|
I have a bard that wishes to create a flute that can cast CLW five times a day by playing the first line of Mary had a Little Lamb.
Am I right in using the Command Word, Charges per Day and No Space Limitation entries to calculate the materials cost? (1800x1x1)x(5/5)x(2)= 3600gp?
She will also need the Craft Wondrous Item feat and someone to cast CLW (probably herself).
The skill check DC is (5+CL)= 6
And the whole process is done over 4 days.
I'm still getting my head around the item creation rules. A step by step guide would've really been helpful.
As I understand it the formula would be: (1800x1x1)/(5/5)x2 = 3,600gp.
Note under "Charges Per Day" it says "Divide by (5 divided by charges per day)", so you divide first portion (1800x1x1) by the result of (5/5) instead of multiplying it. The result is the same in this case though. You should also note that the cost of an item with 5 uses per day it the same as the cost of an item with unlimited uses per day (although for a healing spell, limited uses per day is much more balanced).
Considering its a Flute, I would require the user have the Bardic Performance Class Feature and apply the suggested 30% discount for that. Reducing its market value to 2,520 gp.
|
3,600 would be the buy price, the production cost is half that, 1,800 gp.
The melody can be the command word (as long as it require the usual standard action).
The only important thing you need to remember is that the spell is still limited to a range of touch.
As using the flute require 2 hands I would be a bit lenient and waive the "no space" multiplier.
An item that 5 CLW every day is less useful than a wand of CLW and way more costly.
A wand production cost (with the appropriate feat) would be 375 gp for 50 uses, the flute 5/day for 1,800 gp. She will have to use the full capability of the flute for 50 days to get ahead. Most AP and campaign don't have 50 days during which you need a few uses of low level healing magic. You normally need either the burst capability of big healing spells or the numerous uses of low level spells available through wands.
All that said, it is flavorful and appropriate to a bard, and it would be a nice "legacy" item if the game last that long: "See, son, this flute has saved my life countless times, and now it is yours."
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.
Can you cite where the rules explicitly say that?
Because all I see is that such restrictions reduce the cost/price; which is then defined as the item's market value in the following paragraph, which it also states is twice what the item costs to create (aka that the item's cost to create is half of its market value, whatever that may be).|
|
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.Can you cite where the rules explicitly say that?
Because all I see is that such restrictions reduce the cost/price; which is then defined as the item's market value in the following paragraph, which it also states is twice what the item costs to create (aka that the item's cost to create is half of its market value, whatever that may be).
Beside some old dev post:
Magic supplies for items are always half of the base price in gp. For many items, the market price equals the base price. Armor, shields, weapons, and items with value independent of their magically enhanced properties add their item cost to the market price. The item cost does not influence the base price (which determines the cost of magic supplies), but it does increase the final market price.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%.
Prices presented in the magic item descriptions (the gold piece value following the item's slot) are the market value, which is generally twice what it costs the creator to make the item.
Cost is the production cost, price is the selling price. Selling price isn't automatically twice cost, only generally. Production cost is half of the base price, but the base price is calculated without the discount from "Item Requires Specific Class".
That potential for abuse is generally why GMs determine the prices of magical items, and whether or not they deserve a discounted market value, and not players.
Also that "generally" (most likely) refers to the fact that many items have surcharges that add to either or both the market value and creation cost (such as the cost of a masterwork weapon to be enchanted, or the cost of a construct's body). I see nothing in the material quoted above that explicitly supports _Ozy_'s assertion, so I guess Paizo's "conversational" (aka terrible) writing style strikes again.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're looking for something to compare to, consider the wracking rod.
It's an old item and has a (dubiously relevant) drawback, but it might be a starting point for comparison. ^_^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A greater version of the flute could cast the spell at range(25ft) and have Reach Spell as a prerequisite to craft it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a magical instrument which casts CLW (with reach) is thematically appropriate for a bard.
Pricing is a little tricky, but I think you could have some different versions.
"The soothing melody of this flute can heal an adjacent creature as the spell CLW without touching them. When played by a bard, use the bard's caster level to determine the effect of the spell. This effect can be used 5 times per day."
Price, 3600 gold. It's a tad bit better than a wand in a single go, but the limited number of charges keeps it still relatively weak as you level up. Considering you can buy 5 wands of CLW for the price of this one item...even though the amount of healing will scale with the caster level when used by a bard it's still not an overpowered item IMO.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you jump to the chart while making the item you are asserting there are no similar items.
In this case wands and other charged items are similar so you should base your item on those. The wracking rod is also similar but based on 3.5 rules.
You don't reduce item cost to create for restrictions. Cost to create remains the same, it's just worth less to sell.
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.
This doesn't happen in the books though. For instance, a Cloak of Human Guise usable by only 1/2 elves/orcs has a reduction in price from a hat of disguise. It's cost to make is 1/2 it's sale price. Same with a Cap of Human Guise, usable by small creatures only [800gp sale/400 create].
I haven't been able to find an instance of a creation price not being 1/2 the sale price. Do you know of an instance of an item printed with a market value reduced but the creation not? Or is this another unwritten rule?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Unwritten rule as part of the design of new magic items. It's been explained in a couple of various 3.5 "Rules of the Game" articles from early 3.5 days and it's been talked about at various time in podcasts and blog posts.
In other words, a GM should never allow a PC to make an item by placing restrictions on them that are non-restrictions.
I probably wouldn't include the 'no space limitation' modifier. As far as I can tell, only items that function while worn/carried without having to be manipulated usually get this. The flute, having to be held in the hand while being played is essentially taking up a 'hand slot'.
That said, with the example of the wracking rod it clearly shouldn't be cheaper than that, so if that was the best comparable I'd probably go with about 2700 gp market price.
In my home games though, we pretty freely use 3.5 magic items, and the Magic Item Compendium has some pretty cheap healing items that function similar to this. So for my personal games I would not go about 1800 gp.
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.This doesn't happen in the books though. For instance, a Cloak of Human Guise usable by only 1/2 elves/orcs has a reduction in price from a hat of disguise. It's cost to make is 1/2 it's sale price. Same with a Cap of Human Guise, usable by small creatures only [800gp sale/400 create].
The cap of human guise can be used by anyone, although it only presents an illusion of simple small creatures, so medium users might find it problematic.
The cloak is only usable by those two races, but that is more in the limitation of what the magic does.
In both cases the magic is far more limited than a hat of disguise in the disguises it creates. A half elf with a hat of disguise can look like a human shopkeeper, an elven minstrel or a tiefling guard in an instant. a half elf with a cloak of human guise looks looks like himself except with round ears.
That is why it is cheaper.
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.This doesn't happen in the books though. For instance, a Cloak of Human Guise usable by only 1/2 elves/orcs has a reduction in price from a hat of disguise. It's cost to make is 1/2 it's sale price. Same with a Cap of Human Guise, usable by small creatures only [800gp sale/400 create].The cap of human guise can be used by anyone, although it only presents an illusion of simple small creatures, so medium users might find it problematic.
The cloak is only usable by those two races, but that is more in the limitation of what the magic does.
In both cases the magic is far more limited than a hat of disguise in the disguises it creates. A half elf with a hat of disguise can look like a human shopkeeper, an elven minstrel or a tiefling guard in an instant. a half elf with a cloak of human guise looks looks like himself except with round ears.
That is why it is cheaper.
*shrug* How about an Ancestral Clasp? Usable only by 1/2 elves. [cost 10,000, create 5000]. So the question still stands. Anyone seen an item where the create cost wasn't 1/2 the sale price?
In other words, a GM should never allow a PC to make an item by placing restrictions on them that are non-restrictions.
The suggestion was that the DM himself put the 30% reduction on and NOT the player. So I'm unsure where the unwritten rule comes in. And this also doesn't answer the question on why there is a total lack of published costs not matching 1/2 create costs if the reduction is ONLY for sale price.
You don't reduce item cost to create for restrictions. Cost to create remains the same, it's just worth less to sell.
If this is true, you should be able to point out where there is a published example of this happening right? I don't recall ever seeing this in practice.
|
|
You don't reduce crafting costs with those types of discounts, only market value.This doesn't happen in the books though. For instance, a Cloak of Human Guise usable by only 1/2 elves/orcs has a reduction in price from a hat of disguise. It's cost to make is 1/2 it's sale price. Same with a Cap of Human Guise, usable by small creatures only [800gp sale/400 create].
I haven't been able to find an instance of a creation price not being 1/2 the sale price. Do you know of an instance of an item printed with a market value reduced but the creation not? Or is this another unwritten rule?
the cloak of human guise real limitation isn't " when worn by a member of a half-human race", but being "similar to a hat of disguise, but only to the extent that it conceals or alters the wearer’s non-human physical traits so the creature appears fully human".
So it has an effect that is noticeably weaker than a regular hat of disguise. For that it receive a cost reduction of 50% against a hat of disguise.Normally the magic items that Paizo publish in the rulebooks don't have the kind price of reduction of which we are speaking. Maybe you can find something in the APs or in some companion dealing with specific races.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There is and will be no published example.
This whole thing seems obvious to me, but clearly over the years it has been argued since the wizards.com forums. It isn't obvious in any way.
A custom item that is limited (Holy Avenger) is created with the reduction in value calculated in to the price. The cost will be relative to that price.
A player wishing to make a new item and applying a reduction, is something the GM should avoid and therefore the cost remains normal and the sell price is reduced (less margin.)
A GM wishing to make a new item and applying a reduction, isn't something a player would be making. So the cost being 50% of the price isn't an issue.
|
|
A GM wishing to make a new item and applying a reduction, isn't something a player would be making. So the cost being 50% of the price isn't an issue.
The player can copy the item. But if the GM has placed it in his world probably it was comfortable with having it around.
As I see it, the function of those discount is to hinder the use of your items when in the hands of enemies. A magic item that can be only used by wizard probably will be useless for cultist bent on slaying all wizard as holy duty.
[*shrug* How about an Ancestral Clasp? Usable only by 1/2 elves. [cost 10,000, create 5000]. So the question still stands. Anyone seen an item where the create cost wasn't 1/2 the sale price?
It isn't clear that their is any discount for race built into the pricing of that item.
It either grants a feat, or it grants a +1 insight bonus to attack (not both.)
Feats of course don't have a generic pricing, but there are some examples and it has been suggested by other designers that 5,000 is about right for a feat that isn't really powerful (weapon proficiency being considered that) it is slotless, so the 10k price is right for that. The alternate choice, +1 insight bonus to attack isn't spelled out, exactly, but comparing enhancement bonus to armor vs. non-standard bonuses and we also would get a base price of 5,000 and thus a slotless cost of 10k. Since for any given character it is one or the other, I'm not sure that having both would include any markup.
To me, the price seems about right whether it is usable by half-elves or anyone, the half-elf limitation is just flavor.
Beyond that, discount for race isn't one of the options in magic item creation. There is no discount given for that.
Paizo has published very few things with the class limitation built in, and they are usually pretty specific to that class and really can't be just engineered with standard pricing guidelines. They have never, to my knowledge, published something that was just like something else, but cheaper because of a class restriction. That example is probably something that GMs should follow.
One problem with restrictions on who can use an item in regard to custom magic items is that the players making the item are never affected by those restrictions, as they would reduce the price as much as possible by piling on restrictions that only they meet.
Of course, such restrictions would reduce the potential number of buyers for the item if they ever decide to sell it, but that does not seem to be factored into standard magic item creation rules. For example, there are a few items that can be used effectively only by people who can cast 9th level spells, but the rarity of such people does nothing to drive down the selling price of these items.
It isn't clear that their is any discount for race built into the pricing of that item.
What IS clear that it's a limited item that doesn't deviate from the creation cost = 1/2 market price. That's my point. There isn't any evidence for that unwritten rule in ANY published item that I've found. If anyone HAS found such an item, it would give SOME credence to the 'rule' that's been espoused in this thread.
Paizo has published very few things with the class limitation built in, and they are usually pretty specific to that class and really can't be just engineered with standard pricing guidelines. They have never, to my knowledge, published something that was just like something else, but cheaper because of a class restriction. That example is probably something that GMs should follow.
Well we DO have items that are only usable to a class, like rings of revelation, Iron Collar of the Unbound Coven and Poet's Cloak. Now I don't know if they have a reduction for it but I can tell you that creation price is 1/2 the sale price.
The player can copy the item. But if the GM has placed it in his world probably it was comfortable with having it around.
This was part of my point. Above, someone suggested that the DM could alter the cost, not the player.
There is and will be no published example.
This whole thing seems obvious to me, but clearly over the years it has been argued since the wizards.com forums. It isn't obvious in any way.
A custom item that is limited (Holy Avenger) is created with the reduction in value calculated in to the price. The cost will be relative to that price.
A player wishing to make a new item and applying a reduction, is something the GM should avoid and therefore the cost remains normal and the sell price is reduced (less margin.)
A GM wishing to make a new item and applying a reduction, isn't something a player would be making. So the cost being 50% of the price isn't an issue.
This all doesn't make sense. Your example, a Holy Avenger, CAN be made by a player. It also has a creation price 1/2 the sale price, something _Ozy_ said shouldn't be as the sale price should be reduced but the creation cost should stay the same.
IMO, if the DM allows an item with the 30% reduction then is should work like a normal item creation otherwise [1/2 sale price for creation]. If it's just on sale prices, it seems odd to say the least. From the way you make it out to be, it's a modifier that isn't ever meant to be used, so it's not an issue... If that's the case, it should be removed. However, if it's used, it should be used just like the rest of the rule for magic creation.
EDIT: I could see this instead being the "Item Requires Skill to Use" reduction for the flute, instead of the class/alignment one.
David knott 242: On this item, a healing one, it could be a barrier for the other players healing flute user if they aren't bards or can play a flute if he gets KO'd. They can be sitting around and be unable to heal the healer with the nifty healing flute. So it would be clearly less useful that a 'normal' healing flute.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Graystone, reread my post.
All items will generally be 50% cost the create including ones the GM or the book put into the game with a restriction.
The GM shouldn't reduce the cost (just the price) for things the player says "I want this restricted". Why? Because a non-restriction shouldn't lower creation cost. Once created other NPC can make the item for less cost than the PC.
Likewise, a PC wishing to make a 30% cost less item the GM made or that is in a book (Holy Avengers), can be made for the penal 50% cost.
The GM shouldn't reduce the cost (just the price) for things the player says "I want this restricted". Why? Because a non-restriction shouldn't lower creation cost. Once created other NPC can make the item for less cost than the PC.
James I very much (but in a friendly way) disagree. A PC should be able to make an item for the same cost as an NPC.
Also players crafting items with restrictions such that they only work for them does come with some setbacks. For example, these restrictions make it so other members of the party can't use the item. It also means that they may have a much harder time finding buyers for their items when it comes time to sell them. Especially if they are made with very rare restrictions. An item that only works for Samsarans is unlikely to find many buyers outside of Tian Xa.
In literally every published example of items that have class or alignment restrictions I have found, the cost to create is half the cost to buy. If this is against the rules, then Paizo has broken their own rule literally every time.
As an example of how drawbacks can reduce the cost to create an item, here is a quote from the Pathfinder Player Companion Black Markets.
Crafting cursed items is generally cheaper than creating fully functional items, depending on the type of curse involved, as detailed below.
Delusion: Cost is reduced by 90%.
Drawbacks and Requirements: Cost isn’t reduced for
cosmetic drawbacks or requirements with no direct game
effects. Cost may be reduced by 10% for minor drawbacks
or requirements such as minimum skill ranks or worship
of a specific deity; by 30% for harmful or costly drawbacks
or requirements such as alignment change, ability damage,
sacrificing wealth, or performing a quest to activate the
item; or by 50% for severe drawbacks or requirements such
as negative levels or sacrificing sentient creatures.
Intermittent Functioning: The cost of uncontrolled or
unreliable items is reduced by 10%. The cost of dependent
items, which function only in certain situations, is reduced
by 30%.
Opposite Effect or Target: Cost is reduced by 50%.
This is a publication from Paizo directly stating that drawbacks/requirements can reduce the cost to create an item, not just its selling price.
Drawbacks actually hinder a player. Restrictions that the player already meets do not.
As a GM, how much would you allow a player to reduce the cost of creating an item that was restricted to
his race and his class and his alignment and his gender and worship of his deity and must have 3 skill ranks in some random skill?
That's like 6 restrictions right there. At a minimum of 10% reduction per, that's a 60% cost reduction, which doesn't hinder the player at all.
Do you really think that's RAI?
I think that that an item restricted to a specific race, alignment, gender and deity, which requires 3 skill ranks in a specific skill is in line with a "costly requirement", for a 30% discount. The item is then pretty much restricted to just them and they would proabably never be able to sell it as anything but a curiousity. I would allow them to make it for 35% the base price (a 30% discount).
For any more discount the drawback/requirement would need to be severe indeed.
At the end of the day this is something a DM will need to adjudicate. Getting beyond a 30% discount aught to be very hard.
|
|
As an example of how drawbacks can reduce the cost to create an item, here is a quote from the Pathfinder Player Companion Black Markets.This is a publication from Paizo directly stating that drawbacks/requirements can reduce the cost to create an item, not just its selling price.Crafting cursed items is generally cheaper than creating fully functional items, depending on the type of curse involved, as detailed below.
Delusion: Cost is reduced by 90%.
Drawbacks and Requirements: Cost isn’t reduced for
cosmetic drawbacks or requirements with no direct game
effects. Cost may be reduced by 10% for minor drawbacks
or requirements such as minimum skill ranks or worship
of a specific deity; by 30% for harmful or costly drawbacks
or requirements such as alignment change, ability damage,
sacrificing wealth, or performing a quest to activate the
item; or by 50% for severe drawbacks or requirements such
as negative levels or sacrificing sentient creatures.
Intermittent Functioning: The cost of uncontrolled or
unreliable items is reduced by 10%. The cost of dependent
items, which function only in certain situations, is reduced
by 30%.
Opposite Effect or Target: Cost is reduced by 50%.
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item in the Core Rulebook, the GM should require using the price of the Core Rulebook item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.
And that is a quote from a main line hardbound that say that reduced prices for a existing item in a new form shouldn't be applied.
Welcome to the world of freelance contributors.
BTW, in your citation: "Cost isn’t reduced for cosmetic drawbacks or requirements with no direct game effects." Sorry, but if your new magic item fall in the category "I already have all the needed characteristics", what you are applying is a cosmetic drawback with no direct game effect. No discount.
|
|
I think that that an item restricted to a specific race, alignment, gender and deity, which requires 3 skill ranks in a specific skill is in line with a "costly requirement", for a 30% discount. The item is then pretty much restricted to just them and they would proabably never be able to sell it as anything but a curiousity. I would allow them to make it for 35% the base price (a 30% discount).For any more discount the drawback/requirement would need to be severe indeed.
At the end of the day this is something a DM will need to adjudicate. Getting beyond a 30% discount aught to be very hard.
If the item is sold by a shop, yes, it will be sold at a lesser price, but if it is crafted by one of the party members, for someone that already meet the requirement, I will not reduce the production cost.
When I play with the "magic shops" are common option I sometime place the oddball item. Some of my 3.5 players still remember the +6 "cloak of charisma" that was a rose tinted tutu usable only by bards with at least 1 rank in perform (dancing). The female bard brought and used it.
As at the time they were level 20 and I was playing an adventure to introduce them to Epic play, money wasn't really a problem.
|
|
what about items were they don't currently have the requirements but can fulfill them in the future? eg. level 3 wizard crafting for his level 3 fighter friend and the item requires weapon training
I think that that an item restricted to a specific race, alignment, gender and deity, which requires 3 skill ranks in a specific skill is in line with a "costly requirement", for a 30% discount. The item is then pretty much restricted to just them and they would proabably never be able to sell it as anything but a curiousity. I would allow them to make it for 35% the base price (a 30% discount).For any more discount the drawback/requirement would need to be severe indeed.
At the end of the day this is something a DM will need to adjudicate. Getting beyond a 30% discount aught to be very hard.
If the item is sold by a shop, yes, it will be sold at a lesser price, but if it is crafted by one of the party members, for someone that already meet the requirement, I will not reduce the production cost.
When I play with the "magic shops" are common option I sometime place the oddball item. Some of my 3.5 players still remember the +6 "cloak of charisma" that was a rose tinted tutu usable only by bards with at least 1 rank in perform (dancing). The female bard brought and used it.
As at the time they were level 20 and I was playing an adventure to introduce them to Epic play, money wasn't really a problem.
If it is something that will come "naturally" (i.e. will be got automatically if the character continue with his current class) I wouldn't discount it, if it is something that has a "cost" for the character (i.e. a member of a group without a bard or equivalent taking a few rank in perform lute), I could consider it.
Generally I would prefer something that has some "in game world effect", like being the female cleric/bard drow that go around in a rose tinted tutu (everyone remember her, and even if she is very charismatic, it is hard to take her seriously (until you see her fighting)), or for something less tongue in cheek, having to "recharge" the healing flute once/month by placing it on the altar of a temple of Shelyn and spend an hour praying.
That would be worth a crafting discount.
Why would the fighter pay the wizard to craft an item that he can't actually use until later? Why wouldn't he just wait to get the item later then?
Have you ever run across the scenario you are presenting?
It could be something like: "we have the downtime now, then we will be busy for several weeks." or "Here we have the supplies and equipment, probably we will not have them on the road."
"To create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools." Most people don't like to carry an anvil, even a small one, hammers and pliers, while trekking in the wilderness.Several AP are made that way.
Is there anything in the rules that say a wand cannot be created in the shape of a flute? If so simply add the restriction that you have to play the song as a command word. I will leave it to others to decide if this would reduce the cost of the wand.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If the flute wand just cast the spell then it's the same as a wand and has 50 flutes.
As for all the opposition to the concept that a GM should want to stop a player from trying to have exploits / loopholes. I simply don't get it. The whole system is unlike magic the gathering. Loopholes are not encouraged. Loopholes with quick runner vest got patched with 24 hr delays, meta magic spells in spell storing items use the worse level for the PC, spiked bashing shields don't stack, and many others. There is no way the rules confine a restriction reducing the cost when the restriction isn't restricting the crafter.
I think we view things differently. What you see as a loophole, I see as using the system as intended. Though there is certainly room for abuse, that is where a DM can step in.
To me the fact that you or a party member may have abilities that negate a drawback or meet a requirement should not have a bearing on the price. Mostly because it does not make sense from a verisimilitude stand point. Why should it cost you more to craft something for an ally that allready meets a prerequisite than to craft something for ally that will have to make choices to get the prerequisite in the future?
The quote about finding loopholes is to prevent items like rings of continuous true strike granting a +20 to hit for the 8,000 gold. No DM in his right mind would allow such an item.
Restrictions like class and race are in game effects, not being able to let your party member borrow the item can be a big deal. So is the inability to find a buyer.
An example of a drawback without an in game effect would be an item that makes you feel cranky when you eat butterflies, no discount should be given for such a thing.
James and Diego, I think the reason that we disagree so often on these boards is that we differ philosophically when it comes to rules question. I think (just from observation) that you value preserving balance over other considerations. I view things an more permissive perspective where rules should apply more literally even if they upset some game balance. I view the system as inherently unbalanced. This unbalance actually makes sense to me from a verisimilitude standpoint. I value verisimilitude over game balance. In situations where the balance becomes too upset, I expect a DM to step in. Where that line is, is up to an individual DM.
There is nohing wrong with either approach, as long as people are enjoying the game.
As any item not explicitly listed in a rule book is a custom made item, it is presided over by individual GMs on what to allow and how to price it.
My personal recommendations are:
1) Don't let the players build the item. Have them tell you what they want and build something in line with that.
2) Don't give price reductions to the cost of crafting items. Actually, my real advice is just don't allow crafting of magical items, but if you wont listen to that you shouldn't allow reductions for restrictions that aren't really a restriction to players. An elf wizard who makes a robe of infinite spells shouldn't get a reduction on the price because it only works for elf wizards.
No this isn't explained anywhere well in the rules. Yes, this thread has mostly been people arguing about whether or not this is in the rules.
Sometimes we just need to say "I don't care what the rules say" and use a bit of what I would call "common sense" and not exploit things.
I will say that for me balance is more important than most anything else in the game.
|
|
James and Diego, I think the reason that we disagree so often on these boards is that we differ philosophically when it comes to rules question. I think (just from observation) that you value preserving balance over other considerations. I view things an more permissive perspective where rules should apply more literally even if they upset some game balance. I view the system as inherently unbalanced. This unbalance actually makes sense to me from a verisimilitude standpoint. I value verisimilitude over game balance. In situations where the balance becomes too upset, I expect a DM to step in. Where that line is, is up to an individual DM.
There is nohing wrong with either approach, as long as people are enjoying the game.
The problem here is that you see a verisimilitude in the unbalance, I don't see it.
Most of the time the restriction in use aren't something that would reduce the cost of producing an item, they would be something that would increase the cost of producing it.
What cost more?
A door with a simple handle or a door with a lock?
A car ignition system that is a single button or one that require an electronic key to activate it?
Unless the use of the skill or being of a specific class is directly related to how the magic item work, the requirement is something bolted on, not something that is born from the item.
The example, some post above, of a cloak of disguise that only work on half-human making them appear human, is something where the requirement is part of the magic, it reduce the work that the item do.
Having a flute that cast cure light wound requiring to have the perform skill don't. Even having ranks in the healing skills would have little relevance, as the healing skill don't affect the CLW spell and vice versa.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sometimes we just need to say "I don't care what the rules say" and use a bit of what I would call "common sense" and not exploit things.
I will say that for me balance is more important than most anything else in the game.
+1
Despite there being a mountain sized pile of posts saying "common sense isn't common", you can find many posts by developers saying they expect common sense to be used to interpret.
That is mostly because they expect a certain amount of balance to be preserved.
Is the goal of this item to essentially "purchase" more spell slots per day to cast CLW?
At that rate a wand is much more cost effective, flavor it as a flute whose activation word is playing the Mary Had a Little Lamb line. Simple fix.
If your goal is to further enhance the means that CLW can cover, like with greater range, or something more related to the bard's class abilities have the item be something like: "As long as a bard uses this instrument to maintain Bardic Performance, any Cure Wounds spell can be cast as a close range spell. In addition this item can cast Cure Light Wounds 3 times per day (CL 5th)."
Or something along those lines.
Figure out what the item needs to be compared to the items that already exist, then decide if a new item needs to exist at all or if you can simply reskin an already existing item.
For instance, consider an item like the First Aid Gloves when you want to create new items that offer the ability.
Perhaps playing different songs on the flute can grant access to greater curative spells, but can be gated by a Performance roll.
You have plenty of choices to make a unique item unique.