Bracers

[Nezkrul]

OP: if your group is using the Magic Item Compendium, then you can add Bracers of Murder to your Bracers of Armor by hiring a capable item crafter for the job and paying them just for the Bracers of Murder - according to the crafting rules in the MIC, the force armor bonus is a normal ability for bracers and never incurs the +50% when added to, or enhanced by, another single bracers' ability(ies). If you also were to add Bracers of Archery to this Murder Bracers of Armor +3 - then the Archery cost would get the +50% cost mod. Remember that time required to enhance your bracers is still based off of the total market price / 1000gp

 

[Greenfield]

Regarding the Potion specialist who wants to settle down:

There are rules in D&D 3.* for earning experience outside of combat. Any professionally challenging situation can qualify, and unless I'm mistaken the standard Exp for "Role Playing adventures" (i.e. handled through RP, not conflict) is 50 x Character Level.

How else would non-adventurer types ever advance a level?

Consider this aspect: A crafter who doesn't face this limiting factor could craft 1,000 gp in goods a day (at a 50% profit margin), and rather quickly be the richest man/woman in town.

In my game worlds, when PCs visit a city and want items custom made, the crafter will probably have to delay their order. The local gentry/nobility have potions, arms and armor etc. on backorder, and the needs of the city/kingdom come ahead of strangers, even if the strangers have lots of gold.

You want instant gratification? Talk to the local lord and explain/justify your need. If he agrees, you can jump the line.

Oh, what's that? He'll agree if you just do a little job for him? Sounds like a good DM tool/plot hook.

And no matter what, there is a maximum Exp per month that crafter can spend on items. His batteries are always on the low side. Some of the Exp he spends on items he has to earn by going out and finding the rare and exotic materials used in the crafting. (Why yes, that exorbitant GP cost for crafting has to go somewhere, it isn't just a matter of pouring blood/life-force and gold into a bottle and shaking well.)

So this also helps provide the DM with adventure opportunities: "Yes, I can craft a Dragon Slaying blade for you. Bit the grip must be wrapped in the raspy skin of a Fiendish Shark, as an anchor for the dark energies needed in such a weapon. So if you could get me some of that, I could help you..."

These rules were created to limit PC item creation, yes, but the greater limitation is the down time they have to spend on it. Taking the rules into account in your game world over all helps give that aspect of life a bit of texture, and makes the game world a bit more "real".

 

[delericho]

There are rules in D&D 3.* for earning experience outside of combat. Any professionally challenging situation can qualify, and unless I'm mistaken the standard Exp for "Role Playing adventures" (i.e. handled through RP, not conflict) is 50 x Character Level.

Yep, that's right. Bear in mind, though, that it would need to be professionally challenging just cooking up batches of potion of cure light wounds wouldn't do it.

Truth be told, though, the 3.X NPC rules really don't work very well. In general, better just to use the rules for PCs and handwave the rest. (And the magic item creation rules also don't work very well, so NPC crafters are a problem on top of a problem...)

 

[Greenfield]

Agreed, the NPC rules, or lack thereof, can be an obstacle.

As for the item crafting rules... They are what they are, and if you're trying to set up this retirement plan that depends on crafting then you're kind of stuck with them.

My problem with the "just spend the time and money" approach used in Pathfinder and 4e is that in the long run the world would have permanent magic weapons and items coming out its ears. Permanent items are, by definition, permanent. And nobody would willingly destroy such things, they're too valuable.

Now I could see modifying the rules so that consumables like Potions, Scrolls, Oils etc didn't cost Exp, but permanent items need some limiting factor.

As I've said, I find the EXP cost a useful tool in managing the game world. It sets a limit on magical production, a forced pacing if you will, that gives the DM plot hooks and a bit of in-game leverage.

You want custom made items? You need to be in good standing with the Powers that Be, or the crafts people will never have time for your project. You want something special? You need to trade a favor for a favor.

 

[delericho]

My problem with the "just spend the time and money" approach used in Pathfinder and 4e is that in the long run the world would have permanent magic weapons and items coming out its ears. Permanent items are, by definition, permanent. And nobody would willingly destroy such things, they're too valuable.

Agreed... sort of. I'm not really a fan of having the game rules try to model a consistent "fictional reality", so things like that (and the classic "why don't elves rule the world?") are arguments I'd rather just sidestep.

But you're right - if that is how the universe works, then such things would just accumulate.

As I've said, I find the EXP cost a useful tool in managing the game world. It sets a limit on magical production...

In principle, I was a fan of the "Unearthed Arcana" variant where casters had a "Crafting Reserve" that was instead the limit on items they could craft. Of course, like the rest of UA that's even less playtested than the item creation rules generally, so...

(All that said, if I were given the mandate to 'fix' 3e, and also given carte blanche to do that, I'd actually do a complete rewrite of item creation from the ground up. I don't think any trivial fix really gets to the heart of the issue. I also don't think the (original 3.0e) designers really envisaged the item creation (or purchase) rules being used in anything like the way they are being used - I suspect they expected virutally all items in the game to be 'found' items. Which explains some of the odder decisions in the game, such as the MM monsters being 'balanced' assuming PCs wouldn't have access to "big six" items when of course those would be the items players would make sure their characters have!)

 

[Celebrim]

My problem with the "just spend the time and money" approach used in Pathfinder and 4e is that in the long run the world would have permanent magic weapons and items coming out its ears. Permanent items are, by definition, permanent. And nobody would willingly destroy such things, they're too valuable.

While I agree with the value of the time, money, XP model, I don't think this perforce follows from removing it.

First, because there is a granularity at which the rules generally cease to concern themselves. One example of this is the degradation of an item through use and over time. While its reasonable to assume that magic items are of exceptional quality and generally well cared for, there is no reason to assume that they aren't subject to the usual sorts of wear and tear objects suffer and don't normally degrade over time. Metal rusts. Wood, leather and cloth rot. Unless steps are taken to ensure that all objects are almost immune to rust and other ravages of time, there is no reason to assume that every +1 sword that spends 1000 years underwater in a shallow saltwater bay remains a +1 sword or even a quality weapon.

Back in 1e most anything that would kill a high level player would probably smash, burn or disintegrate his possessions along with him.

And while we've come a long way from the 1e era where you could reasonably expect to lose half your magical items to various disasters, even in 3e there is a limited chance that when one fails a saving throw one of the items goes with it. Moreover, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your assertion that no one is ever motivated to destroy a magical item. Weapons will still get sundered. Items will be swallowed whole and if not immune to acid and physical damage, then digested. Adventurers will fall into lakes of lava, or be hurled bodily into the negative elemental plane. Unattended items will get set on fire. Evil artifacts will get destroyed by good guys, and bad guys will seek to destroy items dedicated to good. An item that is made of mithril or adamantium that isn't of immediate use to its new owner will get slagged down and recycled into the reagents for making an item more suitable to the new owners needs.

Honestly, I've never felt D&D was able to really justify the abundance of magical items it typically presents. This was especially true of 1e, where if the NPCs were following the same rules as PCs and we really were keeping track of the rules regarding items getting busted, we might expect only a few dozen or a few hundred magical items in existence across the whole world at any given time.

 

[emanresu]

a lot rides on your "world" scenario

having access to a magic shop really depends on your campaign setting

Our game group typically has a darker styled world, with leadership commonly reflective of medieval times. We try to approach our vision of what a campaign setting would be. Many campaigns I hear about are just so out there
it just seems such a stretch even for an imaginary setting. The truth is any ruling party is going to want to remain the ruling party. A lord, king or bishop are going to want to eliminate threats and minimize rival, or is that eliminate rivals and minimize threats, well I guess this would pend upon alignment. Anybody with spell casting ability, any magical talent can be a useful ally, providing they are loyal. A disloyal spellcaster is treated like any other major threat, they are hunted and killed. How could a king rule with people able to read minds, destroy castles with a blink of an eye? They couldn't. NOOOw the king that controls this power, aaahhhaaaa now he will be a force to be reckoned with. These kings would have areas where these magically inclined peoples could practice their arts, hon their craft, but make no mistake they are guarded and watched over very carefully.
Some are watched always, even in their sleep. There every move is known. WHY? Even the most loyal are never fully trusted. How could they be when they possess these supernatural powers and abilities?

The ruling party or family of any given area would greatly benefit from having family members possess these power and abilities, even the King himself (usually the case). When the ruling family has magic in the blood, they all but ensure/demand permanent royal statis. One would think these magical rulers would be more tolerant of others possessing these abilities. How could this be true, when they have 1st hand knowledge of what magic can do. Good aligned rulers (rare) will outlaw "other" magic shops, the making and selling of magic, only legal if being made for the kingdom at the request of its rulers, in a approved facility. Anybody breaking this law in even a lawful good kingdom (very rare) run by an exalted Paladin (rarer yet if not unique) run kingdom would be considered a public threat and probably imprisoned until no longer a threat. In a neutral kingdom The ruling party(s) can also charge what they want for items

Thus for a wizard to walk into a town and open a magic shop, it is a dangerous undertaking. It is when not if the wizards shop is closed and the wizard taken prisoner or worse. OH sure he may get some customers, probably those that are trying to avoid paying the inflated costs of the kings wizard shop. But the risk / reward ratio is usually not in the Wizards favor.

Usually the wizard is going to be taken to the kings wizard school/shop where he will be accepted as a member or killed immediately if not already. Unless the wizard escapes or eludes capture in the 1st place. Hence Wizards that make magical things or sell their spell casting abilities in any way are in hiding and very much in cahoots with the underground / local thieves guilds.