Combination magic items...

[Cedric]

Rules forum seemed to be the best place for this, but I'm wondering, why..at higher levels, you don't find people carting around more combination magic items.

You can quickly run short on slots to put things in when you get into epic levels. I was thinking of stuff like Bracers of the Divine Body (something I came up with).

Base Item:
Bracers of Natural Armor +5 (market price 50,000gp)

Additions at creation:
Enhancement Bonus to Strength +4
Enhancement Bonus to Constitution +4
Enhancement Bonus to Charisma +4
Enhancement Bonus to Dexterity +4

Market price for the additions would normally be 16,000gp each, but since you are creating a slot specific item, that incurs an additional 10% cost to each of the enhancements. So their market value addition is 17,600gp each, or 70,400gp total.

Total Market Price = 120,400gp

Creation cost is 60,200gp and 2408xp

If you can find someone with Magical Artisan: Craft Wonderous Item this would only cost, 45,150gp and 1806xp.

Back to my question though...why don't more people do this? I almost never see multi-ability items created, even for Epic level characters...

Thoughts?

Cedric

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'll post the standard responses:

The item pricing guidelines in the DMG are guidelines for the DM when pricing a new item he's come up with, NOT a construction ruleset for players to design their own items. The only way you'll see an item with a ton of abilities added on is if the DM wants to put an item like that in the game. Even if your DM does allow the item, it's still ultimately his decision as to the price and prerequisites. He could very easily decide that Craft Wondrous Item, a Feat you can take at level 3, is inappropriate for that sort of item and require it to be in the form of a Ring.

Second, that +10% is a misprint. It's +100% in 3E, see errata. (It's more like +50% in 3.5E, although the "slot affinity" rules make things more complex). That'd put your price at more like 178k, which is getting awfully close to the Epic threshold; if the 50k ability was the one doubled, it'd be 212k, which means Epic, which means x10 cost... this is the sort of discussion that leads to migraines.

 

[Cedric]

I never was aware of that errata, so thanks for pointing that out. Besides which, I should have just made the calculations for 3.5, since it's the current edition of the game.

So...with that in mind, then end result is that it would have a market value of 146,000gp. This makes the creation cost 73,000gp and the xp to create would be 2920xp.

As for your other points, you shouldn't have to double the cost of the 50k ability if you consider that to be the "base" item.

While yes, the item creation guidelines are guidelines...in point of fact, everything in the book is a guideline. There are no rules you HAVE to follow. Yes, ultimately it's the GM's decision whether to allow this item...everything rules related is the GM's decision.

So do you think items with multiple abilities shouldn't be allowed by GM's? I never thought about it actually. The rules are in the book, the examples make precident for it. Somewhere early in 3.0 the suggestion of adding multiple abilities to items was even made in the core books somewhere.

Cedric

 

[Cergorach]

The reason is simple, by the time your at a level where you can afford such a trinket, you'll already have +6 Enhancement items for your primary and secondary attribute, for only 2x 36k gp. 146k can buy you far better trinkets.

btw. i think the magic item creation rules should be able to stand up to the abuse of most players. They can make magic items!

 

[kreynolds]

I never was aware of that errata, so thanks for pointing that out. Besides which, I should have just made the calculations for 3.5, since it's the current edition of the game.

So...with that in mind, then end result is that it would have a market value of 146,000gp.

That would more likely be 178,000gp. Bonuses to ability scores do not have an affinity to bracers, thus they receive an increase in price of 50% in addition to the 50% increase for being secondary non-similar powers. For an additional 50,000, you just make the whole thing slotless as well.

Note: About the body slot affinity; The passage tends to cover an increase in price for the wondrous item as a whole, and doesn't cover wondrous items that have a _partial_ affinity, but apply a non-affinity penalty to only the parts of the item that are appropriate seemed logical to me. I suppose others could just slap on a 50% increase from the entire cost of the item, which would be 219,000, but that seemed a little harsh to me.

So do you think items with multiple abilities shouldn't be allowed by GM's?

If they're priced accordingly, I don't have a problem with them.

Somewhere early in 3.0 the suggestion of adding multiple abilities to items was even made in the core books somewhere.

There's a passage about adding abilities to weapons.

 

[Cedric]

Bonuses to ability scores do not have an affinity to bracers, thus they receive an increase in price of 50% in addition to the 50% increase for being secondary non-similar powers.

As to body slot affinity, is it in 3.0 or just 3.5? Is it in the SRD? Just curious, because I'm not familiar with the ruling.

There's a passage about adding abilities to weapons.

For the life of me, I can't remember where this note was. But it specifically was in regards to "epic" level characters having items that added many different abilities together. Then gave the break down for this horrendous powerful cloak that cost like 1.2 million gp. This was, incidently, long before the ELH came out.

Cedric

 

[shilsen]

As to body slot affinity, is it in 3.0 or just 3.5? Is it in the SRD? Just curious, because I'm not familiar with the ruling.

It's in 3.5 (pg. 288 of the DMG). I don't know if it's in the SRD, but I should think so.

 

[kreynolds]

For the life of me, I can't remember where this note was. But it specifically was in regards to "epic" level characters having items that added many different abilities together. Then gave the break down for this horrendous powerful cloak that cost like 1.2 million gp. This was, incidently, long before the ELH came out.

I believe that was one of the early, early previews of the epic level rules on the WotC website.

 

[Spatzimaus]

As for your other points, you shouldn't have to double the cost of the 50k ability if you consider that to be the "base" item.

Yes, but the rules as written aren't clearly stated that way; I believe it's in the FAQ, but that's not exactly official.
The DMG says that for multiple similar abilities, the most costly ability is full price and the cheaper ones are discounted. For multiple abilities in a slotted item, though, it says that "each additional power... has a 100% increase in price". So, while you could say that the cheaper ones are the "additional" powers, this in fact is the opposite of the only precedent they ever gave (where the most expensive ability is the only one you never discount).
Of course it's stupid to double the expensive one since the person could buy that as a slotted item and the others as slotless for less, but we're talking ballpark price here. I'd price it the same way you did (except for the +100% thing), I was just pointing out that when you use the other interpretation of price you cross the Epic threshold, which multiplies price by 10...

So do you think items with multiple abilities shouldn't be allowed by GM's? I never thought about it actually. The rules are in the book, the examples make precident for it. Somewhere early in 3.0 the suggestion of adding multiple abilities to items was even made in the core books somewhere.

The DMG uses a Belt of Strength +4 and Dexterity +4 as the example of designing an item with multiple bonuses.

I'm not totally against the multi-ability concept. I'm willing to allow items like this, but there have to be some limitations. If you're just talking about combining two items that were for the same slot already, it's not a problem. If they're thematically linked, no problem. If one is far, FAR more expensive than the other, no problem. For example, if I want my Ring of Regeneration to also act as a Ring of Sustenance. Both of these are existing items, both are the same slot, and they're thematically linked. No problem.

First, though, there's the Feat issue. A lot of people try to do something like make a "Vest of Regeneration", that's just like a Ring of Regeneration but only requires Craft Wondrous Item (one of my players tried that), since they don't want to take the Forge Ring feat. Even though the 3E rules don't say this'd be any more expensive, why would you allow it? For your item this isn't as much an issue, although I'd still say that something combining 5 different items should probably require a more critical slot. A Ring would be more appropriate for something of this power level. This is related to the developers' "Quack Like A Duck" policy.

Then, there's the pick-n-choose aspect. Why would an item boost STR, CON, DEX, and of all things CHA, without also boosting INT and WIS? What does CHA have to do with all the other abilities? Mixing two physical stats is one thing; mixing five different things that happen to be EXACTLY what the intended player wanted is something else.
It just annoys me that in every player-designed item there's never any "wasted" ability. Look at the multi-ability items in the books; the Rings of Elemental Command are good for this. There are some good abilities, some abilities where you wish they had more uses per day, and some that you wish they hadn't put on if it'd keep the price down.
If it's a DM-designed item, add some "flavor" abilities. If it's "Divine Body", then throw on some sort of Poison or Disease resistance, or let it activate a few times a day for some minor divine spell (Aid, for example). Tweak the other abilities a bit; maybe it's only +3 Natural Armor. That sort of thing.

Anyway, it's just something you want to be careful about. If you don't put any sort of limitation on these sorts of items, then that's all the players will EVER want, and they'll only view loot as something to be sold to fund the next super-item.

 

[Staffan]

First, though, there's the Feat issue. A lot of people try to do something like make a "Vest of Regeneration", that's just like a Ring of Regeneration but only requires Craft Wondrous Item (one of my players tried that), since they don't want to take the Forge Ring feat.

That's why I like the way Monte did it in AU. Instead of dividing items into weapons/armor, wondrous items, scrolls, potions, wands, rods, staves and rings, they're divided into weapons/armor, spell-completion items, single-use items, charged items, and constant items. Spell completion items are basically scrolls, but not necessarily in the form of one. Single-use items are basically potions, but without the level limit. They can also be things like "magic grenades" that you throw somewhere and they release their effect. Charged items are wands, but again without the level limit. Constant items include permanent items, daily-use items, unlimited-use items, and so on - most of the rings, wondrous items and rods.

The only change I made for my house rules was to add a Greater Charged Item that mimics the special rules for staves in 3.5e, in that they let the user use his own caster level/stats/feats if they're better than the ones in the staff.