Formulating Magical Research

[nonsi256]

[FONT=&quot]Ok, what do we know about the official formula for pricing magical items?[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Only one thing – it doesn’t exist.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The only method suggested by RAW of assessing an item’s price is by comparing it to other items... and everything revolves around plusses (give me a f#cking break).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
AFAIK, the only real noteworthy attempt of formulating magical items was made by the OD&D black boxed-set, which was later on refined in the OD&D rules cyclopedia.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]It wasn’t half bad, but not fully cooked IMO (e.g. multiplying by item’s weight to determine prices... calculating ^2 is no indication of brain-power investment either).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
Here in the added document is my first attempt of bringing OD&D’s formulation suggestion to the next level.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]I am aware that some of the core magical items are gonna take a hit or undergo some substantial changes, but:[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]- Most of the ones that will be affected are those that have properties that don’t conform to any known spell effect.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]- There’s little to no connection between an item’s price and its usefulness or how it can be manipulated to shatter game balance.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]

I’m looking for some feedbacks regarding internal inconsistencies, generalized “fairness” and if things make sense (more or less).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Furthermore, I still find it hard to formulate large-scale creations, such as magical vehicles and flying castles, so any suggestion on the subject would be most appreciated.[/FONT]​

 

[Hawken]

The DM's Guide has a section on pricing magic items, so it actually does exist.

The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook was specifically written for pricing castles (even flying ones), and could be adapted for vehicles (what vehicles were there other than animals and things pulled by or put on animals?).

If you look at the actual formula instead of the items themselves, you get a pretty straightforward price pattern that is built on numbers not comparison to other items. But the formula were adjusted a bit between the 3.0 and 3.5 versions.

 

[nonsi256]

Let’s see what the core rules look like:​

- The DMG rules are 7 pages long.​

- They contain 11 tables.​

- There’s something like bazillion cases.​

- Different feats for different items, when items are nothing more than containers to magical powers (I’ll be soon adding my view of how item creation feats should’ve been distributed – by functionality, not the container type).​

- Some of the info’s still missing.​

- They still need an “if this doesn’t cover it – compare to existing” clause.​

- And what’s that BS about “bonus squared”?​

- And what’s that BS about a container’s price having anything to do with the cost of the effects it carries?


Whereas my rules:​

- Are totally formulated and totally consistent.​

- Are contained within a single document page.​

- Rely exclusively on spell effects to define ALL magical items.​

- Specify charges, operatus modes, categorized exceptions and practically any item trait I can think of.



Regarding Stronghold Builder's Guidebook – thanks for the info. I’ll be sure to look it up soon.

​

 

[ValhallaGH]

Consistency Issues:
List the price reductions as negatives (i.e. -X%). This clarifies how to apply them, and is consistent with the formatting of price increases by activation (i.e. +X%).
Weapon enhancement costs: 20K x spell level. Magic weapons cost one of the following (barring house rules, including the TS spell changes that you mention but provide no guidance on finding): 20K gold. 60K gold. 80K gold. 20K is for a Magic Weapon, 60K is for a Greater Magic Weapon cast by a Paladin or Sorcerer/Wizard, and 80K is for a Greater Magic Weapon cast by a Cleric. So a single shop could legitimately sell +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5 weapons for 80,000 gold each.

Conceptual Issues:
"- No item can have both temporary & permanent powers. An item is either entirely temporary or entirely permanent." -> So no Luck Blades, no Rings of Djinni Calling, and none of the other interesting and balanced "part charged, part permanent" items, including those the DM needs that aren't supposed to be artifacts.

 

[Hawken]

Consistency Issues:
Weapon enhancement costs: 20K x spell level. Magic weapons cost one of the following (barring house rules, including the TS spell changes that you mention but provide no guidance on finding): 20K gold. 60K gold. 80K gold. 20K is for a Magic Weapon, 60K is for a Greater Magic Weapon cast by a Paladin or Sorcerer/Wizard, and 80K is for a Greater Magic Weapon cast by a Cleric. So a single shop could legitimately sell +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5 weapons for 80,000 gold each.

It would be an understatement to say those prices are silly. Why should the price change depending on the class of the person making the item? The spell/effect is the same regardless of what class wiggles their fingers. And a "shop" that relies on those prices will be quickly out of business.

How exactly is a 1st level spell costing 20,000gp? If an economy could support that, EVERYONE would take a level of wizard and everyone would be fantastically rich from the surplus of magic items floating around. That, and there'd be absolutely no reason for anyone anywhere to go adventuring. Monsters wouldn't be so monstrous, they'd be at home making items to sell to the humans and elves stupid enough to pay those prices.

Conceptual Issues:
"- No item can have both temporary & permanent powers. An item is either entirely temporary or entirely permanent." -> So no Luck Blades, no Rings of Djinni Calling, and none of the other interesting and balanced "part charged, part permanent" items, including those the DM needs that aren't supposed to be artifacts.

Why not? Why can't an item have temporary and permanent effects? "These are my rules and I say so" isn't a good enough reason and its a limitation that will not make sense to many people. Why again? Just because your rules don't allow for it? Then your rules aren't any better than the ones you're trying to replace.

Let’s see what the core rules look like:
- The DMG rules are 7 pages long.

Yes, they took the time to explain them and provide examples of how they work.

- They contain 11 tables.

How is this bad, especially when the information is not contradictory or confusing?

- There’s something like bazillion cases.

Less than a thousand actually.

- Different feats for different items, when items are nothing more than containers to magical powers (I’ll be soon adding my view of how item creation feats should’ve been distributed – by functionality, not the container type).

Presumably, this was done to prevent characters from being able to make every item. Making a magical potion IS different from making a flaming sword or a flying carpet.

- Some of the info’s still missing.

What info? If this is going to be a complaint, then explain what is missing.

- They still need an “if this doesn’t cover it – compare to existing” clause.

Because they can't cover all eventualities that others may come up with. These rules are designed to give ideas and baseline information, not cover every and all possibilities.

- And what’s that BS about “bonus squared”?

What is BS about it? Are you not understanding it? If a bonus is 2, then square it (4) and then factor into cost. That's easy and understandable.

- And what’s that BS about a container’s price having anything to do with the cost of the effects it carries?

What exactly do you mean by this? You really should clarify your complaints before calling them BS.

Whereas my rules:
- Are totally formulated and totally consistent.

And ridiculously overpriced. And allowing for no differences inherent to creation, purpose, economics, etc.

- Are contained within a single document page.

This isn't a positive thing. You are not providing any examples, clarifying any points, explaining why, why not, etc. You need to provide information, explanations and examples. One page doesn't cut it.

- Rely exclusively on spell effects to define ALL magical items.

Um...DMG does this too. It lists all spells involved in the magic items made.

- Specify charges, operatus modes, categorized exceptions and practically any item trait I can think of.

What exactly does this mean and how is this different that the DMG specifying charges, modes, exceptions, etc.?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Hawken, did you even read the document attached to the first post? Because it really reads like you just waited for me to post some details and analysis, and then quote it without bothering to find out why the details I mentioned were mentioned. Which is odd, given that it is just a single page and very cleanly written.*
Asking for the OP to clarify his problems and issues is one thing. That's a great way to get more detail so that you can figure out how to best help solve those issues and help make his games more fun.
Bashing the OP for daring to modify the existing rules is a totally different issue, and not a good one.


*It is a single page that is conceited enough to think that it covers every case, and oddly enough written that I almost asked "how do I cost weapons using this" but that's another issue entirely.
Any engineer (*raises hand*) or combat veteran (*raises hand*) can tell you that you can Never plan for all possibilities, especially when humans are involved. Presuming otherwise is arrogance setting you up for failure, potentially catastrophic failure.

 

[Hawken]

Where exactly did I bash your or your ideas? Not once did I offer personal insult to you. If you want to take my comments as insults, that's on you. Just because you feel bashed doesn't mean that I bashed you.

And don't throw engineer and veteran around like it makes you better than me or anyone else. But the fact that you're an engineer means that I'm even more disappointed in your efforts. Engineers, at least all the ones I've known and heard of, are masters at using numbers and solving problems. Your solution doesn't even do that. You condense everything down to one formula (X x spell level), then tweak with various percentage modifiers while changing the existing rules ("no permanent and charged items") to suit that formula.

Criticize them, yes. Very much so. Question them; you betcha. Respond to your comments here, what else am I going to respond to?

Yes, I did read your one page and while I commend the effort, the execution is lacking and could absolutely use more work. And I definitely stand by my claim of the ridiculousness of your prices. According to your rules, a +1 flaming weapon would cost:

20,000gp X 1 (spell level of Magic Weapon spell) = 20,000gp
Plus 5% per caster level (1st) = 1,000gp
Subtotal 21,000gp so far, just for a +1 weapon, that's more than 10 times the DMG price!

Flaming enchantment is
20,000gp X 3 (spell level of Fireball) = 60,000gp
Plus 5% per caster level (5th) = 15,000gp
Plus 30% for activation = 18,000gp

Tally so far is:
21,000gp for base +1 weapon
+ 60,000gp for flaming
+ 15,000gp for caster level
+ 18,000gp for activation
= 114,000gp for a +1 flaming weapon. That's 106,000gp MORE than what the DMG lists, or more than 14 times the DMG price!

I don't even want to crunch the numbers for a +5 Keen Holy Shocking Burst weapon!

But the kicker is that to make a +1 weapon, the wizard (lets say 5th level 18 Int (+4), has only a 35% chance of success
(5 x (lvl 5 X Int mod +4) -10) X Spell level 1
(5 x (9) - 10) X 1
(45 - 10) x 1 = 35%

But to make the flaming property, he has
(5 x (5 + 4) - 10) X 3
(45 - 10) x 3 = 105% chance of success!

So, he can definitely make a flaming enchantment but when it comes to making a +1 sword, he's going to flubb it almost 2 out of 3 times!

If any of this is incorrect or off, please point it out, because that's what I've come to understand from reading your one page.

 

[nonsi256]

Ok, several things:
1. My bad on not directing to TS’s thread.
2. For better or worse, the document is my work, so the criticism should be addressed to me.
3. I guess it’s also my bad for leaving out examples.
4. I must admit that the temp-perm rule is stupid – especially since each effect should be autonomous. Will be nixed.
5. I now noticed that I still need to define price modifications according to the activation cost action-wise. Suggestions could be most helpful.
6. I also forgot to state that any and all magical stat augmentations overlap. This removes the need for 2-rings-at-most restriction.


Looking at TS’s spells, for full casters, each odd level is a magical plus (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th & 9th).
Given the spells have a continuous duration, this means we’re talking about emanating effects, so the prices are: 6K, 18K, 30K, 42K & 54K.
Regardless of how partial casters. Stat augmenting spells should not be placed in spell-levels that would make them beat fullcasters to the punch. Beyond that, everything’s legit.



Now for the comments




>> List the price reductions as negatives (i.e. -X%).
Noted. Will do.


>> How is this bad
11 tables = clunky as hell. It means you always have to go back to the tables.


>> Less than a thousand actually.
Ditto.


>> Presumably, this was done to prevent characters from
>> being able to make every item. Making a magical
>> potion IS different from making a flaming sword or a
>> flying carpet.
I would agree conceptually to the distinction of scroll-consumable-solid, but that’s it.


>> Presumably, this was done to prevent characters
>> from being able to make every item.
The OD&D rules had chances for success (failure). I don’t get why they removed that aspect. There should be some motivation not to attempt making an item – the xp drain is both ridiculous and not taxing enough for anyone to give it a second thought.


>> What info?
For example, there’s a table for Adamantine, but not for other materials.


>> Because they can't cover all eventualities that
>> others may come up with.
Meaning they handwaved rather than formulate.


>> What is BS about it?
The mathematical operation “power” is absolutely ridiculous for the purpose of pricing.
Moreover. The gap between +0 to +1 is significantly larger than the gap between +1 to +5. The former already allows you to ignore DR whereas the latter merely augments your stats a bit.


>> What exactly do you mean by this?
The physical items are nothing more than containers to magical powers.
An item’s price should have no effect whatsoever on the prices of the effects it contains.


>> And ridiculously overpriced. And allowing for
>> no differences inherent to creation, purpose,
>> economics, etc.
I have to admit I lost you there.


>> You are not providing any examples, clarifying any
>> points, explaining why, why not, etc. You need to
>> provide information, explanations and examples.
>> One page doesn't cut it.
You’re right, but it will still require only a single page.
As for the “why” part, it think I covered that one.



>> Um...DMG does this too. It lists all spells involved
>> in the magic items made.
What was that spell’s name that grants flat save bonuses?
And the one that made an ioun stone fly around your head?
. . .
I’m sure I had it a minute ago...................... nope.


>> What exactly does this mean and how is this different
>> that the DMG specifying charges, modes, exceptions, etc.?
The charges section I’m sure you saw.
Operates mode = how an item is to be used to activate an effect.


>> to make a +1 weapon, the wizard has only a 35%
>> chance of success
Correct.
This was totally intentional.
Adventurers should adventure
Characters should go about n the world doing their business to interact with the world.
Magical items are not supposed to be spread around like garbage. Finding a magical item should be a noteworthy event.
One should only cease his routine to make items when one really believes that they’re crucial for one’s survival, and... weigh the pros & cons regarding time-money-chances-necessity.


>> But to make the flaming property, he has
>> (5 x (5 + 4) - 10) X 3
>> (45 - 10) x 3 = 105% chance of success!
Not correct.
[5 x (Level + STAT-mod) – 10 x SPL]
Is mathematically identical to
[(5 x (Level + STAT-mod)) – (10 x SPL)]
Due to mathematical precedences

 

[ValhallaGH]

Where exactly did I bash your or your ideas? Not once did I offer personal insult to you.

Nope, but you were pretty rough on the OP. There are at least three users posting in this thread: me, ValhallaGH, you, Hawken, and the OP, nonsi256. Keeping who said what straight would be courteous of you.

And don't throw engineer and veteran around like it makes you better than me or anyone else.

1) That part was for the OP, not you. I apologize for not making that clearer.
2) I mention it because it is true. Engineers and combat veterans aren't the only folks that know things never go as planned, but they are the two I can honestly claim to be. I could have thrown in actors, I suppose, but few people would understand what I meant, and communication is the point.
3) Titles earned never make someone better than someone else. So, try not to get offended by folks having titles. (You seem really bothered by it, for some reason).

Flaming ... 3 (spell level of Fireball)

Why not go with the 1st level spell Burning Hands? And for a Frost weapon, the 0 level Ray of Cold? Much cheaper to perform.

nonsi, you may want to note that sort of thing and modify your rules appropriately.
I'll also say this to the OP. You're taking a lot of he magic out of magic items with this system.
How would you do an Immovable Rod with this? What about an Apparatus of Kwalish?

 

[Hawken]

Blast! I just lost my entire response I had typed in before this. I'm not going to retype anything so I'll cover things as briefly as possible.

Valhalla,

I'm rough on everyone. I challenge everything. I could be kinder and softer but I don't sugar coat it and I've learned that if people can't take the pressure they aren't really convinced of their opinions to begin with. Its not my goal to hurt feelings, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it if someone is offended because I am being direct.

Good point about keeping things straight. I'll be more mindful of being clear who I am responding to.

Wasn't offended by the title things but unless someone throws out there "game designer" any other background or experience is just about irrelevant to any discussion on these forums since what we're ultimately discussing is a game.

In the D&D rules, the DMG lists 3rd level spells as required for weapon enhancements because a caster needs to be at least 5th level to get the Craft Magic Arms & Armor feat. The level of the spell otherwise doesn't matter since the cost of a +1 enhancement doesn't depend on spell level.

Nonsi,

You grossly exaggerate your misperceptions about the DMG. There are only 2 tables regarding item creation, not 11. And of the two, since you aren't using XP costs, you only need to reference one of them.

Mithril and Alchemical silver have lists too, not just adamantite.

The game authors didn't 'handwave' anything. They covered the possibilities they could imagine. Its practically a given that someone down the line is going to thing of ways to do things differently.

The cost to go from masterwork to +1 weapon (and you are referring to weapons since you mention getting past DR), is a difference of about 1,700gp or a factor of a 6X increase in cost. Where a +1 to +5 is a difference in price of 48,000gp, or 25X increase. You're wrong about this point too.

If you could do all your stuff on one page, you would have. But you didn't and you can't since your one page is pretty full and using a small font size as it is. Reducing type size to require reading glasses doesn't count.

I proved you were incorrect by mentioning that the DMG provides spells required for its magic items. The fact that you are either being sarcastic or being dumb about not remembering spells doesn't discredit anything except your own intelligence or maturity (take your pick).

Magic item creation no longer has a chance of failure because the game isn't about making items, its about adventuring. The game designers didn't want the game bogged down by a bad roll of the dice. Make the item, move on to the fun stuff, rather than having an entire table of people waiting on a caster to get a good roll.

And...the DMG mentions charges and methods to activate items...and doesn't charge extra for it! If magic item prices were light speed (ala Spaceballs) your method of pricing has gone beyond ludicrous and right into plaid!

Instead of so sarcastically dismissing the DMG, take another look at it with a more open mind and revise your ideas...a lot!