Is this legal?

[Maldor]

i find most of the replys about getting even with the player silly childish and petty
it is a game that is supose to be fun not me against them

but i agree with most of the post it is a minor restiction for him and i would only give a 5 or 10% discout that would effect both purchise and resale price

P.S. giving a bigger bounse for a good backstory and reason for the item creation would so fly with me i love it when players get more involed with their character

 

[irdeggman]

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?

Except that the item originally posted also had an alignment restriction (that surprisingly matched the alignment of the PC in question but not not the "default" alignmment for the race so it is not the same thing at all.) The PC in question was "neutral" while the default alignment for drow is neutral evil.

Making an item that has a racial or an alignment or a class restriction by themselves is not generally abusive, it is only when they are attempted to get 'stacked together' that they become so.

But as someone pointed out it totally up to the DM to allow or not allow any items in a game (particularly those not "listed" in the DMG).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

i find most of the replys about getting even with the player silly childish and petty
it is a game that is supose to be fun not me against them

I consider trying to beat the rules to be a "me against them" philosophy, and will always nip it in the bud. It's not really "getting even". Sure, it might seem that way when you make it backfire, but I say that's showing him that he's not the only smart guy around.

 

[*mon]

The cost of spells, and materials going into the item are unchanged, in fact possibly increased by the cost of the materials required for the restrictions. However as with Holy Water, those who produce things with restrictions are willing to accept lower sales profitability to promote their group goals, and agendas.

In summation I believe production cost should be somewhat increased, resale value majorly decreased, and value to the creators majorly increased, by possible increased usefulness, and decreased risk from having lost items used agianst the creators.

Therefore no decrease in production GP, or XP costs for your Neutral Drow.

 

[DarkJester]

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%.

Wouldn't this result in the players creating all their items at a high discount? I just keep thinking, If there is no drawback to it why stop? Now, it'd be easy enough to cut back on treasure if the PC's started to get to far above wealth guidelines but it seems like a lot of extra trouble for not much benefit.

There are feats that only reduce gold, time, or experience costs of item creation but the restriction discounts reduce all three without the need for any feats.

I'm just curious as to how you'd deal with this in your game, if it came up.

 

[shilsen]

I consider trying to beat the rules to be a "me against them" philosophy, and will always nip it in the bud. It's not really "getting even". Sure, it might seem that way when you make it backfire, but I say that's showing him that he's not the only smart guy around.

I'd rather show him he's not the only smart guy around by explaining why his approach is liable to lead to great sorrow for his character and, by extension, the group. And by house ruling away or disallowing things which I think are inimical for the game. IME, it's much better to deal with such things out-of-game and via open communication than by doing some sort of arms race in-game. YMMV.

And re. the OP's question, I'm one of the people who rules that restrictions on who may use an item actually increases the price.

 

[Artoomis]

It's value to him is the same, thus, if he is creating it, no discount.

The value for sale may be less, of course, but that's not the issue here, is it?

And I would rule 30% total for any and all added race/alignment/class restrictions.

 

[kreynolds]

Wouldn't this result in the players creating all their items at a high discount?.

My group? No, not really. My group is very fond of swapping magic items (i.e. they like to be able to exchange gear, gives them more options at times). Honestly, the only time my group would take advantage of these discounts is ultimately to reduce the creation time of an item.

I just keep thinking, If there is no drawback to it why stop?

Mostly because you cannot make any money selling items that will not work for anyone.

There are feats that only reduce gold, time, or experience costs of item creation but the restriction discounts reduce all three without the need for any feats.

Personally, I think those feats are rather worthless. Meh.

I'm just curious as to how you'd deal with this in your game, if it came up.

Like any other situation; If it does not bother me or take away my enjoyment of running the game, I'm good with it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Mostly because you cannot make any money selling items that will not work for anyone.

They probably don't make them in order to sell them.

 

[kreynolds]

They probably don't make them in order to sell them.

Exactly. As I said above, with my group, the only real attraction to such restrictions is to reduce the crafting time. However, eventually, they may want to trade their item for something else, but such an item has far less value than usual. It's a fair tradeoff, in my experience.

To be perfectly blunt, the types of players that would truly abuse such a system in an effort load themselves up like the high-fantasy equivalent of Rambo or John Matrix, are probably _not_ the types I would have at my table. Hence, it is not a problem for me.

With that said, if you have such players, and you are stuck with them, then I can completely understand now allowing this.