# Homemade items: Rules vs House Rules



## Deset Gled (Oct 12, 2004)

I recently noticed a thread that went back and forth between the Rules forum and the House Rules forum about pricing on a magic item someone created (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103527).  I was wondering what kind of discussion went on behind the scenes about where this type of post should go.

Personally, I'm of the oppinion that posts on this subject belong in House Rules.  The items themselves clearly are house rules, and the text that their creation is based on isn't rules either, it's merely a set of suggestions.

Edit:  I just found this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102564 ) which explains what went on a little bit better, but I still side with Pielorinho on this one.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 12, 2004)

Ah, but the specific question in both of those cases was about pricing. We've decided that since pricing is taking the rules as written and applying them to an item, those questions should be in rules. It's a little arbitrary, but should work out okay so long as we let people know. The previous problem is that the mods had never discussed it before, so we were each handling it differently.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 12, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We've decided that since pricing is taking the rules as written...




Or, for those who prefer, "the set of suggestions as written"... 

-Hyp.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 13, 2004)

Whay Hyp said.  Where's dcollins when you need him?

Furthermore, I think that using the justification that applying rules to a homebrew item makes it a rules question is just wrong.  There were rules published in Dragon about how to design a feat, but home made feats are obviously considered houserules.  Balance is a very important part of the rules, but when someone asks people to help balance a homebrew PrC, it's considered houserules.  I think that it you're asking questions about anything homemade, the thread belongs in houserules.

It's also worth noting that the Rules forum is generally a lot busier place than the House Rules forum.  It makes sense to me to move as much away from Rules as possible (given it doesn't directly involve a rules question), to even out traffic between the forums.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 14, 2004)

The thing is, the rules in the DMG are very clearly *guidelines*, just as surely as the rules on how to choose a spell's appropriate level are *guidelines*.  To me, this seems less in the "rules" category than a post on, say, whether a rogue with a rapier in his main hand and a wand of acid splash in his off-hand can flank a bugbear with the rapier, attack wtih the wand of acid splash, and sneak-attack his target.  

There's no hard-and-fast answer to what price a given new magic item should have; there are only guidelines that might help a DM settle on a price.

That's why I moved it.  

The opposing argument is that the guidelines for magic items are far more specific than the guidelines for new spells or new PrCs, and so they fit better in the rules forum than figuring out balance on new spells or new PrCs.  And I can see the merits of that argument, definitely.

Mostly I'm just happy to have them all in one place or another.

Daniel


----------



## Nail (Oct 14, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> The thing is, the rules in the DMG are very clearly *guidelines*, just as surely as the rules on how to choose a spell's appropriate level are *guidelines*.



...You're implication being that guidelines are not rules.

Okay, I can see why you might make that distinction.

But, honestly, I'm not sure that distinction is *useful*, especially with regard to pricing magic items.  These are more than just "general guidelines"; they are quite elaborate!  

So really, our argument boils down to: "When are guidlines considered rules?"  I'd say the magic item section qualifies.  It's length alone is a strong indicator.

There are specific rules for creating new magic items..._far more specific_ than other "guidelines" or "variants" listed in other areas.  The first rule is: compare to other listed items.  The second rule is: use these formulas to estimate price.  The third is: If it smells fishy, it's probably fish......or some such.  

Or, to throw another cliche out there: if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 14, 2004)

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and that's why we decided that such things would go in "Rules." Still, think of it this way: if I say in my game that magic missiles can strike chains and break them, I'm clearly going against the rules as written. If I say that a Turkey Giblet of Infinite Cure Minor Wounds costs 100,000 gp to create, I'm not clearly going against the rules as written. 

That's the difference I was making. However, it's back in rules now, so everything's hunkydory.

Edit:  here's the section of the item creation rules that made me think creation costs fell more neatly under house rules:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Not all items adhere to these formulas directly.* The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. *The formulas only provide a starting point.* The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and *other items require at least some judgment calls*.



These types of disclaimers don't pervade sections on, for example, Attacks of Opportunity, or targeting a spell, or the effects of fatigue and exhaustion.

Daniel


----------



## Nail (Oct 14, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> These types of disclaimers don't pervade sections on, for example, Attacks of Opportunity, or targeting a spell, or the effects of fatigue and exhaustion.



No complaints there!


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 14, 2004)

Truth is, we don't really care whether such questions end up in Rules or House Rules. . . we just want to be consistent.


----------



## Michael Morris (Oct 15, 2004)

Just want to interject that it is positional disputes on threads like this that make me really keen on getting my categories hack working - that way the same thread can "exist" in multiple catergories at the same time.  When that hack is up and running I'm sure the mods will look into reordering the forums, but in the meanwhile we'll make do with the current system.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 20, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Truth is, we don't really care whether such questions end up in Rules or House Rules. . . we just want to be consistent.




It's probably bst that it goes in Rules -- it gets so much less traffic these days, since the basic questions hve been addressed and the old debates have been hashed out....


----------



## Chacal (Oct 21, 2004)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Just want to interject that it is positional disputes on threads like this that make me really keen on getting my categories hack working - that way the same thread can "exist" in multiple catergories at the same time.  When that hack is up and running I'm sure the mods will look into reordering the forums, but in the meanwhile we'll make do with the current system.



Sounds very interesting (it could even bring back some of the low trafic forums in use) but I wonder if it will be possible to prevent abuses.

- by limiting the use to moderators ?
- by creating a limited set of combos ?

Good luck with this work !

Chacal


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 21, 2004)

Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to post a poll about this topic in the Rules (and/or House Rules) forum, and use that to decide where posts on this topic would go?  I don't know how much agreement there was on this subject on the private boards, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus here.  I think that opening the question up to the general public rather than a purely administrative decision would be a generally good thing (no offence to the mods).  At the same time, I don't think it's appropriate for me to go about posting such a poll if the decision has already been definatively made and the poll has no way of changing anything.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 26, 2004)

Please put item pricing in House Rules -- that's where it belongs. 


Here would be my main points in brief:

- Look at DMG ch. 1: "Changing the Rules: Additions to the Game". It says "As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and monsters!". All these things go under the same heading in the DMG, "Changing the Rules", what we normally call "House Rules".

- The item pricing table in DMG ch. 8 is not a set of rules, they are explicitly "guidelines". Look at the sidebar in that section. It says:



> The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item priced in this chapter and use its price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table 8-40: Calculating Magic Item Gold Piece Values... The formulas only provide a starting point.




Pricing new items is a very subjective creative process, and this is borne out in those discussion threads, that there are always a very wide range of suggestions without agreement.

- Similarly, there is a table in the DMG for "Maximum Damage for Arcane/Divine Spells" by level, yet we all agree that new damage spells should go in House Rules. I'm failing to see the distinction that puts new spells in House Rules, some new items (those with table guidelines) in D&D Rules, and other new items (with funky powers not on the table) in House Rules. By DMG ch. 1, these are all in the same category of "new stuff the DM gets to make up".

- Monte Cook (by all reports, author of that section) has clearly gone on record as saying that D&D magic item pricing is supposed to be a subjective process by the DM. For example (from http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly3.html#marketvalue ):



> Some days I look at Table 8-40 on page 242 of the DMG and wish it wasn't there at all. At these times, I wish the rule was simply, “Match your new item as closely as you can with an existing item, then give it a similar price.” That's really the ultimate pricing rule... At the very least, we should have called the table "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values" rather than "Calculating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."...
> 
> *Do not -- I repeat -- do not allow players to look at that table and see what they can make for X amount of gold... The most important thing to remember is, Table 8-40 doesn't determine prices. It suggests them.*





Here are my points more fully fleshed out in the past:
http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/dndfaq3.html
Thanks for the consideration of this here, I think it's worthwhile.


----------



## Len (Oct 26, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> - Look at DMG ch. 1: "Changing the Rules: Additions to the Game". It says "As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and monsters!". All these things go under the same heading in the DMG, "Changing the Rules", what we normally call "House Rules".



By your reasoning, all questions about vampires and lycanthropes should also be in House Rules, right? Because those are templates for creating new monsters, and new monsters are house rules.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 27, 2004)

No, a template is a rule with specific effects -- like a feat or a class level.

A _new_ template, with debate about what the CR adjustment should be, would go in House Rules. Even though WOTC published Williams' article "How to Create a New Monster" with tables of guidelines for CR.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 29, 2004)

Any other insights on this issue? Do these multiple statements that "The formulas only provide a starting point" in the book, and by the author, count for anything?


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 29, 2004)

Not in my opinion, Dan. The vast majority of the magic items in the DMG are clearly constructed using these guidelines, and the costing formulas are clearly laid out in item construction feats; that pretty much defines "rule" for me.


----------



## Len (Oct 29, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Any other insights on this issue? Do these multiple statements that "The formulas only provide a starting point" in the book, and by the author, count for anything?



There's lots of other stuff in the core books that is guidelines or starting points - formulas for calculating EL and awarding XP, and monster combat tactics are a couple of examples off the top of my head. I don't see why this one issue should be in House Rules, as opposed to everything else. If I have a question about how to apply a formula from the rulebooks, my instinct is to look for the answer in D&D Rules.


----------



## dcollins (Oct 29, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> ...the costing formulas are clearly laid out in item construction feats; that pretty much defines "rule" for me.




Eh? Perhaps you're talking about the potion/scroll/wand costs? I agree that those are laid out in the construction feats in the PHB, but those are an entirely different issue. Those really are fixed rules, and I agree belong in the Rules Forum. 

But recall that the DMG Magic chapter makes a categorical distinction between "potions/scrolls/wands" versus "all other items". Prices for honest-to-goodness "new items" are very subjective, not in the PHB, and explicitly marked "not a final judgement" in the very DMG itself. When Monte says "Do not -- I repeat -- do not allow players to look at that table...", he's trying to hammer home the fact that you cannot go to your DM and force him to honor those calculations.

PC, the thread you just posted about a "free teleport ring" is a prime example. There's no discussion of rules in that thread at all -- the discussion is entirely about your personal campaign, the particular cohort who'd like to have it, your level of desire as DM to give it to the players, and therefore how much they can afford. This is what almost all these threads look like. That's great and interesting, but a discussion that turns primarily on what the individual campaign looks like to generate a number isn't a "Rules" question.

Let me put a key question out there, also touched on by Monte. Consider the next time a player comes on the forum and says "Wow, I can buy a use-activated item of unlimited _cure light wounds_ for only 2,000 gp?". By the rules-as-written, is the answer to that "yes" or "no"?


----------

