Using AU's Item Creation Feats in a Standard D&D Game

[Garnfellow]

I'm pretty enamored over the new item creation feats that Monte Cook put in Arcana Unearthed, which seem simpler and more flexible than the standard item creation feats. But are there any hidden issues with using these AU item creation feats in a standard D&D game? Has anyone tried this yet?

 

[Nifft]

IMHO the most inspiring innovation of AU's item creation rules is that each individual spell has a price multiplier, or explicitly forbids certain kinds of item creation.

Unless you're going to do the same for all D&D spells, it might lead to problems.

-- N

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I'm pretty enamored over the new item creation feats that Monte Cook put in Arcana Unearthed, which seem simpler and more flexible than the standard item creation feats. But are there any hidden issues with using these AU item creation feats in a standard D&D game? Has anyone tried this yet?

Somewhat. I've priced out some tokens and detonations for use in D&D. Which is basically the equivalent of making a potion in a different form, except that you can get attack spells this way. If you're practiced at doing D&D item creation, then it's not too difficult to figure out which spells to disallow and which to price up. Magic Missile, for example, is really, really good as a spell, but it's a staple of the game. So it got a 1.5 multiplier from me. Protection from Arrows was a "no" for a constant item. Etc.

The AU DMs screen includes a 32 page booklet with some guidelines on how simple/complex/exotic spells are determined, including the item multipliers on costs. You might want to buy that in pdf and look it over.

 

[Garnfellow]

IMHO the most inspiring innovation of AU's item creation rules is that each individual spell has a price multiplier, or explicitly forbids certain kinds of item creation.

Unless you're going to do the same for all D&D spells, it might lead to problems.

-- N

Maybe I'm missing something essential about the price multipliers in AU. (I'm actually coming at these feats through the description in Grim Tales, so I'm at a little disadvantage here.) Could someone explain how this works in more detail, please?

I guess I was envisioning using the AU feats but generally keeping the same old D&D item creation procedures with the same (3.5e) price tags. I'd map the feat prerequistes over to corresponding AU feats, but otherwise the process stays the same.

Say one of my players wants to make the equivalent of a scroll of charm monster. Instead of Scribe Scroll, his character uses the Craft Spell Completion Item feat. Meanwhile I use the 3.5 pricing for a scroll to determine costs.

By using AU feats it's no big deal if the player wants to make the item in a different form -- for example, a gem or rune-covered twig instead of a boring old scroll. It also consolidates these creation feats into a smaller number of feats that seem more logical.

 

[Staffan]

Maybe I'm missing something essential about the price multipliers in AU. (I'm actually coming at these feats through the description in Grim Tales, so I'm at a little disadvantage here.) Could someone explain how this works in more detail, please?

Many of the spells in AU have multipliers that make certain types of items using these spells more expensive and/or impossible, in order to avoid silly discussions like "I'll make a potion of true strike for my warmain buddy, so he can be certain to hit when he really needs it." Part of the balance of true strike is that you need to be a spellcaster to use it (and in AU, you need to use a feat since it's an exotic spell, but that's beside the point), and spellcasters generally suck at fighting anyway. So, in order to curb the use of potions of true strike, the spell has a multiplier of x6 for Single-Use items (AU's equivalent of potions). So a potion of true strike costs 300 gp, not 50 gp.

In addition, certain spells are abusive as Constant (which includes At Will) items. True strike is a good example there too - I've seen people claim that they ought to be able to make goggles of true strike for 2,000 gp that gives them +20 to any attack. Not so: true strike has a Constant item multiplier of N/A, which means you can't make Constant items that use the spell directly. Other examples of the same are spells that give stat or skill bonuses - you can't make a Constant item of Lesser ability boost (Strength), you have to make gauntlets of ogre power the old-fashioned way (it would probably be OK to substitute lesser ability bonus for bull's strength in the prereqs though). There are probably some spells that have N/A for other categories than Constant, but I'm not gonna look through the book for them.

 

[Kobold Marine]

One of the base assumptions of AU's implied setting is that one-shot and charged items are relatively common while permanent magical items are rare. This is reflected in the level prereq's for the item creation feats. In regular d&d, you can start making wondrous items at 3rd level. In AU, you have to wait till 12th.

 

[Aaron2]

Many of the spells in AU have multipliers that make certain types of items using these spells more expensive and/or impossible, in order to avoid silly discussions like "I'll make a potion of true strike for my warmain buddy, so he can be certain to hit when he really needs it." Part of the balance of true strike is that you need to be a spellcaster to use it (and in AU, you need to use a feat since it's an exotic spell, but that's beside the point), and spellcasters generally suck at fighting anyway.

Couldn't you simply base the item's cost multiplier on the spell's normal duration. Obviously, a spell that normally has a duration of multiple hours wouldn't be too bad as a constant effect while a spell like True Strike with a tiny duration (1 round) would have a higher one. Same for spells that have a limited (usually self) target choice. You could probably come up with a fairly decent set of general rules.


Aaron