Building a magic item creation system

[Kraven Kor]

I think Nusoard nailed most of the things to consider; I think the first step would be outlining the linkage between "Creating a Magic System" and "Creating a System for Creating Magic Items."  The latter should, by nature, follow from the former; if your Magic System is "Magic is a resource" or whatever, your item creation system should reflect that; how your magic system works should provide input into how creating magic items work.

[Christougher]

Yes, any item creation system is going to be influenced by the magic system behind it.  But you need a system before you can influence it.

 

It's probably smarter to presume the minimum amount of things; adding restrictive elements is probably easier than removing them.

 

Picking and choosing from some of NSGs questions, what exactly is required to enchant an item?

The item.  The enchantment.  Some time.  Some materials.  Some cost.

 

If the item is created just from components like most temporary or charged items, no problem.   With permanent items, is there a difference (or benefit gained) from enchanting an item as it is created?  For now, no difference - it's an optional rule that can be added later.

 

The enchantment spell has its own requirements and writeup, and those conditions still need to be fulfilled.  The Active Point cost of the spell is a useful (but possibly imperfect) tool to base process of enchantment mechanics on.  The Real Cost is a similar imperfect tool to prevent assembly line production of items.

 

The time required to enchant can be part of the enchantment itself, or other time and actions to "make everything right".  A suggested time for temporary/charged items is one day of uninterrupted work per 25 Active Points, with permanent items taking a week per 25 Active Points.  If interruptions are allowed, increase the time by one step down the time chart.

 

Distracted now, more later.

[Kraven Kor]

Eh, I'm thinking more "If you chose X for your Magic System, then it would imply Y to your Item Creation" type formatting.

 

In other words, I think if this is going to be written up in some fashion, it should flow directly from the already written guidelines on creating a magic system.

[Lucius]

A magic item creation system is part of a magic system.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary remembers Jim Morrison

[Christopher]

I think I should repeat it again:

The first step of every Item* Creation System is to give items a Complexity value. A Concrete formula, based on other rule-system values.

 

Examples:

D&D 3.0 Mundane Item Cracting rules (Player Handbook, p 65-66):

It is a System with Chance of failure. Failing the roll means no progress (that week or day). Failing by 5 (25% under Chance of Success) means half Raw material is lost.

"The  DC  depends  on  the difficulty  of  the  item  created.  The  DC,  your  check  results,  and  the price of the item determine how long it takes to make the item. The item’s  finished  price  also  determines  the  cost  of  raw  materials."

"To  determine  how  much  time  and  money  it  takes  to  make  an item:
1.  Find  the  item’s  price  in  Chapter  7:  Equipment  or  the DUNGEON MASTER’s  Guide,  or  have  the  DM  set  the  price  for  an  item  not listed. Put the price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
2. Find the DC listed here or have the DM set one.
3. Pay one-third the item’s price in rawmaterials.
4. Make a skill check representing one week’s work

If the check succeeds, multiply the check result by the DC. If the result  x  the  DC  equals  the  price  of  the  item  in  sp,  then  you  have completed  the  item.[...] If the result x the DC doesn’t equal the price, then it represents progress you’ve made this week. Record the result and make a check for the next week. Each week  you  make  more  progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces."

The "DC" is what I call Complexity for this system:

It's 10+AC for armor.

Ranged and Melee Weapons have a fixed DC based on their category (specific Bow/Crossbow "Class" and Simple/Martial/Exotic)

Might Longbows (allow to add STR bonus to damage) have the normal 15 + (2x STR bonus)

 

This system is a bit odd, as the Price of the final item and the time to craft are not based on the Complexity. Instead List Price/Complexity² approximates the time, List Price/3 defines material cost. List Price/5 defines Repair cost. It still allows for exceptional skill to make more progress per time.

 

It's possible to give a "default time" and "mimium difficulty" of sorts, by using the "take 10" rule. As long as there is no physical danger you can ignore the need to make a Roll and just asume you rolled 10. So minimum difficulty and time can be calculated based on "what skill level do you need to succeed using 'take 10' rule and how many weeks would you need using 'take 10'.

Example: A Battle Axe (Martial Melee Weapon, 100 SP, 15 Crafting DC) would take a Skill level of at least 5 to craft using "take 10" (it's also not advisable to try it with less Skill while rolling, the chance of failure goes up too much). Asuming take 10 you would have a progress of 15(DC)x15(Skill Roll with take 10) per week (or 225 SP worth of Progress), meaning it takes slightly less then half a week of Work Time to finish the axe.

 

 

D&D 3.0 Magic creation System (Dungeon Masters Guide):

It has no chance of failure (baring being prevented from continuing the work).

It requires a special ability (feat) for each class of item

Complexity is usually based on:

Caster Level of the Creator and Spell Level of the Spell (to save time and money, usually you create it on the minimum possible caster level).

For items that Provide a flat bonus it is usually Bonus Squared.

Cost is List Price/2 and List Price/25 in XP. But the List Price is actually based on the Complexity of the item, hence the production price and XP cost are also based on Complexity of the item.**

 

Example (ignoring the price for the Masterwork weapon):

+3 sword (+3 to attack and damage roll, no special abilities) has a complexity of bonus squared (3² = 9).

It's raw material cost is Complexity times 1000 (with a list price of Complexity times 2000)

It's XP cost is Complexity times 80

Crafting time is Complexity times 2 Days of Work.

Minimum Caster Level (and thus the "minimum Skill Level") is (Square Root of Complexity) times 3.

 

The only thing not entirely based on complexity is the Minimum Caster level, as they tried to keep it below 20 even for Weapons with +10 Effective Enhancement. This is an based entirely on mistakes in thier approach to base Caster Level for Weapons on Complexity/Balance magic item creation with the Level Progression.

 

 

*I choose generic item, not magic item. Because any rule that applies to a Generic Item creation system would apply to a Magic Item system.

 

**Exception here are many of the wonderous Items/pre written items. Unlike HERO, D&D cannot map every effect perfectly to a existing Rules construct (as the only rule Construct it can fall back upon are the Spells). Hence they had to give some items with fixed prices and level requirements. Still thanks to the Level requirement they have a complexity value of sorts. HERO lacks this flaw.

[Chris Goodwin]

We already have a way of tracking complexity of spells, that being Active Points divided by 10. It occurs to me that we have a way of building Extra Time into this, namely taking more time to increase Skill Roll bonus. Whatever method is used should be based on the total Active Points of the item.

[BlueCloud2k2]

Maybe simplify it with an Intelligence-based "Magical Item Smithing" skill with a -1 per 20 AP of the item being created. Use the Weaponsmith skill, and then determine how much you want stuff to cost.

[Christopher]

We already have a way of tracking complexity of spells, that being Active Points divided by 10. It occurs to me that we have a way of building Extra Time into this, namely taking more time to increase Skill Roll bonus. Whatever method is used should be based on the total Active Points of the item.

Neither Active Points nor Real Points fully give the complexity credit.

 

A single use spell, that might even require apropirate caster abilities (D&D style Magic Scrolls) should be cheaper/easier then the same spell on a Unlimited Charges staff that can be used by anyone.

A single use Anti-tank weapon should be cheaper/easier then a reuseable antitank gun with same damage power.

Here where only looking at the AP for complexity would fail.

 

On the other hand especially in heroic games stuff is often overloaded with Limitations. Here would only looking at the Real Points would fail.

 

 

The average between Active Points and Real Points is the best idea I have as basis for complexity.

[BlueCloud2k2]

Maybe calculate the % difference between AP and RC, and then slide the skill roll appropriately.
 
So -1 per 20 AP, and an additional penalty depending upon the percentage of RC vs AP. Maybe for every 10% after 30% an additional -1 penalty (rounded up)?
 
% of AP (Penalty)
30% and Under (-0)
31%-40% (-1)
41%-50% (-2)
51-60% (-3)
61-70% (-4)
71-80% (-5)


So a magical amulet with an AP of 60 but -3 disadvantages (RC is 25% of AP) would have a skill check penalty of -3 total (the first 25% is free)

While a Magical Sword with and AP of 45 and only -2 in disads (RC is 33% of AP) would have a -3 penalty (-2 for the AP cost and -1 for being over the first 25%

 

And a magic ring with an AP of 60 and only an IIF (-1/4) would have an RC of 48 (80% of the AP) would have a crafting penalty of -8 (-3 for the AP, -5 for having an RC of only 80%)

[Kraven Kor]

Maybe calculate the % difference between AP and RC, and then slide the skill roll appropriately.

 

So -1 per 20 AP, and an additional penalty depending upon the percentage of RC vs AP. Maybe for every 10% after 30% an additional -1 penalty (rounded up)?

 

% of AP (Penalty)

30% and Under (-0)

31%-40% (-1)

41%-50% (-2)

51-60% (-3)

61-70% (-4)

71-80% (-5)

 

 

So a magical amulet with an AP of 60 but -3 disadvantages (RC is 25% of AP) would have a skill check penalty of -3 total (the first 25% is free)

 

While a Magical Sword with and AP of 45 and only -2 in disads (RC is 33% of AP) would have a -3 penalty (-2 for the AP cost and -1 for being over the first 25%

 

And a magic ring with an AP of 60 and only an IIF (-1/4) would have an RC of 48 (80% of the AP) would have a crafting penalty of -8 (-3 for the AP, -5 for having an RC of only 80%)

 

My work-in-progress system takes that into account:

 

 

First, I base everything off of Active Points vs. Real Points so far as figuring out the Time to Build, Skill Roll, and Monetary Costs.

• Monetary Cost = (Total Active Points of all Powers) * (Total Limitations + 1) * 5 GP
• Time to Build (in total Man-Hours) = (Total Active Points of all Powers) * (Total Limitations + 1) 
• Skill Roll Penalty = (Total Active Points / 10) + (Total Limitations + 1)

Basically, all costs and time to build and skill roll penalties are determined by AP vs. RP calculation.  Now, I could be missing some glaring problem there, naturally.

[Markdoc]

I think I should repeat it again:

The first step of every Item* Creation System is to give items a Complexity value.

One of the commonest failures in game design is to take some of the designer's assumptions/preferences as absolutes and then code them into the system.

 

It's not that there's anything wrong with coding preferences into the system: that's one way to give "flavor" to the system. But you need to be clear that that is what you are doing, otherwise you risk ending up with all sorts of unclearly stated assumptions, which may or may not play nicely with other parts of the game system.

 

So no, you don't need to generate a complexity value to have a magic item creation system. It's one approach, true, and in principle, I don't see anything wrong with it, if it gives the flavor you want. But the complexity system outlined, for example, seems like a lot of additional work, and extra rules, for little to no apparent benefit. It might make more sense to me, if you explained the sort of "feel" you intended it to provide.

 

As an example, to choose two simple systems I have used in the past:

 

Raw power: the caster creates the magic item by simply infusing some object with some of his own mystic energy. For example, in "A Wizard of Earthsea", Ged creates a wizard's staff, simply by pulling up a blade of grass and willing it to be a wizard's staff. There's no crafting, no gold cost, no complexity, no great investment of time ... just willpower and raw power.

Mechanic: This works well with a magic system using a VPP. The caster simply channels some of his power through a focus to create magic items. As long as the points from the VPP are assigned to the item, it's magical, and if he chooses to make it UBO, anyone can use it. The GM can decide that if the character dies, the item is still viable - which means it is well suited to games with lots of magic items, from trivial utility items to things that archmages created with the entitreity of their VPPs, when in their fading years. As an alternative, the GM can allow the custom -2 limitation "independant" which means the wizard actually has to have his hands on the item to reintegrate those points into his VPP: if he loses the item, those points are gone, and the item becomes an independant magic item that anyone can use.

Pros: simple, easy, flexible, very specific flavor

Cons: works best with VPPs, very specific flavor

 

Item crafting: magic items are carefully crafted using all manner of strange arcane ingredients, an exacting process that requires money and specialist tools, and possibly specialist skills or powers. This is how D&D 3.5/3.75 does it.

Mechanic: you need some way of calculating the cost of the item, since it is cost, not Xp that is the controlling mechanic for creating items. Cost can be simple gold, or it might require the acquisition of strange materials (ie: time and danger, not money). You may also want to require that the creator(s) has/have the skill to physically make the item - whitesmithing to make armor, woodcarving to make a staff, etc, and you might also want a specific item creation skill (an "Xp tax" on item creation). You'll need to decide how you want to define how long the process takes. Here you could choose to generate some sort of complexity number, or you could just riff off how long the physical item takes - if it takes a half hour (say) to carefully scribe a magic scroll then any scroll takes half an hour, regardless of content. In that case, it'd take longer to carve and craft a wand than write a scroll, and longer still to craft a suit of magical armour: it's the physical medium that counts, not the content.

 

What design decisions you make here will affect your "look and feel". Are there magic stores where you can just go and buy a tail feather from a phoenix? Or do you need to personally travel (or hire someone to physically travel) to the fabeled desert known as the Anvil of the Sun, to steal one? In the first case, most adventurers will have multiple magic items, and you can expect them to make their own since items are usually better than money. In the second case, not so much.

Pros: Familiar to people from D&D, not tied to any specific style of magic

Cons: requires a lot of design decisions, which may have unexpected consequences down the line for the game.

 

Regardless of the system you choose, you also need to decide how you want to handle mechanical issues, such as item stacking: how many magic items can a person acquire/use at once, and how they interact with his own powers - does magical armour stack with defensive spells, for example?

 

As I noted in another recent post, think first about the feel you want, then build mechanics to fit. It's a lot easier than starting out with mechanics and then trying to assemble a coherent system from that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

One of the commonest failures in game design is to take some of the designer's assumptions/preferences as absolutes and then code them into the system.

 

It's not that there's anything wrong with coding preferences into the system: that's one way to give "flavor" to the system. But you need to be clear that that is what you are doing, otherwise you risk ending up with all sorts of unclearly stated assumptions, which may or may not play nicely with other parts of the game system.

 

So no, you don't need to generate a complexity value to have a magic item creation system. It's one approach, true, and in principle, I don't see anything wrong with it, if it gives the flavor you want. But the complexity system outlined, for example, seems like a lot of additional work, and extra rules, for little to no apparent benefit. It might make more sense to me, if you explained the sort of "feel" you intended it to provide.

You seem to misunderstand something. Complexity is NOT a Flavor thing. It's the absolute oposite of one. It's a rule value that is in no way tied to any special effect. Heck, I took the Idea from a Generic Item creation System. Then prooved that it is used (indirectly) in Several Non-Generic ones.

 

As an example, to choose two simple systems I have used in the past:

 

Raw power: the caster creates the magic item by simply infusing some object with some of his own mystic energy. For example, in "A Wizard of Earthsea", Ged creates a wizard's staff, simply by pulling up a blade of grass and willing it to be a wizard's staff. There's no crafting, no gold cost, no complexity, no great investment of time ... just willpower and raw power.

Mechanic: This works well with a magic system using a VPP. The caster simply channels some of his power through a focus to create magic items. As long as the points from the VPP are assigned to the item, it's magical, and if he chooses to make it UBO, anyone can use it. The GM can decide that if the character dies, the item is still viable - which means it is well suited to games with lots of magic items, from trivial utility items to things that archmages created with the entitreity of their VPPs, when in their fading years. As an alternative, the GM can allow the custom -2 limitation "independant" which means the wizard actually has to have his hands on the item to reintegrate those points into his VPP: if he loses the item, those points are gone, and the item becomes an independant magic item that anyone can use.

Pros: simple, easy, flexible, very specific flavor

Cons: works best with VPPs, very specific flavor

First off, this systems does not seem to follow what was aksed for in the OP. Even if you would allow Independant, wich is Icredibly Cheesy and Removed from 6E.

Second: How are the Control Cost and Pool of the VPP not a Complexity Value? They clearly define the highest AP and RP a Power can be worth. With the AP also defining the Skill Roll penalty.

 

Item crafting: magic items are carefully crafted using all manner of strange arcane ingredients, an exacting process that requires money and specialist tools, and possibly specialist skills or powers. This is how D&D 3.5/3.75 does it.

Mechanic: you need some way of calculating the cost of the item, since it is cost, not Xp that is the controlling mechanic for creating items. Cost can be simple gold, or it might require the acquisition of strange materials (ie: time and danger, not money). You may also want to require that the creator(s) has/have the skill to physically make the item - whitesmithing to make armor, woodcarving to make a staff, etc, and you might also want a specific item creation skill (an "Xp tax" on item creation). You'll need to decide how you want to define how long the process takes. Here you could choose to generate some sort of complexity number, or you could just riff off how long the physical item takes - if it takes a half hour (say) to carefully scribe a magic scroll then any scroll takes half an hour, regardless of content. In that case, it'd take longer to carve and craft a wand than write a scroll, and longer still to craft a suit of magical armour: it's the physical medium that counts, not the content.

 

What design decisions you make here will affect your "look and feel". Are there magic stores where you can just go and buy a tail feather from a phoenix? Or do you need to personally travel (or hire someone to physically travel) to the fabeled desert known as the Anvil of the Sun, to steal one? In the first case, most adventurers will have multiple magic items, and you can expect them to make their own since items are usually better than money. In the second case, not so much.

Pros: Familiar to people from D&D, not tied to any specific style of magic

Cons: requires a lot of design decisions, which may have unexpected consequences down the line for the game.

So in other words: The Compelxity value used for crating the Item is used as Compelxity value for Item Enhancement.

No mater how much you try to hide from the fact that you have a complexity value, you still have one. Otherwise you have nothing to base your Rule Calcualtions on.

 

 

Once you accept that any Item Creation Rule System out there has a way to Calcualte Complexity (no mater how they name it), you can accept that figuring out a Value for Complexity is the first step of the Item Creation Process - regardless of System and Fluff.

[Markdoc]

Once you accept that any Item Creation Rule System out there has a way to Calcualte Complexity (no mater how they name it), you can accept that figuring out a Value for Complexity is the first step of the Item Creation Process - regardless of System and Fluff.

OK. Real cost. Bing! Done.

 

Is that what you meant?

 

Cheers, Mark

[Kraven Kor]

OK. Real cost. Bing! Done.

 

Is that what you meant?

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Kind of my take too.

 

The ratio of Active to Real Cost is the indicator of complexity.  A single use item is going to cost, overall, less Real Points in relation to the Active Points due to having a lot more / higher value limitations on it.  The Staff of Ungodly Magic has a far lower total limitation value due to not being as restricted.

 

So, Real Cost vs. Active Cost can be a good indicator / guideline for that complexity factor.

 

Again, what I have works for me; and unless I'm missing something a similar calculation could work here.  And all within the already-written rules and math of HERO.

[Markdoc]

Kind of my take too.

The ratio of Active to Real Cost is the indicator of complexity. A single use item is going to cost, overall, less Real Points in relation to the Active Points due to having a lot more / higher value limitations on it. The Staff of Ungodly Magic has a far lower total limitation value due to not being as restricted.

 

So, Real Cost vs. Active Cost can be a good indicator / guideline for that complexity factor.

 

Again, what I have works for me; and unless I'm missing something a similar calculation could work here. And all within the already-written rules and math of HERO.

Sure, assuming you actually WANT a complexity factor. I'm still not seeing why you (generic you) would, which is why I suggested talking about your magic system's look and feel first. Once you've worked that out, you'll know if you need a complexity system and have some pointers on how it needs to be built.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Kraven Kor]

Sure, assuming you actually WANT a complexity factor. I'm still not seeing why you (generic you) would, which is why I suggested talking about your magic system's look and feel first. Once you've worked that out, you'll know if you need a complexity system and have some pointers on how it needs to be built.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Yeah, I don't want a "complexity" factor so much as a HERO-friendly way to calculate construction time and materials cost and such.

 

Was merely saying that the formula I use, or one along the same lines tweaked to fit desired costs and look and feel and such, could be the basis for such a "complexity factor."

[L. Marcus]

Active Points plus Real Points equal number of days needed to complete, kind of thing.

[Markdoc]

I use a really simple system: For crafting permanent magic items, it takes as much time to make, as it would take to make the actual item. Magic is worked into it as the item is crafted., and thus the item actually has to be made by the mage. Active points simply don't figure into it. I figure it's easier to write a scroll - be it never so powerful - than make a flying castle: even if the castle has fewer active points.

 

cheers,Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

I use a really simple system: For crafting permanent magic items, it takes as much time to make, as it would take to make the actual item. Magic is worked into it as the item is crafted., and thus the item actually has to be made by the mage. Active points simply don't figure into it. I figure it's easier to write a scroll - be it never so powerful - than make a flying castle: even if the castle has fewer active points.

cheers,Mark

Could the item be a joint project between a crafter and the enchanting mage, as long as the mage was present for the entire crafting process?

[Markdoc]

Could the item be a joint project between a crafter and the enchanting mage, as long as the mage was present for the entire crafting process?

Sure - just as a master whitesmith might have a couple of journeymen and several apprentices to make a suit of armour, the mage could work with a whitesmith and his apprentice. But he'd design the suit and (for example) take a rerebrace crafted to his precise design and cut the runes for a strength spell into it ...

 

He doesn't have to do everything with his own hands, but he has to guide every step of the process.

 

cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Sure - just as a master whitesmith might have a couple of journeymen and several apprentices to make a suit of armour, the mage could work with a whitesmith and his apprentice. But he'd design the suit and (for example) take a rerebrace crafted to his precise design and cut the runes for a strength spell into it ...

He doesn't have to do everything with his own hands, but he has to guide every step of the process.

cheers, Mark

That's pretty much how i do it. already crafted items can be given temporary enchantments, but those tend to be less powerful and easily removed (a simple dispel will do it). to have a truly magical item where the enchantment is permanent and extremely difficult to remove shy of breaking the object, then that object needs to be enchanted during the crafting process making the enchantment an inherent part of the objects design.

 

I often have mages work with master craftsmen to create their desired works. although there are mages who ARE master craftsman, but that's because they've decided to specialize in item enchantment to the exclusion of some of the mages more versatile capabilities.

[Christougher]

That's pretty much how i do it. already crafted items can be given temporary enchantments, but those tend to be less powerful and easily removed (a simple dispel will do it). to have a truly magical item where the enchantment is permanent and extremely difficult to remove shy of breaking the object, then that object needs to be enchanted during the crafting process making the enchantment an inherent part of the objects design.

 

I had this thought earlier in the thread but no idea how to make this distinction.  How would you show or do this with game mechanics?  Add in a Difficult to Dispel advantage?

 

Chris.

[Kraven Kor]

I had this thought earlier in the thread but no idea how to make this distinction.  How would you show or do this with game mechanics?  Add in a Difficult to Dispel advantage?

 

Chris.

 

That is one way.

 

If you think about it, a "temporary" enchantment is going to "require a focus" or be linked to the focus; you could thus dispel the effect, or break the focus.

 

A "permanent enchantment" is the focus; you can't (or, perhaps, "shouldn't be able to") dispel a magic sword because it is not an "effect;" it is an item.  Of course this kind of brings in "how does dispel magic work in your magic system?"  

 

So dispelling an enchantment placed on an ordinary sword will end the effect; dispel on an "enchanted sword" would suppress the effect?  If I'm understanding dispel correctly?

[NuSoardGraphite]

I had this thought earlier in the thread but no idea how to make this distinction.  How would you show or do this with game mechanics?  Add in a Difficult to Dispel advantage?

 

Chris.

I would use the inherent advantage. that makes it immune to dispelling. however the item could still be broken and thus the enchantment destroyed. making a magic item unbreakable doesnt really have a mechanic ouside of just declaring a focus breakable or unbreakable. i would make that a major multiplier to the cost of making the item.

 

Difficult to dispel could be used on temporarily enchanted objects to make them harder to dispel of course, but should be somewhat rare, i think depending on ho effective you want dispel to be in your game.

[NuSoardGraphite]

That is one way.

 

If you think about it, a "temporary" enchantment is going to "require a focus" or be linked to the focus; you could thus dispel the effect, or break the focus.

 

A "permanent enchantment" is the focus; you can't (or, perhaps, "shouldn't be able to") dispel a magic sword because it is not an "effect;" it is an item.  Of course this kind of brings in "how does dispel magic work in your magic system?"  

 

So dispelling an enchantment placed on an ordinary sword will end the effect; dispel on an "enchanted sword" would suppress the effect?  If I'm understanding dispel correctly?

I'm pretty sure that "dispel magic" on an enchantment placed on a sword would simply remove the enchantment, returning it to being an ordinary sword.

 

"Dispel magic" cast on a magic sword....one forged to be magical from its inception would destroy the sword itself.