Item Requires ___ to Use

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't know. A good-only item is less useful for the CN Rogue in the group. A musical instrument is less useful if it requires ranks in Perform, or Bard abilities. If the requiremet makes sense, it should reduce the market price, and likewise reduce the creation cost.

Use restrictions are always voluntary, and thus will never actually hinder the creator. A wizard isn't going to create an item he can't use, nor is he going to create a Must-Be-Good item for the CN rogue in the group. So I would never give a creation discount for what is, in essence, zero penalty. YMMV.

 

[pawsplay]

Rarely is the creator the only one who is going to use an item. Suppose, for instance, he wanted to create an item for the Bard. The item requires Perform (some musical intrument). The wizard doesn't have it. Unless the party has an inordinate number of musicians, only the Bard is going to be able to use the item.

I do believe a Lute of Slumber (that requires 2 ranks of Perform) is worth a discount over a Fan of Slumber (that you just wave in the air).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Rarely is the creator the only one who is going to use an item. Suppose, for instance, he wanted to create an item for the Bard. The item requires Perform (some musical intrument). The wizard doesn't have it. Unless the party has an inordinate number of musicians, only the Bard is going to be able to use the item.

I do believe a Lute of Slumber (that requires 2 ranks of Perform) is worth a discount over a Fan of Slumber (that you just wave in the air).

The point is that he's making the item to give to the bard, who will have no penalty using the item. Thus, no reason there should be any discount to the price. Otherwise the wizard can simply match the item to the user, and always craft items at a discount. Bard-only items for the bard, fighter-only items for the fighter, druid-only items for the druid, etc. etc.

In all honestly, I wish that they'd left out the discount rules entirely, because a lot of players seem to think of it as a way for player wizards to circumvent item crafting prices, when instead they were included to calculate the worth of an item the DM is creating to drop as loot for his party.

 

[Arcadio]

Thank you everyone for all the responses so far.

I've been here long enough to know that any thread mentioning the creation of magic items will quickly gain posts explaining that the item creation rules are just guidelines. I should have posted a disclaimer about that so as to save everyone else the trouble.

It sounds like the three lines I quoted from the SRD are all the rules we have to go on, and so strictly by the rules, a wizard making an item that was only usable by wizards would get a 30% discount on the item's base cost, which would affect the actual gp cost to the wizard, as well as the xp cost.

Of course a DM is free to house rule this, and if it makes making magic items too cheap and easy, then it might need to be. However the lowered selling price for the item also might balance the lowered creation price. The group that I play in does so little item creation (basically none) that I don't think we would need to house rule that. But again, that is of course up to my DM.

2> Players don't invent items/spells. They tell the DM what they want to research, the DM decides if there's a "research cost"

I don't have my books with me and I couldn't find this in the SRD. Is this in the books somewhere, or is this a house rule?

 

[pawsplay]

The point is that he's making the item to give to the bard, who will have no penalty using the item.

And what happens if the Bard dies?

EDIT: Also, making items that reinforce niche abilities should be easier than making ones that circumvent them. A musical instrument that grants an inspire courage like ability should be preferred over a scabbard that does the same thing.

 

[Tzarevitch]

The point is that he's making the item to give to the bard, who will have no penalty using the item.

And what happens if the Bard dies?

EDIT: Also, making items that reinforce niche abilities should be easier than making ones that circumvent them. A musical instrument that grants an inspire courage like ability should be preferred over a scabbard that does the same thing.

My point exactly. Think of it as setting the parameters for an item when it is made. The narrower the parameters the easier and cheaper it should be to make.

Additionally, the resale value on such limited items is very low because you have a very narrow range of people for whom the item is at all useful. To anyone else, it might as well be non-magic and that is probably all they will pay for it.

In my games, merchants will only buy limited-use items for the cost of the non-magical item. It is simply not worth it to them to buy a limited-use item then have to try to find someone to sell it to.

Tzarevitch

 

[dcollins]

Of course a DM is free to house rule this, and if it makes making magic items too cheap and easy, then it might need to be.

I believe what people are trying to tell you is that it's actually the opposite. If you're allowing PCs to invent their own not-in-the-book items, that that's intrinsically the House Rule. The pricing guidelines are specifically for DM-created items. As an example, any PC can make whatever potion/ scroll/ wand they want (those prices are in the PHB), but other kinds of brand-new items are the province of the DM (other prices being in the DMG).

I don't have my books with me and I couldn't find this in the SRD. Is this in the books somewhere, or is this a house rule?

Here's my page on the issue, pointing out that nowhere in the core rules are PCs given the right to invent new magic items: www.superdan.net/dndfaq3.html

Monte Cook is one of the designers who've gone on record that players should not be accessing the DMG pricing tables: http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly3.html

The "you"in "How do you figure Market Value?" should ALWAYS be the DM. It should always be the last thing that's done in the process. Do not -- I repeat -- do not allow players to look at that table and see what they can make for X amount of gold.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And what happens if the Bard dies?

He gets raised. It may be different in other games, but I've yet to play in a campaign that did much PC swapping. The players I've played with and DMed for have always kept the same characters throughout the campaign.

And even if the bard died and stayed dead, the items would get sold, at a markdown. Not sure why this is a problem, since the PCs don't have a right to the bard's gear anyway. They have their own gear, which should already be appropriate to their level.

I agree with dcollins. The Core Rules do not give players the power to design their own items, only to create existing ones. Anything else requires the DM to determine the cost, etc. Allowing the players to use the DMG cost tables as-is is a House Rule.

 

[pawsplay]

Allowing the players to use the DMG cost tables as-is is a House Rule.

I never made the case that players can use that chart like a deli menu. Even the DM is advised to tweak the final result. My position is that those guidelines, as guidelines, are just as valid for researched items as for standard book items.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Allowing the players to use the DMG cost tables as-is is a House Rule.

I never made the case that players can use that chart like a deli menu. Even the DM is advised to tweak the final result. My position is that those guidelines, as guidelines, are just as valid for researched items as for standard book items.

And my position is that the game designers never meant them to be used to figure the cost of player-created items. I'm sure they've chimed in on this before, though bugger all if I have an actual reference.