D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E item pricing

[der_kluge]

I'm only mentioning it as an alternative. Not any different than saying, "hey, check out my house rules on my website!" or something to that effect. Just letting people know that it's out there. Obviously, I'm not forcing anyone to go out and buy it or anything.

The book was written, mostly in direct response to all these posts that pop up. It seems like, not a day goes by where I don't read about *someone* having a problem trying to price a magic item using the rules in the DMG. And the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of caveats that go into those rules, that just aren't written down anywhere, and I am constantly seeing people get frustrated because the system in the DMG is kind of like a black box, and without all the rules, it's impossible to use accurately. So, if you want to continue to use the DMG system, and apply all that fuzziness to your equations, then by my guest.

 

[kreynolds]

umm... kreynolds?

Relax. Lets keep this cool.

AFAIK, there is no support in the DMG to deny someone the kind of item that Nail (and green slikme) described.

Then its a good thing I never said I was or would deny them that kind of item.

As far as I can see (from the SRD), the only place that you and green slime are using as justification to 'deny' Nail's item that casts Expeditious Retreat 2x a day is...

On page 214 of the DMG. It's a new item, and new items are a variant rule, and variant rules are up to the DM. But, again, I never said I'd deny him such a magic item.

I don't believe that is applicable here... at ALL.

Heck, I don't either.

This is not a continuous item, so comparing it to the Boots of S&S is inappropriate.

Not at all. At 720gp for 2/day, that means unlimited use would be 1,800gp. Note, that is cheaper than the striding function of BoSS _and_ its even better. Thus, the price is simply flawed.

It's straightforward in the books that casting a 1st level spell 2x per day would be 720 gp.
Anything else is a house rule.

These boots are a house rule.

 

[kreynolds]

I'm only mentioning it as an alternative. Not any different than saying, "hey, check out my house rules on my website!"

There's a huge difference. My house rules are actually on these boards, so people can find them if they want...for free. You reference material that is not available unless you purchase it, which is simply advertising, and when unsolicited, its SPAM.

 

[reapersaurus]

Relax. Lets keep this cool.

ROFL!
Only on such a genteel message board as this would an "umm..." be considered getting 'hot', or needing to relax from.

I said:
This is not a continuous item, so comparing it to the Boots of S&S is inappropriate.
--------------------
You said:
Not at all.

ummm... ... it IS inappropriate to compare a command-word item to a continuous item.
There's no point in you saying it is again, since I'm not sure why you think it is.
(psst! Command-word != Continuous item)

These boots are a house rule.

No, they are following the fairly detailed steps in the 3.5 rules to the letter.

You're the one with the "common sense pricing" house rule for magic items...

 

[kreynolds]

ROFL!
Only on such a genteel message board as this would an "umm..." be considered getting 'hot', or needing to relax from.

I didn't say you were getting hot. I was asking you to chill, 'cause you were coming across as condescending.

... it IS inappropriate to compare a command-word item to a continuous item.

Not at all.

(psst! Command-word != Continuous item)

The boots he wants are useable 2/day. 720 divided by 2 is 360. Five uses per day is the exact same price as unlimited charges, and continuous can even apply an additional modifier.

So, in short, if 10,000gp is unlimited charges, then 4,000gp is 2/day.

No, they are following the fairly detailed steps in the 3.5 rules to the letter.

The item doesn't exhist in the 3.5 rules. Thus it is a house rule. I won't point it out again, so if you wish to ignore the obvious, go right ahead.

You're the one with the "common sense pricing" house rule for magic items...

I'm sorry you can't be mature about this.

 

[Nail]

The boots he wants are useable 2/day. 720 divided by 2 is 360. Five uses per day is the exact same price as unlimited charges, and continuous can even apply an additional modifier.

Uhmmm. Huh?

I think you're saying that the boots cost 360 gp per use per day, which is correct (obviously). Still, the boots are command word activated, rather than use activated, so being able to use them 5 times per day would be 1800gp.

As to whether or not they are the right price, given the rules:

• Of course these boots are not in the DMG. That's why my PC creates them.
  
• There are rules for creating magic items in the DMG. They are therefore not "house rules". Items created using these rules are not "house rules" any more than creating a gnomish barbarian character is a "house rule".
  
• Of course you can "rule zero" this item. That's the DM's perogative.
  
• The DMG says that you should compare the item's price with others. I get that. I'm claiming that if you do so for this item, you find it's "close" to reasonable. I would agree it might be a few hundred short.
  
• Items like my boots show a flaw in the item pricing system: Spells with the "Target: Personal" descriptor should have some additional cost.

 

[kreynolds]

I think you're saying that the boots cost 360 gp per use per day, which is correct (obviously).

*nod*

Still, the boots are command word activated, rather than use activated, so being able to use them 5 times per day would be 1800gp.

Nail? When did I ever say they were use-activated? I said unlimited use.

Of course these boots are not in the DMG. That's why my PC creates them.

Naturally.

There are rules for creating magic items in the DMG. They are therefore not "house rules". Items created using these rules are not "house rules" any more than creating a gnomish barbarian character is a "house rule".

I'll tell you the same thing I told reapersaurus. If you want to ignore the facts (i.e. page 214), you go right ahead.

The DMG says that you should compare the item's price with others. I get that. I'm claiming that if you do so for this item, you find it's "close" to reasonable. I would agree it might be a few hundred short.

Then what are you arguing with me about?

Items like my boots show a flaw in the item pricing system: Spells with the "Target: Personal" descriptor should have some additional cost.[/list]

I don't think its a flaw, but that's me. *shrug*

 

[Nail]

Then what are you arguing with me about?

Oh. Uhm....'cause I like too?

Seriously: I enjoy discussing things with you (and others) on these boards. I learn tons of stuff here. Thanks for that.

I don't think its a flaw, but that's me. *shrug*

Are you sure? I could be wrong too, but it seems like all the items that "need adjustment" after the pricing formula are broken because of this. Seriously.

Examples: Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, Shield, ......etc.

Wouldn't a simple fix to the formula eliminate the necessity of "compare to DMG items" (in all but extreme cases)?

 

[kreynolds]

Are you sure?

Yup.

Wouldn't a simple fix to the formula eliminate the necessity of "compare to DMG items" (in all but extreme cases)?

In theory, but the problem is that so far, nobody has been able to come up with a simple "fix" to the "problem". So far, attempts haven't yielded anything simple at all. They've yielded entire books (e.g. AH).

 

[kreynolds]

damn double posts...argh