Creating magical items in a rare magic world

[Thanee]

Right, I'd base the XP on the original price (as in DMG), but base the gp cost (one-half of the total) on the actual price.

Bye
Thanee

 

[cordell]

I'd have to say, I hope he isn't raising the XP cost of your item-making. That's just cruel.

I would hope it's like thane said - xp based upon original price in DMG, but for gp you have to spend half of the [DM-decided] actual price.

 

[irdeggman]

This is very similar to the Birthright campaign setting. It was pegged as a low magic setting, but most of us who played and supported it read that as a low magic item setting.

In 3.5 terms the easiest way to handle that is to raise the price of magic items, Complete Warrior gives some suggestions on that (double or triple the cost).

What this does is increase the price (or market value) of the item. Well since the material cost and the exp cost is based on this value then they also increase accordingly anything else is bypassing the item creation system mechanics.

It should be noted that the DMG doesn't go into details as to what the actual material required for this material cost are - that is left up to the DM to apply as much detail as he wishes to the system.

 

[dcollins]

Just in case it does come up, does everyone agree that upping the cost of magic items due to rarity or greedy merchants should not increase the xp cost to make them.

No, I don't agree. If the DM decides the world is so low-magic that market price and XP costs all double, then that's the way it is in your campaign.

I support him allowing you to re-choose your feats if he didn't make that fact clear up front.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Moff_Tarkin,

Because the rules do not specify what materials are needed for item creation (as you yourself noted), your difficulty is entirely a matter of DM fiat.

Even a non-magical material can easily be made more expensive through rarity. Say, for instance, that in order to add an enhancement bonus to a suit of armor, it requires a petal from the non-magical Iron Lily. The DM need merely remove nearly all of the Iron Lilies from his world, and their price will rise accordingly. Not because of any magical property, but merely because they are difficult to come by, so people who go to the trouble of obtaining them will want to be paid for their effort. (Note that many real-world commodities are valuable for the same reason: rarity.)

It seems safe to say that your DM wants to play a low-magic game, and is setting rules in place to make sure that the PCs will be low-magic, as well as the game-world in general. Therefore, he's made item creation twice as expensive, figuring that you'll therefore only have the resources to craft half as many items as the standard item creator.

You will still have the same advantages that any item creator has: the ability to craft magical items to your party's exact specifications, rather than hope to loot something useful from whatever random treasure comes your way. You will not, however, be able to sidestep your DM's desire to run a low-magic game by crafting a standard level of magic.

If this is truly unacceptable to you, I suggest you speak with your DM and ask whether he (and the other players) might be willing to run a standard magic game. Failing that, as dcollins suggested, see if your DM will allow you to trade out your item creation feats, since you weren't fully aware of the situation. Failing that, you'll need to judge whether you'll still have fun given the DM's house rules.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Right, I'd base the XP on the original price (as in DMG), but base the gp cost (one-half of the total) on the actual price.

That is what I would recommend, too.

It is completely proper for the DM to control the amount of magic by watching wealth levels and having adjusted market prices and therefore higher item creation costs in gp. That is apples to apples. But paying 4x the xp makes the item creation feats hopeless sucky when they are already weakened.

 

[irdeggman]

That is what I would recommend, too.

It is completely proper for the DM to control the amount of magic by watching wealth levels and having adjusted market prices and therefore higher item creation costs in gp. That is apples to apples. But paying 4x the xp makes the item creation feats hopeless sucky when they are already weakened.

But increasing the exp cost is what makes the items rare. If a spellcaster has to invest more of himself (i.e., exp) then he is more hesitant about creating items in the first place. This in turn reflects the higher cost to buy (note that the increase in cost is also more income for the creator).

There is also one other thing to consider. The 'cost' of magic items in the DMG is not necessarily the 'real' market value but is the number used to determine the creation costs (both material and exp). By bargaining the market price of anitem can very greatly but as the DMG states the price listed is what a player can reasonably expect to pay for an item (if it is available - not all items are available in all places at all times).

IMO the item creation feats are not really sucky. In reality the exp cost to create an item is pretty cheap. DMG is 1/25 of the value and 1/2 of the value in raw materials. This is really cheap in comparison to what can be gained by this process and IMO is a whole lot better than "giving" exp for creating an item (2nd ed).

IMO for a low magic item setting I would not increase the costs of potions or scrolls, since they are pretty common (and necessary) in just about any setting and one-time use items. Can you imagine a setting with healing potions being real rare?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But increasing the exp cost is what makes the items rare. If a spellcaster has to invest more of himself (i.e., exp) then he is more hesitant about creating items in the first place. This in turn reflects the higher cost to buy (note that the increase in cost is also more income for the creator).

Are you seriously suggesting that making the item 2x to 4x more costly in terms of gp will not already drastically affect the rarity?

The goal should be to keep all feats of roughly the same usefulness as in vanilla 3e after the campaign specific changes. IMO the item creation feats become slightly weaker after the price increases. What necesitates hitting the spellcaster with bigger xp penalties on top of that?

The thing to keep in mind is that minor magic items are the something you can more or less replace with a 1st level spell. At 3x costs, a +2 sword for 12,000 gp and ~1000xp (plus a feat) does not look very attractive compared with just relying on the Magic Weapon spell when you need it.

 

[irdeggman]

Are you seriously suggesting that making the item 2x to 4x more costly in terms of gp will not already drastically affect the rarity?

Yes. It will not have the impact you seem to think it will. The gp cost of magic items is not necessarily a reflection of how much treasure is available. The game mechanics are set up in a certain way and should be consistent. By increasing the exp cost the 'real' cost to a spellcaster is maintained. The material costs can be supplied by anyone while the exp costs must be paid by the creator (or creators). This is what keeps things in check. You won't be able to pool your money to buy things if the spellcaster can't (or won't) spend the exp to create the item.

The goal should be to keep all feats of roughly the same usefulness as in vanilla 3e after the campaign specific changes. IMO the item creation feats become slightly weaker after the price increases. What necesitates hitting the spellcaster with bigger xp penalties on top of that?

The create magic feats are now even more valuable since the 'profit' is higher and the general availability of magic items from ye olde magic shop will be more limiting. A person that can create one of the only magic swords around is worth his weight in very expensive gems and is clearly the more valuable asset than the fighter who wields the wepon.

The thing to keep in mind is that minor magic items are the something you can more or less replace with a 1st level spell. At 3x costs, a +2 sword for 12,000 gp and ~1000xp (plus a feat) does not look very attractive compared with just relying on the Magic Weapon spell when you need it.

And in order to create a +2 magic sword a spellcaster has to be at least 6th level so his base exp range is 15,000 to 21,000. So that is what, well less than 10% of his exp to create a permanent magic item. In the core rules it would have cost a paltry 320 xp (like I said the core rules are easy and cheap to create magic items).

IMO the DM should include some feat to allow the sharing (or spending) of a non-spell caster's exp to create items. But that is something I'd like to see in the base game itself.

 

[Henry]

I would say that, by the rules, the XP cost is 1/25th of the GP price, so the DM should base it off of that. If the players deem that it's not worth the ability to create magic items in a world where magic is rare, then so be it. Magic is supposed to be rare, right? So if they aren't creating any, then the setting has not deviated from its original premise.

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? Beyond sales, just the act of having potions and scrolls on hand gives you an advantage that others do not have.