Item pricing and limitations

[Greenfield]

This is inspired by an objection raised in the Item Pricing thread.

When PCs make items, how seriously should we take use restrictions when it comes to pricing?

Somehow, making an item that discriminates between races, alignments and classes is cheaper/easier than making one that doesn't?

When a PC makes an item, they usually make it for themselves or a party member.

That means that the item's limitations on race, class, alignment, feat or skill requirements don't really limit it's use at all. I mean, why would I make a Holy weapon with a Cleric Only restriction if I was making it for a Ranger? I'm going to make it Ranger only if I'm going to limit it.

The SRD says that including Skill rank requirements is worth a 10% discount. Class restrictions are worth 30%.

In the Hero system (Champions), the rule is that power limitations that don't actually limit aren't worth anything.

How do you feel race/class/skill/feat/alignment restrictions apply when custom making such an item?

 

[billd91]

I agree with Champions. If it's not limiting the player, it's not worth any discount.

I would apply the price reductions when the PC tries to sell the magic item, reflecting his reduced market. But I would most certainly NOT allow a PC to get a discount on making the item. In other words, I would use those reductions in a negative fashion.

 

[kitcik]

I've never DM'd a campaign where the PCs tried this, but I would make them pay "full price" in terms of crafting, but still reduce the price if they try to sell it. Seriously. Cheesers. That'll learn 'em!

Same with "1 use per day" for an item with a 24 hour duration. LOL. Yeah, that'll make it easier to craft... not.

EDIT: Ack! Even my opinions get ninja'd!

 

[Crothian]

I told my players that they could build magic items using these restrictions but they have to understand if we do that then the NPCs are going to do it as well. So, they will find awesome items usable by only certain races or classes.

Now I do like the idea in the hands of NPCs when it makes sense. For instance an a war between the orcs and dwarves I think it makes sense the dwarves would make magic items the orcs can't just pick up and use against them.

 

[James the Newbie]

When we looked at this, we ruled that it is fair. You buy it for less and you sell it for less, so it is no more profitable, but how does it fit into the mechanics?

Well lets say your fighter got a nifty +2 ring of deflection, and said to himself, to make it cheaper, he will make it fighter only. At the same time, the groups Barbarian got a +2 ring of natural armor, and thought the same thing to himself. Then in a dungeon something go's wrong, the fighter is knocked out, leaving only the barbarian to protect the party, but the barbarian suffers because he cannot quickly don the second ring and benefit from it.

The same issues apply at large to skill items multiple characters may need, healing items, and a variety of weapons. Take for example an item that added to spot or listen, it would be much better if all the party could use it on watch at night when taking it in turns, or a healing belt, imagine your rouge notices they have 2 extra charges left, but the fighter who is bleeding to death cant benefit from it. Or your ranger got a flaming short sword, while the fighter had an thundering short sword, it would be most beneficial to swap if hunting a troll, but of course they cannot.

Also it does make sense fluff wise, as it would be harder for a merchant to sell off a +1 sword (fighter) than a + 1 sword.

 

[kitcik]

When we looked at this, we ruled that it is fair. You buy it for less and you sell it for less, so it is no more profitable, but how does it fit into the mechanics?

Well lets say your fighter got a nifty +2 ring of deflection, and said to himself, to make it cheaper, he will make it fighter only. At the same time, the groups Barbarian got a +2 ring of natural armor, and thought the same thing to himself. Then in a dungeon something go's wrong, the fighter is knocked out, leaving only the barbarian to protect the party, but the barbarian suffers because he cannot quickly don the second ring and benefit from it.

The same issues apply at large to skill items multiple characters may need, healing items, and a variety of weapons. Take for example an item that added to spot or listen, it would be much better if all the party could use it on watch at night when taking it in turns, or a healing belt, imagine your rouge notices they have 2 extra charges left, but the fighter who is bleeding to death cant benefit from it. Or your ranger got a flaming short sword, while the fighter had an thundering short sword, it would be most beneficial to swap if hunting a troll, but of course they cannot.

Also it does make sense fluff wise, as it would be harder for a merchant to sell off a +1 sword (fighter) than a + 1 sword.

The last sentence is certainly true, and is why I would enforce the reduction upon sale.

As for the rest, it sounds nice, but 99% of the time, you get your gear and you keep your gear. Passing stuff around the party rarely happens. If one guy has the CLW wand, he just fires it on whoever needs it - he doesn't pass it to them to use themselves. Each person gets the magic items they most need and can best use, and this rarely (or maybe I should say only occasionally) changes during the course of a campaign. Now, you do outgrow items and have to sell them ("gee, this +1 Ring of Protection isn't saving me as much as it used to."), but if you craft an item you plan to outgrow, then tough luck.

 

[James the Newbie]

The last sentence is certainly true, and is why I would enforce the reduction upon sale.

As for the rest, it sounds nice, but 99% of the time, you get your gear and you keep your gear. Passing stuff around the party rarely happens. If one guy has the CLW wand, he just fires it on whoever needs it - he doesn't pass it to them to use themselves. Each person gets the magic items they most need and can best use, and this rarely (or maybe I should say only occasionally) changes during the course of a campaign. Now, you do outgrow items and have to sell them ("gee, this +1 Ring of Protection isn't saving me as much as it used to."), but if you craft an item you plan to outgrow, then tough luck.

That seems slightly unfair, a punish the player type attitude. If they pay full price for the item, and sell it for less, for taking a perfectly viable option, seems a tad mean spirited. If the players pay full price to craft something, they should manage to sell it for full price also.

 

[kitcik]

That seems slightly unfair, a punish the player type attitude. If they pay full price for the item, and sell it for less, for taking a perfectly viable option, seems a tad mean spirited. If the players pay full price to craft something, they should manage to sell it for full price also.

So then simply craft it without limitations... same crafting price, get full value on sale. Done.

 

[James the Newbie]

Seems a fair way to do it. I would probably be inclined to do the same thing myself. It seems a little bad fluff wise, but sometimes you just have to make room for mechanics.

 

[billd91]

That seems slightly unfair, a punish the player type attitude. If they pay full price for the item, and sell it for less, for taking a perfectly viable option, seems a tad mean spirited. If the players pay full price to craft something, they should manage to sell it for full price also.

The problem is that the item's market price is set based on its utility. If the PC gets full utility out of it, they shouldn't get any discounts on making it even with limitations. Trying to get that discount just becomes cheesy. And attempts at making cheese provoke a response. It's not mean. It's just.