Formulating Magical Research

[Umbran]

I'm rough on everyone.

...

The fact that you are either being sarcastic or being dumb about not remembering spells doesn't discredit anything except your own intelligence or maturity (take your pick).

Well, here you've gone beyond "rough", and on into downright insulting.

Let me put it clearly - this is not acceptable on EN World. We expect you to be civil and respectful to your other posters. If you can't manage that, we ask you to hold your tongue.

Our boards are supposed to be a place where people come to get away from the usual harsh and bullying internet, where people are more interested in being right and showing off than they are about communication, and learning from each other. To that end, on EN World, nice matters. Please consider that during your future writing.

 

[nonsi256]

Pardon me, “Mr. Civilized”, but how exactly does​

>> The level of the spell otherwise doesn't matter​

>> since the cost of a +1 enhancement doesn't​

>> depend on spell level.​

Coexists with​

>> I proved you were incorrect by mentioning that​

>> the DMG provides spells required for its magic items.​

(noticed the bold text?)​

>> There are only 2 tables regarding item creation, not 11.​

Then, by your claim, the authors are just throwing sand in the readers’ eyes.​

And those are the rules you so fiercely defend (god only knows why).​

Very nice.​

>> Mithril and Alchemical silver have lists too,​

>> not just adamantite.​

1. And Cold Iron, and... ?!​

2. Such info, assuming it all really does exist, should pop up wih ease. I don’t want to ache my eyes looking for it.​

>> Where a +1 to +5 is a difference in price​

>> of 48,000gp, or 25X increase.​

And this makes sense, because........?​

>> You're wrong about this point too.​

Regarding what and in what way?​

>> Magic item creation no longer has a chance​

>> of failure because the game isn't about making​

>> items, its about adventuring.​

You really don’t see the internal contradiction in there, do you?​

​

​

>> The game designers didn't want the game bogged​

>> down by a bad roll of the dice. Make the item,​

>> move on to the fun stuff, rather than having an​

>> entire table of people waiting on a caster to get​

>> a good roll.​

And knocking on the caster’s door, which has to burn XP for every stick-in-the-mud who thinks s/he deserves it is not time consuming?!

​

 

[Anton85]

Ok, the document still needs a lot of work.

Example: "Making a +1 Flaming Sword"

My first question would be: What spell do I use?

Fireball -The spell listed in the DMG as needed for creating a flaming sword
Flaming Hands -Cheapest spell that has a similar effect

Your document does not give guidelines on what spell i should be using.

My second question: "Can i use your system to create items found in the DMG?"

I assume so, because you dont say otherwise.

Upon looking at your document though, i have to think that that cannot be the case. Your system is based upon the spell, not upon the effect you want to generate. There are no Flaming Burst, Vorpral, Portable Hole spells, so I cannot use your system to create DMG items without a lot of house ruling and handwaving.

My third question is: "Are you serious about the pricing"

20k for a +1 item is way beyond the cost of a +1 item in core DnD. Is this intended for a low magic world? If a DM wants to use this system, and have a similar amount of magic items as in normal DnD should they hand out truck loads of gold.

My Fourth Question: "Will your system save me any time"
So to create an item in your game i have
1: Pick a spell to emulate (still dont know what this really means).
2: Multiply by the spell level, then by the caster level, the base cost, then by the cost of activation then add in the Tuesday modifier.

the 'offical' system seems to actually save me time and the use of a calculator. all i have to do is
1 Pick effect
2 look up the cost on a table.

I would love a magic item system that covered every possibility, and fit in one page. But, if that page is incomplete, i would rather have the 7 pages.

 

[Hawken]

Nonsi, I'm not going to respond to your comments any further. It seems to me that you are just trying to provoke me, in which case, I'm not going to waste my time; or that you have largely ignored or refused to read what's in the DMG. The book is fairly easy to understand. So, I'm going to lean toward the 'you're trying to waste my time' idea. I've pointed out numerous flaws in your idea and you've consistently deflected, whined about the DMG and/or its authors, or you're just ignoring flaws in your project.

I will respond to your second comment in your previous post: Don't put words in my mouth or assume I'm assuming something. If that is your perception about the authors of the DMG, fine. But don't say it's mine and don't try to use my statement to try and give your claim any credibility.

Anton, Fireball is listed as a required spell because a caster has to be 5th level to have the feat to craft magical weapons.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Why not go with the 1st level spell Burning Hands [to create a flaming weapon]? And for a Frost weapon, the 0 level Ray of Cold? Much cheaper to perform.

nonsi, you may want to note that sort of thing and modify your rules appropriately.
I'll also say this to the OP. You're taking a lot of he magic out of magic items with this system.
How would you do an Immovable Rod with this? What about an Apparatus of Kwalish?

I realize that quoting myself is a bit crass but I would really like to hear a response to this one. So, I'll be crass. Sorry about that.

 

[Anton85]

"Anton, Fireball is listed as a required spell because a caster has to be 5th level to have the feat to craft magical weapons."

Uh, that just makes the system worse really.

In order to use your system, I now have to look up the the magic item in the DMG in order to find the required spell. How does this make the process easier?

How do I create a magic item that does not already exist? Say i wanted a weapon that added 1d6 negative energy damage. How would i figure out what spell i should use to base the effect on.

In the current system I would just compare it to something that already existed. Its better then flaming, so probably a +2 or +3. I then pick a prerequisite spell, that is thematically appropriate (Vampiric Touch seems good). The thing is, the prerequisite spell is a fluff thing, not a mechanical element.

The flaming magic item property has fireball listed as a prerequisite, because they are thematically similar, not because there is a mechanical necessity.

My big problem is still with the pricing. The values of magic items one would get using your system are wildly divergent from the current values. This is the biggest problem i see.

 

[nonsi256]

>> nonsi, you may want to note that sort of
>> thing and modify your rules appropriately.
ValhallaGH, I’m not sure what specifically you were referring to on this one.


>> How would you do an Immovable Rod with this?
Make an appropriate spell.


>> What about an Apparatus of Kwalish?
As I said, I’m still not sure what to do with magical vehicles.
Guess I’ll leave it aside until I’m done with carryable items.





>> Ok, the document still needs a lot of work.
Yes Anton, I agree, but I feel it’s more about refinement & clarifications than raw mass.


>> Example: "Making a +1 Flaming Sword"
The +1 amounts to an emanating 1st level spell, caster level 1st (This amounts to [6 x 1000] (base) + 5% of base = 6300).
As for the “Flaming” effect – this could also be a 1st level spell as far as I care (quite similar to Shocking Grasp).
The effect is emanating and can be turned on & off without spell completion, so it’s 6300 + 10% of base = 6900
Overall, you get 13200gp.
Is it a lot? Sure.
Frodo’s Mithril sword & chainshirt were wonderful trophies in the quest to save the world, not casual items.
Narsil / Arendil was the shining beacon that led the armies of light against the forces of darkness (twice across 3 millennia).
3e has degraded magical items to a level of pocket change and now characters aren’t worth squat unless they have enough magical gear to make them anywhere from 4 to 8 CR higher than what they’re worth without them, and spellcasters are thoroughly planned according to the items players are planning for them to be totin (Double Wand Wielder anyone? I mean, what kind of a f#cked up theme is that?!).

And while we’re at it, here are 2 more examples:

Non-rechargeable Wand of Fireball with 20 charges for 7d6:
- Temporary 3rd level effect (+3000)
- Caster level 7th (+1050)
- Non-rechargeable (-750)
- 20 charges (+6000)
This amounts to: 9300gp

Ring of invisibility 3 per hour that activates by rubbing the ring and operates at 5th caster level:
- Permanent 2nd level power (+10000)
- Caster level 5th (+2500)
- Hourly use (-1000)
- 3 “charges” (+3000)
- Can be turned on/off with no spell completion and no voice requirement (+2000)
This amounts to: 16500gp


>> Your system is based upon the spell, not
>> upon the effect you want to generate.
Sure, I mean, how would one put an effect into an item without knowing how to generate it in the first place?

>>There are no Flaming Burst
3rd level tops.

>>Vorpral
5th or 6th would be ok, I guess.

>> Portable Hole spells
Too Bugsbunny / Roadrunner anyway (how nice of the Ethereal/Astral/Shadow plane to reserve a safe deposit box for anyone who orders a ticket).


>> 20k for a +1 item is way beyond the cost of a +1 item in core DnD.
Guess you got the answer for that one.


>> "Will your system save me any time"
Well, the next version will include a note that all percentage-based calculations are made against the initial prices. Plus, I'll add the examples given above.
This shoud definitely save time in figuring my intentions.





>> It seems to me that you are just trying to provoke me
Sure, ever since I laid eyes on these boards, I’ve been asking myself “man, I don’t like this Hawken guy, what do I have to do to get him ticked off?”
Maybe if you repeat that enough times you might actually start believing it.


>> you have largely ignored or refused to read what's in
>> the DMG. The book is fairly easy to understand.
And that’s why I’ve encountered literally hundreds of questions, arguments and debates over magical items’ pricing, I suppose.


>> Don't put words in my mouth or assume
>> I'm assuming something.
When you’re saying that 10 out of 11 tables are practically unnecessary, you’re making a statement. Whether or not you subscribe for that statement is impossible to guess.

 

[Anton85]

Nosi said:

">> Example: "Making a +1 Flaming Sword"
The +1 amounts to an emanating 1st level spell, caster level 1st (This amounts to [6 x 1000] (base) + 5% of base = 6300)."

What if i think it is a 3rd level effect? My point is, you are not giving any guidelines as to what an effect is worth.

">> How would you do an Immovable Rod with this?
Make an appropriate spell."

Um.... this is now way harder then just eyeballing it.

>>There are no Flaming Burst
3rd level tops.

>>Vorpral
5th or 6th would be ok, I guess."

Again, i have no idea what you are basing these spell levels on. You are just being arbetrary.


"3e has degraded magical items to a level of pocket change and now characters aren’t worth squat unless they have enough magical gear to make them anywhere from 4 to 8 CR higher than what they’re worth without them, and spellcasters are thoroughly planned according to the items players are planning for them to be totin (Double Wand Wielder anyone? I mean, what kind of a f#cked up theme is that?!)."

I dont think your system helps to solve those problems. Magic items are not more valuable to a character because you made them more expensive, they are less valuable. Think about it. If it takes me 12k gold to buy a +1 weapon, that weapon seems pretty worthless, compared to the cost. If you want weapons to seem more speacial, make them more powerful, but more rare.

 

[ValhallaGH]

>> nonsi, you may want to note that sort of
>> thing and modify your rules appropriately.
ValhallaGH, I’m not sure what specifically you were referring to on this one.

Frost Sword, using the 0-level spell Ray of Frost:
- Emanating 0-level spell (0gp)
- 1st level caster (+0gp)
- Simple activation via vocal command (+0gp)
This amounts to: 0gp
So, adding 1d3 cold damage to a weapon costs 0gp plus the time and labor of the caster.

That kind of issue is what I was referring to.

>> How would you do an Immovable Rod with this?
Make an appropriate spell.

Right. So rather than being a very limited used of the telekinesis spell, as the current Immovable Rod is (telekinesis is the required spell), I've got to first invent an Immovable spell and then enchant it into a rod.
... I'm really starting to think that the benefits aren't worth the cost for me. But that's immaterial, since this thread is about helping you.

Ring of invisibility 3 per hour that activates by rubbing the ring and operates at 5th caster level:
- Permanent 2nd level power (+10000)
- Caster level 5th (+2500)
- Hourly use (-1000)
- 3 “charges” (+3000)
- Can be turned on/off with no spell completion and no voice requirement (+2000)
This amounts to: 16500gp

Or I could, for 300 gp less, have a permanent invisibility effect that goes on or off at will by rotating the ring:
- Emanating 2nd level power (12000)
- Caster level 3rd (+1800)
- Can be turned on/of with no spell completion and no voice requirement (+2400)
This amounts to: 16200gp
Sure, mine is easier to dispell (being caster level 3) but it lasts until ended and can be activated every round, forever. For 300 gp less.

There's something fundamentally screwy with your math when a flawless-use effect is a bit cheaper than an identical but more limited-use effect.


On to the magic weapon example. Reading your originally posted draft, it seems clear that a magic weapon, whose enhancement applies to each attack, would fall under the Ever Repeating Effect category, pricing the weapon at 20000gp base, with a 5% mark up (21000gp total).
Your subsequent examples showed that was not the case, so now I have to wonder what that entry is for.

 

[nonsi256]

>> What if i think it is a 3rd level effect? My point
>> is, you are not giving any guidelines as to what
>> an effect is worth.
There’s no ruling for DM’s personal taste – which has a significant effects of a chosen effect level.
I once saw a DM on one of the forums that gave an argument in favor of making Storm of Vengeance a 6th level spell.
There are some things that are beyond anything but common sense.


>> Again, i have no idea what you are basing these
>> spell levels on. You are just being arbetrary.
As arbitrary as telling you to use the same parameters as for inventing new spells for spells’ sake.


>> If it takes me 12k gold to buy a +1 weapon,
6.3K (12k is with Flaming)

>> If you want weapons to seem more speacial,
>> make them more powerful, but more rare.
Higher prices + failure chances are suppose to do exactly that.


>> This amounts to: 0gp
Now these are the things I was after more than anything else – the missing info in my rules.
I think I’ll make 0 level spells worth 1/2 as much as 1st level spells.


>> So rather than being a very limited used of
>> the telekinesis spell, as the current Immovable
>> Rod is (telekinesis is the required spell), I've
>> got to first invent an Immovable spell and
>> then enchant it into a rod.
Of course.
5th level is a rip off for 8000lb of immovability.
Notice that as a 1st level spell, the cost would be just a bit higher.


>> Or I could, for 300 gp less, have a permanent
>> invisibility effect that goes on or off at will
>> by rotating the ring.
Assuming the 1st note was not already presented in the document (remember that regular Invisibility ends upon attack, so you’ll have to make it an ever-repeating power), emanating effects cannot be applied to others, given they’re already active.
Also, 5th level rather than 3rd was just for the hack of it.
But now that you mentioned it, I’m considering lowering the base price for permanent items to [SpL x 4000]


>> Reading your originally posted draft, it seems
>> clear that a magic weapon, whose enhancement
>> applies to each attack, would fall under the Ever
>> Repeating Effect category
1. That would be correct if a +1 to a single attack would be worth a 1st level spell (not, I guess)
2. My bad for not redirecting to [FONT=&quot]TS’s thread[/FONT].


>> so now I have to wonder what that entry is for.
I’ll give you an example: Mace of Disruption.
This is practically a repeating Disintegrate variant that’s limited vs. undead only. With my rules, you’d use the actual effect of Disintegrate.
Now I’d be really thankful for some decent rules for price reduction when limiting an effect to occur vs. a limited group of targets (Disruption is limited to a specific group (undead). A Stoneblade (give a guess) vs. green dragons is under a double restriction). This should, of course, be relevant only for ever-repeating effects.