Creating magical items in a rare magic world

[cordell]

Henry:

>>On the other hand, those PC's spending all that gold and XP, should they sell the item, are going to be GETTING that extra gold in sales, too - after all, aren't they selling a RARE commodity?

Umm ... no.

Players create an item at 50% of the cost and some xp. By the Core Rules, they can sell an item at 50% of the cost. So, if they create an item and sell it, there is no profit. This is true in any campaign. So, the amount of xp this DM charges his players, whether based upon the DMG market price or his campaign-specific market price (4x), has nothing to do with the level of profit they get from selling items which they make. The profit is always 0.

 

[irdeggman]

Henry:

>>On the other hand, those PC's spending all that gold and XP, should they sell the item, are going to be GETTING that extra gold in sales, too - after all, aren't they selling a RARE commodity?

Umm ... no.

Players create an item at 50% of the cost and some xp. By the Core Rules, they can sell an item at 50% of the cost. So, if they create an item and sell it, there is no profit. This is true in any campaign. So, the amount of xp this DM charges his players, whether based upon the DMG market price or his campaign-specific market price (4x), has nothing to do with the level of profit they get from selling items which they make. The profit is always 0.

Help me out with this one. Where are you getting this 'fact' that players can sell items for 50% of the cost (i.e., for 0% profit)? The only thing I find is that they pay 50% of the cost for materials when making the item. I haven't seen anything pertaining to how much they can sell it for. But maybe I've missed something. This is an important question since it will also pertain to any craft skill used.

Unless of course you are referring to the section in the PHB (pg 167-168) talking about treasure and selling magic items for 50% of their cost (read as price). IMO that is a real bad extrapolation of the text. The concept of selling treasure for less than what it is worth is a general common concept as the stuff is considered 'used' or 'damaged'. Most DMs do the same with weapons and armor that are recovered from foes.

 

[cordell]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Any DM who lets a player sell recovered loot for more than 50% is using a house rule. There are numerous threads around for these house rules, feel free to search for them.

My intent for bringing it up was that no matter *what* the DM sets as the price at to make a magic item, you can never sell it at a profit (without a house rule in there somewhere).

So, if this guys DM sets the market price of the item at 4x normal, but allows the xp to be based upon the "normal" DMG price, there is no "danger" of extra profit for the PCs. The profit is always zero.

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Any DM who lets a player sell recovered loot for more than 50% is using a house rule. There are numerous threads around for these house rules, feel free to search for them.

My intent for bringing it up was that no matter *what* the DM sets as the price at to make a magic item, you can never sell it at a profit (without a house rule in there somewhere).

So, if this guys DM sets the market price of the item at 4x normal, but allows the xp to be based upon the "normal" DMG price, there is no "danger" of extra profit for the PCs. The profit is always zero.

Note that the PHB (and you yourself) are only refering to magic items gotten as treasure or "loot". There is nothing in the text to correlate this to items that a PC creates.

Any DM that doesn't allow a PC to sell items he creates for profit is doing the player a great disservice. Note this is not a house rules issue since the "rule" in question only addresses treasure and not items that the PC creates.

So the PC can indeed make "extra" profit for items that they must "expend" exp to create.

I (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone on this board) would be pretty much outraged if a DM didn't allow his players to make a profit on items they create. That type of rule (and it must be a house rule to reduce the profit to "0" for items PCs create, not vice versa) goes directly against the "spirit" of D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Note that the PHB (and you yourself) are only refering to magic items gotten as treasure or "loot". There is nothing in the text to correlate this to items that a PC creates.

Any DM that doesn't allow a PC to sell items he creates for profit is doing the player a great disservice. Note this is not a house rules issue since the "rule" in question only addresses treasure and not items that the PC creates.

So the PC can indeed make "extra" profit for items that they must "expend" exp to create.

I (and I'm pretty sure almost everyone on this board) would be pretty much outraged if a DM didn't allow his players to make a profit on items they create. That type of rule (and it must be a house rule to reduce the profit to "0" for items PCs create, not vice versa) goes directly against the "spirit" of D&D.

Be outraged. We are only following the RAW.

The 50% number is a perfectly reasonable and realistic DEFAULT sale value. The reasons are manyfold. PCs are usually dangerous and flighty. ("I know he saved the town, and I am not saying I think he is lying. But that is not same thing as being trustworthy when it comes to business. Business is business.") Magic items are inherently dodgy things. ("They all say they made it themselves and only used it on Sundays. Do I look like I was born yesterday?") PCs are impatient. ("That's the best price today. If you would let me hold onto it for a few months, I think may be able to do a bit better.")

If I were DM and a PC wanted to set up shop, hang around town at least 9 months of the year, and spend time and energy making business contacts and building his reputation (including spending skill points on appropriate skills, among other things), I would be perfectly happy to discuss house rules to allow a reasonable profit. But for a typical PC in a typical campaign, 50% is perfectly fair.

 

[irdeggman]

I'm sorry but you are not following the rules as written. You are applying house rules to match a specific condition noted in the rules that was designed to encourage players to keep magic items that they find. That is pretty much what the follow text on the subject says (or at least pretty well implies).

IMO part of the create an item function could just as well include marking the item with a brand identifying it with the creator (a very reasonable function) and then using that as the basis to sell the item.

But regardless of how it sold a PC should be able to get the profit from an item he makes some how. If he is selling it directly to an individual it is logical for him to gain the full price if he is selling it to magic shop it is alos logical that he has to bargain away some of his profit. But the same logic would hold for selling anything that a PC creates himself.

 

[irdeggman]

Info to support my opinion (since it is not specifically addressed) is from the 3.5 FAQ.

This is follow up to question on adding enhancements to cold iron weapons.

“If if I buy a +2 cold iron longsword, it costs 10.330 gp (30 gp + 300 gp + 8,000 gp + 2,000 gp). Now, if I have someone upgrade the second sword to match the first, it costs 8,000 gp more (6,000 gp + 2,000 gp), bringing its total value to 12,330 gp (4,330 gp + 8,000 gp). It’s the same product, but with two different market values.”
When setting the market value for any magic cold iron weapon, use the most efficient creation method. The two example swords have the same market value of 10,330 gp, but the second sword costs an extra 2,000 gp to make and the seller realizes that much less profit. One cannot simply pass along the cost of inefficient manufacturing to customers (even though in the real world it sometimes seems that way).

Notice the references to the seller in the same relation as creator. The previous question refers to having this +1 to +2 enhancment addition being contracted out.

 

[smetzger]

IMO the best way to limit magic item creation in a low magic game is to use the optionaly rules for needing special ingredients. That way if you want to make a cloak of displacement you have to hunt down a displacer beast.

 

[dcollins]

IMO the best way to limit magic item creation in a low magic game is to use the optionaly rules for needing special ingredients. That way if you want to make a cloak of displacement you have to hunt down a displacer beast.

Not to nitpick, but what optional rule do you mean? The one I'm aware of in the DMG, "Variant: Power Components", gives a rebate for the normal XP cost, but doesn't make it a requirement. Only less XP if you do have the ingredient.

 

[Ascii King]

Some of the rules in 3.5 seem stupid to me. Having a rule that dictates how much treasure can be sold for is useless. If it is just a suggested price, then that is fine. What is the purpose of that rule? To limit creativity? As a DM, I wouldn't want to waste any time arguing with a player about how the rules say the local baron needs to pay at least 50% of it's total value for an item. Is this a role-playing game or a computer game?

If the DM wants a low magic world, they can ban the magic creation feats and certain classes from the campaign. If they want to allow the item creation feats but don't want the players making a on of valuable goods, then they need to up the cost in a realistic way. Upping the XP cost seems the most sensible. The more rare magic is, the higher the XP cost. Now you know why the stuff is scarce.