D&D 5E Recommended magic item creation alternative rules?

[Dragonsbane]

Hmmm.

Without weeks off, I would say no powerful items could be made Perhaps between scenarios?

However! Two players with the same feats might be able to work on an item together to cut down time.

No feats means an imbalance if just anyone could craft, at least it seems so. Perhaps trading a crafting feat for a class feature? No feats means you must tweak it on your own.

As far as potions with concentration, my shenanigan alarm started blaring when I imagined people downing multiple potions with concentration as a duration. I would say it (concentration) was implemented to prevent multiple concentration spells/buff stacks, so this continues that limit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can you recommend any good alternatives for magic item creation rules?

Ideally, a ruleset that adopts the following assumptions:
1a) useful items are more expensive than useless items
1b) rarity is a poor basis for price

Why would anyone craft useless items?

" Finally got a couple months off from adventuring. I'm going to craft a sword with a blade that won't cut, boots of wearing (nail attractor), and a rope of climbing (segmented into 3" lengths so its not very useful). We shall all be glad we have these on our next quest!"

 

[CapnZapp]

Why would anyone craft useless items?

You're missing the point. I was terse. I used that wordage to contrast "useful".

As in "a system where relatively more useful items are more expensive than relatively less useful items"

Point isn't what items are useful or not. Point is, can you recommend any variant creation rulesets where price is utility-based rather than rarity-based?

Regards,

 

[Ahrimon]

How do you (as a DM) define useful though and is it across the board? Would a wizard crafting a magic great sword do it cheaper because the weapon isn't useful for him? Would it be more expensive for a gish to create? Just seeking a little clarification to help answer your question.

 

[Jester David]

In this thread, please assume that discussion is over and done with, and post alternatives. This is all about alternatives, and not about why you would want to switch out the core rules.

This certainly handicaps any proposed rules. I have a rough pricing chart based on rarity and frequency in the random tables.
Dropping rarity entirely would mean pricing based on the chart it appears on or pricing each item individually.

You could try pricing things based on how the item affect damage, AC, or hitpoints. Like the chart in the DMG fir mobster CR where certain powers boost effective AC for challenge. How much an item boosts a PC sets the price. However, so many magic items have only tangential effects on a character's power, or unevenly boost a character's power.

If you're a programmer you could do an up-vote/ down-vote formula (like voting for RPG superstar) where you're randomly presented with items and choose which is better to build a hierarchy of the desirability of items. It should be possible in Excel.
But that's also pretty labour intensive and subject to personal bias, unless you get multiple people involved.

 

[GMMichael]

This certainly handicaps any proposed rules. I have a rough pricing chart based on rarity and frequency in the random tables.
Dropping rarity entirely would mean pricing based on the chart it appears on or pricing each item individually.

Ruh roh. You're gonna get snapped at for this.

The problem here is that usefulness - utility - is highly subjective. I'd be impressed, dumbfounded even, to see a pricing system that was based solely on how useful an item is. Because the Decanter of Endless Saltwater is really useful, unless you're caught in the doldrums on an ocean voyage.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem here is that usefulness - utility - is highly subjective. I'd be impressed, dumbfounded even, to see a pricing system that was based solely on how useful an item is. Because the Decanter of Endless Saltwater is really useful, unless you're caught in the doldrums on an ocean voyage.

Now you are creating a problem that isn't really there.

Usefulness is much less subjective than rarity, and that is all there is to that particular part of the discussion.

Begin by setting the price based on the level of the spell behind the item. Let's not take your Decanter - because I don't have the faintest idea what it would do

Instead, a magical Clam providing air and pressure protection when underwater. Don't have the PHB here, but I'm guessing there's a Water Breathing spell in there somewhere. Even if there isn't, you could check the d20 SRD and come up with a reasonable estimate.

Then base the price of your item on the spell level. Or rather, the level of the spell slot you would need to achieve a comparable effect. Taking into account range, duration, number of targets and so on; any requirements such as concentration (or lack thereof) and attunement (and lack thereof).

Then apply common sense (so you're not arriving at a very high level slot for something that simply isn't that valuable).

This is your base price.

That has nothing to do with rarity. It has everything to do with the fact that your alternative is to have a wizard cast Water Breathing.

It also has nothing to do with fluctuations in local markets. Because all you're saying is that aboard that ship, that's a local market where those Decanters go for a steep markup. (I still have no idea why )

But starting the discussion there only obscures the real issue: setting a reasonable base price.

Which then can be increased or decreased (or even ignored completely!) by DMs all over the world.

Doesn't change the fact such a base price would have been very useful, and certainly much more useful than the current rarity based system.

Now,

 

[SkidAce]

Now you are creating a problem that isn't really there.

Usefulness is much less subjective than rarity, and that is all there is to that particular part of the discussion.

Begin by setting the price based on the level of the spell behind the item. Let's not take your Decanter - because I don't have the faintest idea what it would do

Instead, a magical Clam providing air and pressure protection when underwater. Don't have the PHB here, but I'm guessing there's a Water Breathing spell in there somewhere. Even if there isn't, you could check the d20 SRD and come up with a reasonable estimate.

Then base the price of your item on the spell level. Or rather, the level of the spell slot you would need to achieve a comparable effect. Taking into account range, duration, number of targets and so on; any requirements such as concentration (or lack thereof) and attunement (and lack thereof).

Then apply common sense (so you're not arriving at a very high level slot for something that simply isn't that valuable).

This is your base price.

That has nothing to do with rarity. It has everything to do with the fact that your alternative is to have a wizard cast Water Breathing.

It also has nothing to do with fluctuations in local markets. Because all you're saying is that aboard that ship, that's a local market where those Decanters go for a steep markup. (I still have no idea why )

But starting the discussion there only obscures the real issue: setting a reasonable base price.

Which then can be increased or decreased (or even ignored completely!) by DMs all over the world.

Doesn't change the fact such a base price would have been very useful, and certainly much more useful than the current rarity based system.

Now,

Change the time it takes to create stuff to a dial of your liking, and use the ideas you just posted and looks like you've got a viable system here.

 

[Jester David]

The problem here is that usefulness - utility - is highly subjective. I'd be impressed, dumbfounded even, to see a pricing system that was based solely on how useful an item is. Because the Decanter of Endless Saltwater is really useful, unless you're caught in the doldrums on an ocean voyage.

Exactly.

Anything that gives you flying is typically seen as amazing. Unless you're a melee heavy party or in a dungeon-heavy campaign, in which case the advantages are minor. Slippers of spiderclimb are just as effective. But in a wilderness heavy campaign, magic sticky slippers are much less useful compared to flight, let alone for ranged characters. To say nothing of items that rely on water, like a helm of underwater action or an aparatus of Kwalish; if you're underwater those items are worth their weight in astral diamonds but if you're high and dry they're less useful than a potion of healing.

 

[Jester David]

Now you are creating a problem that isn't really there.

Usefulness is much less subjective than rarity, and that is all there is to that particular part of the discussion.

Okay, which is more useful, a ring of free action or a mace of disruption? A necklace of adaptation or pipes of haunting?

Begin by setting the price based on the level of the spell behind the item.

Then base the price of your item on the spell level. Or rather, the level of the spell slot you would need to achieve a comparable effect. Taking into account range, duration, number of targets and so on; any requirements such as concentration (or lack thereof) and attunement (and lack thereof).

What level of spell is on the above four items? A ring of free action seems like a permanent freedom of movement spell, but doesn't allow you to move freely underwater or escape from nonmagical restraint. So is that better or worse?

And what about items that have no comparable spells? A bag of holding or figurine of wonderous power or an alchemy jug. What about items that do many things? Like dwarven plate that gives an AC boost and an ability to stop forced movement

This also assumes that all spells of the same level confer the same usefulness as a magic item.

Then apply common sense (so you're not arriving at a very high level slot for something that simply isn't that valuable).

So, basically, make it up at the end?
Which is the catch, no system will be perfect and will always require heavy oversight. The 3e/PF system simply didn't work with lots of high level items being overpriced (rings, staves) and being very possible to underprice valuable items.