Loosing XP in item making

[woodelf]

I agree with the thought line of losing XP that is kinda a drawback for any PC that wants to create items. I can't take away what the PC has earned through blood, sweat, etc. just to make a magic toy for themselves or some other PC. I think the players adventure enough to gain the XP they lose, but eventually the casters end up behind others as they all advance in levels, which no player wants to do. I don't have tons of magic in my campaigns and I want to encourage the players to do whatever they want when not heavily involved in an adventure, and having them handicap themselves by not making items just to save some XP can really turn a campaign around.

Biggest problem i see is that the spellcaster doesn't get anything for the XP. That is, if she finds a wand of fireballs, or crafts it, it's the same thing. Now, if, by default, the XP tied it to the creator, so that it was less effective, or ineffective, in another's hands, that might make up for it. In short, D&D is very concerned about balance, and i think it's unbalancing to charge the character XP for something that they can then lose. XP is the real measure of character effectiveness, and so a caster who makes a magic item, then loses it, is underpowered. Perhaps if you instituted rules more like Hero, where an item paid for with XP was part of the character, and could only be taken away for a short while (on a metagame level)?

Anyway, i understand the idea of limiting item creation with XP costs (just like certain spells), but i think it's a suboptimal solution. I'd say that the item creation feats are a good start, and that time and cost (materials) is sufficient. Maybe give special benefits if you spend XP (as above, or others), or cut time and/or cost, but i don't think it should be necessary, or the default mechanism.

 

[Staffan]

Biggest problem i see is that the spellcaster doesn't get anything for the XP. That is, if she finds a wand of fireballs, or crafts it, it's the same thing.

Well, the spellcaster does save a lot of money - half of it, to be precise (well, not that precise since some items (like weapons) have additional costs). Also, the spellcaster has a lot more control over his gear - instead of relying on finding things (either through loot or through sales), he gets exactly what he wants.

 

[s/LaSH]

Here's how I see it:

Magic items grant power to someone, normally someone you're fighting monsters beside or yourself, increasing your group potential to achieve your goals in the face of adversity.

Experience increases your powers when you spend it on 'levels'. You cannot drop levels in this way.

You cannot drop levels while crafting items either.

I think of crafting as just another way of gaining levels, really, insofar as you never lose anything tangible, and you increase your ability to beat the bad guys in a fashion that you dictate, rather than relying on the whims of fortune (ie. the DM).

I guess they just phrased it badly in the core rules and made it sound worse than it is... in fact, sometimes it's a really great investment. Consider a dagger +1, which costs, what, 80XP? Now, the cheapest possible level investment that gives that bonus is getting a level in Fighter, which costs a minimum of 1000XP - 12 times as much. If you're high enough level to make items, it'll cost more.

OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but is my point valid?

 

[Nail]

Anyway, i understand the idea of limiting item creation with XP costs (just like certain spells), but i think it's a suboptimal solution.

(chuckle)
I've skipped to the end of the thread, so this has probably already been said:

IMO, the XP loss (and gp cost) is an inspired idea. Certainly one of the top three best ideas to come out of 3e. Not only does the system allow the player (rather than the DM) to design magic items in a meaningfully balanced way, but it provides a near-perfect cost (and opportunity cost) that a PC can really feel. It's not a "no-brainer" to decide whether or not to make magic items. There are significant benefits as well as the XP costs some are whining about.

Typically, a magic item creator can spend anywhere from 5 - 15% of his XP, and feel only a little, if any, level advancement lag. What little the mage may feel is made up for by the ability to customize magic items. This power of customization cannot be understated! And if the mage (or cleric!) wants to spend more than this...well, that's his choice, isn't it.

House-ruling away the XP cost would be a huge mistake.

 

[Nail]

....... Consider a dagger +1, which costs, what, 80XP? Now, the cheapest possible level investment that gives that bonus is getting a level in Fighter, which costs a minimum of 1000XP - 12 times as much. If you're high enough level to make items, it'll cost more.

OK, I'm exaggerating a little, but is my point valid?

....errr, sure.

Although one level of fighter does give you a tad more than +1 BAB, nicht var?

 

[MadScientist]

....errr, sure.

Although one level of fighter does give you a tad more than +1 BAB, nicht var?

Of course his point is still valid. A plus one to attacks is well worth 80 XP.

 

[The Sigil]

Consider a dagger +1, which costs, what, 80XP? Now, the cheapest possible level investment that gives that bonus is getting a level in Fighter, which costs a minimum of 1000XP - 12 times as much. If you're high enough level to make items, it'll cost more.

Well, I'll throw something else out here... since picking up a level in fighter is a little different than simply a +1. It is *increasing* your BAB by one... if, for example, you have a BAB of +4, picking up a level of fighter increases it to +5.

Now, what's the XP cost on changing a +4 dagger into a +5 dagger? Well, the +4 dagger costs 1280 XP and the +5 dagger will set you back 2,000 XP... the difference is 720 XP. Therefore, +1 to hit does not equal 80 XP. All +1's are not created equal - some are worth 80 XP, but others are worth 720 XP. See where this is leading?

Hopefully that made sense, but you can't just say +1 to hit = 80 XP. Instead, you have to ask, "what is the XP cost of incrementing my hit chance by one" since going from +0 to +1 costs less than from +1 to +2, etc.

Anyone who doesn't like the XP mechanic, hey, it's your perogative. I see it as making the bonus system slightly more granular... a good thing.

--The Sigil

 

[Reika]

Well, there is this nifty little feat in the FRCS called Magical Artisan. Granted you can only take it for one item creation feat at a time, but it's worth it since it reduces the cost (both material and xp) by 25%.

So it's a nice compromise for those who feel that the xp cost is fair and those who don't. And I'm sure if the player puts it nicely to a GM, a wizard could take it instead of an item creation/metamagic feat.

 

[Deadguy]

(chuckle)
I've skipped to the end of the thread, so this has probably already been said:

IMO, the XP loss (and gp cost) is an inspired idea. Certainly one of the top three best ideas to come out of 3e. Not only does the system allow the player (rather than the DM) to design magic items in a meaningfully balanced way, but it provides a near-perfect cost (and opportunity cost) that a PC can really feel. It's not a "no-brainer" to decide whether or not to make magic items. There are significant benefits as well as the XP costs some are whining about.

Typically, a magic item creator can spend anywhere from 5 - 15% of his XP, and feel only a little, if any, level advancement lag. What little the mage may feel is made up for by the ability to customize magic items. This power of customization cannot be understated! And if the mage (or cleric!) wants to spend more than this...well, that's his choice, isn't it.

House-ruling away the XP cost would be a huge mistake.

Well said Nail! Whilst reading this discussion I couldn't help think that those who think the idea of XP expenditure for magic items are missing the game design reasons for the mechanic. You've encapsulated the point rather nicely.

It's an often underappreciated point that 3e's Item Creation rules are also a great tool for player empowerment, which was a key development in 3e. They allow the player to decide what is really important to their character, not just the DM. And if certain magic items help build a concept, the game mechanics work with that, rather than depending solely on the DM's kindnesses. As a DM that takes some getting used too - especially if you come from the old 1e/2e approach to magic where Mages spent lifetimes of work perhaps getting to the point where they could maybe make a magic item which is quite likely inferior to what else they've picked up!

And for those who understand that, but can't make the leap to explain it in-game, it's worth pointing out that the 'investment of soul' is just a handwave. If hong were here he'd point out that we can always come up with a handwave if we need one - replace it with whatever one suits your campaign.

 

[Coik]

I accept the whole "loosing XP is representative of the maker investing some of their life force in the item" argument only if the next logical step is taken.

That step is, of course, sympathetic magic on crack and PCP. I mean, if mages are going around putting their life force into fragile, portable containers, it's only logical that someone would get the bright idea that, Hey, if I can just get a hold of that, I can do things to him that make your average voodoo doll look like a climb up to the second layer of Mount Celestia...