PDA

View Full Version : The Item Creation Thread



Stegyre
2009-09-22, 10:30 PM
I’ve been promising myself to start this thread for some time.

Purpose

(1) If you have any questions about item creation rules, whether for magic or psionic or any other type of item, please feel free to post it here. Yes, you may also ask such questions in the RAW thread, but (a) item creation, in general, is not well addressed by RAW; instead of having hard, fast answers, RAW really defers to GM judgment; and (b) the RAW thread is intended for succinct answers to succinct questions, no extended debate or discussion. In this thread, I encourage that discussion.

As in the RAW threads, please number your questions with bold numbers:
Q 1 (question)
Q 2 (question), etc.

Those responding, please follow the same pattern, of course.

(2) A second major purpose for this thread is to post proposed items for review and comment. Points to address, both by the initial poster and by respondents include but are not limited to (a) how to calculate an appropriate price for the proposed item (including how the existing rules address it, or should address it), and (b) particularly important (at least, IMHO) whether an item is overpowered, either for its calculated cost or otherwise.

(3) Feel free, also, to discuss item creation in general. Item creation debates that start in other threads are welcome to migrate here. Proposals, whether for interpreting the existing rules or for a home brew item creation process, are welcome here. And so forth.

The thread is open, and I will add some of my own posts soon enough.

Supplemental item creation rules derived from this thread:
Pending discussion: 1. -1 attribute damage caused by a weapon hit is a +2bonus. Basis: wounding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#wounding), which does 1 point of constitution damage on a successful hit.
Supplemental items derived from this thread:
pending

PinkysBrain
2009-09-22, 10:37 PM
Just want to point out that there is a very good argument to be made that the custom magic item pricing table is actually only there as a guideline for the DM, not an actual set of rules.

People on both sides of this are never going to agree with each other ... but two sides there are.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 09:23 AM
Just want to point out that there is a very good argument to be made that the custom magic item pricing table is actually only there as a guideline for the DM, not an actual set of rules.

People on both sides of this are never going to agree with each other ... but two sides there are.
If there are two sides to this argument, then you and I are on the same one. I think there's language explicitly on point, in the DMG if not in the SRD. This is why, IMO, item creation questions don't really belong in the RAW thread: RAW punts the question. This is why I wanted to set up a separate thread.

ericgrau
2009-09-23, 09:43 AM
Like the pirates code, these are more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules. While you could tell someone exactly what the baseline price should be, from there it might be adjusted or the item might be disallowed entirely. There's a lot of opinion involved here, and in the end it's up to individual DM.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 10:09 AM
Like the pirates code, these are more what you would call "guidelines" than actual rules. While you could tell someone exactly what the baseline price should be, from there it might be adjusted or the item might be disallowed entirely. There's a lot of opinion involved here, and in the end it's up to individual DM.
Again, this highlights the purpose for this thread. DMs, in particular (especially new DMs), can use guidance from the community as to whether a proposed item (a) duplicates an already existing item (and hence should have a comparable cost), or (b) is too imbalancing, for reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

I don't expect this thread to lay down the law on anything, but I do hope it will generate an interesting bank of new items, as well as more general rules on how item creation should be governed.

subject42
2009-09-23, 10:22 AM
Q1
In the SRD the "wounding" enchantment does 1 point of CON damage per successful hit at a +2 cost. Should other ability damage to other stats have the same cost?

Fitz
2009-09-23, 10:29 AM
con damage is considered to be the nastiest to face, so other ability damage probably should be lower in cost, however i suspect a) it would be a niche application and b) it won't make a full +1 differece down to a +1 ability, so would expect any other ability damage ability to cost the same as wounding

Fitz

Croverus
2009-09-23, 10:33 AM
Q1My only question is how can a character with no caster level who is skilled at making weapons create anything beyond Mastrcraft weaponry? Is it possible for, say a 5th level expert with a total Craft(arms and armor) skill bonus in the mid-teens ever create a +1 morning star or stronger magic items? Without any levels as a spellcaster.

ericgrau
2009-09-23, 10:34 AM
Again, this highlights the purpose for this thread. DMs, in particular (especially new DMs), can use guidance from the community as to whether a proposed item (a) duplicates an already existing item (and hence should have a comparable cost), or (b) is too imbalancing, for reasons that may not be immediately obvious.

I don't expect this thread to lay down the law on anything, but I do hope it will generate an interesting bank of new items, as well as more general rules on how item creation should be governed.
Fair enough. [Rereads first post]. Oh, you already said it; that's what I get for not reading a thread carefully enough. My apologies.

A2 (A1?). By the rules, no. He can only make masterwork items even faster. In general crafting tends to be too slow and minor to be worth it for PCs. It's better for NPCs with more time on their hands and a lower expected income. You could however house rule a method for non-caster creation of magic items, and I think I saw a recent thread discussing this.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 10:47 AM
Here's an item I think should exist :

Fusor
This appears to be a set of oversized scales. When 2 items are placed on either plate as well as sufficient gems it will transfer all the magic properties of both items to the item on the plate holding the gems, consuming the gems. Sufficient gems are necessary to cover the difference between the value of the original and the new items.

Strong Transmutation; CL 17; Craft Wondrous Item, Wish;Price 100.000 gp;Weight 100 lb

Croverus
2009-09-23, 10:49 AM
Ok, thanks. Just curoius because I'm playing a PC who will start as the Expert class, and his background is that he's a blacksmith. I'll talk to my GM about maybe some houserule that would let me make magic items.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 11:36 AM
Q1My only question is how can a character with no caster level who is skilled at making weapons create anything beyond Mastrcraft weaponry? Is it possible for, say a 5th level expert with a total Craft(arms and armor) skill bonus in the mid-teens ever create a +1 morning star or stronger magic items? Without any levels as a spellcaster.
A2 additional
(Croverus, please edit to Q2; you were ninja'd for Q1.)
We can be hypertechnical and say be a psionic class and get Craft Psionic Arms & Armor. You don't need "caster levels" then, you just use "manifester levels," instead. :smallbiggrin:
Somehow, I doubt that really addresses your issue. Ericgrau's answer is essentially correct: someone involved in the creation must have some sort of caster level or caster level equivalent (like manifester levels, for psionic items, or the artificer's ability -- although technically not a "caster" -- to create items as if he had a CL of artificer level +2).

However, the rule is really just that someone with the necessary CL needs to be involved in the process. Prerequisites for creating items may come from more than one person. It is not explicitly stated in RAW, but presumably, this could even include the XP cost. (IMO, a good houserule is that the character who is commissioning an item participates in its creation and supplies the XP, whether or not he may supply other prerequisites.)

Random832
2009-09-23, 11:37 AM
I don't really understand the price adjustment.

The laws of the universe shouldn't care how useful someone finds something. A certain amount of material components (whose normal market price is 50% of the "base price" from the table) and a certain amount of XP (1/25 of the "base price") should be required for an item that has a given spell a given number of times with a given activation method, regardless of how useful or useless it is.

Now, you could argue that the usefulness would affect the market price. This is arguably true at first. But let's apply economics to D&D for a minute.

At "first", upon invention of a magic item that is particularly useful for its base cost, demand will skyrocket (because it is underpriced). This drives the price up. (to a lesser degree, it drives demand up for the material components, which will increase the price of _every_ magic item)

Now, since it is much more profitable to make these (since the price is up but the cost is not up by quite as much), the market will be flooded. Eventually this reaches a point where everyone has one (so demand is reduced back to lower levels, reducing the price, which reduces supply back to normal levels.) - Everyone having one also has the game-balancing factor of making it so that having one doesn't give you as much of an edge.

So the key to game balance isn't to apply arbitrary price controls, it's to just say "since this is so useful, everyone's going to have one, and it's not as game-breaking to have a cheap magic item if all your enemies are also going to have them"

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 11:48 AM
I've added two additional edits to the OP, one for supplemental item creation rules; the other for good new magic items. In both cases, I'd like these to be for rules/items that have been vetted and discussed. While I have a "final say" in what gets included by virtue of my position as thread starter, I actually want these to ultimately include rules or items that, even if I don't agree with them, have a consensus. (That being said, I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, who will probably agree with anything that has good support.)

So far, I've just added one supplemental rule, arising out of Q1, which still should be discussed: -1 attribute damage caused by a weapon hit is a +2bonus. Basis: wounding, which does 1 point of constitution damage on a successful hit. While I think Fitz correctly notes that con. damage is among the most desirable, he's also correct in noting that there really isn't room to move downward from there without making other attribute damage too cheap.

Those who have an opinion, please discuss.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 12:02 PM
Here's an item I think should exist :

Fusor
This appears to be a set of oversized scales. When 2 items are placed on either plate as well as sufficient gems it will transfer all the magic properties of both items to the item on the plate holding the gems, consuming the gems. Sufficient gems are necessary to cover the difference between the value of the original and the new items.

Strong Transmutation; CL 17; Craft Wondrous Item, Wish;Price 100.000 gp;Weight 100 lb
The problem with this item is that it breaks some essential item creation mechanics:

First, no one is sacrificing the required time and XP. Multiple abilities in a single item are generally better than the same items, singly, distributed among multiple items. Consequently, such items typically require a 50% increase in material, XP and time costs, which helps limit their creation. With an item like this, characters can get better items, faster, and more cheaply than they otherwise could. While players may want that, IMO, it's not good for game balance.

Second, another rule this could break is the epic item rule: only epic items may have a creation cost in excess of 200,000. Use this device to combine only a few items and you'll likely violate that, especially as you should necessarily increase the creation cost of the cheaper item by 50% (the "multiple different abilities" cost increase).

I'd suggest revising and limiting this idea. Some revisions that may be workable: fuse potions, so a character can get the benefit of more than one type of potion by expending a single action. This could operate similarly to the {Scrubbed. If it's in the SRD or otherwise OGL, link to the SRD or WotC site. Don't link to that site or others where non-OGL material is posted in violation of copyright.}

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 12:11 PM
The laws of the universe shouldn't care how useful someone finds something.
The laws of the universe may not care, but game balance does. Just giving the same, very good items to everyone, as you propose is a possible solution, but you should consider how that will change game play:

Let continuous "Protection from ____" items be purchased at their "rule" cost (it's 8,000, assuming an appropriate slot) and charm and other compulsion spells and SLAs are now worthless. Characters won't bother learning such spells if these items are common enough that opponents have them, and creatures whose CRs are boosted by such abilities are now over-rated.

You can still play the game and (if universally applied) that game can still be "balanced," but the more you do this, the farther and farther the game verges from a "standard" 3.5 game and the harder it is for veterans of other campaigns to adapt to yours (and vice-versa).

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 12:55 PM
The problem with this item is that it breaks some essential item creation mechanics:

First, no one is sacrificing the required time and XP.
Time is money ... you're paying more money than if it was crafted (you pay the difference in item values, not crafting cost).

With an item like this, characters can get better items, faster, and more cheaply than they otherwise could.
Faster yes, cheaper no ... it costs them more money, less XP.

Second, another rule this could break is the epic item rule: only epic items may have a creation cost in excess of 200,000.
That's easy enough to fix ... but a gp limit alone isn't really a fix.

The MiC infinite combination limited only by gp rules are unstable to begin with ... if you just sweep together all the low gp high power items it's easy to overpower any character, before the MiC the power of these items were at least limited by slot availability ... but no longer.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 01:04 PM
I don't really understand the price adjustment.
Actually I completely agree with this.

With good item pricing guidelines it shouldn't matter (note that the DMG/SRD ones are lacking, for instance target/range doesn't enter into the equation at all ... personal buffs are significantly more powerful than targeted buffs, but end up costing the same with the guidelines). If the spell is appropriate for it's level/duration/target/etc it should be appropriate for an item priced with such guidelines ... if the item is too good it's because the spell is too good.

It's not like it's hard to make your character a gish and/or UMD user and get access to the spells that way ... it's just boring to be forced into it by a system which refuses to give anyone else nice things. Custom items should let everyone get nice things, instead of just casters. If it shows fault lines in the game fix them, it's nothing which couldn't be exploited anyway by hybrid casters.

Pricing items based on how good Skip Williams thinks items are ends up with rings of invisibility ... a ring a high level rogue might consider putting in his pocket if he finds it in loot. Buying it at a level where it's a significant part of your wealth and sacrificing an item slot for it? Never no way.

Johel
2009-09-23, 01:08 PM
Now, you could argue that the usefulness would affect the market price. This is arguably true at first. But let's apply economics to D&D for a minute.^

While I agree with your market analyse of magical components, magical items and such, let's not forget a few facts :

The number of spellcasters is supposed to be small.
The higher the "level", the fewer the people.
Magic is supposed to have been around for centuries.
Create a magic item costs XP.
"Create Magic X" is useless before level 5.
"Create Magic X" becomes really usefull only past level 10.


If you combine these factors, that means the market has a very low offer because :

There isn't many spellcasters to begin with.
Most spellcasters can't create items or at least not a lot.
Most of those who can are busy adventuring, searching new spells or doing something not related to the market.

On the other hand, the demand is so high than even double productions won't change the price much. Because magic has been around in its actual form for centuries, the market has already experienced several cycles and isn't reacting to offer and demand, since those aren't going to evolve much.

There's plenty of other threads about D&D economy. I agree with you, it's not realistic but it makes a good game as long as people aren't too logical about its inner working.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 01:08 PM
Let continuous "Protection from ____" items be purchased at their "rule" cost (it's 8,000, assuming an appropriate slot) and charm and other compulsion spells and SLAs are now worthless.
Quite a few of these items spread around WotC books.

PS. which is not to say that I think allowing a lot of continuous buffs is good for the game.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 01:19 PM
Fusor
It should be clear that I'm not saying the concept is hopeless but that it needs to be fleshed out and (almost certainly) limited. That being said:


Time is money ... you're paying more money than if it was crafted (you pay the difference in item values, not crafting cost).But you're not (currently) paying anything for the saved time. By the existing rules, creating the combined item from scratch would almost necessarily take an amount of additional time equal to 50% of the time for the lower-cost item. At a minimum, why should we not require the Fusor to take that amount of time to complete its work?


Faster yes, cheaper no ... it costs them more money, less XP.(a) How is it costing more money? From the base description, it sounds like the user only pays the difference between the cost of the two items and the cost of the combined item. That amounts to the same cost as if the character purchased the finished item.
(b) WHY should it cost less XP? That starts to smell like game-breaking Thought Bottle mechanics. Maybe I am alone in this opinion -- :smallredface: -- but items cost XP because they are worth XP. (Actually, they are probably worth substantially more XP than their cost, which is why the magic market is so hot; that and the fact that NPCs are probably underpaid for their XP at only 5 gp per.)


That's easy enough to fix ... but a gp limit alone isn't really a fix.

The MiC infinite combination limited only by gp rules are unstable to begin with ... if you just sweep together all the low gp high power items it's easy to overpower any character, before the MiC the power of these items were at least limited by slot availability ... but no longer.
Yet the fusor, as it presently stands, would be part of the problem, not part of any solution. It's a given that the item creation rules are neither determinative nor binding; they are at best guidelines. That's one of the reasons for this thread: to address points where those guidelines may lead players and GMs astray.

At a minimum, the epic limit sets a limit on how much awesumeness can be infused into one object. Because of the (IMO) incredible abundance of body slots, it does not place a real limitation on character power, only on item power. Using all body slots, a character may have 15*200,000 = 3M gp in magical potency, not counting weapons, tools, and everything else he carries in bags of holding (as well as in that ultra-enhanced belt-of-hidden-pouches-super-strength-energy-resistance-etc.)

Of course, that's really a side issue. :smallsmile:

I do think a Potion Fusor is an idea that could have some legs. Potions otherwise are disfavored, but this could give them some real utility.

Lysander
2009-09-23, 01:28 PM
All right. I have two questions:

Q3: Can any spell be tied to a magic item?
Q4: Could you make an object that permanently emits an anti-magic field?

Johel
2009-09-23, 01:31 PM
Fusor
At a minimum, the epic limit sets a limit on how much awesumeness can be infused into one object. Because of the (IMO) incredible abundance of body slots, it does not place a real limitation on character power, only on item power. Using all body slots, a character may have 15*200,000 = 3M gp in magical potency, not counting weapons, tools, and everything else he carries in bags of holding (as well as in that ultra-enhanced belt-of-hidden-pouches-super-strength-energy-resistance-etc.)


Try to play a 14th level Bard, OGL only, without stuffing yourself up to the ears and I'm sure your idea of "abundance" will skrink. :smallamused:
For wizards, though, it's sure is a lot but, past level 10, in most settings, wizards on their way to godhood anyway.


I do think a Potion Fusor is an idea that could have some legs. Potions otherwise are disfavored, but this could give them some real utility

Unless you don't have UMD, potions are useless.
They are expansive and fragile.

So I like your idea, here.
Let's push it further :
Spellcasters should make potions first to create magical items.
The liquid would work as some sort of oil in which the item must be bathed for several days, with the caster casting the spells over the pool several times during the whole process.


Q3: Can any spell be tied to a magic item?
Q4: Could you make an object that permanently emits an anti-magic field?


A3 : Any spell *can* be tied to a wondrous object.
But the price is going to go up pretty quick.
Wands are limited to 4th level spells.
Potions are limited to 3rd level spells.
A4 : Yes... and your MD should allow it. If only for fighters to get a chance against spellcasters past level 10.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 01:32 PM
Quite a few of these items spread around WotC books.

PS. which is not to say that I think allowing a lot of continuous buffs is good for the game.
Yes, and this one even has a comparable, rule book price tag:
16,000: the price of an (intelligent) item that can create a "Magic Circle Against _____" at will. (SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/intelligentItems.htm))

I'm in full agreement that some buffs are just too good to be available as items (particularly continuous-effect items), much though I lust for them as a player. My favorite is still a continuous Sanctuary effect.

The problem is not always that the spell is "too good." While low level, these spells often have very limited durations. Some buffs become overpowered when they are kept on even in situations where the player would otherwise never cast the spell (Sanctuary and Protection from being two very good examples). Now, the disguised vampire lord cannot subtly charm or suggest a key party member before the fighting breaks out; an assassin or scout has to make a saving role to even attack that sentry; etc.

Such items may still be available, but at a minimum, they need to be priced appropriately (i.e., much higher than the forumula values). Exotic component requirements, requiring quests to distant and dangerous locations would not be inappropriate, and would also help to explain why such products were not more commonplace.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 01:34 PM
My favorite is still a continuous Sanctuary effect.
This is like continuous True Strike ... I'd allow it as a DM, but the player wouldn't be too happy about the result (ie. it's active until discharged/interrupted ... and then it never works again).

Here (http://tijdelijk.student.utwente.nl/custom_magic_items.html) is an old set of custom magic item guidelines in which I tried to bring some sanity to the DMG/SRD ones (I used to think that 1 continuous spell effect per item slot was enough limitation, but in retrospect that's way too much ... with 1 per ring it should be okay). I already fixed the continuous true strike/sanctuary stuff at the time.

Akal Saris
2009-09-23, 01:37 PM
Q3: How do magic item creation cost reducers stack with each other? Potential cost reducers include the following:

Extroardinary, Legendary, Exceptional Artisan (EBCS)
Magical artisan (PGtF)
Cost reducers for class-based, alignment-based, or race-based restrictions (DMG)

For example, If I'm making a Ring of Protection +3 and have Extraordinary Artisan, Magical Artisan (Forge Ring), and I limit it to be usable only by LN Female Elven Wizards, what is the final GP/XP cost to create the ring?

I'm asking this because I think that % cost reducers are a function of item crafting that are easily confusing, and I tend to have trouble with them myself.

Johel
2009-09-23, 01:44 PM
This is like continuous True Strike ... I'd allow it as a DM, but the player wouldn't be too happy about the result (ie. it's active until discharged/interrupted ... and then it never works again).

The price of a continuous True Strike is going to be reeeeally high, since you must refer to the "Effect" priceguide before the "Spell Effect" priceguide (see the examples in the SRD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm
20 * 20 * 2.000 = 800.000

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 01:47 PM
But you're not (currently) paying anything for the saved time. By the existing rules, creating the combined item from scratch would almost necessarily take an amount of additional time equal to 50% of the time for the lower-cost item. At a minimum, why should we not require the Fusor to take that amount of time to complete its work?
It's irrelevant for balance ... time passing is just saying "time passes".

(a) How is it costing more money?
It costs more than crafting.

but items cost XP because they are worth XP.
Ever played an artificer?

Items cost XP because Skip Williams&Co thought it a good idea ... XP is worth very little though for an adventurer. Adventuring with a band of people merely 1 level above you will earn you the lost XP back very fast.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 01:52 PM
The price of a continuous True Strike is going to be reeeeally high, since you must refer to the "Effect" priceguide before the "Spell Effect" priceguide (see the examples in the SRD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm
20 * 20 * 2.000 = 800.000
You missed my point, that's not a continous True Strike ... that's a continuously reactivating true strike ...

Also I completely disagree with the line of reasoning. I believe that with good pricing guidelines the effects of the spell is irrelevant ... if you end up with items which are too good for their price it's because the spells are too good in the first place. If you don't fix it for the spells then don't begrudge the players who don't want to play gishes the items.

Johel
2009-09-23, 02:08 PM
You missed my point, that's not a continous True Strike ... that's a continuously reactivating true strike ...

Also I completely disagree with the line of reasoning. I believe that with good pricing guidelines the effects of the spell is irrelevant ... if you end up with items which are too good for their price it's because the spells are too good in the first place. If you don't fix it for the spells then don't begrudge the players who don't want to play gishes the items.

Well, it's not reasoning, it's the way it's done for most items.
Whenever a spell's direct effect is to give a bonus listed in the "Effect" priceguide, it uses the "Effect" priceguide rather than the "Spelleffect" priceguide.

(also, I miscalculated the price. That's 800.000 x 4 because it's a 1 action duration. 3.200.000 gp. So that's really expansive...)

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 02:14 PM
Well, it's not reasoning, it's the way it's done for most items. Whenever a spell's direct effect is to give a bonus listed in the "Effect" priceguide
Which nearly no spell ever exactly does.

Try pricing boots of haste by adding all the effect prices to a use activated haste item.

zagan
2009-09-23, 02:14 PM
Well I already post that question in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124046).
Nobody respond probably because nobody know, still perhaps in a thread dedicated to crafting.

Q6: How to determine the craft DC and price of poison if they're not given anywhere ? Any idea ?

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 02:22 PM
Q3: Can any spell be tied to a magic item?Not quite. By RAW, I am aware of at least one power -- Bestow Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/bestowPower.htm) -- that may not be placed on an item. There may exist others. Also, the RAW formulas and the 200,000 epic item limit mean that 8th level spells or higher cannot be used as a command word item, nor could they be used as a continuous or use-activated item, unless the spells duration was 24-hours or longer.


Q4: Could you make an object that permanently emits an anti-magic field?By formula? Yes, barely: the cost is 2,000 * SL(6) * CL(11) * duration factor (1.5) = 198,000, just within the 200,000 epic limit. Mechanically, would an AMF item suppress its own effect? I'm not aware of any FAQ or other ruling on the question, but if I had to GM it, I would say the AMF does not suppress its own generating field.

That's not to say that you would actually want such an item: whoever is wearing or carrying it gets no benefit from any of his other magic items, or any spells, SLAs, etc. (With certain very limited exceptions.) IMO, you usually get more benefit from your own magic than detriment from your opponents, so the trade-off is not worth it, unless of course, you're the dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html).

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 02:26 PM
You glue it to the other side of a tower shield ... but then it's slotless and costs more ... so I guess you have to put it on someone and then glue him to the other side of a tower shield :)

Johel
2009-09-23, 02:36 PM
Which nearly no spell ever exactly does.

Try pricing boots of haste by adding all the effect prices to a use activated haste item.

Your example is faulty, as Boots of Speed are usable only 10 rounds a day, which is a "Spell Effect". But even with that, they've made a price adjustement.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#bootsofSpeed
Price 12.000 gp, CL 10
3 x 10 x 1.800 /5 = 6 x 1.800 = 10.800 gp

Concider any item that has an continuous use and a direct effect. It's using the first priceguide.


Well I already post that question in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124046).
Nobody respond probably because nobody know, still perhaps in a thread dedicated to crafting.

Q6: How to determine the craft DC and price of poison if they're not given anywhere ? Any idea ?

A6 : Just a guess but use the DC of the poison's effects ?

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 02:45 PM
The price of a continuous True Strike is going to be reeeeally high, since you must refer to the "Effect" priceguide before the "Spell Effect" priceguide (see the examples in the SRD)
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm
20 * 20 * 2.000 = 800.000
Good point: I had not thought of this. However, I think you err when you want to apply both the "effect" calculation and the "spell effect" calculation. Naturally, the rules aren't clear (hence this thread), but I would suggest a GM "run the numbers" both ways, independently:

effect: weapon bonus (20)^2 * 2,000 = 800,000(!!), a truly epic item.
spell effect: use activated (2,000) * SL (1) * CL (1) * duration factor (4 - because this base spell is essentially something used round-by-round) = 8,000.

That incredible disparity should be a red flag, and if I were a DM, I'd follow the first calculation and tell my players, "Only if you're epic." For that matter, the CL = 3*weapon bonus rule should also be required.

Applied that way, the existing formulas "work": an incredibly powerful effect is given an appropriately exhorbitant cost and a debilitatingly high CL requirement. Consequently, no sub-epic characters will be running around with True Strike Swords.

PB's solution -- making such "continuous" items function only once -- is inappropriate: by RAW descriptions, that would be a single-use, use-activated item, and would be priced at SL(1) * CL(1) * 50gp + masterwork cost. (Mm: True Strike arrows would cost 56gp each -- too little or okay?)

Better to foil an over-reaching player with an exhorbitant cost, calculated by RAW rather than by something that RAW arguably contradicts.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 02:52 PM
PB's solution -- making such "continuous" items function only once -- is inappropriate: by RAW descriptions, that would be a single-use, use-activated item, and would be priced at SL(1) * CL(1) * 50gp + masterwork cost. (Mm: True Strike arrows would cost 56gp each -- too little or okay?)
If I replace the duration of True Strike with permanent casting the spell would provide the exact same effect as the item I described. That's what it means for a spell effect (in it's entirety, not just by picking and choosing only part of the spell you like) to be continuous. Now of course use activation can get around that, but the use activation pricing in the DMG/SRD is completely and utterly unusable.

That's just my flippant solution ... my real solution (http://tijdelijk.student.utwente.nl/custom_magic_items.html) is to reserve continuous/use-activation for spells which can not be discharged or interrupted, unlike True Strike/Sanctuary, and to change use activation to a swift action.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 02:52 PM
Your example is faulty, as Boots of Speed are usable only 10 rounds a day, which is a "Spell Effect". But even with that, they've made a price adjustement.
Actually, I think the real problem with this line of reasoning by PB is that it's moving in the wrong direction: it is explicit, in RAW (in MIC and elsewhere, I believe), that the published items were not priced solely with regard to the printed formulas. Instead, an effort was made to give a balanced value for the item.

Whether that balance was achieved with regard to any particular item is a good debate, but I would start from the position that an assigned value for an item is presumptively more accurate than a formula-calculated price. Consequently, whenever creating new items, you should always compare the calculated price to the price of an existing item that accomplishes the same thing (or as close to it as possible). Again, if there's a big disparity in those prices, that's a red flag. (Alternatively, if the list-price item is substantially lower than the formula price, a player should probably be given a price break.)

Pinky: who are you gluing? Where? . . . What? :smallwink:

Johel
2009-09-23, 02:52 PM
Good point: I had not thought of this. However, I think you err when you want to apply both the "effect" calculation and the "spell effect" calculation. Naturally, the rules aren't clear (hence this thread), but I would suggest a GM "run the numbers" both ways, independently.

Sorry.
English's third language.

I meant you should use the "Effect" priceguide rather than the "Spell Effect" whenever a item's direct power is to give one of the listed Effects, without the limiting factor of Spell Effects.

So, either one or the other, whichever seems the more balance.
It's DM work to judge balance, since D&D isn't only about math.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 02:58 PM
Pinky: who are you gluing? Where? . . . What? :smallwink:
You glue the guy you put the ring of AMF on, on the other side of your tower shield :)

vanyell
2009-09-23, 02:59 PM
While I understand that you can add a continuous or X per day spell into an item, can you modify that spell with metamagic, increasing the price as if the spell was cast at that higher slot?

eg. amulet of maximized fireball

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 03:04 PM
If I replace the duration of True Strike with permanent casting the spell would provide the exact same effect as the item I described. That's what it means for a spell effect (in it's entirety, not just by picking and choosing only part of the spell you like) to be continuous. Now of course use activation can get around that, but the use activation pricing in the DMG/SRD is completely and utterly unusable.
Except that the use activation and continuous activation are the same formula. I stand by my prior response: if you just use the "effect" calculation, this problem is solved until the player reaching CL 60, at which point, it really won't matter.


That's just my flippant solution, my real solution is to reserve continuous/use-activation for spells which can not be discharged or interrupted like True Strike/Sanctuary and to change use activation to a swift action.I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you'd allow such items but they'd require a swift action to activate each time? (It's the "reserve" comment that has me confused.)

If I'm understanding correctly, I think this approach has a lot of merit: it puts the item into the action economy: if you're using a swift action to activate your True Strike, you can't take a swift action for something else, and you won't be able to do this if you already used an immediate action. A Sanctuary effect should probably be an immediate action, rather than a swift action (or at least, it has a lot more utility, that way), but it's still part of the action economy.

Limit such items to a set number of uses per day, or a use-per-day cost, and I think you could actually make it workable. I am afb, but I believe the going rate for two uses per day (eternal wand) is essentially SL * CL * 750 + item cost. That may still be too cheap for True Strike, but it's a starting point.

zagan
2009-09-23, 03:04 PM
A6 : Just a guess but use the DC of the poison's effects ?

If only it was this easy, but saddly when looking at the craft DC given notably in complete adventurer they don't match at all, they don't give a formula and not that many poison. And even then you still need a price otherwise you don't know when to stop crafting and what's the price of the component.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-23, 03:10 PM
Except that the use activation and continuous activation are the same formula.
Use activation breaks the action economy all to hell and back, of all the guidelines in the DMG/SRD it's the most useless.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that you'd allow such items but they'd require a swift action to activate each time? (It's the "reserve" comment that has me confused.)
I'd only allow them as command word items, you simply can't use them with continuous/use-activated pricing. IMO if you want a swift true strike you have to pay for a quickened spell item.

IMO use activation is meant for things like the boots of speed, lasting buffs which you could conceivably have gotten before combat or severely discounted (action economy wise) as a party buff. They just didn't have swift actions at the time, so they made activation a free action. Which is fine for the one or two items in the DMG, but is not sustainable in the long run.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 03:12 PM
While I understand that you can add a continuous or X per day spell into an item, can you modify that spell with metamagic, increasing the price as if the spell was cast at that higher slot?

eg. amulet of maximized fireball
Yes, you can, but then you must use the correspondingly higher spell level and caster level.

For example, a regular fireball wand would be SL(3) * CL(5) * 750 = 11,250 (assuming you wanted the lowest possible CL).
A maximized fireball wand would be SL (3+3) * CL (11 - the minimum to have a 6th-level slot) * 750 = 49,500.
That's high-quality, but you have to pay four times the cost for it.

If you wanted this as an on-demand maximized fireball amulet, you'd pay:
command word (1,800) * SL (6) * CL (11) = 118,800, assuming a GM would allow it. I find command word blasting items very problematic. For my own campaign, I haven't yet decided whether such items are even possible.

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 03:18 PM
Use activation breaks the action economy all to hell and back, of all the guidelines in the DMG/SRD it's the most useless.

+1
I may not say it in the same words, but I agree with the sentiment. It's not automatically broken, but it is very readily breakable.

I have my own idea for an item that grants a dimensional pocket and psychoportive shelter power. To make them work as I'd like, I essentially have to calculate them as "continuous." Because I don't think the underlying effects are overpowering, I think this is workable, but I'll be interested in people's PEACH comments when I post them. (I'll try to do that this evening, when I'm back with the computer where I've written it up.)

vanyell
2009-09-23, 03:40 PM
TBH, I was looking for 1 X day items of buffs with the persistent spell Metamagic.

I know I'd never get a DM to let it slide, but it would be an interesting idea...

EDIT:

after finding the tables on the SRD, I figured that a 3rd level spell persisted to 9th level, used once a day would cost around 55080GP, not a bad price for something like divine might every day

Stegyre
2009-09-23, 04:38 PM
after finding the tables on the SRD, I figured that a 3rd level spell persisted to 9th level, used once a day would cost around 55080GP, not a bad price for something like divine might every day
It's a bit pricier than that: you need to use the meta-magicked SL and CL:

as command word: 1,800 * SL (9) * CL (17) / 5 (for one use per day) = 116,280
as continuous: 2,000 * SL (9) * CL (17) * duration factor (1/2) = 306,000 = epic. (You really shouldn't get a uses-per-day discount on a continuous item; otherwise every such item would qualify for an 80% discount when the formula already includes a duration factor specifically intended to boost the price.)

Good as the spell may be, it's probably not worth the cost increase to have it persisted all day. You'd be better off having the base version in a command item that you could activate four times a day:

command word (1,800) * SL (3) * CL (5) * 4/5 = 21,600.

In most campaigns, four times a day would be as good as "all day."

vanyell
2009-09-23, 08:01 PM
I was basing my estimate on the "charges per day" section, where it said to divide the cost by 5-charges so

(SL 9 X CL 17 X 1800)/5

sadi
2009-09-29, 12:36 AM
Q7 Is it possible to stack more than two abilities on an item if they all have the same affinity, (protection). I'm specifically wondering if you can have an amulet that grants profane/sacred/luck bonus to ac, and what the cost formula would be for a +1 version.

Stegyre
2009-09-29, 02:26 PM
Q7 Is it possible to stack more than two abilities on an item if they all have the same affinity, (protection). I'm specifically wondering if you can have an amulet that grants profane/sacred/luck bonus to ac, and what the cost formula would be for a +1 version.
A7 Yes, multiple abilities may be placed onto an item. This can be done either at the original creation or new/additional abilities may be added at some later time.

However, if you think you can cheat the formula by making an item with a stacking +1 luck bonus, +1 insight bonus, and +1 sacred bonus to AC, think again. If the enhancements on a single item are going to stack, you should apply the formula to the collective enhancement:

(AC bonus)^2 * 2,500

So an item that gave a +1 AC bonus, whether that bonus was profane, sacred, luck, or whatever, would cost 2,500; a +2 bonus item would cost 10,000; a +3 bonus item would cost 22,500; etc. (This assumes an item worn in an appropriate body slot. If the item does not take up a body slot, double the price; if the item uses a body slot that does not have the appropriate affinity, increase the cost 50%, instead.)

You might argue that a +1 luck / +1 insight / +1 sacred stacking item is not as good as a +3 sacred item, because you don't get the full benefit of its bonus whenever you are receiving an additional luck, insight, or sacred bonus from another source, but the argument is not very compelling. First, this item is guaranteeing you a minimum +3 AC bonus. Second, without considering the frequency of the different types of bonuses, you are as likely to have substantially the same problem from a single-source +3 item as you are from a multi-source +1/+1/+1 item.