Core, and Epic magic items

[Murazor]

That is very interesting, as i did not know you could apply multiple discounts to an item.

While they are listed in the DMG, I think those discounts are a huge mistake.
If it was that easy to bring down the cost of items, why does not everybody have their own, custom-made items made for only a fraction of the cost?
(For example: The Sword of Cutting Enemies into Tiny Little Pieces, only usable by the CG Male Half-Orc Barbarian named Krusk).

Not only does this throw of the character wealth, but the logical conclusion would also be that the NPCs also use this, and thus all treasure found by the PCs will be completely useless.

 

[RuminDange]

While they are listed in the DMG, I think those discounts are a huge mistake.
If it was that easy to bring down the cost of items, why does not everybody have their own, custom-made items made for only a fraction of the cost?
(For example: The Sword of Cutting Enemies into Tiny Little Pieces, only usable by the CG Male Half-Orc Barbarian named Krusk).

Not only does this throw of the character wealth, but the logical conclusion would also be that the NPCs also use this, and thus all treasure found by the PCs will be completely useless.

Maybe a mistake but that is why they are guidelines. Use them if you want to, ignore them if you don't. Either way character wealth can get thrown off very easy.


RD

 

[RuminDange]

That is very interesting, as i did not know you could apply multiple discounts to an item.

If multiple discounts apply why wouldn't you apply them?
And if you only apply one which is more important when you have more than one? In this case you have a restricted alignment[G,N,E] and class ability[Arcane Spell casting], which is more important? Hard to say in my opinion.


RD

 

[Nail]

If multiple discounts apply why wouldn't you apply them?

Because of stacking rules? Because the RAW doesn't have any explicit examples of discounts stacking? :\

As others have pointed out, it's an absolutely awful idea to allow multiple discounts....in fact, it's a terrible idea to allow any sort of discount at all. But it's in the RAW, and this being a Rules Forum, we'll leave house rules out of the discussion (for now).

In this case you have a restricted alignment[G,N,E] and class ability[Arcane Spell casting], which is more important?

You could argue that having multiple limitations of the same type ("alignment or class") don't give multiples of the discount.

 

[Nail]

So which do you use? Highest cost times two, all additional costs *1.5?

Text over-rides table.

 

[Nail]

However I have set up an excel spreadsheet to help calculate stuff like this and have figured it out to exactly 75,000gp by selecting the price for the feat to fill the gap.

It's interesting that the 3.0e method is closer than the 3.5e method. For aestetic reasons, I'd rather not chose the "feat" price that makes the over-all price work.....doing it that way provide no guidelines for making other magic items with other "feats".

Still, neat anaylsis.

 

[IcyCool]

There is no limitation in the rules enabling magic items saying a player cannot make items.

Correct. There is, however, a note that DM's should carefully evaluate any new (by new I mean not in the DMG) magic items before allowing them into the campaign. This is because the DM has the final say on what makes it into the game, not the player.

What constitutes a broken item changes greatly if NPC's can have it too.

While this is certainly true in some cases, I'd still argue that an item of continual true striking is broken, no matter how many people have one.

 

[Nail]

...or a (slotted) item of command word Cure Light Wounds.

1 (CL) * 1 (SpLvl) * 1800gp = 1,800gp for as many CLW spells as there are rounds in a day.

 

[RuminDange]

Because of stacking rules? Because the RAW doesn't have any explicit examples of discounts stacking? :\

True, but then again they don't really have examples of discounts not stacking and in this case you almost need to make it work. :\

As others have pointed out, it's an absolutely awful idea to allow multiple discounts....in fact, it's a terrible idea to allow any sort of discount at all. But it's in the RAW, and this being a Rules Forum, we'll leave house rules out of the discussion (for now).

That's why to me the "rules as written" is only guidelines to give my players and I a common ground to work with, it may mean house rules, but as you said, "Rules Forum".

You could argue that having multiple limitations of the same type ("alignment or class") don't give multiples of the discount.

You could but is alignment and class really the same type or the same discount modifier? To borrow the so stacking idea a bit, one is an Alignment Restriction discount, the other a Class Ability Required Restriction discount, therefore they stack. Or they could be called 30% off discounts and not stack. I prefer the first one if I am going to use them as it makes more sense even if it is "awful".

RD

 

[RuminDange]

It's interesting that the 3.0e method is closer than the 3.5e method. For aestetic reasons, I'd rather not chose the "feat" price that makes the over-all price work.....doing it that way provide no guidelines for making other magic items with other "feats".

If there was a clear spell to use in core rules that would provide the +2 Caster Level vs SR enhancement bonus I could easily work that into the formula's in the excel sheet I created but with no clear path there I went with a feat cost. I don't like the method of pricing feats this way either as I prefer a formula that applies in all cases. But even the one that they sort of provided in Arms & Equipment doesn't work out. That ones suggests a 5,000gp + 5,000gp per prerequisite the feat has to determine the price. But that is not core or SRD to my knowledge. And this definitely doesn't work for the Robe of Magi, since Spell Penetration would be 5,000gp for no prerequisites.

Still, neat anaylsis.

Thank you.

Rd