Quick Question - Variant item appearance

[Thrashling]

I have an idea for an item that would allow for it to look differently if they purchaser wanted to spend extra money to make it pretty. Is this something that is allowed or should I refrain from doing so?

a quick example - not my actual item, but would demonstrate the idea well enough.

A sailor pipe ...

Most frequently take the form a briar wood pipe with a relief of a galleon carved in to the wood but can also contain inlays of gold and other precious metals. (rest of the description)

and in the requirements have something like "A wooden pipe worth at least 50gp"

thanks for any advice.

[Samuel Stone]

I'm speaking from extremely limited experience, so take this with a grain of salt.

It's allowed, but I would avoid it. Generally speaking, if a player wants to customize an item, they can do so within the rules that currently exist. I would leave it up to GMs that use the item to decide if enhancing the item's physical appeal should cost extra money.

That said, if the improved aesthetics allow you to, say, disguise the item as something else, then there should probably be a price tag attached to that benefit. Again, I would leave it out of the item's description and leave it in the hands of those running the games.

[Joseph Kellogg]

Take a look at existing wondrous items in the CRB or other rulebooks. Do any of them list specific material components in the construction requirements?

[Thrashling]

Not that I have seen, which is why I asked. The item I have in mind could benefit from being able to somewhat change what it is made of and looks like; being able to benefit from that should be taken in to account when determining the cost of the item.

Just because something has not been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done. In general, I thought that this kind of innovation is in part what the competition is about.

If not, I'll ditch it and just play it safe.

[Joseph Kellogg]

By all means, innovate. But innovate in what your item can do, not in how the magic item crafting rules work.

And compared to the price of a magic item, the difference in price between a fancy pipe and a plain pipe should be negligible.

[Samuel Stone]

Oop, forgot to mention it, but Joseph covered it. All of the material components for items are included in the price associated with its construction. You shouldn't need to add in an extra material component; instead, just add it to the item's construction cost.

If you find the need to format an item that scales up the more money you put into its construction, take a look at the belt of giant strength. In this case, you can format your item as such:

Construction
Requirements ZZfeats, ZZspells, ZZotherrequirements; Cost 500 gp (standard), 550 gp (enhanced)

or something similar to that.

If it's purely a cosmetic benefit for the sake of the players, leave it out. From your second post, it sounds like this might not be the case, but trying to incorporate an additional "rule" of a secondary version of the item could potentially make the item a lot harder to write and format. An item should be simple to understand, and over-complicating something can be a huge negative towards your item. Hope this helps!

[Kayland]

Honestly I've always left appearance up to GM's preference. Outside of basic description as a player and rarely GM I've always enjoyed putting personal spin on item appearance. Just because the description of a magical bracer says it's leather...doesn't mean it technically couldn't be made from other materials and be as elaborate as player/GM desire.

I agree with the posters above that innovation is fun and something to strive for, however, in this case it sounds like it would be best to describe it in singular terms rather than putting in layers of intricacies for sake of cosmetic appearance.

That being said...go with your gut.

[Thrashling]

Ok, this has helped me understand. Thanks for all the insight.

[Anthony Adam]

I can confirm from my notes that you should not put specific materials in your construction requirements after the spell. This should go in the description if anywhere - I recall I even mention this in my worked example thread I am building.

I hope that helps.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

In a recent post in the 9 Blazing Months thread, SKR again suggests not using material components:

SKR wrote:

* You say the item is crafted from wool of earth-plane sheep, but that isn't listed in the Requirements section; furthermore, we don't usually list crafting requirements like that.

[Garrick Williams]

There's already rules that allow you to modify the appearance of an item when crafting it. You shouldn't designate an alternate cost unless the variants have distinct differences, like a lesser and greater versions.

[Ross Byers]

Ross Byers wrote:

I'm going to add that one of the reasons excessive physical description is bad for wondrous items is that they are Wondrous Items, not Artifacts. There are many of them. People can make them, especially PCs, and want to add their own spin to it. A particular amulet of natural armor might be made of bone fragments with an inscription in sylvan, but another might be a voodoo-esque fetish, and another a bundle of twigs tied with twine. A 'usually' is better than an 'always'.

I gues what I'm trying to say is describe 'car', not '1994 Mercedes M-Class in Charcoal Black'.

[Neil Spicer]

In addition, if you were striving for an ability to alter a wondrous item's appearance according to the owner's desire, you'd really be talking about something along the lines of the glamered armor special ability. So, it's kind of been done before (to some degree). As a former-judge, I wouldn't view that as particularly innovative or indicative of a Superstar designer's talent unless it was done in an especially unique and surprising manner. Instead, I'd be looking for innovation in other areas of the design which would hint towards a designer's potential.

But that's just my two cents,
--Neil