|
Here's a question. In the magical item rules, it states an optional rule is allowing secondary enchantments on items after the first for a 50% mark-up. You could, for example, make Boots of striding and springing, with a secondary of Feathered step, to ignore difficult ground.
I know this is not PFS legal, since it is an optional rule, but how many of you use this system, what restrictions do you levy on it to limit power? I was thinking two additional enchantments past the first max, but they must, in some way, relate to the previous. For example, a cloak of resistance cannot have a cape of the mountebank as a secondary, but could have something related to saves or protection (Subject to DM discretion of course).
Thoughts?
Every single custom magic item risks balance issues. You really have to approach each one as they come up. For example, I'd consider adding Resistance to any other cloak to be perfectly fine; the bonus to saves are basically a requirement at higher level, so no need to gimp players from having other cool cloaks because they can't afford losing +4 to all saves. It is also worth noting that the 50% price increase is usually enough to prevent any truly powerful combinations.
Ultimate Campaign and Gamemastery Guide touch on that the biggest issue is making sure players don't abuse the system to get an effect cheaper. For example, a player can't make a cape with a constant Mage Armor effect so they can get a cheap bracers of armor +4 or a bow with True Strike to cheat having to increase its enhancement bonus. I've rarely had a problem with players customizing their magic items. The players still need your permission and most abuse cases will be very obvious.
The way we play it in campaigns that allow crafting is simple. You can combine any magic items that occupy the same slot, the most expensive is at normal cost and each additional one is at 1.5x cost. You cannot under most circumstances create a magic item not listed in a book somewhere. So a Cloak of the bat/manta ray/protection +5 is fine (and expensive) but glasses that improve spellcraft by +5 are a maybe/GM permission area because they are not printed anywhere and an item that gives permanent spells like Mage Armor is a hard no. Not because it couldn't be balanced but because no GM wants to do that much work for no gain. Bracers of Armor already exist, don't try and cheap out.
The way we play it in campaigns that allow crafting is simple. You can combine any magic items that occupy the same slot, the most expensive is at normal cost and each additional one is at 1.5x cost. You cannot under most circumstances create a magic item not listed in a book somewhere. So a Cloak of the bat/manta ray/protection +5 is fine (and expensive) but glasses that improve spellcraft by +5 are a maybe/GM permission area because they are not printed anywhere and an item that gives permanent spells like Mage Armor is a hard no. Not because it couldn't be balanced but because no GM wants to do that much work for no gain. Bracers of Armor already exist, don't try and cheap out.
The table indicates it is the lesser enchants that get +50% cost.
The text indicate it is the later enchants that get +50% cost.Text usually wins.
Armillary Amulet gives Competence +5 on Spellcraft for 2500 gp. Changing the slot used from neck to face is a GM call, but the item exists.
/cevah
an item that gives permanent spells like Mage Armor is a hard no.
Agreed.
Im completely fine with charges per day though.How do you guys deal with restrictions? Are players allowed to put restrictions on everything to craft at 30% cost?
|
I use this on NPCs, and absolutely allow PCs to do it, and allow it to combine any preexisting items they like...but only to combine preexisting items.
Solves most of the balance problems with the idea IMO, but lets people have the cool magic items that use up a slot they need for a necessary item.
And it results in some nasty stuff for NPCs to do to them, too, which is always a plus. :)
I have no problem with combining pretty much any existing items that don't span slots, even in the most restrictive games. The gold cost is generally enough to discourage overdoing it.
Neither I nor my craft-happy boyfriend use the restrictions-to-make-things-cheaper rules when crafting custom items as PCs. It doesn't seem reasonable to take the benefit when it's so trivial to avoid the drawback.
an item that gives permanent spells like Mage Armor is a hard no.Agreed.
Im completely fine with charges per day though.How do you guys deal with restrictions? Are players allowed to put restrictions on everything to craft at 30% cost?
Restrictions should reduce the selling price but have no effect on the crafting cost.
From the RAW this can and has been argued to apply to crafting cost but that does not make sense logically. Why should it become cheaper to craft if it has restrictions? On the other hand, limiting your potential customers should reduce the price you can get.
There are several threads about this.
How do you guys deal with restrictions? Are players allowed to put restrictions on everything to craft at 30% cost?
I have only had two items another of my characters encountered at less than full price.
1) Item with a sacred bonus that only applied to one of the faith -- 30%2) Item with skill requirement -- 10%
The first that character made for himself, but was only one of many items made, and the only one made with a discount. The other was a listed spell 3/day and the spell required skill to work.
I do agree that claiming a restriction that is no restriction should not get a discount. However, a skill or feat requirement should be OK, since the character needs to invest limited resources in order to earn the discount.
/cevah
Here's a question. In the magical item rules, it states an optional rule is allowing secondary enchantments on items after the first for a 50% mark-up. You could, for example, make Boots of striding and springing, with a secondary of Feathered step, to ignore difficult ground.
I know this is not PFS legal, since it is an optional rule, but how many of you use this system, what restrictions do you levy on it to limit power? I was thinking two additional enchantments past the first max, but they must, in some way, relate to the previous. For example, a cloak of resistance cannot have a cape of the mountebank as a secondary, but could have something related to saves or protection (Subject to DM discretion of course).
Thoughts?
That's not a optional rule it's a core rule under magic item creation. In PFS you can't use it because you can't take item creation feats. Basically if you have the the feats you can do this if you have enough money. It gets pretty expensive when you are spending 50% or 75% more for additional enchantments depending on what you are doing.