Anybody else HATE item creation feats?

[Dinkeldog]

The feats seem to work for me.

I can see adding in the treatise suggestion kenjib had, but be aware that at some point in your game, it might be expedient for the DM to have the characters rush creation. In that case, I'd allow them to purchase a treatise from a library or NPC wizard, most likely for half the base price of the item.

One of the great advantages to me as DM is that the items the party has are no longer my responsibility. I can put in what I want the NPCs to have, and if the PCs don't like it, they can trade in the value for items that they want instead.

There is a mercantilist abuse possible, but so far I haven't seen that happen.

 

[Black Omega]

My only trouble with these feats is trying to work out the math, pathetically enough. I need to grab the FAQ or something for this because the totals from the feats listed in the PHB are not even close to market costs. I know I'm taking a wrong turn somewhere,just not sure where.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One important thing:
The item creation rules are noted in the Dungeons Master Guide. This means: The DM is to use the rules provided them. NOT the players.
If I was the DM, I would be happy if the player`s use the Guidelines and use these ideas to create at least the ideas for new magic items, but it would be me to decide if they can make the desired item for the estimated price...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Eben]

Why this fixation on rules?
First: I think the item creation feats great.
Secondly: rules in an RPG are just guidelines. I've seen quite a lot of imaginative adaptations inthis thread. Until further notice, there is no D&D police out there to bust you for violation of pragraph 4, subsection 1 of the item creation rules.
Last: it's supposed to be role-playing: use your imagination. It wouldn't make sence for D&D to exhaustively list the proces and components of making this and that magic item. Every world is unique and should have unique methods of producing magic items. What if a description would say you needed the eye of a dragon to make a certain item an dyou wanted to run a world without dragons?
The example is simplistic, but I believe everybody knows what I mean.

Go create!

 

[The Furious Puffin]

I have had problems with the item creation feats. I think the key point is the DM has to monitor what the party is making, as some items are very broken (ie Rhino hide armour/un-erratad armour of speed)

IMO The DM has to define/limit what the players create, and provide a frame work in which to do it.

What I mean by framework is that the transcation must be above. Turf over money/time then you have items, instead ou must quest to the lost city of leng, and retrive the lost blah.

For minor items this shouldn't be difficult, but it does give the DM and players a better "feel"

Then the items creation feats work well

Note: Feel free to ignore the above. It is born of playing in a gmae where item creation was just say right. I make whatever, thats X gold Y exps and I have item.

Edit: For using actual English sentence structure

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

1. To create an item you must have access to a sufficiently large market to purchase the necessary components. If the GP limit of the city where you are acquiring the components is equal to or greater than the gp cost of creating the item then it can generally be assumed (DM permitting of course) that the necessary components can be found.

Actually IMO this is not even a house rule. In DND3e EVERYTHING has a price and every market has a MAX PRICE available based on locale size, with a nod for some exceptions. IMO, the reference to magical item components being "generally available" means "kust like every other commodity" not " anywhere, anytime unlike evry other commodity." It seems utterly incongruous to ADD TO THE PUBLISHED RULES a "magical components are not subject to the general availability rules."

In my games, and the games i have played in, magical components were part of the commidity by value vs local rules, which means those under the local max (or 3k whicheever was lower) were commonly available, those above the town's limit were very difficult to find and requires effort and time on the mage's part, and those in between were available but not common, so you might have to wait.

2. You need access to a magical laboratory for the creation of magic items with a total amount of highly specialized equipment worth at least 1/2 the cost of creating the item. This equipment does not get consumed during the item creation.

Except for you putting a price on it, the requirement for lab and such is ALREADY in the rules, as i noted earlier. For my druthers, basing the price of the lab on the item makes no sense. The price of the materials already reflects the "more powerful item requires more to make" thing. i do not see a need for a better lab (by 5 fold) to make a wand of magic missiles that throws 3 missiles (5th level) than to make a wand of magic missiles that throws 1 missile (first level.) Requiing better, more expensive materials, sure, but thats why the wand costs 5 times as much and takes 4 times as long to make.

I don't see the logic in adding a house rule to double whammy the item cost, myself.

Regardless, the lab, tools etc rule is already in the book.

The PHB.SRD no less.

3. Each item requires an item creation treatise which details the process required to create the item. The effective spell level of the treatise for scribing purposes is based on the caster level listed in the item description (caster level + 1) / 2 (e.g. caster level 5 equates to a 3rd level spell, 7 equates to a 4th level spell, etc.). These treatises can be gained in one of three ways: a) Taken as one of a wizard's spells gained upon advancing a level. b) Copied from another spell caster's research journal as per the wizard rules for scribing a spell. Even non-wizards must maintain a research journal to enchant items. c) Researching the item creation method as per the wizard rules for inventing a new spell.

This one i seriously disagree with as noted before. The exact same principle "feat gives you access but you then need to "learn" how to apply it" is just as applicable to metamagic feats and a host of others. i see no benefit is singling out one clas of feats for "its not a complete feat" treatment.

A sorcerer who knows mage armor does not automatically know how to make breacers of armor.

If he wants to know how to do so he must "learn" the wondrous items feat. That feat gives him the knowledge.

That's enough for me.

That's all. They need some tuning of course and it could probably be streamlined/simplified for #3 but that's the general idea. Now all of a sudden that all of that gold that mysteriously vanishes goes somewhere and you can explain why casters can make certain items without requiring meta-game knowledge of the entire magic item list in the DMG. Furthermore it could be a variant rule (#3 especially) so people who don't want the added complexity can ignore it.
I can see why some people might not like it though. Point taken. I still think the current system is kind of video gamish unless the DM introduces variant rules or expands on the current though. Basically you sit down in any quiet spot, erase a gp amount and xp from your character sheet,

You are just plain incorrect. Whether it is just uninformed or actually ignoring the rules, which i posted earlier on this thread, for hyperbole is uncertain.

The rules atate that the cost is for materials/components. The rules never say gold coins poof. The rules also define and limit what can be bought where, based on price and locale size.

The rules state you must have a magical lab tools etc to use ANY item creation feat.

fast forward the game clock, and *poof* the item is suddenly magical.

Who said "fast forward anywhere in the rules? Show me the reference in the rules where it says "and the world should stop while the mage makes items."

TIME is listed as a limitation/requirement for making of anything, magical or otherwise. I personally don't think they went into all that wrk putting time requirements on scribing spell. making magical items, gathering information, using craft or profession skills etc etc etc only to have them ignored in a fast forward.

if, to you in your campaign, the notion of time as a limitation is out of the picture, then that might be a part of the problem, not a feature. IN MY GAMES, the time limitations are every bit as significant as the gold and the Xp, if not more on occasion. The party often finds 1-2 days "waiting", rarely wil find as much as a week and once or twice has even found a couple weeks. of course, they rarely "know" whether they will have a full week, or maybe only 3-4 days, in advance so they undertake item creation for anything expensive with great caution, usually sticking to cheap 1-2 day items.

If you are, as you seem to be indicating you think the rules are, allowing then to ignore the general puchasing rules (allowing the "GP poof to item"), revoking the requirement for magical lab and tools (allowing the "poof sit under a tree" make pearl of power" thing) AND waiving the time requirements ("fast-forward til done") THEN i can understand how you see the item creation feats as flawed.

However, i would argue that you have so mangled and removed the normal limitations as to have CREATED your own problem.

 

[hong]

I've come to the stark realization that, unlike the original quote, the inverse is true for D&D, at least in my opinion:

"Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

AKA, Hong's First Law.

The Third Law is, "thinking too hard about fantasy is bad".

I forget what the Second Law is, except that it had something to do with entropy.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Let's not forget that the rules for creating magic items in 2nd edition were, in some respects, even more open. Sure, you had to research, find the right ingredients, and get the DM to agree to let you create the item, but you pretty much have to do that now, or at least optional flavor rules allow for it.

More to the point, in 2nd edition, you didn't have to have any special training. Now you have to buy the feats.

Then let's not forget that in 2nd edition you gained experience points for creating magic items, rather than spending them.

This dovetails nicely with something I've been thinking about recently. A lot of people are under the impression that D&D3 advocates a higher magic setting than D&D2. However, magic items are actually not any easier to create; it's just that the system has been clarified and codified. The only "real" rule in 3e that implies a higher magic setting than 2e is the notion of places where you can buy magic items. 3e has 'em, 2e didn't.

Leaving aside personal taste--I prefer most of my campaign worlds without magic stores, so I don't include them (simple, no?)--given the basics of how the world works, it's not unreasonable to expect a few such establishments, or at least to expect the rules to allow for them. Again, if you don't like them, nobody's forcing you to use them.

I think the main reason D&D3 seems more "fantastic" than 1e or 2e is the art, not the rules. Art establishes the feel for a rulebook just as much as the writing does, whether the reader is consciously aware of that fact or not. And the art of 3e is a lot more high-fantasy and than most of the 1e and 2e art.

And I've gotten way off-track here, so I'll shut up, except to restate my original point. item creation feats don't really make magic items easier to create than they were in 2e. They just make the system easier to adjudicate.

 

[kenjib]

Petrosian,

Ah, sorry. You posted while I was also posting it seems so I didn't see your previous post. You made some good points - especially regarding the fact that #1 and #2 were already covered under the rules. Thanks for clearing that up for me! I appreciate it. My mistake. The "any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items" statement in the DMG is what was confusing me, as it seems to contradict the lab requirement you pointed out from the PHB, but I can see now how it could be intepreted otherwise and I agree with you 100%.

One point on #3 though - while I agree that taking the feat grants you with certain knowledge, enchanting items and the spells needed as prereqs do not have a one-to-one correlation. That is why I think it's odd that there is no research involved in creating items. I can see it fine for scrolls, potions, wands, and even many of the other types of magic items that relate directly to spells like a ring of invisibility. However consider the differences between these items and their prereqs:

1. Cloak of the Manta Ray versus Freedom of Movement and Water Breathing.
2. Sword of Wounding versus Mordenkainen's Sword.
3. Banded Mail of Luck versus Bless.
4. Rod of Security versus Gate.
5. Ioun Stones versus no spell requirements at all.
6. Periapt of Wisdom versus Commune or Legend Lore.

We're not talking about simply imbuing items with the effects of a given spell. There is something else going in to these items. Considering the unlimited range of magic item possibilities and effects the player might invent (subject to DM approval of course as is everything in the game) for which there is no existing spell with exact correlation, that sure is a lot of knowledge to gain with one feat. In just the case of Ioun Stones, a spell caster gains the ability to create all of the following effects without any other knowledge just from taking one feat: armor bonus, no need for food/water, bonus to all six stats, alertness feat, spell storing, no need to breath, bonus to saves checks and to-hit, regeneration, and spell absorption. This is in addition to numerous other unique effects possessed by various wonderous items as well as a possibly infinite number of player concocted magic item effects.

I only suggested it as a variant rule, not a replacement for the core rules in some mythical 4e. Like I said before, I know that not everyone would like it. I see your point but I do not agree. I'm sure my preference for low magic also has notable impact on this viewpoint since this variant has an effect, convenient to me, of further reducing the ease of making magic items.

P.S. The "fast-forward the clock" statement was a simplification on my part, not a literal statement of game mechanic. I understand the time requirements, it was just shorthand. I apologize for the confusion but we are not in disagreement there at all.

 

[PenguinKing]

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post, but in case you are I don't see how implementing something like the following simple changes would be a "campaign-specific, assumption-ridden monstrosity that requires you to extensively reverse-engineer to change anything."

kenjib, of the three "points" you posted, one is already explicitly stated in the rules, one is implied, and one is a campaign-specific assumption.

- Sir Bob.