another item creation question

[geezerjoe]

What suggested costs would you associate with limiting the people that can use an item ... for instance

Wizards' Dagger +1 dagger +4 in the hands of a wizard. Should this simply cost the value of a +4 dagger, less than a +4 dagger, or more than a +4 dagger?

Thanks in advance

Joe2Old

 

[Hygric]

As a DM, I am always very suspicious about limitations that PC's suggest for items that they are making. Nearly all the time, the "limitation" is no real limit at all. The example of the wizards dagger you have given above is a good one, as if a PC wizard is making it for his own use, where is the actual limitation on it?

 

[geezerjoe]

Well the limit comes from everyone not being able to use it ... its very non-transferable ... esp. in campaign worlds where wizards aren't that common (plus really (IMHO) most magic items would be arcane- or divine-casting-class-centric? I mean really ... why make a Greatsword +5 when I could make boots of teleportation? Not saying I would NEVER make a Greatsword +5, but it would be much less likely.)

BUT as you said, for the character that desires it, it's not that bad a problem and thus the reason I asked the question in the first place.

How about a Keen Longsword +2 that will only function if you sing to it the night before (Perform check 15+) AND you are chaotic?!?! ... No way that can be as valuable as a regular Keen Longsword +2 ... but there's no way that would be easier to create ... AAGH This one sounds intelligent anyway so it might be a bad example.

Then again ... maybe I'm just making myself loopy (er).

Thanks again

J2O

 

[Voadam]

Crafting an item that cannot be utitlized by most people if it stolen from you is a minor benefit, not a functional limitation that would reduce the cost. Similar for alignment items.

 

[Conaill]

I would increase the cost to create the item, but decrease the market value.