Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2144736" data-attributes="member: 2011">My personal take for the most boneheaded (not corrected or errataed) magic item in the DMG is the Bag of Holding.The versions range in Market Price from 2500 GP to 10000 GP.Their creation costs (for crafting only one bag) range from 6300 GP to 10050 GP due to the material cost of casting Leomund's Secret Chest (5050 GP, the cost of which is not lost, but is still required up front). 6300 GP to craft an item that sells for 2500 GP. If you crafted and sold four of the Type I Bags of Holding, you still would not break even. Hmmm.They should have used the Rope Trick spell instead.Also, the economics of SP * CL is the root problem of why economics in the DND system are so skewed. At 1 CP per dollar (i.e. $4 for an alcoholic drink or $2 for a loaf of bread or any other reasonable conversion) a Sanctuary Potion which lasts for a whopping one round and will rarely have any affect on combat (or out of combat) costs $5000. When was the last time you shelled out $5000 for something that lasted for six seconds and probably didn't do much of anything?A first level PC party of four finds more than $320,000 in stuff (($900 GP - $100 GP starting money - expenses) * 4 PCs) in a matter of a week or two whereas a 19th level PC party of four finds over 72 million dollars in stuff in maybe a matter of a month or so. Plus, these values are effectively much higher due to the costs of adventuring (i.e. this is wealth per level, not wealth ever acquired and spent).This then ranges up to $20,000,000 for a Mirror of Life Trapping. 20 MILLION dollars for a trap that often won't stop any group with more than one character in it at the level that characters encounter it and can easily be broken in a single round by anyone in a group who is not caught (typically half or more of the characters at that level range). A falling ceiling trap is often much more effective than that and boatloads cheaper.Economic and weak design issues like this are why I prefer the magic item creation rules in the Artificer's Handbook by Mystic Eye Games.Getting back to the topic at hand, the only apparent truism about the Caster Level rule is that the designers cannot make up their minds about it.With regard to what it should be, it should be the equivalent of a minimum pre-requisite (i.e. the item determines the Caster Level) like it states in the 3.5 DMG. The first reason is that Caster Level is effectively a minimum pre-requisite for other items like scrolls and wands. Rule consistency is important.Second, the same item with a lower CL should have a lower GP cost in some cases, but not in others. Ones with a duration or a range or a damage change based on CL should cost less. Ones with no appreciable benefit (outside of saving throw advantage) should not cost significantly less. That's illogical. Allowing the CL to be decreased in cases where there is no significant benefit violates the entire logic of CL indicating relative power level (as per page 215 of the DMG) whereas not doing so does not.Third, simplicity. It is easier to look it up in the DMG and use it as is, as opposed to attempting to either recalculate costs or having the same item cost less with a lower CL, even though it has the exact same benefit as the higher CL item (in many cases).Fourth, it is often difficult if not impossible to come up with the same cost for an item that the designers did (ESPECIALLY in the middle of a gaming session). Allowing PCs to lower the CL makes it a guessing game as to what the GP cost should be for many items.Fifth, lower powered same type items can easily be (and should have been) referenced as costing less and having a lower Caster Level. For example, Bags of Holding should have a CL and GP cost for each bag, just like Golem Manuals do. Ditto for Pearls of Power. Have a lower CL for the lower powered ones. Problem solved.Sixth, there are several errors in the 3.5 FAQ, why would the 3.5 errata be considered error free? This one sounds like another logic error where one designer didn't look at the big picture. IMO.</blockquote>

Verification