Allowing limited XP --> item conversion (like true creation) broken at low levels? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Allowing limited XP --> item conversion (like true creation) broken at low levels? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JulesCARV
01-28-07, 04:30 AM I've been considering a campaign that would be low loot, but I don't necessarily want it to be low magic. Within the context of the campaign, it doesn't make sense that the PCs would be taking a lot of treasure from dungeon hoards, fallen enemies, and such, but I don't want to prevent them from having a fair amount of equipment. In addition, they would rarely have access to shops.

Here's what I'm considering:

On their ship, the PCs would have access to a shared large psionic universal item (call it a maker), about the size of a small room, which would be able to manifest True Creation once per day, but they would have to supply the experience component, no one could be coerced into supplying experience for the maker, and it would require about a day to work.

In addition, their crew would probably include an artificer, whether PC or NPC.

So, if a character wanted a +1 spiked chain, and no spiked chains were on the ship, the character would go to the maker, spend 65 xp to create a 325 gp masterwork spiked chain, then, the next day (assuming no one else with higher priority needs to use the maker), pick up the spiked chain and spend 200 xp to create 1,000 gp worth of magic item creation material, then ask the artificer to turn the 1,000 gp and the masterwork spiked chain into a +1 spiked chain (which might require an additional 80 xp payment, using the PHB II Web Enhancement for transfering XP costs (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) -- probably a talisman of transferrence.) Creating a +1 spiked chain thus would cost a four days (two true creation days, two artificer labor days) and 345 xp (equivalent to a cost of 1725 gp, cheaper than the real price of 2325 gp, but that's because the artificer is a fellow crewmember, not an independent merchant charging market prices (at least, if he's an NPC he would be).

I'm thinking that, to pay for all their equipment, the amount of experience they receive would be upped a bit (say, 20%).

Anyway, would this approach be broken, by giving the PCs too much leeway in what sort of equipment they have and how much? If so, what would be the best way to fix it?
Archmage Atrus
01-28-07, 09:39 AM Well.

It's really not that much leeway, is it?

I think it's fine, if a bit video-gamey. I might think about putting in a limit on how much XP you can spend on the Maker (this would be a cap that rises with level - aside the obvious "can't spend more XP than I have"), just so they don't go around spending 2,000 xp at 3rd level to create themselves some +4 items of abilities.
ressurrector
01-29-07, 03:17 AM Just be careful about what items you let slip through.
At-will items of instant or 1-round duration spells are very dangerous to allow. (except stuff like featherfall)
Some weapon enchantments should not be allowed (wrathful healing, splitting)
Animated shields should be banned. (even the designers realize this one was a mistake)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 01-28-07, 04:30 AM	I've been considering a campaign that would be low loot, but I don't necessarily want it to be low magic. Within the context of the campaign, it doesn't make sense that the PCs would be taking a lot of treasure from dungeon hoards, fallen enemies, and such, but I don't want to prevent them from having a fair amount of equipment. In addition, they would rarely have access to shops. Here's what I'm considering: On their ship, the PCs would have access to a shared large psionic universal item (call it a maker), about the size of a small room, which would be able to manifest True Creation once per day, but they would have to supply the experience component, no one could be coerced into supplying experience for the maker, and it would require about a day to work. In addition, their crew would probably include an artificer, whether PC or NPC. So, if a character wanted a +1 spiked chain, and no spiked chains were on the ship, the character would go to the maker, spend 65 xp to create a 325 gp masterwork spiked chain, then, the next day (assuming no one else with higher priority needs to use the maker), pick up the spiked chain and spend 200 xp to create 1,000 gp worth of magic item creation material, then ask the artificer to turn the 1,000 gp and the masterwork spiked chain into a +1 spiked chain (which might require an additional 80 xp payment, using the PHB II Web Enhancement for transfering XP costs (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a) -- probably a talisman of transferrence.) Creating a +1 spiked chain thus would cost a four days (two true creation days, two artificer labor days) and 345 xp (equivalent to a cost of 1725 gp, cheaper than the real price of 2325 gp, but that's because the artificer is a fellow crewmember, not an independent merchant charging market prices (at least, if he's an NPC he would be). I'm thinking that, to pay for all their equipment, the amount of experience they receive would be upped a bit (say, 20%). Anyway, would this approach be broken, by giving the PCs too much leeway in what sort of equipment they have and how much? If so, what would be the best way to fix it?
Archmage Atrus 01-28-07, 09:39 AM	Well. It's really not that much leeway, is it? I think it's fine, if a bit video-gamey. I might think about putting in a limit on how much XP you can spend on the Maker (this would be a cap that rises with level - aside the obvious "can't spend more XP than I have"), just so they don't go around spending 2,000 xp at 3rd level to create themselves some +4 items of abilities.
ressurrector 01-29-07, 03:17 AM	Just be careful about what items you let slip through. At-will items of instant or 1-round duration spells are very dangerous to allow. (except stuff like featherfall) Some weapon enchantments should not be allowed (wrathful healing, splitting) Animated shields should be banned. (even the designers realize this one was a mistake)