Is this legal?

[Dross]

Anyone have a response to my question?

The question, for those too lazy to scroll up is this: What would you do if a Dwarven Cleric decided to make a Dwarven Thrower? It's in the DMG, and it has the restriction (and reduced price) that only a Dwarf can get all of its abilities. He's making it for himself, so he's not suffering the penalty, so would you let him go by the (reduced) price in the DMG, or would you somehow make him pay more?

Is there another item in the DMG with a proper racial limitation, because ANYONE can use this item, albeit at a reduced power level. I see that as different than not being able to use the item at all.

I'd leave it at DMG price personally. I also see a difference between something in the DMG that is racially themed and the (apparent) abuse of the optional rules for making magical items cheaper.

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

Well, Monte addressed this...

This question got asked before over on Monte Cook's boards, and, while I'm too tired to go get the exact quote, just remember the designer of the game said that:

It is NOT a restriction if only 'you' can use your item, or if only people who conviently fit the description of party members can use it - no discount. In fact, to get those 'restrictions' on the item costs 10% MORE to put on there.

But still... that's not a bad option.

EDIT:

I went over to Monte's boards and took this from the questions he frequently gets asked. I'd say this would be as 'official' of an answer as you'd ever get
-=-=-=-=-
Quote: In the back of the DMG it says that if you make an item that has restrictions on who can use it. If the item is restricted by class or alignment, the reduction is 30% to the cost. My question is, can someone apply more than one restriction? Such as class or alignment and some other one that gives them another 10% off. With this be a 40% off, a 30% then 10% off that, or do the bonuses not stack at all?

They do not stack. And remember that a restriction that is not really a restriction is not worth any price reduction. "Only I and my friends can use this" is not a restriction.

 

[boolean]

I agree with almost everybody else.

That's not a restriction, it's a security feature.

 

[Felix]

I wouldn't allow construction of the Dwarven Thrower. I'd maybe have it available for me to give out as treasure, but I'd handwave a reason for the item to not be crafted. DM Fiat I suppose.

They could, however, make a +2 Throwing Returning Giant-Bane Hammer of Distance. I'd even throw in the +1d8 when thrown against non-giants for free.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I would reduce the resale value of the item, but the base cost will be the same as if it was not restricted.

Agreed. If anything, he'd pay extra during creation. He doesn't get a disadvantage for this, the item isn't weaker, so you don't get to create it for less than the asked price (if, anything, for more, since you have to add the magic to reject wielders). It's only when he tries to flog the thing when he'll experience the price reduction.

The true RBDM response is to let him make the item at the discount, then rule that his actions have shifted his alignment.

Or you could do that. It's quite selfish, and cheating the God(dess) of Magic by not paying your proper due to him/her will probably result in an alignment-altering curse cast on you.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't really have a problem with this. I would allow a player to craft an item that works for one specific race, alignment, and class at full discount, even if that effectively amounted to "only works for them". Personally, I wouldn't calculate the discount as -90%, but actually -30%, -30%, -30%.

 

[schporto]

Anyone have a response to my question?

The question, for those too lazy to scroll up is this: What would you do if a Dwarven Cleric decided to make a Dwarven Thrower? It's in the DMG, and it has the restriction (and reduced price) that only a Dwarf can get all of its abilities. He's making it for himself, so he's not suffering the penalty, so would you let him go by the (reduced) price in the DMG, or would you somehow make him pay more?

Sure. Of course he has to be a dwarven forge blessed by Moradin though. They have the specifications on exactly how to make this fun for all weapon.
-cpd

 

[UltimaGabe]

Is there another item in the DMG with a proper racial limitation, because ANYONE can use this item, albeit at a reduced power level. I see that as different than not being able to use the item at all.

Well, there's the Holy Avenger, which gains most of its abilities when used by a Paladin. But that's basically how those abilities work- the items in the DMG just have the limitation on MOST of the item's cost, just not all of it.

I'd leave it at DMG price personally. I also see a difference between something in the DMG that is racially themed and the (apparent) abuse of the optional rules for making magical items cheaper.

So... if a Dwarven character makes a Hammer that, when wielded by his character's race, it gets a bunch of cool abilities, it's okay, but when a Drow character makes a Buckler that, when worn by the character's race, it gets a bunch of cool abilities, it's different?

Think of it this way- the Dwarven Thrower was quite possibly an "apparent" abuse of the optional rules for making magical items cheaper. Nobody really knows. Honestly, a dwarven character making a Dwarven Thrower isn't any different than a Drow making a Drow-only Buckler. The only difference is that a lot of DMs don't like players to come up with new ideas, and so if it's something different than what's already printed in the book, if it seems like a rules exploit, they tend to disallow it on principle rather than view it as a rule USE, not an EXPLOIT. After all, the rule's there, isn't it? Why not let your players use it and see what happens?

 

[UltimaGabe]

Here's a small example I just thought of. In a campaign I DMed early in my DMing career, one of my players was playing a Lawful Evil rogue who was part of a secret organization or assassins and blackguards. He really wanted a Ring of Invisibility, but it was far out of his price range. He eventually asked, being quite familiar with the item creation rules, if he could buy a Ring of Invisibility that only he could use (basically, a ring that someone of his alignment and class could use)- after thinking about it, I allowed it, and his character bought it much earlier than it could otherwise be available to him.

You could look at this as simply a character wanting to exploit the optional rules in the DMG in order to get an item he couldn't afford, and disallow it.

But what if, instead, he was purchasing (through one of his secret contacts) the Grasp of Shadow, an ancient ring created by the first Rogue-wizards in History, intent on using stealth to infiltrate the most secret chambers of the rivalling nation- acting as a Ring of Invisibility only when worn by a person of like mind and ability as the Rogues that created it, and passed down through generations, and sold to new recruits as a way of testing their mettle? It's got just as much flavor as the Dwarven Thrower. If this was printed in a Dragon Magazine or the Magic Item Compendium, with the class-alignment restriction woven into the price, would you allow a player to buy it?

(Incidentally, there WERE a couple instances in that campaign where it would have been FAR more useful if the other members of the group could use it. But, since he bought it with the restrictions, it screwed them over more than once.)

 

[bodhi]

So... if a Dwarven character makes a Hammer that, when wielded by his character's race, it gets a bunch of cool abilities, it's okay, but when a Drow character makes a Buckler that, when worn by the character's race, it gets a bunch of cool abilities, it's different?

If I were presented with a Drow PC wanting to make a variation of a piwafwi, or maybe a Ring of Spider Climb, or something else that fit into the campaign's Drow history/background, I'd be inclined to give more leeway than with inventing something new, specific to the character.

But what if, instead, he was purchasing (through one of his secret contacts) the Grasp of Shadow, an ancient ring created by the first Rogue-wizards in History, intent on using stealth to infiltrate the most secret chambers of the rivalling nation- acting as a Ring of Invisibility only when worn by a person of like mind and ability as the Rogues that created it, and passed down through generations, and sold to new recruits as a way of testing their mettle? It's got just as much flavor as the Dwarven Thrower. If this was printed in a Dragon Magazine or the Magic Item Compendium, with the class-alignment restriction woven into the price, would you allow a player to buy it?

If a player came to me with a request for a (discounted) magic item, but also came with a great backstory (assuming it fit into the campaign), I'd be much more inclined to allow it, whether or not it was printing in an "official" source. It adds to the setting, and provides more hooks. It's got a cool name, a shadowy organization, and there's even a specific intent in the creation of the item. Are the creators still around? Do they care who has the ring now? Would they want it back?

Contrast that with "hey, I want this magic item, if I make it so it's only useable by someone with my race, class, and alignment, can I get it for dirt cheap?"