D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5) co-op crafting ?

[gmnemo]

One of my PCs is commissioning a fairly complex/expensive magic item, and has suggested that multiple casters could work on the item at once, each of them contributing to a different component, so as to cut down on the time it takes to finish.

For example, if you wanted to apply acid/cold/elec/fire/sonic resistance to a +1 suit of armor, you could hire five casters, and each of them would apply one of the five components, so that the process would take 18 days instead of 90 days, while still costing the same. (All casters involved would of course need the proper feat, CL, and other prereqs, for their component.)

As a DM, would you allow this ? Perhaps under certain circumstances ?

 

[krupintupple]

i'd probably allow this, since each of the resistance abilities (one for each "element") that you're attempting to put onto the armour are $18,000, each. i'd be inclined to consider it five individual instances of resistance and would let it fly - this is one of the rare times it would, however, because it's a +$XYZ value on an item and not a +1 value, which is another matter entirely.

ultimately, if you've got a character who really wants to blow $90,000 on making his +1 armour slightly more effective in combat, i'd tell him to go nuts

 

[Ogrehatescomputers]

I'd allow it. I would require a few things. He would have to be a "large" city. Or one known to house a powerful mages guild. Or something of the like. Another being I would make him pay a little extra. If I was a mage, and was going to make you a powerful suite of armor that cost 90 large, but then found out I was only going to get a taste if said 90 grand. I'd charge you a "convenience" fee of like 2,000. Then I would ask why my player wasn't making his armor +5 or +6 instead of adding the resist to it. I mean, it's good and all. But i'd take the straight bonus or some other addition. But hey, whatever makes him and you happy. Go for it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

As a DM, would you allow this?

No.

 

[frankthedm]

Then I would ask why my player wasn't making his armor +5 or +6 instead of adding the resist to it.

Unless a DM has high level combats throwing a lot of targeted dispels around, keeping a suit of armor with tons of extra abilities and coated in the magic Vestments spell more than doubles it's 'worth'. Same issue with Greater magic weapon.

 

[Jhaelen]

As a DM, would you allow this ? Perhaps under certain circumstances ?

Depends. If the campaign is under strict timeline, I'd probably allow it, since they would even have a hard time to see its completion after 18 days!

If the party (currently) isn't under time pressure, I wouldn't allow it.

 

[IronWolf]

I would likely allow it, though in the example given, probably not as quickly as 18 days. But I would certainly consider reducing the time it takes, maybe down to more like 30 days just to allow for scheduling logistics between five casters and one suit of armor.

 

[radmod]

I would not allow it as explained, for several reasons.
1) AFAIK, there's nothing that allows co-crafting. In fact, all the verbiage in crafting and creating magic is singular (the 'crafter', the 'creator'). Yes, there are ways to co-cast spells (in order to get a higher level spell) but I doubt they apply here.
2) Each application of new magic, such as each resistance spell, has to be treated independently. That is, you must finish one before you can begin the other. This is sort of implied in that if you are crafting a magic item, stop doing and start another, then you lose all materials, time, etc. for the first item.
3) Suspicion and paranoia. When you make exceptions like this, invariably, players wind up finding some other way of exploiting it that you never thought of, so I try to be very, very careful when allowing exceptions.

 

[gmnemo]

The five resistances was of course merely an example, off the top of my head. I was referring more to the general principle.

Thanks for your input. I think radmod's #2 is probably the most conclusive argument against such a practice. Good thinking.

 

[jefgorbach]

yes in a fashion. Afirc, there is no limit asto how many people can be involved per RAW, however the majority of enchanted items are NOT modular so there would be -NO- time reduction in most cases since each needs his normal time with the item to complete his part.

however a case for reducing the overall time could be made with modular items such as necklace of fireballs in which numerous mages could produce their respective contributions separate from the others. Likewise, a sword's pommel stone or crown's gemstones could be enchanted separately from its destined setting.