Item Creation Rules and the Education of Thoth Amon

[Thoth_Amon]

I have a wizard in one of my games who is interested in crafting some stuff.

I am all about allowing wizards to craft cool stuff. I am currently running a wizard who is not being permitted in game time to craft items and scribe spells and it sucks. It really sucks. My feats are wasted and I cannot put new spells in my books so my wizard is scraping by with free spells. Back to the point of the post...

This is the first thing the wizard is trying to craft and I want to get some feedback as my initial inclination was to say "no." I want to make sure I am not being unreasonnable or unfairly preventing the character from using their craft feats as they should be able to do.

The wizard has "Craft Tattoo" which is a feat from Monte Cooks Eldritch wizardy book. It works like Craft wonderous item except the tattoo's take up WI slots (unless you craft the Tattoo as an unslotted tattoo.)

Here is the craft/cost algorithm:

Ankah Tatoo: Use activated cure minor wounds.
0 Level spell, Caster Level 1, Use Activated, No Slot
1/2*1*2000*2 => 2000GP 80 EXP 2 days to create.

As described by the character the trigger is when the wizard is wounded the tattoo begins to function curing one HP per round until the character is healed. Effectively acting as "Fast Healing."

Please provide feedback on if this is balanced. The Wizard is 4th level --not that that really matters for purposes of determining if the item should be allowed.

Ring of Regeneration is 1 hp every hour requires a 15th level caster and a 12 level crafter, however it does grow back limbs. It retails for 90,000gp ($45,000 to craft) but is probably the closest comperable item in the DMG.

I want to be as fair as possible and rule on this in an impartial way so your feedback will really help me.

Thanks everyone!

TA

[Oberoni]

While I'm not sure how balanced that tattoo is yet, I will say that the Ring of Regen is stupidly, stupidly overpriced.

[Username17]

The Ring of Regeneration may as well not act as a healing item at all - its claim to faim is that it casts regeneration - the 7th level healing spell - on you as much as is required. Loss of limbs and organs doesn't really happen to you in the core 3rd edition rules, but it happened all the time in AD&D - so people who play in converted modules and such pretty much need these thingies.

So when you compare things that heal hit points - don't do it to the Ring of Regeneration - it's really paying tens of thousands of yen for access to a very powerful (if selectively useful) spell.

What you should consider instead, is what effect the spell will have between battles, and what effect it will have during battle:

* Between Battles: I don't know about you, but I usually find that there is at least 10 minutes of down time or travel time or picking lock time, or searching time, or whatever between major battles. During that time, the character would heal 100 hit points - which is to say, more damage than he has hit points. So it essentially causes the character to regain all hit points between every battle.

* During Battles: A battle in the 3.5 rules set can take anywhere from 2 rounds to about 12. If it matters at all, the character will probably be damaged early - garnering you what is effectively a number of extra hit points about equal to your level. Note that if you don't get wounded it doesn't matter how many hit points you have - and thus you can still be considered to have those extra ones. Furthermore, it stabilizes your wounds immediately if you fall below zero or start bleeding. Weirdest, however, it keeps the character from ever dying of suffocation (as you keep bobbing between zero and 1 hit point and never die or fall unconcious).

So it has four effects:

* Acts like there was an extra God Stick in your possession. That is, it saves you the expenditure of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds - at least so far as it concerns this one character. Total Price of ability: 750 gp.

* Gives extra hit as if the character had 2 extra points of Constitution. Stacks with an enhancement bonus, but it doesn't give a bonus to saves or concentration checks etc. Total Price of ability: 4,000 gp.

* Acts as a Periapt of Wound Closure, excpet for the important part of acting as consecrated ground for the purpose of Vile Damage. Total Price of Ability: ~7,500 gp.

* Acts as an incredibly crappy Necklace of Adaption; it doesn't let the character cast spells while covered in mud, it doesn't stop poison gasses, it just keeps the character with a tenuous grasp on life and conciousness indefinately while under water or otherwise unable to breath. Total Price of Ability: ~1,000 gp.

Some of those abilities are unslotted to begin with (the god stick, for example), and many of them are reduced in effectiveness. I would put the total at about 13 or 14 thousand yen.

Note that the character putting it on himself is both selfish and stupid - he should put it on a front-line fighter as that would free up more healing spells and get more use out of the complete healing between battles aspect.

-Username17

[Username17]

I understand how you are pricing the item, but the mechanics of his item creation are fine as is?? Your comparison to the wand of Cure light wounds also allows the wizard to emulate the clerics spell access for purposes of activation so that might be a tad short.

Actually, no it doesn't - this takes place between battles, so it makes no difference who in the party is supposedly activating the item.

This would allow for unlimited uses if you only got hit for 1 point at a time. It would also autostablize when knocked unconscious (Note there are feats which let you stabilize 50% of the time or some crap like that.)

These feats are crap though.

-Username17

[Thoth_Amon]

Sure the feats are crap, but we are talking about 2 k to emulate twice the utility of a crappy feat and some change.

It was just an idea that might be more palatable then spending 13.5k!!

TA

[Thoth_Amon]

So everyone is agreed the Item Creation calculation is accurate. But no one is saying roll with it as it is. --Figures, that would be too easy!

TA

[Username17]

Use Activated Healing Items are actually used in the book example of where the item pricing guidelines break down. So using the item pricing guidelines on a use activated healing item is actually not using the guidelines because that's the example the guidelines use of when not to use them.

Be that as it may, I would like to go on the record that the Craft Tatu feat exposes the dirty underside of the Item Creation problems worse than any other. After all, with the tattoo we are talking about trading XP directly for abilities instead of accumulating it for the purpose of level advancement.

Since the XP cost of these abilities is static, and the XP required for level accumulation is not - there necessarily comes a time when any particular tattoo becomes a fundamentally superior deal than level advancement - and then the system breaks.

After all, characters gain XP based on how much XP they have accumulated towards level advancement - not how much they've ever recieved. A character who decides to write glyphs of power all over themselves instead of gaining a level is in all ways superior to a character who simply had never gained enough XP to gain a level at all - and gets XP at the same rate when facing the same challenges. Conversely, a character who gained a level is also superior to the character who had not - but gains XP at a slower rate when facing the same challenges.

As soon as the XP cost for a tattoo is "fair" - the cost is actually unfair - because the cost is decremented by the fact that the character is going to be gaining XP faster for the rest of their life.

Fundamentally, most feats are crap - but that Tattoo Creation thingy is broken, because the Item Creation Rules are broken.

-Username17

[Thoth_Amon]

True, but tattoos can be disjoined and hose the crafters who spent the XP so you are gaining an unfair advantage for a potential drawback.

But I don;t want to get too sidetracked. ANy other ideas? What about my proposed fix? Crap?

FBMF get in here! I am sure you have some ideas too.

Thanks,

TA

(Okay, I'm in here. Oh, that's not what you meant?! - fbmf)

[Oberoni]

I'm still not 100% sure that the tattoo is too good for 2K.

Yes, it's cool--but it doesn't rock my socks clear off. It's a little better than having Fast Healing 1.

But, I'll admit--I don't see a reason for any character not to have one of these tattoos.

So, I'm still rather undecided.

[fbmf]

FBMF get in here! I am sure you have some ideas too.

I'm not even going to pretend Item Creation is my forte. I usually do just what you're doing when I have a question of this nature.

That being said, this

Yes, it's cool--but it doesn't rock my socks clear off. It's a little better than having Fast Healing 1.

But, I'll admit--I don't see a reason for any character not to have one of these tattoos.

pretty much summed up my gut feeling when I was first reading the thread.

Game On,
fbmf

[Thoth_Amon]

Assuming it stopped at only 1 point, it is better than DR 1/- because it works against elemental and spell damage. I would pay 2000 for DR 1/- in a heartbeat. DR purchased via armor runs ~5k per point, but you have the advantage of having armor that is less likely to be damaged via spells, special attacks or sundering as a fringe benefit. You also cannot reduce this cost via crafting as armor that provides DR in the DMG is Adamantine and non-magical. If it stopped after healing 1 point per episode of damage, it would act as DR 1/- and autostabilize unconscious characters as a fringe benefit. I price it at 5k. I think allowing it at 2k is pretty decent.

As written this item does that and continues healing on top of it. Once the party equips with it you would never need to spend another silver piece on healing that was not required within a combat. That is quite a luxury. The savings on CLW wands would pay for these tattoos relatively quickly and then it is all gravy!

Moreover. If it were permitted, replace the Cure Minor Wounds with Cure Light Wounds in the equation. Since allowing one permits the second by extension. Now the cost is 4k and you are curing 2-9 points per round. (Nightmare!) Or Cure Moderate Wounds the cost jumps to 12,000 for 5-19 points per round. You think Trolls have it good.

I am just trying to look at it from all angles. Yes allowinfg a wizard who is HP deficient to have this ability might not be game breaking, but it does open a can of worms I am very leery of for the game in general. Do I have to give monsters (NPC minions) similar tattoos to compete? This creates non-portable treasure that the party cannot acquire. It extends combat and the mechanics of tracking it. Or I have to have the party facing higher level CR's to be challenging but not giving you fair market value for the XP gained as that is the equivalent CR to your powers.

I want the game to be fun for everyone. Will this impact that? Will it still be fun without it?

Thanks again for all the input everybody, it helps to firm things up to talk it out.

TA


EDIT It also makes Bleeding effects (3.0 wounding, bleeding weapons, and some rogue abilities completely worthless).

[Medesha]

As written this item does that and continues healing on top of it. Once the party equips with it you would never need to spend another silver piece on healing that was not required within a combat. That is quite a luxury. The savings on CLW wands would pay for these tattoos relatively quickly and then it is all gravy!

More or less. I have allowed this item in my game and I haven't found it to be unbalancing.

The idea of magical healing is rather a sacred cow in D&D. It's supposed to be hard to find, vital to survival, and ONLY clerics can do it (and maybe bards, but suckily. As bards do things). At first I had the same reservations you did about allowing it because I thought it would take some of the "tension" out of the game.

I found it did nothing of the sort. If anything, it made the game more fun. It is so standard in D&D to follow the same pattern - fight the monster, retreat, heal up, then go fight the next monster, retreat, heal up. When the cleric runs out of spells everyone troops out of the dungeon, makes a campsite, rests, etc.

The tattoo (or in my case, a vest), means the party can go until everyone needs to rest, not just the cleric. In my old games, the cleric would be "Well guys, I'm out of healing."

Wizard: "I still have lots of spells left."

Fighters: "You just healed us up."

Cleric: "Well, I have no more spells at all, so I won't be able to cast anything next combat or heal anyone if they get wounded."

Party: "Well...let's go camp then. It's only been 2 hours since the last time we camped, but I guess we can just hang around in the forest for 22 hours since the cleric has to wait until sunrise to pray for spells again."

The unlimited healing tattoo lets you heal up fully between combats. It doesn't work that way in combat because all it does is stabilize (which is also nice). After all, you want the party to stay alive. People dying is not fun. The threat of death should always be there, and we should know it can happen, but actually dying sucks.

All the unlimited healing does is allow the party to go further, longer, and takes the healing onus off of the healers so they can whoop more ass in battle. You could say "but then they'd never have to rest", but it's not true. Spellcasters will eventually run out of spells and be reduced to throwing rocks, and fighters can get poisoned, energy drained, or you can just rule that they have to rest 8 hours out of 24 or get fatigued. It's not unreasonable.

If it's just a matter of money, don't worry. Money is something that's totally within the DM's control. You can compensate by giving the party less money, making the stuff they want to buy hard to find, or whatever. Since DMs do that anyway, it's not like it's cheating.

Moreover. If it were permitted, replace the Cure Minor Wounds with Cure Light Wounds in the equation. Since allowing one permits the second by extension. Now the cost is 4k and you are curing 2-9 points per round. (Nightmare!) Or Cure Moderate Wounds the cost jumps to 12,000 for 5-19 points per round. You think Trolls have it good.

That is a concern. The only real solution is to tell the players right at the beginning, so that there is no confusion later, that you are treating the item as giving you "effective fast healing". Say that cure light would provide fast healing 2, cure mod would provide fast healing 3, and so on. To a maximum of 5.

I am just trying to look at it from all angles. Yes allowinfg a wizard who is HP deficient to have this ability might not be game breaking, but it does open a can of worms I am very leery of for the game in general. Do I have to give monsters (NPC minions) similar tattoos to compete? This creates non-portable treasure that the party cannot acquire. It extends combat and the mechanics of tracking it. Or I have to have the party facing higher level CR's to be challenging but not giving you fair market value for the XP gained as that is the equivalent CR to your powers.

I haven't found the need to adjust the monsters too much. If you keep it at 1-5 fast healing, it will not have a major in-combat effect. The monsters should not need much/any extra help to provide a challenge to the party.

I want the game to be fun for everyone. Will this impact that? Will it still be fun without it?

My games are just as fun, possibly more fun, with the item. I worry less about killing PCs accidentally, it allows us to get right to the action without trooping back to the forest to rest for 22 hours, and it gives clerics a little bit more leeway to smite things instead of being a band-aid. But you have to decide what is right for your own games.

[Thoth_Amon]

Well, that *is* a viable stance. If you don't feel that clerics are intended to be hobbled by their healing responsibilities and are compensated for it by being allowed to cast in armor, having 2 good saves, 3/4 BAB, turning, and combat magic to boot. Having to heal the party is actualy one of their only disadvantages. I know people hate the bandaid role, but clerics do kick serious ass. If they got to ignore healing...

Not that is matters in this game, we do not have a cleric. So it is not like he will profit as much as the mage (or the party in general) would anyway.

If it's just a matter of money, don't worry. Money is something that's totally within the DM's control. You can compensate by giving the party less money, making the stuff they want to buy hard to find, or whatever. Since DMs do that anyway, it's not like it's cheating.

Yes that is true, but this sounds like me putting a cast on a broken arm (A Rule 0 cast!) Shouldn't I prevent the break in the first place? Fast Healing may be OK as an item power I have no doubt about that, but at 2k I am really jittery. Fast Healing is a Feat now right? Isn't the estimated value of a feat in the 20k range (Ring of evasion or reverse engineering cloak of the Archmage) Frank might have been being generous suggesting 13-14k, but it seems more in line with the item effects. I think if you gave Fast Healing to a PC race it would almost mandate a +1 ECL and that comes pretty cheap at 2000 gp.

Your points are interesting though, and based in actual game experience which gives them more weight. What level where the characters in your game when they acquired this power? in the 4th level range or much later in their development?

Our last combat was something like 12 rounds. So this would have been *very* beneficial for anyone injured early.

I also actually like the dying rules in some ways. It is a race against time to see if you can stabilize your friend before he dies. It provides opportunities for characters to take 3 AoO's so they can race over and pour a potion of CLW into a dying companion in a heroic rescue. Auto-stabilization means that some monsters are going to grind the dying character into dog meat before moving on "just to be sure" rather than leaving them to "bleed out". I thought Krim helping Aurix before entering the fray was one of the highpoints of the night in terms of player actions.

No one has commented if the scaled back version for 2k was worth it or balanced, but if the full blown version seems balanced perhaps that explains why!!

Thanks everyone for your help as I try to figure this out.

TA

[Medesha]

In the game where I allowed this, the players started at 3rd level. They made the item at 4th level. Now they are 7th. I also allowed it in another game that went 5-25, but that was a solo game.

I understand your concerns, and ultimately you have to decide what's right for your games.

[Psifon]

I would never allow a continuously active, use activated healing item. Command word activated, sure, but not use activated.

Anyway, how do you "use" a tatoo?

[Psifon]

My games are just as fun, possibly more fun, with the item. I worry less about killing PCs accidentally, it allows us to get right to the action without trooping back to the forest to rest for 22 hours, and it gives clerics a little bit more leeway to smite things instead of being a band-aid. But you have to decide what is right for your own games.

But then, why don't all the bad guys also have cheep healing tatoos? And if they do (and they should), why does combat even matter? In fact, the only way to kill a foe at all becomes "save or die" spells, which have largely been nerfed in 3.5, and, of course poisons, but then you can have a use activated neutralize poison spell too.

This is just a bad idea all around.

True story:

One of my players decided to make a bunch of magic items, and he decided (without telling me) that all the stuff he made was "good" and in fact specific to the person that he made it for. This ment that not only was it cheeper, by like 30% but it also couldn't be used by anyone other than the player it was made for.

I informed him that MY interpretation of that clause of the item creation rules was that it only applied to things that had alignment or class abilities as part of their theme. That making a "good" +1 longsword that required 10 ranks in perform to use was arbitrary and therefore did not apply.

He of course argued that that was not RAW.

My response was simple, and settled the arguement:

"OK, Joe, if you want to agree that that is how magic item creation works, that's fine. But it hurts you WAY more than it helps you. Consider, now ALL my bad guys will have "evil only" items that are in fact specificly only usable by creatures of their race and class. Not only will you be alignment bound to destroy all the treasure, but you won't be able to use ANY of it, and NO ONE will want to buy it from you. Not only that, but my NPC's can now afford 30% more equipment (that is useless to you) to beat you up with."

The subject did not come up again.

Remember. YOU are the DM.

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

[Thoth_Amon]

The quote tags are hosed. YOu have me saying What Medesha said and her saying what I said and what you are saying.

Took me a second to get it.

In terms of how you use a tattoo, it is exactly like a Wonderous Item, except you can't loan it to a friend. Or take it off the corpse of an enemy.

Most Cloaks work all the time. Boots of haste for 10 rounds/day. The notionn of a trigger on the full blown use of the item is probably a misnomer, it acts as a continuous effect, but if you are at full HP you would not notice the effect it was having. Like having a necklace of Natural Armor when no one is attacking you.

I would never allow a continuously active, use activated healing item. Command word activated, sure, but not use activated.

Why not? Medesha has described why she allows it and its positive effects on her game. What concerns you?

Thanks,

TA

[Medesha]

But then, why don't all the bad guys also have cheep healing tatoos?

For the same reason they don't all have Belts of Giant Strength +6 and +5 unholy vorpal longswords. I try and make the baddies have appropriate treasure.

Unintelligent monsters obviously aren't going to have any. Low-intelligence, organized monsters (like goblins, say) might have one, but they are evil and suspicious creatures. The goblin leader would keep the item for himself, and not permit other members of the tribe to have them. Intelligent, organized baddies would almost certainly have one, as well they should. It makes sense for them.

And if they do (and they should), why does combat even matter? In fact, the only way to kill a foe at all becomes "save or die" spells, which have largely been nerfed in 3.5,

Of course it's not. Is the only way to kill a mephit with save or die spells? All you have to do to kill your enemy is bring him to -11. That's startlingly easy. A fireball can do it, a crit can do it, a CDG can do it. Even just two people getting in a hit on the same enemy when he's at low hp can do it. It doesn't require any special circumstances. It may prolong the battle on both sides, but I don't see a problem with that. Just makes it all the more dramatic. In essence, you're just getting 10 extra hit points, because you don't have to worry about stabilizing when you fall unconscious. You just have to worry about the CDG coming your way after you fall.

and, of course poisons, but then you can have a use activated neutralize poison spell too.

You can buy a ring of antivenom anyway. A use-activated neutralize poison spell would just, in essence, give you an extra standard action in the battle when you would otherwise be activating your ring. And you've already taken/not taken the initial damage. Don't really see the problem there either.

This is just a bad idea all around.

For your games, maybe. But it works in mine. As we've both pointed out, each DM has to tailor to his own game.

[Thoth_Amon]

For the same reason they don't all have Belts of Giant Strength +6 and +5 unholy vorpal longswords. I try and make the baddies have appropriate treasure.

Hold on there. This is a flawed argument. Issue 1, That sword is epic. It costs over 200k, the Belt of Giant Strength retails for 36k. *That* is the reason all the bad guys don't have them. But even lackeys frequently have +1 weapons. This item equates far more readily to that in terms of cost. I think that is Psifon's point there.

Unintelligent monsters obviously aren't going to have any. Low-intelligence, organized monsters (like goblins, say) might have one, but they are evil and suspicious creatures. The goblin leader would keep the item for himself, and not permit other members of the tribe to have them. Intelligent, organized baddies would almost certainly have one, as well they should. It makes sense for them.

I agree that Goblins and unintelligent mosters will not have them, but even average INT creatures who have a chunk of change might invest in said tattoo before a Ring of Protection +1.

I agree with your comments about defeating the items function. But I also agree with Psifon that it makes "Finishing the job" that much more imperative. In our games once a monster falls unconscious the party is ignoring them and vice versa. I like it that way. If it becomes common knowledge that you cannot leave a foe unconscious or he is auto-restored intelligent enemies are going to close the book before moving on.

Of course in a game where you can raise the dead this is hardly important, but I don't do that too much with my characters so I may have an atypical view.

TA

[Medesha]

Hold on there. This is a flawed argument. Issue 1, That sword is epic. It costs over 200k, the Belt of Giant Strength retails for 36k. *That* is the reason all the bad guys don't have them. But even lackeys frequently have +1 weapons. This item equates far more readily to that in terms of cost. I think that is Psifon's point there.

It's not flawed. My point was that all monsters don't have those items because they are not appropriate, not because they are epic.

You could easily substitue a low-powered treasure. Pretend I said, "For the same reason they don't all have phylacteries of faithfulness".

And you said "Issue 1" and then never listed anymore issues. But honestly, it sounds like you don't want the item in your game, and that's fine. It's your game. I think your proposed fix of healing 1 point of damage and then stopping is fine, or else just banning the item.

[Thoth_Amon]

Frequently they have +1 weapons as low powered treasure. Phlacteries are not appropriate, but magic that can heal them is. Many creatures have healing potions.

Issue 1 was EPic in the discussion. +5 Vorpral would serve as an example.

Issue two was the cost disparity in your examples vs 2k for the item in discussion. +1 resistance items are common and appropriate low powered treasure I am not sure why this would not be.

"it sounds like you don't want the item in your game"

Arguing a questionable analogy is not passing judgement. THis thread was a means to get some insight. It has been helpful. I am leaning toward allowing lesser version, but I don't restrict or ban things without reasons (And I hope good ones). DMs that bann things and don't explain why they are are lame-O's.

TA

[Medesha]

My analogies are perfect, you peon!!!

Um...anyway, I wasn't trying to imply you were a lame-O DM. You just seem to be struggling unnecessarily hard with this. If you're not sure, don't allow it. It's so much easier to give things out later than take back things you wish you hadn't given out in the first place.

[Psifon]

If a magic item heals you at a rate of 1 hp per round (or more like 1d8+1 !), without any intervention on your part, your DM is just asking for trouble. This is on the par with a continuously active, use activated sword of true strike. Yeah, the guidelines say this is a cheep and easy magic item, but it is ALL out of proportion to it's true power, and should not be allowed IMO.

Of course you will argue that it's only +1 HP per round, but if you can make this, then why not a cure critical wounds each round. The formula stays the same and the power of the item quickly becomes abusive for the cost.

[Thoth_Amon]

This argument was made (by a studly yours truly) earlier in the thread, and M countered that each curing spell level could act as another point of Fast Healing.

Minor = 1
Light = 2
Moderate = 3
Serious = 4
Critical = 5

TA

[Username17]

But since the entire argument for the item in question is based on a rather shaky derivation of the use activation rules - that sort of leaves you in bind with respect to items of greater cure spells (in that the argument for hasn't changed at all).

Really, I just suggest that you ask the players how the deal with enemies who have fast healing.

Then ask them how they feel about enemies responding to them the same way.

-Username17