Creating Magic Items with Con

[Yair]

My latest campaign (a Bithright campaign using 3E rules) is a "magic-rare" campaign. This is particularly true for arcane magic, and for magic items. To reflect the rarity of magic items I have decided to demand a permament investment of 1 Con point for each magic item made (except for potions and scrolls). (actually, you can get it back with restoration if you also destroy the item, but that's not the point.)

Obviously, this is far more expensive than the XP cost normally associated with making magic items. As making them is so rare, I was thinking of allowing people to make the magic items without needing the Craft X feats (although they must still possess their prerequisites, and pay the gp price and time - I'm not sure about the XP).

Do you think this is "balanced", for a rare-magic world? Do you have any comments?
Notice rare means rare, not weak. All the normal rules apply to wizards et al, and they can even utilize some rules that strengthen them to some extent (being able to cast a Battle Spell=a version of the spell that affects far more people, or a Realm Spell=a spell that afffects an entire realm, or is at that scale of power).

 

[Alchemist]

The biggest issue with a rare-magic world is making sure that the magic is indeed rare, not only magic items but those who wield it as well. By restricting permanent magic items while allowing the spellcasting classes all their might you're only crippling the non-spellcasting classes more than they are under core rules. If you don't let the PC's play spellcasters, then it's not quite as big of a problem.

Your item creation rules will indeed make them rare, and I don't see any real problem with it. I can't imagine any character of mine making more than one item in his lifetime though. Con is too valuable to piddle away on anything less than a near-artifact item, IMHO.

 

[Yair]

The spellcasting classes in Birthright are... well...
Clerics are not really rare (and Druids are only about as rare as clerics of one god). Wizards and Sorcerers are very rare, but Magicians (a new class, somewhat like specialist in both Illusion and Divination with most everything else a barred school) are fairly common.

Since magic items are rare, the spellcasting PCs will tend to be stronger, but I hope the difference won't be too high. They will lack magic items too, of course, and although it may not completely compensate, it comes close.
One character, the Fighter of the group, is a Dwarf and as such has access to Adamantine armaments - this is effectively magic items. And the PCs will accrue some magic items through play - a few ones, but generally strong ones. So overall, I hope it will be balanced in that regard.

My greater concern is for the spellcasters themselves. It just doesn't seem fair to require a feat to be able to expand a Con point to make magic items...

Anyways, thanks for the input.

 

[Khaalis]

First to answer your direct question:

IF you are going to enforce a CON point loss, then I agree, there is no point to ALSO makeing them take the Feats. I would simply substitute a higher Craft/Knowledge (Arcana)/Spellcraft requirement for the actual crafting of the item, as well as increase the minimum caster level requirements - thus making them even more rare due to being harder to make.

I do agree with "Alchemist" though that the CON loss is VERY extreme and will likely prevent anyone from making more than 1 or 2 items - and those will likely be near Artifact or Artifact level items, not piddle 2000gp-8000gp items.

You might want to think about that as balance also. Which is worse, 20 or so Artifacts running around the world, or 200 pidly trinket items.

Rambling thoughts on a side note - what are you doing to help balance the power of the core non-magical classes with the loss of magic? Keep in mind that in 3E all CR's and "Game Balance" issues are based on the fact that a PC of any given level will have magic items and resources equal to the table given in the DMG. Similar to the argument that the Ranger was designed to be "Balanced" with a Fighter, because it was ASSUMED to count the Ranger's Animal Companion. Games like Swashbuckling Adventures increased the capabilities of the core "non-magical" classes through better feats and abilites - balancing the fact that there is little to no magic in the Seven Seas. Just my humble thoughts.