Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alynn 09-10-05, 11:41 AM	Ok so placing restrictions on magic items during creation makes them worth less for both base price and cost to make. So what if you place it on after it's origional creation (on a side note, why don't PC's do this more often than not, generally they get the item for cheaper)? We have a set of bracers of armor +1, no restrictions is 1000 base price. Which is found by a PC. PC then decides to upgrade it to +2, she has the appropriate feat, she decides that she wants to make sure only she can use it, and restricts it to wizards of Chaotic neutral alignment, as well as upgrading it to +2. Now the text on 282 of the DMG says class OR alignment lowers cost by 30%, but does setting both lower it by 60%? Let's say for this example it does. Origional price for the +1 is 1000, the new cost to upgrade to +2 and the restriction would be a base price of 1600. So to upgrade to +2 plus the restricitons would cost the creator 300gp + 24XP. Now of course if they tried to sell it they wouldn't get near as much for it (800gp), but as I said earlier, why the hell would a PC EVER sell an item that htey can just keep upgrading? Even if the class and alignment wouln't stack the cost would only be 900 gold +72XP. So why don't players put restrictions on their equipment, and for that matter why the hell don't other creators do the same, especially if they are making it for themselves, it costs them less in experience, they can still use the item. Add skills to it and everything drops to 30% base cost... 300, 1200, 2700, 4800, and 7500 for bracers of armor +1 to +5 respectively... Why don't they do it?
Nom 09-10-05, 05:44 PM	Ok so placing restrictions on magic items during creation makes them worth less for both base price and cost to make.The rules aren't exactly clear on this. It says "cost", which could apply to either. That said, applying this as a general principle is mechanically broken, at least as far as item creation is concerned. The question that always needs to be asked is whether the so-called "restriction" functions as a "limitation" or a "protection". A limitation reduces the utility of the device to legitimate users. A protection reduces the utility of the device to illegitimate users. "Only useable in the morning" is generally a limitation, since it hampers how you can use the item. "Only useable by me" is generally a protection, since it inhibits you not at all but stops anyone else using your item against you. The other factor is whether the restriction is because the user must contribute something to the item or simply because the crafter doesn't others using it. Spell Trigger items are cheaper than Command Word items because they allow people who can already cast spells to do so from items rather than allowing anyone to do so. Items that require you to expend a spell slot (or pay some other price) are cheaper than those that do not. The core principle is that you shouldn't allow the PCs to get something for nothing merely because they stop non-PCs using their items. All of the above comments apply to base price. Market price is quite different. An item with a restriction - whether protection or limitation - has a reduced utility to those who are affected by the restriction. Items with limitations are inherently worth less. Items with restrictions are worth either full value or very little, depending on the buyer. Thus, items with protections are going to be a lot harder to sell since fewer people will want them. Conversely, items with protections may also be cheaper to buy, since fewer people want them. However, you should never give a PC a discount for commissioning a such an item, nor should you allow them to seek out protected items with particular properties "I want to find someone selling a +3 flaming sword cheap because it's useable only by halflings.". Protected items attract a discount to buy because the seller is stuck with the silly thing and wants to get rid of it, and thus you can't easily "shop around".