At 03:09 PM 11/4/2016, Jeffrey Vandine wrote:
>Hmm. I can see the status of the magician in question figuring into
>the base price -- that makes absolute sense; when you hire the very
>best, you PAY for the very best. But I'm not sure I'd agree with
>factoring that in as a changing cost factor like this. It's almost
>like you're saying the guy's status goes up based on the magic item
>he has yet to create. Now AFTER he creates, I could see something
>like that applying ("Wow! You got Heironymous the Truly Active to
>create your +5 Magical periapt? Remember the job he did on that
>Ring of Wishes? Amazing!"), but BEFORE doing it? Not so sure I
>follow that logic.
>
>Not saying you're wrong, just saying it doesn't seem logical to
>me. But thanks for explaining it. That helped.
When we added magic item breakdown rules, the IQ of the creator was
the base reliability of the item, so it did matter who created it.
Even if it didn't, it would make some sense that it would cost more
for more competent creators (for the failure checks) and important
people (because their time is worth more because they could be doing
other things).
As for the underlying item costs going up by the rate of risk of
rolling 18, it seems pretty clear that's about an 18 destroying the
underlying item.
It seemed pretty clear to us too that these costs were the minimum
costs, and that actual prices would tend to be higher because a
Wizard's Guild that can create magic items would tend to have more
demand than it could supply, as well as many competing demands, needs
and interests for the attentions of powerful wizards, which get more
and more extreme the more powerful the person you're talking about.
As for using a Charm, I would tend to think that a Charm should not
apply to rolls that represent two entire weeks of work.
PvK