Item Requires ___ to Use

[hong]

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.

Actually, given how Excalibur's scabbard was supposed to make Arthur immune to cuts and slashes, a scabbard that inspires courage doesn't seem that far-out after all....

 

[pawsplay]

And my position is that the game designers never meant them to be used to figure the cost of player-created items.

What, then, did they intend for us to use to determine the cost of player-created items?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What, then, did they intend for us to use to determine the cost of player-created items?

:blink:

Re-reading my post, I suppose I can see the confusion. It is my contention that the designers did not mean for the restrictions (and price reduction) to be used to price player-created items. I did not mean that the designers did not mean the guidelines to be used at all.

So a DM creating a restricted item would reduce the cost, because the cost will only be relevant when the party goes to sell the item. It will also be advantageous to the party to keep the item (if they can use it at all), because it will count less towards character Wealth By Level.

It's also a means of making the BBEG's sword powerful, without giving the PCs more loot than you'd like.

But a DM should not give a player a discount when the player is creating such an item. It would be a cheap way to get huge discounts, with no downside since the items are created with party members in mind.

A DM who chooses to allow players to exploit the restriction price reductions in the DMG is house ruling Item Creation Feats to be more powerful than they were intended to be. That's not wrong, but the DM should realize what kind of house rule he's using.

 

[pawsplay]

I see a difference between employing this discounts when appropriate, as opposed to allowing them to be abused.

 

[Tzarevitch]

:blink:

Re-reading my post, I suppose I can see the confusion. It is my contention that the designers did not mean for the restrictions (and price reduction) to be used to price player-created items. I did not mean that the designers did not mean the guidelines to be used at all.

So a DM creating a restricted item would reduce the cost, because the cost will only be relevant when the party goes to sell the item. It will also be advantageous to the party to keep the item (if they can use it at all), because it will count less towards character Wealth By Level.

It's also a means of making the BBEG's sword powerful, without giving the PCs more loot than you'd like.

But a DM should not give a player a discount when the player is creating such an item. It would be a cheap way to get huge discounts, with no downside since the items are created with party members in mind.

A DM who chooses to allow players to exploit the restriction price reductions in the DMG is house ruling Item Creation Feats to be more powerful than they were intended to be. That's not wrong, but the DM should realize what kind of house rule he's using.

I disagree. You are implying that only NPCs can ever get a cost reduction and that makes no sense. I don't have my DMG in front of me but I don't recall anything that says that that magic item creation table is for DMs only. The tables are there in the book therefore using them is not a house rule. The key is not to permit a reduction unless the restriction is actually real and significant. There is nothing that says it has to be a restriction for the maker or the primary user.

Restricted use items DO have a downside and we have seen it come up often in the campaigns that I play in and ones that I run. The downside is that there is a smaller population of people who can use the item. This impacts resale value and operational use.

Resale value is impacted in event that you want to get a new item or simply want to be rid of the old item. Depending on the restriction it may be nearly impossible to sell the old item. The key is for the DM to not slavishly follow the prices listed in the book.

If a PC makes an ubersword mark 1 worth 200,000gp (before discount) with a restricted use that prevents it from being used by anyone except a follower of a certain deity who also has 13+ Ranks in Knowledge(Religion), who is also a member of the Brotherhood of Eight, he is going to have a hard time getting much for it when he finds an ubersword mark 2 and wants to free up the cash invested in the first one. As DM I would give the full 30% price reduction for that restriction because he is trading away the ability to get a credible resale value on it later in return for a reduced GP, XP and construction time cost now.

Note no merchant in his right mind is going to purchase that sword despite the fact its technical value is 140,000gp because the use restriction is so severe that no one will buy it from him if he is stupid enough to buy it from the PC in the first place. In other words, its actual value for anyone who is not a member of the limited class of people who can use it is the value of a masterwork sword (because that is all it really is to them).

The second painful downside to putting a use restriction is that your own party members probably can't use it if you go down. If the wizard put use restrictions on his Staff of Ultimate power and then gets knocked out of the battle, it it possible that no one else can use his staff when the party really needs its Ultimate Power.

Tzarevitch

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I disagree. You are implying that only NPCs can ever get a cost reduction and that makes no sense.

Not at all. I'm saying that nobody gets a price reduction when creating a magic item. I'm saying that the DM uses the price reductions to determine the value of an item that the party will find during an adventure. i.e. Ancient Wizzie makes an elf-only Ring of Wizardy back in the day, at full price. It sits in his tomb for 1000 years, and when the PCs find it, the DM figures that it's price is -% less, because it's an elf-only item.

I'm saying that the Restriction rules aren't meant to provide a cost reduction for creating items at all, only for selling items that are restricted and thus more difficult for merchants to unload.

I don't have my DMG in front of me but I don't recall anything that says that that magic item creation table is for DMs only.

Aside from the fact that they're in the DMG and not the PH?

The tables are there in the book therefore using them is not a house rule.

The DM using them is not a house rule. Players using them is.

The key is not to permit a reduction unless the restriction is actually real and significant. There is nothing that says it has to be a restriction for the maker or the primary user.

How is a restriction "real and significant" and yet not a restriction for the maker or the primary user? I remember a Shadowrun game I played in, where I created a physical adept who took "Cybernetic Intolerance" as one of his penalties, to get a hefty bonus. But since physical adepts can't use cybernetic equipment anyway, it was basically a free bonus. My GM let me do it, but as a DM I won't allow it in my games, nor do I think the designers meant for me to.

Restricted use items DO have a downside and we have seen it come up often in the campaigns that I play in and ones that I run. The downside is that there is a smaller population of people who can use the item. This impacts resale value and operational use.

Restricted items certainly have a resale restriction. That's what they're meant for. But items created by the PC aren't going to be sold 99% of the time. They're going to be upgraded. So for a player-created item, this downside will not come into play often, certainly not enough to warrant a huge gp discount in Item Creation.

Resale value is impacted in event that you want to get a new item or simply want to be rid of the old item. Depending on the restriction it may be nearly impossible to sell the old item. The key is for the DM to not slavishly follow the prices listed in the book.

Are you saying that DMs should slavishly follow the pricing guidelines for Item Creation, but should House Rule the listed prices of Core items to balance it?

As DM I would give the full 30% price reduction for that restriction because he is trading away the ability to get a credible resale value on it later in return for a reduced GP, XP and construction time cost now.

And as a DM I wouldn't even think of it. The PC is far more likely to get Ubersword mk1 upgraded. Should he find an Ubersword 2, it'd be far more beneficial for him to sell the mk2 and upgrade the mk1, since the upgrade to mk1 would also receive a -30% cost reduction, on top of the zero sum loss of selling the mk2 at half market price.

The second painful downside to putting a use restriction is that your own party members probably can't use it if you go down. If the wizard put use restrictions on his Staff of Ultimate power and then gets knocked out of the battle, it it possible that no one else can use his staff when the party really needs its Ultimate Power.

This is a very rare scenario. First of all you'll need another PC capable of using the staff (another wizard, sorc, or rogue with high UMD), then you'll need the staff to be critical to success between the time the wizard goes down and the time he can be raised, and make enough of a difference that the party can still win without the wizard. You're better off waiting to be struck by lightning. And I'd certainly not hang a -30% reduction on magic items based on an event that will probably happen less than once per campaign.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm saying that the Restriction rules aren't meant to provide a cost reduction for creating items at all, only for selling items that are restricted and thus more difficult for merchants to unload.

Since creation costs are based on market price, and the existing items do include such discounts in their structure, I believe your interpretation is not consistent with the rules as written.

 

[RuminDange]

Not at all. I'm saying that nobody gets a price reduction when creating a magic item. I'm saying that the DM uses the price reductions to determine the value of an item that the party will find during an adventure. i.e. Ancient Wizzie makes an elf-only Ring of Wizardy back in the day, at full price. It sits in his tomb for 1000 years, and when the PCs find it, the DM figures that it's price is -% less, because it's an elf-only item.

I'm saying that the Restriction rules aren't meant to provide a cost reduction for creating items at all, only for selling items that are restricted and thus more difficult for merchants to unload.

Interesting take on it. However, I have to disagree, but will back my disagreement up with one such restricted item from the DMG.
Say you have a druid that wishes to create a Druid Vestment.

Vestment, Druid’s: This light garment is worn over normal clothing or armor. Most such vestments are green, embroidered with plant or animal motifs. When this item is worn by a character with the wild shape ability, the character can use that ability one additional time each day.
Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, polymorph or wild shape ability; Price 10,000 gp.

Now to determine how they got to the price of 10,000gp. One method that works fairly well and with in the rules is:

Use-Activated or Continuous base cost is Spell Level x Caster Level x 2000gp.

Taking that you have a spell level of 4 (polymorph) x 10 (caster level) x 2000 = 80000
However, the power is usable 1 time per day. So now you have to follow the following guide.

Charges per day is divide by (5 divided by charges per day). .

The price now becomes: 80000 / 5 / 1 = 16000.

Close but not done yet. Here is where the discount comes in. First you have to have the wild shape ability to use the vestment. Consider that a skill/power for a 10% discount. Then consider the fact that you have to be a druid to have the wild shape ability. That limits the item to a single class for an additional 30% discount. Add the discount together and determine the final cost.

16000 * .6 (for 60% after 40% discount) = 9600 gp. close to 10000 (actually need to multiply by .625 to get right on, but this could be the difference needed for a masterwork mantle garment being made.

Now if a druid is going to make this item as per the DMG, which cost do they use? 16,000gp or 10,000gp?

Using the discounts for item creation as well as sale value or character value is what they are for, otherwise why have them at all.

There may be other ways to use the item creation guide to come to a cost, but either way you go about it, you are going to have to use the discounts to get it back down close to 10000gp.
Another way to do it is calling the effect a Command Word and that would get closer to 10000, since the cost would calculated as such: 4*10*1800 = 72000.
Then usable once per day would drop the price to: 72000 / 5 / 1 = 14400.
Then applying only the 30% discount for being restricted to druids due to only usable by one that has wild shape ability would drop the price to: 14400 * .7 = 10080 gp.
Either way you go, it's enough justification to me to indicate that item creation discounts are warranted and used to figure the cost of item being created not just the value for sale.

RD

 

[Tzarevitch]

I'm saying that the Restriction rules aren't meant to provide a cost reduction for creating items at all, only for selling items that are restricted and thus more difficult for merchants to unload.Aside from the fact that they're in the DMG and not the PH?The DM using them is not a house rule. Players using them is.How is a restriction "real and significant" and yet not a restriction for the maker or the primary user? I remember a Shadowrun game I played in, where I created a physical adept who took "Cybernetic Intolerance" as one of his penalties, to get a hefty bonus. But since physical adepts can't use cybernetic equipment anyway, it was basically a free bonus. My GM let me do it, but as a DM I won't allow it in my games, nor do I think the designers meant for me to.

I remember that from Shadowrun too. My DM wouldn't allow my Hermetic Mage to take "Incompetence Orbital Satelite Piloting" as a disadvantage.

Restricted items certainly have a resale restriction. That's what they're meant for. But items created by the PC aren't going to be sold 99% of the time. They're going to be upgraded. So for a player-created item, this downside will not come into play often, certainly not enough to warrant a huge gp discount in Item Creation.

I am not sure that is true. In my experience, items created by PCs are no more likely to be upgraded than found items if PCs stumble across something better.

In the campaigns that I have played in, unless it was a plussed item that was easily upgraded to a higher plus, it was usually easier to replace the item wholesale than upgrade something that was no longer that useful. That also assumes that you can find someone who can upgrade it.

Are you saying that DMs should slavishly follow the pricing guidelines for Item Creation, but should House Rule the listed prices of Core items to balance it?

Actually I don't slavishly follow either rule. I allow the construction cost reduction if the player is proposing a real limitation. What purchase price the character can get when he tries to sell it entirely depends on the market. If the limitation is harsh, he isn't going to be able to sell it easily if at all and certainly not anywhere near at "market" value.

On another issue, I think using the listed prices for resale of items is nuts. Resale price depends on who is doing the selling (better have a good diplomacy score) who is doing the buying (will the buyer be able to use it himself or resell it at a profit to himself) and what the current market in these items is (i.e. how saturated is the market in the area and how rare and or valueable is the item.) I use the listed price in the book as the best available price assuming all conditions are favorable.

While I will allow a 30% discount on the price to make an item with a severe restriction, when the time comes to try and resell it to a merchant, the merchant isn't going to give nearly so nice a price as 70%. Its value to HIM is significantly less than that because he can't resell it or use it easily. If only 10% of the population can even use an item due to it's restriction for example, the merchant would be insane to pay 70% of the value of an unrestricted use version. The merchant will probably only give you 20% or something in that range.

The PC is far more likely to get Ubersword mk1 upgraded. Should he find an Ubersword 2, it'd be far more beneficial for him to sell the mk2 and upgrade the mk1, since the upgrade to mk1 would also receive a -30% cost reduction, on top of the zero sum loss of selling the mk2 at half market price.This is a very rare scenario.

As I said before, I have not found that to be true in games that I have played or run. Even then, that assumes that you CAN upgrade the mk1 to the mk2 and it also assumes that it is cost effective to do so. I'll give the specific example that happened to me.

In the campaign I am playing in, my Pal2,Cleric(w/ many prestige classes)20 had built himself a Greatsword +3, Lawful, Chaotic with a use restriction called Steel Rose allowing it to only be used by a particular knigltly order. My character used that sword for many a year as it was his favorite weapon. He fairly recently found a Bastardsword +6 Holy Power which he now uses because it obviously is much more powerful. He would love to upgrade Steel Rose to that level but he can't (both because of incredible cost and because he doesn't have Craft Epic Arms and Armor). He also can't sell it because the use restriction is severe enough that it is impacting the resale value because there is only a small number of people who can use it. He won't sell the epic weapon because he can't find anyone who can afford to pay even close to full price for it and even if he could get his price, he can't find anyone who can or will upgrade Steel Rose to a similar level of power. To top it off, Steel Rose would end up being far more expensive because it has other powers (Lawful and Holy) that he can't get rid of.

First of all you'll need another PC capable of using the staff (another wizard, sorc, or rogue with high UMD), then you'll need the staff to be critical to success between the time the wizard goes down and the time he can be raised, and make enough of a difference that the party can still win without the wizard. You're better off waiting to be struck by lightning. And I'd certainly not hang a -30% reduction on magic items based on an event that will probably happen less than once per campaign.

Once per campaign? It happens often in my campaigns. If the wizard has a high-powered staff that is doing good damage the enemy targets him immediately. If the cleric is running around mass healing everyone out of a staff, the enemy targets him immediately. If those characters are the only ones who can use their respective bits of equiptment that represents a critical weak point that the enemy can exploit.

Having another PC who can use a staff is not hard. In my parties everyone has Use Magic Device of at least 5 ranks, usually with a +10 skill item (once they can afford it) to insure that everyone can activate critical healing staves and wands when necessary. The skill is no longer exclusive so there is no reason why everyone who can't normally use healing wands shouldn't put a couple of ranks into UMD and get at least a +5 skill item ASAP.

Wands and staves are more cost efficient than potions and they are less fragile. If everyone in the party who can't normally use them carries a couple of UMD ranks and a skill item to help the roll the party is better off than if they had relied on healing potions alone.

Use limitations are critical problems because it represents an asset than cannot be used by anyone if necessary. Add this to a Staff of Mass Healing of some sort and the problem becomes acute if the cleric is put out of action.

Tzarevitch

 

[Lord Pendragon]

RD: Once you figure out a way to reverse-engineer the Ring of Invisibility, we can start using already created items as validation for the argument at hand. More likely, the Druid's Vestment was given a discount because it's just not worth 16,000gp, just as the Ring of Invisibility was bumped way up.

Tazarevick: I have to admit that your campaign is far different from those I've played in. I've never seen an entire party picking up UMD, 3.0 or 3.5. You do bring up a valid point with regards to healing staves/wands. IME, most parties are acutely aware of who can use the healing items. However, I'm not comfortable allowing weapons, armor, rings, etc. to receive huge bonuses for restrictions that will still only be real restrictions on healing items. Though you've made me consider allowing the restrictions on healing items, if the PCs actually wanted to do so.

Your epic example is interesting, but unique to the switch from Standard to Epic play. In particular, the huge Epic Item Creation price boost makes upgrading a weapon to epic, as opposed to simply finding an epic weapon, problematic at blest.

Pre-epic, once you gain the feat, say Craft Arms and Armor, you are good to go for the next twenty levels. So if you have a wizard in the party willing to craft your Ubersword mk1 in the first place, he's likely to still be around to upgrade it to the Ubersword mk2, and sufficiently powered to do so.

The subject of healing items has me thinking, but on the whole I still don't think the designers intended for crafts to get a 30% price cut for what is, healing items aside, a beneficial feature.