Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 800282" data-attributes="member: 4722">Magic item creation is something near and dear to my heart, and I was seriously pissed that they did such a crapy job in the DMG and T&B. I had to port this over to Word so I could get a good look at it.. having a 640x480 sucks sometimes.   Anyway, here's my take on things.   Making a wand like this would cost exactly 1/10  of a normal wand in gold and XP. What's to stop someone from making ten of these, for 100 charges at the same price? Yeah, it would take twice as long, but I at least consider it a good tradeoff.   I think these are extraneous. Powers can typically be used however often the character wishes (or, rarely, three times per day) and adding in new restrictions just confuses the issue. Unless I miss my guess, you got these from the ELH magic creation system, which, as several people have already pointed out, is badly done. Making non-permanent spells permanent should remain the purview of the permanancy spell and epic spells, not magic items.This is confusing. Special abilities?    I'd stick with the "Save bonus" listed in the original table, personally, although I'm not sure what "limited" (in the table in T&B" means, so it might be good to have distinctions between resistance saves and luck/insight.    Ditch these and make them part of the save bonus category. There aren't that many items that grant specific saves bonuses like this.   Again, no real point for the distinction - it's a skill bonus, so it's not really a big deal. And really, having distinctions like this enables players to load up on buffing items, since they can have two or even three things that increase the same skill.    The restrictions look interesting. At first glance, I thought it made perfect sense that making an item restricted to only one class/race/whatever would cost more, since it calls for more exacting specifications in construction. Then I thought about the reasoning they gave in the DMG, about how limiting the usefulness of the item should reduce the cost (since not everyone is willing to buy something they can't use), but I'm still leaning toward your view. It's interesting that you included damaging items, though that might be adding a few too many criteria - the DM could just adjudicate a reasonable amount of  damage based on the power of the weapon.    One last thing: why are you gold piece values a lot lower than the ones in the original tables? Seems to me that unless I were building an item that was restricted to one class and damaged someone else, it would be very cheap to create. How well has this system been tested?</blockquote>

Verification