic Items are.
Plus, PFS doesn't allow these "Broken Magic Items," for a reason, nor does RAW explicitly detail these "Broken Magic Items," because normally such items don't exist, and PFS does not allow custom magic items, which is generally where these "Broken Magic Items," fall in terms of categorization.
Here's a common example of how Magic Item creation should be done, regardless of PFS or not:
DM: As far as an actual game item is concerned, no.
Player: Can you make me one?
DM: I already told you that we are specifically sticking to pre-set magical items.
Player: But you gave me [random 3.X item from predecessor book], why can't I have my own item?
DM: The item I gave you, regardless of its source, is an item that was officially published and statted in terms of both sensibility and balance. That is to say, that I don't trust you making a magic item, but some items aren't implemented as an official item in the game for good reason, and is something that the rules would enforce.
Player: Well...can I combine Item X and Item Y? They're from Book This and Book That.
DM: Let me take a look at them...
They are pre-set magic items from two different edition sources, but I can make them work in here; it just takes a little "conversion," though we are going to have to apply the proper rules for this to work.
Looking at Page Z in Book There (or for official terms, Page 553 in the CRB), it says you can apply the effects of a second magic item to another for the normal cost of the additional property increased by 50%.
So if we take Item X, costing 5,000 gold, and Item Y, costing 2,500 gold, the item's worth would be a total of 8,750, with both effects from Item X and Item Y combined.
Player: Yes! Now I can have Item C and Item S in the same slot!
DM: Not so fast, sparky. The item example it lists for adding additional properties is of the same item type; a ring property on top of a ring property. We can't combine those two items because they're separate properties, of which aren't covered in universal grounds; Item C gives a bonus to Charisma, covering the headband slot. Item S gives a bonus to Strength, covering the belt slot. We can't combine these two items because they aren't of the same slot.
Player: But Item Z and Item Q from Book Here gives those bonuses to the same slot, why can't I combine these two?
DM: Those items are still different from the ones you are trying to combine. If you were to combine, say Item Z and Item C, then yes, you could get both effects, and the same would be true, were you to combine Item Q and Item S. But you can't combine two items of different slots as per the listed example.
Honestly, that's pretty much what would happen with standard RAW magic item creation rules. The only reason these +4 Shield items and True Strike Wands are being created is because the GM allows the players to make them. By RAW, they are not actual items listed, which would be a precedent needed for the player to make the item in any standard scenario.
It goes to show you that the only reason those items are even included is because the GM lets them make them, when the RAW does not support such an item even existing, meaning the issue lies not with the Rules for items (as they are explicitly stated, for both creation, amplification, and customization), but for those who game them, and those who are either ignorant or tricked into going along with it.
How is a Wand of True Strike cheesy or not RAW?
I'm alright with making things a bit less dependent on the 'Big 6', even if my views on items being out of control differ from yours. However, if the goal of changing the crafting rules is to make magic items feel more special, I'm afraid that isn't going to work. Having played in games where magic items were rare and tightly controlled by the GM and item creation feats were banned, this didn't make magic items feel special. A +1 will always be just a +1, whether you're level 2 or level 20. The only way to really make magic items special is to give them a history. Give that +1 sword a name and a brief two sentences about it and you'd be surprised how quickly players will eat it up.
I don't think the rules have gone out of control for magic item creation. That said, I think some of the language could be cleared up and there should be more in depth sections for the GM that talk about magic item creation.
Ah, so you want to knock down the number of charges while keeping the price. Again, what's the idea behind?Gold isn't infinite I'm afraid, well at least not in my games.I would knock the charges down to about 20 or 10.What does that achieve, other than eating up more lines in the inventory on charsheet because you have to buy multiple wands?this is a standard staple of low fantasy or rare magic settings when the DM wants to make magic items seem rarer/more awesome then they actually are, bad GMs that do this end up TPK'ing their groups because those wands of healing they bough brand new that they needed were full price for 1/2 or 1/4 of the charges it's supposed to have.
In other words its just another lazy way to make PC's "feel" weak
What is this lazy "s*^t your talking about?
It's got nothing to do with being a lazy DM, it's about running a particular type of game. Pathfinder is not designed to the extent that it assumes you have about 20 wands of cure light wounds in your bag of holding at all times, that's just excessive healing.
The point of having less charged wands is to make the PC's think more about their actions in combat and not just run in head first knowing they are packing enough healing to heal a continent.
If they game was dead set on you having a certain number of cure light wound wands then "everyone" would be carrying them around. We sometimes carry around one but that's it and we still do fine.
Again, those dice rear they're ugly heads.
You could have the most tactic-based party ever, using skills and teamwork feats and "talking is a free action" with OR without mindlink to set up their actions perfectly. But when the s$+* hits the fan (and it WILL hit the fan eventually* and the party is out of spells those wands are a real nice fallback. And from my experience in PFS and regular PF, A wand my stick around unlike a potion, but bad plays or bad rolls make those charges go FAST, ESPECIALLY if you roll poorly on the heal roll. PC's really like it when they have that "safety net" that they can fall back on, sure it can be burned through and torn to shreds. 1-3 full charged wands of X healing spell is well more then enough for an adventure, but sometimes S~~# happens, or the dice gods hate you.
As for my "lazy s%+~", it's too common of a standard trick to do it in OR outside of a low magic or particular type of game. If the DM can pull it off, that's great for them. But there are too many that do it to "ramp up the challenge" without actually doing anything intuitive or creative, ergo LAZY
|
|
I'm afraid that isn't going to work.
I disagree. Having played and DM'd several games like this I can say that each item that was found was considered special because of it's rarity.
Also, Wizards of the Coast has decided to go this route with 5th edition so apparently there are people out there, like myself, that agree with me.
Flagged for the homebrew forum, where it belongs.
I'm afraid that isn't going to work.I disagree. Having played and DM'd several games like this I can say that each item that was found was considered special because of it's rarity.
Also, Wizards of the Coast has decided to go this route with 5th edition so apparently there are people out there, like myself, that agree with me.
Actually, that depends on the item. The new playtest has items rarity listed Common items like potions and wands are easy to find.
|
|
Actually, that depends on the item. The new playtest has items rarity listed Common items like potions and wands are easy to find.I'm afraid that isn't going to work.I disagree. Having played and DM'd several games like this I can say that each item that was found was considered special because of it's rarity.
Also, Wizards of the Coast has decided to go this route with 5th edition so apparently there are people out there, like myself, that agree with me.
Yes and that's perfectly understandable. It's not really about consumables because they aren't really that much of a problem, except for wands in my opinion, but that's for another thread.
It's more about Wondrous Items and up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flagged for the homebrew forum, where it belongs.This isn't homebrew.
Please don't be flagging something because "you" think it belongs somewhere else. This is a general discussion about the Pathfinder Magic Item Creation rules in it's present form.
well we HAVE devolved it into somewhat homebrew, and bringing up 5th is NOT helping
I'm afraid that isn't going to work.I disagree. Having played and DM'd several games like this I can say that each item that was found was considered special because of it's rarity.
Also, Wizards of the Coast has decided to go this route with 5th edition so apparently there are people out there, like myself, that agree with me.
While that may be the case, I prefer having a great deal of options for things (magic items, classes, races, etc.) and having the DM decide what they wish to use and not use, as opposed to making such items rare and having the GM add to it. It's much easier to remove what you don't like than to add what you do and I am always a fan of more options. That is why I'd rather the crafting rules have a more detailed description of how to remove or increase the rarity of certain items, rather than overhaul the system. That way, both side of the magic item argument can be happy.
So, trying to clarify. What you want are official rules on how to run a campaign with fewer magic items by default, or at least without being able to take item creation feats besides scribe scroll or brew potion, is that correct? Or are you looking more for rules on making item creation more difficult or demanding on the characters?
So, trying to clarify. What you want are official rules on how to run a campaign with fewer magic items by default, or at least without being able to take item creation feats besides scribe scroll or brew potion, is that correct? Or are you looking more for rules on making item creation more difficult or demanding on the characters?
If you are going to restrict magic item crafting you need to adjust the difficulty of the encounters. A monster with DR Magic is considerably more dangerous in a low magic campaign than in a default game.
I run a "low magic" (by the standards of PF, not older editions) game. Crafting magic items that aren't single use requires xp costs, other craft skills, or an assistant with them, are required to construct magic items of specific types (weapons, armor, jewelry and so on) etc. I have also adjusted crafting in general to account for the relative difficulty in making items (albeit this is subjective / imo) and I've tried to base it on a more "realistic" time scale (without precluding it). Players still craft for what they feel they need. Their opinion of "what they need" is considerably different from a typical PF player however.
If you adjust for the relative lack of magic you can make it rarer, more special / cool without a tpk :) In doing this, my life as a DM is easier because I run my own sand box game world. My assumptions about difficulty etc. are built in without needing to adjust someone elses adventure / world.
Ymmv. And despite what the evil bag says, my players have fun even if they can't make it all themselves :) Strange but I think I just heard a certain electric rodent...
One other thing, I have some old school things built into my game, stronghold building, political involvement, larger world events (war, famine, plague, etc.) that tend to suck players cash into areas that don't involve becoming a walking magic arsenal of destruction... having other objectives is good. It takes some of the single minded emphasis on levelling up and accumulating goodies out of the players...
Anyway, to each thier own. I don't think there's a bad / good way to play if you're having fun.
an unslotted quiver of endless arrows would cost 8,000 GP
abundant ammunition is a 1st level spell with a caster level of first.
base price of 2,000 GP for permanent abundant ammunition,
double if to 4,000 because it is a minute per level spell
and double it again for being unslotted. or a final total of 8,000 gold pieces.
not all custom items are bad.
a ring of continuous true strike is impossible due to the nonstandard duration, but a ring of a continuous +4 shield bonus to AC would cost 16,000. a sword that casts true strike as you swing it would require the price of an intelligent magic weapon, plus 135,000 additional gold pieces for quickened once per round true strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The largest problem I have expierienced with the magic item rules stems from Thier inception...
Way way WAAAAAAAYYY back in the time when Double G and Da Crew were creating this thing we all now like a great deal, they arbitrarily made up all of the original items. Names, stats, effects, all of it made up in random, arbitrary fashion. As the game grew and progressed, they and others made up new and different items as they felt was needed. But again this was done in an arbitrary, random fashion. These items were internally consistent in that there was no real "system" for thier creation and as long as the ones making the game liked it, it was "balanced". If you wanted your own items, it was up to your group to make them up on your own.
All this is fine if you are only ever gaming with your regular group, but as soon as you start mixing groups, which happened inevitably as the hobby's popularity grew, you ran into the problem of item x isn't good for group y. In order to address this, later designers attempted to standardize item creation by creating a system for making your own items. This was also fine, except that when the newer makers changed the magic items to match the new version of the game they made the same mistake the first designers did, they randomly assigned stats and abilities to the items arbitrarily, then made a system for creating your own items, instead of making the system, and then using that system to create the items.
This to me is how you fix magic items, make a good, balanced system for creating your own items, then use that system to create all of your "standard" items which will give you a great starting point for gamers that want to go out of those bounds to judge the relative power of thier custom items and will ensure that an item made at table x is power level and cost balanced for any standard game when following the system.
As a side note, spells have the exact same issues, and could be fixed the exact same way.
But this is just my 19 years of gaming talking.
As always: YMMV.
Not again. Why shallowsoul? It seems like you bring this debate up every 2 weeks or so.
Not again. Why shallowsoul? It seems like you bring this debate up every 2 weeks or so.
This, at least, isn't shallowsoul's fault. Someone else decided to resurrect this old debate.
Not again. Why shallowsoul? It seems like you bring this debate up every 2 weeks or so.
This, at least, isn't shallowsoul's fault. Someone else decided to resurrect this old debate.
Ahem. Check the dates and "blame" Synergex for the thread necromancy if you must :)
What, a guy can't give his opinion?
What, a guy can't give his opinion?
Thread necromancy catches people off balance. Suddenly this discussion returns and, usually, a new set of people launch into it. Some thread topics are recurring (as fictionfan's reaction indicates) and have been beaten to death; he was, I believe, assuming it was a new thread. Either way, it bothers some people. I don't mind myself (hence the quotation remarks around "blame"); often new points of view can be useful / interesting. Just be prepared for the odd reaction like this. Some threads reignite when brought back and others just drop back into the grave. Thread necromancy is not an exact science :)
Understood, thanks.