D&D 3.x 3.5E item pricing

[Daeinar]

Confusing the player's, justifying an upcoming product on item creation, which will in turn confuse everyone so much as to justify a 4th edition?

Dunno. But the intent seems to be unclear at best.

Daeinar

-Have fun, and know the rules before you try to fix them.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, I'm just about ready to ditch the table and put my money on the sidebar instead. I noticed the second reference to +50% cost of additional abilties on slotted items in the DMG. It's on page 288, under Adding New Abilities...

"If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body (see Magic Items on the Body, page 214), the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5."

So, either the Adding New Abilities and Behind The Curtain sections are correct, thereby trumping the table, or these two sections were not updated to reflect the change in the table. Two to one...probably the sections are correct then and the table's wrong. Cute.

 

[reapersaurus]

kreynolds - there's nothing common-sensical about not allowing players to use the rules to utilize 1st level spells in item creation.

It's right in the table. I mean, come on - players the world over are supposed to see the rules for item creation, and then go - "but wait! We should compare this item with every item in the book to get the appropriate cost!"

The cost is right there in black and white, detailed per WotC's rules that they spent years revising and expect millions of people to give them money for.

IF their spells are so out of whack for the benefit that they grant (which is basically what we must conclude if they shouldn't be used for magic items), then why did WotC allow spells to be used in magic items?
Just take that line out of the table, and you wouldn't have people expecting to be able to use Enlarge Person as a continuous effect for 2,000 GP (Hell, you can buy it as a Permanacied Spell for 2,500).

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds - there's nothing common-sensical about not allowing players to use the rules to utilize 1st level spells in item creation.

Two points...

1) They aren't rules. They're guidelines.

2) A +1 luck bonus is 2,500. A +1 insight bonus is 2,500. An unlimited-use +5 insight bonus to all attack rolls is 62,500. So, are you telling me that you really think an unlimited-use +20 insight bonus to all attack rolls would only cost 2,000gp? (By the way, I haven't even included the capability to negate the miss chance provided by concealment yet.) If so, that lacks common sense.

I'm not trying to be cruel. I'm just stating the facts. EDIT: Also, to clarify, I'm not saying that I don't understand how someone could make that mistake if the spell level formula is the first one they see on the table. I'm saying that I don't understand how someone could make that mistake after its been specifically pointed out to them.

It's right in the table.

So is the guideline for pricing insight bonuses.

I mean, come on - players the world over are supposed to see the rules for item creation, and then go - "but wait! We should compare this item with every item in the book to get the appropriate cost!"

Actually, players the world over are supposed to seek out their DM for help creating a magic item. The DMG isn't a shopping catalog. A DM should know that a +20 insight bonus isn't 2,000gp when the very same page indicates that a +1 insight bonus is 2,500gp. If the DM doesn't know that, then he's either missed that in the table, or he lacks common sense.

I'll totally admit that the item pricing guidelines aren't very comprehensive, but they aren't very difficult to figure out either, especially not when the price of an insight bonus is starring one in the face.

I hear a lot about MEG's new book. I don't know. Maybe it'll be comprehensive enough to set an example for other publishers. We can always hope, right?

The cost is right there in black and white...

Exactly. A +1 insight bonus is 2,500gp, thus...

IF their spells are so out of whack for the benefit that they grant (which is basically what we must conclude if they shouldn't be used for magic items), then why did WotC allow spells to be used in magic items?

True strike isn't out of whack for its level. A magic item using it is out of whack when someone prices it inappropriately.

Just take that line out of the table, and you wouldn't have people expecting to be able to use Enlarge Person as a continuous effect for 2,000 GP (Hell, you can buy it as a Permanacied Spell for 2,500).

I think such a solution might be a little drastic.

 

[ThirdWizard]

One note, designers have said multiple times that weapons are slotted items, you have to hold them in your hands and you can only benefiet from one item at a time, so they count as slots. Just because you can change them out easily doesn't mean they arn't taking up a slot (usually called chakra or something like that).

 

[reapersaurus]

Why do you keep using True Strike as an example which obviously would be stupid to propose?
I agree - I've never heard anyone even remotely ask to get a +20 insight bonus to every action by creating a magic item with continuous True Strike.

I'm more referring to other things, like Mage Armor (it's not an enhancement bonus), or Shield (a shield bonus), or Enlarge Person, Entropic Shield, (Exp. Retreat isn't bad), False Life, Shillelegh, etc.

There are many low level spells that do not neatly fit into any magic item category other than Spell Effect, use-activated or continuous.
Since this is a revised edition, _I_ certainly wouldn't expect the buyers of the rules to have to abstract and guess (in fact, make up rules) for something as obvious and supported in the rule-set as this.

 

[Daeinar]

Just take that line out of the table, and you wouldn't have people expecting to be able to use Enlarge Person as a continuous effect for 2,000 GP (Hell, you can buy it as a Permanacied Spell for 2,500).

Actually, they'd expect to pay 4000 GP, since Enlarge Person has it's duration measured in minutes.

Apart from that, I can only second kreynolds statement. Just apply a little common sense. The "guidelines - not rules" thing might not fit each aspect of the D&D Game equally. But it certainly fits magic item pricing.

That hold's true for most 1st level spells. Mage Armor, True Strike, Shield of Faith.

OTOH, something that granted a continuous Bull' Strength would be actually worse (i.E. more expensive) than a belt of giant strength +4.

And in that case, no player would bpoint you to said line in the table...

Daeinar

-Have fun, and know the rules before you try to fix them.

 

[kreynolds]

One note, designers have said multiple times that weapons are slotted items, you have to hold them in your hands and you can only benefiet from one item at a time, so they count as slots.

And they're priced as slotless items.

 

[kreynolds]

Why do you keep using True Strike as an example which obviously would be stupid to propose?

Many cases are indeed that obvious, but I'll admit that just as many are not.

I agree - I've never heard anyone even remotely ask to get a +20 insight bonus to every action by creating a magic item with continuous True Strike.

I have...on these boards...many times...even by people that normally have a good grasp of the rules.

I'm more referring to other things, like Mage Armor (it's not an enhancement bonus)...

But it's priced like one (see bracers of armor). This is one of those obvious cases I was talking about.

...or Shield (a shield bonus), or Enlarge Person, Entropic Shield, (Exp. Retreat isn't bad), False Life, Shillelegh, etc.

There are many low level spells that do not neatly fit into any magic item category other than Spell Effect, use-activated or continuous.

Very true. As I said...not very comprehensive, but not impossible to figure out.

Since this is a revised edition, _I_ certainly wouldn't expect the buyers of the rules to have to abstract and guess (in fact, make up rules) for something as obvious and supported in the rule-set as this.

Generally, I'd agree, but considering that we're talking about WotC, I never expected the item pricing guidelines to really get any more detailed. Knowing WotC, they'd save that for a supplement (not that I'm really complaining).

 

[ThirdWizard]

And they're priced as slotless items.

I don't see that. Compare A weapon +5 to an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5. The Amulet costs three times as much and its a slotted item. If weapons were unslotted they would probably cost around the same amount. Remember that weapons cost more than armor because they get a bonus for damage and attack as well as sundering etc, whereas armor bonuses only go toward AC.

"also, don't forget that weapons add their bonus twice: on the attack roll and to damage. armor just adds to ac."

That's it exactly.
Monte
http://www.montecook.com

~Monte Cook on why weapons are priced higher than armor.

Remember, he wrote the book. The entire thread is about if weapons are increased in price because they're slotted or because they're better than armor. Monte says its because they're better.

From Sean K. Reynold's site:

Hands as Chakra: Although not a chakra space listed in the DMG, an item that must be held in a hand to be activated counts as a chakra point. This is because you can only have two hand-chakra items active at once, and to switch to another hand-chakra item you'd have to spend an action to do so (just as if you wanted to put on a different amulet).

So I'm certain that weapons are slotted items.