I like the new approach on magic items

[Treebore]

I kind of like the "old school" way of limiting magic items. One version I have seen for d20 is that every time a spellcaster permanatizes an item they lose one point of CON for 30 days. At the end of that 30 days they make a save. If they make it the CON comes back, if they don't its gone forever. Only leveling or Wish like spells can restore/raise it back up.

Restoration doesn't work because that part of you that you lost was given up voluntarily, and still exists, in that item. Kind of like voluntarily failing a saving throw versus heal spells so they work on you. Since you willingly gave it up only exceptionally powerful spells can give it back. If you don't "naturally" recover it in 30 days.

 

[Storm Raven]

I always liked the way it was in the 1E DMG: you had to get a bunch of kooky magical components that the DM decided upon based on his campaign.

"You must combine the powdered horn of a narwhal, 2 stones from the gizzard of a giant owl from the Withered Peaks and 17 jewels that have been desired by a princess" is a lot cooler to me than "OK, shell out 200xp and 8,000gp, bub."

What do you think the 8,000 gp is being used for?

 

[Mortellan]

That's a pretty smart idea. I never understood why they took the physical risk out of making magic items. XP's is not life force or anything and eventually they came up with plenty of ways around the cost.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I am comfortable and prefer DM adjudication and guidelines that apply differently to non-player and player characters when it comes to magical items (and other areas).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's a pretty smart idea. I never understood why they took the physical risk out of making magic items. XP's is not life force or anything and eventually they came up with plenty of ways around the cost.

... because permanent ability drain - especially Con drain - sucks donkey, and it really doesn't make sense. Who the heck would make magic items in any number if the potential was death rather than "temporary setback" (like 3E's XP payment)?

And how does that tie in with the historical D&D practice of every orc and its brother having scrolls, potions, and minor magical items?

 

[brehobit]

Just so long as a low-magic item game works better in 4.0 than 3.x I'll be happy with the magic items.

 

[Treebore]

... because permanent ability drain - especially Con drain - sucks donkey, and it really doesn't make sense. Who the heck would make magic items in any number if the potential was death rather than "temporary setback" (like 3E's XP payment)?

And how does that tie in with the historical D&D practice of every orc and its brother having scrolls, potions, and minor magical items?

Simple. Spellcasters do everything they can to make sure they won't lose the CON point. Or they research spells that allow them to get it back by taking it from something else.

Edit: Plus it does make sense, if you think the MAge is imparting part of their life force into what they are making. CON pretty much is their life force, the most fundamental and direct representation of it.

 

[Victim]

Simple. Spellcasters do everything they can to make sure they won't lose the CON point. Or they research spells that allow them to get it back by taking it from something else.

Edit: Plus it does make sense, if you think the MAge is imparting part of their life force into what they are making. CON pretty much is their life force, the most fundamental and direct representation of it.

I think levels (as thus XP by proxy) represent lifeforce. The life sapping touch of a spectre is energy drain; a poison that sickens and kills the body is Con damage.

Old school Con drain on items just encourages Big Items, rather than Lots of Items, IMO. If you might lose a point of Con making an item, it had better be awesome. Since traditionally DnD has lots of potions, wands, +1 daggers, and other fairly lame items, I'm not sure Con loss is the best mechanic for item construction. Of course, that doesn't mean XP is the best way either.

 

[Treebore]

Potions and wands didn't require Permanancy, so no chance of CON loss. Same deal with scrolls.

Rods, staves, wondrous/miscellaneous items, armor, and weapons. That is where you got into using the Permanancy spell.

In 3E I simply ruled anything below 15,001 GP didn't cost XP's to make. Above that things became powerful enough, and complicated enough, to require "life force".

 

[Baron Opal]

Giving up spell slots for a time? Not significant, except in campaigns where down time isn't a premium. I don't think the core rules should assume that PCs will have little down time.

You know, it has always bugged me that 17 year olds obtained power to shake the very pillars of heaven in 8 months. If the time scale of adventures and perhaps even their frequency I would be thrilled.