|
So I was thinking about the way's you can reduce a magic items cost by making it require a specific skill or class alingment and it got me pondering items in mythology that can only be used by a specific family (This tapestry will call the fey to your aid but only 3 times) or even by a single person (more fiction than myth but still). How much of a reduction do you think that would warrant on the item cost if any.
Personally I'm inclined to say none because if you took this option you'd be making it for a specific person not making an item anyone theoretically could pick up and use. On the other paw I can see a case to have it the same as the 30% reduction for a specific class/alignemnt because you are doing effectively the same thing. Only Barbarians can use this = 30% reduction, only the royal family of thassilon can use this = 30% reduction, only members of the Kikio family can use this = 30% reuduction. In each case your defining a specific section of the general population who can use it. However we then have the ultimate restriction only Baldrick the base can wear these trousers that contain all the evil of the world and only he can look therein to unleash it. It is limited to only one person ever.
On yet another paw if you go with the straight more restrictive = lower cost then a family/group could match the 30% but an individual would need to be higher 40-50%.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PC who wants it matches the category then the value reduction to them is 0%. It might even be worth more because most thieves wouldn't be able to use it. If otherwise then it would be sold like any other item, presumably to someone who has an interest in it. No, I don't think the cost reductions in the rules are appropriate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This all depends on who is 'creating' the item:
- If a GM creates a custom magic item with restrictions and needs to calculate how much it could be sold for, applying the reduction is appropriate as there will be fewer interested buyers.
- If a player is creating a custom magic item with restrictions and needs to determine the crafting time/cost, applying the reduction is almost never appropriate, as this tends to just be abusive (Hey, I just happen to meet all the restrictions on this item I just crafted).
|
30% or 0%.
Rules-wise, there's a very good case for putting this in the same category as "can only be used by an oracle" or "must be chaotic."
From a "does it make sense?" perspective, I've only ever seen the other considerations (skill/class/alignment) clause used as a way to make an item someone already wants even cheaper. The party wizard throws it onto the headband of vast intelligence he is crafting for himself to get a discount. It's particularly egregious when you make an item that is already intended for one class ("increases weapon training bonus") and then give it a discount for only being usable by one class.
I believe the original intention was to give the GM a tool to present players with tough choices. "Boy, this sword we found would be great for my fighter, but it can only be used by a bard. Do I want to take a bard level, or should we sell it for 70% of what we would normally get?"
Summary: don't apply the discount if it's something your players can already use and will want to.
|
|
I suppose it depends on whether you feel a basic magic item can be used by everyone and your restricting that or if it can only be used by the creator and your adding the ability of others to use it.
The former is a price discount because there's a smaller demand, the later is a price discount because you aren't spending as much to allow everyone to use it.
|
|
I suppose it depends on whether you feel a basic magic item can be used by everyone and your restricting that or if it can only be used by the creator and your adding the ability of others to use it.
The former is a price discount because there's a smaller demand, the later is a price discount because you aren't spending as much to allow everyone to use it.
If the latter is true, then nearly all items should have restrictions on them, as they are presumably built with a specific user (or type of user at least) in mind: Why would an elf item crafter put extra resources into making certain his creation could be used by everyone when he intends to use it himself and maybe pass it to his kinfolk eventually?
Pricing discounts are the exception rather than the rule, and should be applied sparingly at best.
In summary:
- Custom magic items are almost always problematic and are best avoided.
- D&D/PF economics make no logical sense.
- Pricing discounts are rife with potential abuse.
- Just step back from these particular rules, play the game, and enjoy!
|
|
So given the general attitude in this thread do people think the standard should be items are restricted as default and making it available to larger groups requires a cost increase?
Nope, unrestricted should be standard and restrictions/discounts should only be applied by the GM as specific exceptions to fit the item, not by the player as an attempt to 'game the system' and make a cheaper item.
Making restricted items 'standard' just forces PCs to get all their equipment specifically crafted since most 'found' items will need to be sold for gold...
It's an even trade, if it's restricted the item is secure, if it's not restricted the items resells better.
Someone just stocking shelves would always go with unrestricted. I could see some vendors encouraging people to get restricted items so that their existence doesn't dilute the market, but most items would still be unrestricted.
Wartime creations could also tend toward restricted. For instance, a wand of fireballs that only works for those whose names are written in a book in the capitol would be a reasonable failsafe.
Just take it on a case by case basis and assume that restricted and unrestricted cost the same to create, but vary for sales purposes.
As a GM, I would allow it as a cost deduction once per item. If more restrictions were wanted by the crafter, that would be fine, but the cost reduction would only apply once.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taja raises some good points. But I pretty much *only* use custom magic items in my games.
The problem is when you have players getting more for less for the sake of bonuses. Which means they're trying to abuse the system. Because that means they are no longer interested in playing a cooperative game. That's the issue. That's the root. Dig it out and burn it wherever you find it.
Now, if you have a player who is actually trying to tell a story with you and interact with your world and the other player's characters and is generally a reasonable and decent human being...why not let them have something cool and unique?
Granted, I don't think that applies very well to this particular subject. A sweet magic sword that can only be used by elves or whatever isn't all that cool on it's own. The restriction isn't an interesting mechanic and doesn't add anything.
I think the best way to use the restrictions are story elements (like the tapestry mentioned by the OP) and as a way to balance a potent item. An amulet that grants Fast Healing 1 but only for those with an Infernal bloodline would allow one player to cross out of combat healing off their to-do list, but wouldn't allow everyone to take a turn wearing the necklace
What, like, Monk's Robes? Or a Dervish Sikke?
There are lots of items that aren't worth holding on to unless you meet their intended purpose... are you a Monk? No? Then you sell Monk's Robes when you find them, or don't spend your gold on them... because they aren't worth it for you. Do you have Bardic Performance? No? Sell the Dervish Sikke/don't buy one.
Are these items created or sold at a discount because they are useless to 90% of everyone?
|
|
To answer OP, you can’t do that. At all. For a good reason too: these types of items already exist, and they are all artifacts, meaning even a 20th level PC can’t make them, outside of the GM just saying so.
What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword?
If the PC who wants it matches the category then the value reduction to them is 0%. It might even be worth more because most thieves wouldn't be able to use it. If otherwise then it would be sold like any other item, presumably to someone who has an interest in it. No, I don't think the cost reductions in the rules are appropriate.
Cost reduction rules are almost never appropriate for a PC to use, as a restriction that doesn't apply to them isn't actually relevant.
Personally, I think from an in universe look it should reduce the value of the item to sale, but not to create.
Why? It's still as powerful to the right person, but being the right person is a lot harder.
I've honestly only ever seen the rule trying to be used by players trying to metagame the system.
|
|
I don't think you quite understand the resale price, so let's take a two human swashbucklers walking into a WeaponMart with 2,320g each to buy a Rapier +1:To answer OP, you can’t do that. At all. For a good reason too: these types of items already exist, and they are all artifacts, meaning even a 20th level PC can’t make them, outside of the GM just saying so.What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword?
- Swashbuckler 1: Buys a unrestricted weapon for 2,320g and later sells it for 1,160g
- Swashbuckler 2: Buys a 'humans only' weapon for 1,720g and later sells it for 860g.
Even if you are crafting the item yourself, you still end up with resale value being equal to the crafting cost: If you are going to 'break even' either way, why not go the cheaper (and less time consuming) route?
Now, if you allow a 90% discount for a 'one person only' weapon, now you can get a +3 weapon for the cost of a +1 unrestricted item, which really starts to throw all notion of campaign balance out the proverbial window (and also makes the Use Magic Device skill ridiculously powerful).
|
|
I don't think you quite understand the resale price, so let's take a two human swashbucklers walking into a WeaponMart with 2,320g each to buy a Rapier +1:To answer OP, you can’t do that. At all. For a good reason too: these types of items already exist, and they are all artifacts, meaning even a 20th level PC can’t make them, outside of the GM just saying so.What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword?While it might look like 'Swashbucker 2' is down 300g, he still has 600g that he didn't spend on the initial purchase, so he end up 300g richer than his counterpart.
- Swashbuckler 1: Buys a unrestricted weapon for 2,320g and later sells it for 1,160g
- Swashbuckler 2: Buys a 'humans only' weapon for 1,720g and later sells it for 860g.
Even if you are crafting the item yourself, you still end up with resale value being equal to the crafting cost: If you are going to 'break even' either way, why not go the cheaper (and less time consuming) route?
Now, if you allow a 90% discount for a 'one person only' weapon, now you can get a +3 weapon for the cost of a +1 unrestricted item, which really starts to throw all notion of campaign balance out the proverbial window (and also makes the Use Magic Device skill ridiculously powerful).
I understand how they work I was merely querying why restricting something to a bloodline/person would be an artifact and not something a player can make when you could just limit the resale even further because no one would pay thousands of gold for a magic item they can't use.
I made my point badly I think as I was in a rush when posting but still I don't see why they'd refuse to allow it at all especially when there are already rules for similar if less resrtictive items.
|
|
...I understand how they work I was merely querying why restricting something to a bloodline/person would be an artifact and not something a player can make when you could just limit the resale even further because no one would pay thousands ofI don't think you quite understand the resale price, so let's take a two human swashbucklers walking into a WeaponMart with 2,320g each to buy a Rapier +1:To answer OP, you can’t do that. At all. For a good reason too: these types of items already exist, and they are all artifacts, meaning even a 20th level PC can’t make them, outside of the GM just saying so.What? Why I mean even if you don't think it deserves a discount (as most posters seem to agree) why would you prevent a PC making an item that can only be used by a specific family or even one person? How is it any different to making a sword +1 if you make a sword +1 that only Jake can use especially since that would mean its resale value is that of a normal masterwork sword?While it might look like 'Swashbucker 2' is down 300g, he still has 600g that he didn't spend on the initial purchase, so he end up 300g richer than his counterpart.
- Swashbuckler 1: Buys a unrestricted weapon for 2,320g and later sells it for 1,160g
- Swashbuckler 2: Buys a 'humans only' weapon for 1,720g and later sells it for 860g.
Even if you are crafting the item yourself, you still end up with resale value being equal to the crafting cost: If you are going to 'break even' either way, why not go the cheaper (and less time consuming) route?
Now, if you allow a 90% discount for a 'one person only' weapon, now you can get a +3 weapon for the cost of a +1 unrestricted item, which really starts to throw all notion of campaign balance out the proverbial window (and also makes the Use Magic Device skill ridiculously powerful).
I don't think that argument works since (a) they aren't likely to make items which the players can't use, (b) they have rules to restrict items to skills or classes which is similar, (c) there are cursed items that do similar things and (d) you can argue that way for anything. All examples of golems attack the party therefore all golems must attack the party.
I'm pretty sure those artifacts are restricted to one group/person because of their other powers rather than being artifacts because only one group/person can use them. Which doesn't even touch on things like the alchemist capstone that allows them to make philosophers stones (an artifact) or the Numerian technology which is mass produced tech classed as an artifact because it was made by a more advanced civilization and can't be replicated on Golarion.
Saying all examples are artifacts therefore the party can't do it without looking at the context just seems a flawed argument to me. Not least because it means if you can find just one example to counter it you then open up arguments for "X makes Y therefor I should be able to make Z artifact."