Magic Item Construction - Spell effect vs. Item Description

[Centaur]

The magic item construction rules provide for some interesting variations on how similar magical items could be constructed. In such cases, I am wondering how other DMs approach these questions when their players go to have an item commissioned or want to make them themselves.

One example is the difference between making a pair of Bracers of Armor vs. making a pair of pracers with a constant Mage Armor Spell placed on them.

Directly by the book there would be a huge cost difference between the two. Granted the spell produces a +4 and the bracers could be from +1 to +8 so for arguments, my example will use the +4 for both.

A) 2,000gp Bracers with Mage Armor Spell "use-activated"
B) 16,000gp Bracers of Armor +4.

1) Should A be allowed or should B be the only way to enchant this effect into a magical item.

C) True Stike grants a +20 to your next ranged attack roll and eliminates concealment miss chance. It would seem to me that by the regular rules, it could be enchanted into a crossbow or bow with the use-activated trigger and would have a retail value of 2000gp + Bow Cost. This would give it's effect every round.

2) Should C be allowed as an enchanted item and if so, how would it function.

3) If the answer to 1 and 2 above are not to allow the spell to be enchanted as writen, then should any spell be allowed to be enchanted as a permanent always on effect into a magical item as it is writen or should they be used only as the foundation for a desired effect.

I suspect it would have to be on a case by case basis. There probably isn't any clear cut rule to judge them all by.

4) How much higher level than the minmum to cast a spell should an enchanter be before being able to create a permanent non-charged item based on that spell.

Looking at example magic items there seems to be no clear cut answer to this. I've considered using: Must be able to cast the next higher level of spell (eg. to enchant a 1st level spell, you must be able to cast 2nd level spells).

What do others think of this and how would you run it in your campaign.

 

[kreynolds]

1) Should A be allowed or should B be the only way to enchant this effect into a magical item.

B should be the only way. The bracers provide an armor bonus, and the price of armor bonusus follow a specific guideline.

However, if you're talking about mage armor a limited number of times per day, for limited durations, that's different. It would invariably cost less than normal bracers of armor.

C) True Stike grants a +20 to your next ranged attack roll...

Clarification: It applies to your next attack. It is not limited to ranged attacks.

...and eliminates concealment miss chance. It would seem to me that by the regular rules, it could be enchanted into a crossbow or bow with the use-activated trigger and would have a retail value of 2000gp + Bow Cost. This would give it's effect every round.

2) Should C be allowed as an enchanted item and if so, how would it function.

If any thought whatsoever is put into the design of this magic item by the DM, it would require a standard action to activate, just like most other magic item functions require. Thus, you could activate the power, move, and on your next round, you could make an attack with a +20 to the roll.

Also, check out the Bow of True Arrows in Sword and Fist for a guideline.

3) If the answer to 1 and 2 above are not to allow the spell to be enchanted as writen, then should any spell be allowed to be enchanted as a permanent always on effect into a magical item as it is writen or should they be used only as the foundation for a desired effect.

I suspect it would have to be on a case by case basis. There probably isn't any clear cut rule to judge them all by.

It is indeed on a case by case basis. Constant use of endure elements isn't a big deal. Constant use of improved invisibility is more serious.

4) How much higher level than the minmum to cast a spell should an enchanter be before being able to create a permanent non-charged item based on that spell.

He simply needs to be able to cast the spell. Whatever caster level he is at the time he creates the item will determine how it functions. If you're asking what the caster level of the magic item should be, and whether or not its a prerequisite, have fun with that. I suggest reading the magic item chapter of the DMG closely, then go here and check out Monte's point of view.

But, take heart...dcollins should be around soon enough to help confuse the heck out of you.

 

[Centaur]

Re: Re: Magic Item Construction - Spell effect vs. Item Description

I suggest reading the magic item chapter of the DMG closely, then go here and check out Monte's point of view.

The info on Montes site was quite helpful, thanks for the pointer.

I suspect based on the fact you responed how I expected (and was leaning anyway), I'm likely going to go with those interpretations.

Still interested to see what other people think though.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'll get to this one before dcollins does:

All new items are subject to DM approval, and the costs listed in the DMG are simply guidelines for him to come up with a ballpark price. They're not there for the player to come up with new and utterly broken items. If an item seems entirely too good for the price, then the price needs to be raised.

------------------

In most cases the guidelines work fine, but they really fall apart when you start talking about continuous or unlimited-use items. That's because balance factors like duration, targettability, etc., suddenly become meaningless. For these items, you need to price things in terms of their effects, not the spells used to create them.

(Same logic: I could have continuous GMW on a nonmagical sword, but I'd price it as a standard Enhancement bonus, not as a low-level spell effect)

So, just because you can think up an item with continuous mage armor doesn't mean you can have it, or that it'll cost what the DMG equations give you. If you're the DM, then you need to price that continuous item by its effect (+4 armor bonus that works as a force effect) and not by the spell which caused it.

If you want a continuous or Free Action-activated true strike item, you should price it as if it were an item that adds +20 to attack rolls. In other words, horrendously expensive, Epic-level item.

If you want an item that casts cure minor wounds at will, you should price it as if it gave Fast Healing 1 instead of a cantrip. See also: Ring of Regeneration.

Now that we've got the formalities out of the way, I'm assuming you're a DM trying to figure out whether to allow things in your campaign. If you're a player, the generic answer is "no, you can't have it unless your DM says it's okay". To your questions:

1> B. A is only slightly less powerful (needing to refresh the ability once per hour), so clearly there's something wrong with the pricing.

2> "Use-activated" (no action needed): no way.
"Command-word" (so it takes an action): Sure, although the price would be higher than that. I'd personally require that the true strike have the same caster level as the rest of the bow.
There's an item that already does this in one of the splatbooks. Don't remember which one, though.

3> Price by the effect, not the spell, for permanent effects.

4> Well, as a general rule I'd say the caster level should be high enough that the effect could have lasted most of the day in its own right. mage armor lasts 1hr/level, so I could get a caster level 5 item that casts the spell 5 times per day for 10k. Now you're in the right neighborhood.
For spells with shorter duration, what's the most number of times per day you intended to use the effect? Take shield for example; you only will get into a half-dozen fights at most in the course of a day, and if the average fight lasts a couple minutes, that means you could already make an item with caster level 3 and 6 uses per day; all you're doing is removing the activation action, so raise the price a bit further.

 

[kreynolds]

There's an item that already does this in one of the splatbooks. Don't remember which one, though.

Somebody didn't read the whole thread, me thinks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Here are a few pointers to add to kreynolds excellent advice:

(1) If in doubt, trust existing magic item prices or a specific function formula (e.g. Bracers of Armor) over a formula based on a spell level.

(2) Spell levels are not too be trusted when it comes to power in a magic item. D&D is combatcentric and spell levels more reflect the usefulness of a prepped spell in a dungeon crawl than anything else. Always compare with items in the DMG.

(3) In the majority of cases the formula <spell lvl> x <caster lvl> x <base cost> will give too high a price (when compared to standard DMG items). But it can fail very badly the other way, e.g. Boots of Striding and Springing.

(4) Note that magic items based on 1st level spells are very cheap compared to ones built on 2nd level spells (because 1x1 is much smaller than 2x3). That is not necessarily a problem, but you should as a DM keep it in mind.

(5) Be wary of items that turn short duration spells (1 round/minute per level) into a continuous effect. Such spells are really "one combat only" spells that maybe should not be continous. Continuous (always on) Improved Invisibility can be disruptive in a way that Bull's Strength will not be. (But consider the Ring of Blink as a counterexample. It is a powerful combat spell with a short duration. It also has many downsides if worn for long periods, like getting bushwacked from the Ethereal Plane while your comrades stand around as spectators.)

(6) Be careful of items that allow infinite uses per day. A 2000 gp Medaillion of Infinite Cure Light Wounds is a bad idea. A 2000 gp Ring of True Strike is not a problem becase the ture "cost" is the action required to activate it during combat. Some items should be restricted to 5 uses per day at the normal full price.

(7a) Be careful of items that have less than one use per day. These may be too cheap. Extreme example: The base price of a "one use per 20 days item" is 25 gp. The base price of a scroll is 25 gp. Obviously a "reusuable anyone-can-use scroll" should not be the same price as a scroll.

(7b) A once per day item is probably a fair way to apply the formula in some cases (because IMO the formula often gives too high a price). Just nod and let the player think he is getting a good deal.

 

[dcollins]

One example is the difference between making a pair of Bracers of Armor vs. making a pair of pracers with a constant Mage Armor Spell placed on them.

As Spatzimaus asserted, it's important to realize that nothing in the core rules actually gives players the right to design "new items", as is the case in your second situation -- they always require a house-rule on the part of the DM to allow it. If you're in doubt about this, the simplest resolution is to play straight from the book, and only allow items to be crafted that are described in the DMG. Hence, the only option is bracers of armor, just as the original designers intended. (More: www.superdan.net/dndfaq3.html )


But let's say you stray from that route, and have a DM who wants to see the players designing "new items". Then the most important observation is on DMG p. 243: "The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item priced in this chapter and use its price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table 8-40: Calculating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."

Following that primary advice, the "easiest way" is definitely to observe that your bracers-with-mage-armor do precisely the same job as bracers of armor +4. Therefore, the cost must certainly be the same: 16,000 gp. Only if you first fail to find a similar item should you turn to the pricing table guidelines on DMG p. 242.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Magic Item Construction - Spell effect vs. Item Description

Following that primary advice, the "easiest way" is definitely to observe that your bracers-with-mage-armor do precisely the same job as bracers of armor +4. Therefore, the cost must certainly be the same: 16,000 gp. Only if you first fail to find a similar item should you turn to the pricing table guidelines on DMG p. 242.

Ooh, ooh! I found a similar item!

Ring of Mage Armor. Sword and Fist p77. "This ring protects the wearer the with a mage armor spell (+4 armor bonus to AC)."

But wait a moment! The price is only twelve thousand gp.

Didn't you say "The cost must certainly be the same"?

I'm confused

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Magic Item Construction - Spell effect vs. Item Description

Ring of Mage Armor. Sword and Fist p77. "This ring protects the wearer the with a mage armor spell (+4 armor bonus to AC)."

But wait a moment! The price is only twelve thousand gp.
Didn't you say "The cost must certainly be the same"?
I'm confused

Centaur's original example was specifically bracers, not a ring. Therefore the original analysis stands.

I can live with the Sword & Fist designers deciding that if one achieves 12th level, selects the feat of "Forge Ring", and uses it to replicate an ability creatable with Craft Wondrous Item, then in this case it can carve 25% off the price. That's a reasonable design decision.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Somebody didn't read the whole thread, me thinks.

It's called "starting a post at work, going to lunch, then coming back and finishing it." Normally, this isn't a problem, but it ended up being a 2-hour lunch. Besides, with the number of times the "new item" argument has come up on the boards, I can write half the post in my sleep.

I figured that bow was S&F, but I also remember some strange bows from the various non-WotC splatbooks for Elves. It gets confusing after a while.

Anyhoo, to the original point: after a while, it became too much of a headache to constantly think "is that balanced?". The players were constantly suggesting new items, which almost always had three common points:
1> They were continuous-effect or unlimited use-activated.
2> They were Wondrous Items.
3> They had caster level 1 for all effects.

Now, one of the designers (Monte?) mentioned the "quacks like a duck" policy, where if an item has the kind of effects typical for a Ring, it should require the Ring feat. Ditto for Rods, Wands, Staves, etc. Everyone seems to want Wondrous Items to do everything, so why bother with any other Feats?

IMC I finally got sick of this sort of thing. I think it's a good thing when players get involved in the design process, especially if you have a rotating-DM campaign (which I did at the time). So, we tweaked the rules to make it more balanced, so that it was harder to come up with items that broke the rules.

***HOUSE RULE ALERT***
1> All items have a minimum caster level equal to the level needed for the prerequisite Feat. Wondrous Items require CL 3, weapons CL 5, Rings CL 12.
2> All effects on an item must have the same caster level.
3> Unlimited-use or Continuous effects can only go in Rods and Rings (and Rods have extra limitations)
4> Price the item as follows:
Command-Word Activated (Standard Action to activate, draws AoO): 360 * spell level * caster level * uses/day
Use-Activated (Free Action to activate, no AoO): 500 * spell level * caster level * uses/day. Even though it's a spell effect and it's a Free Action, it's NOT a Quickened spell and so doesn't count against the cap of 1 quickened spell per round.
Interruptible (i.e., boots of speed): Pick either Command-Word or Use-Activated, as above, and add 50% to the cost (so a 1 round/level spell in a use-activated item becomes 750 * spell level * rounds/day).

Then, we changed all the DMG items to match these rules; a lot of Wondrous Items were tweaked. Some of the weaker Rings were changed, too.
In most cases the unlimited-use stuff was just changed to 4/day or 5/day to keep price the same, but the ones based on short-duration spells were mostly switched to an interruptible effect, and caster levels for some items got bumped.

For example, Boots of Springing and Striding was changed to be an interruptible use-activated Expeditious Retreat for 6 rounds per day (Caster level 3, 2 interruptible uses/day), which would cost 4.5k before adding in the Jump bonus. 6 rounds doesn't seem like much, but looking at how often you NEED that extra movement, it hasn't been a problem. I mean really, what do you expect from a level 1 spell?
***/HOUSE RULE***

Anyway, I'm not saying you should do something like that, it wasn't a small amount of work to go back through the DMG. But the part about only allowing new unlimited or continuous effects to go in Rings and such, that part can be useful.