I've got a question due to another recent FAQ addition. In June, it was clarified that a character must attack with a defending weapon in any turn the ability is used. Now, the meteor hammer is kind of unique as far as weapons go; weapons aren't usually designed to be employed defensively, and with that in mind the ruling makes sense. However, in fortress style one end of the item is intended to be utilized in a defensive manner.
If I enchanted one end of my hammer with the defending weapon property, and used it defensively when in fortress style, would you allow me to utilize the property's effect?
Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the weapon's enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the bonus to AC lasts until his next turn.
Since the meteor hammer is actually a dual weapon and therefore consists of two separate weapons that can be independently enchanted, you would only be able to activate the defending property if you were attacking with the end containing that enchantment (and reduced its enchantment modifier to add to your AC). As per the FAQ ruling, you cannot use this ability to extract the attack bonus for a defense bonus if you are not attacking with it.
As an example, let's assume you enchanted one end with +2 Defending and the other end with +1 Shocking. In Meteor Storm style, both ends of the weapon are used to attack. You could reduce the attack for the defending end by 2 to increase your AC by 2. The shocking end would still attack at full attack bonus for that end and would apply the 1d6 electrical damage if it hits. In Fortress Style, you would need to specify which end you at attacking with. If you attack with the defending end, you could reduce your attack bonus by 2 to gain an increase to your AC by 2 that would stack with the +1 for the fortress style. This stacks since that bonus is coming from the shocking end that is being used in a defensive posture. You would not gain any damage bonus from the shocking end. Or you could specify that you are attacking with the shocking end. In this case you would not be able to increase your AC by reducing your attack since you are not attacking with the defending end, but if you hit you would get your 1d6 electrical damage from the shocking end.
But this leaves me with my own question related to the defending weapon property. It states that you reduce the enhancement bonus. If a +2 weapon with defending and you reduce it by 1, this makes sense. But if you reduce it by 2, do you still get the +1 masterwork bonus? And if so, does it just become a non-magical weapon for purposes of damage reduction since you no longer have any magical enhancement? Or do you also lose that +1 masterwork bonus when you drop the full enhancement and it is still a magical weapon? If you keep the masterwork bonus plus it is still a magical weapon for DR, then there is never a reason to not reduce it and take the AC bonus on a +1 defending weapon. I've never seen a defending weapon used, so I'm not familiar with this. A cursory check of the message boards didn't reveal anything.
I understand that's how the FAQ ruling works; I was asking for a house-ruling in this instance. Using the hammer in fortress style is similar to using a one-handed weapon and shield. One can enchant a shield with the defending weapon property, and make use of it when making bash attacks.
That said, the meteor hammer is a dual-purpose item, designed for both offensive and defensive uses. Other dual-purpose items can be dual-enchanted: the FAQ notes that you can't benefit from a shield's defending property when using it defensively, but shields can bear both armor and weapon enchantments simultaneously. When used defensively, the shield's armor enchantments function, but when used offensively its weapon enchantments do. However, I can't enchant my hammer as armor; fortress style ends up being standard sword and board, except that I'm stuck with a basic small shield that can never be improved or replaced.
I've been building my character to utilize fortress style as a defensive, pseudo-tank stance, but with this general ruling that's no longer an option. Combined with the impact the previously mentioned FAQ entry has had on meteor-storm style, I'm suddenly looking at a combat-focused character that has invested two feats in a clunky weapon that will require a massive amount of gold and enchantment time to make viable, niether of which we have at the moment.
But this leaves me with my own question related to the defending weapon property. It states that you reduce the enhancement bonus. If a +2 weapon with defending and you reduce it by 1, this makes sense. But if you reduce it by 2, do you still get the +1 masterwork bonus?
It should retain the masterwork bonus; a magic weapon is a masterwork weapon, and enchanting it doesn't eliminate that bonus. It's just that the bonus doesn't usually apply, because it doesn't stack with the weapon's enhancement bonus.
And if so, does it just become a non-magical weapon for purposes of damage reduction since you no longer have any magical enhancement?
All the discussions I've read on the subject pretty much agree it is treated as a non-magical weapon; for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, you would use the enhancement bonus that remains after the defending property was activated.
I'll stick my tuppence worth in here and say that at my table..you'd be allowed to use the defending end of the weapon in Fortress style otherwise the style itself makes no sense.
Also a magical +1 overrides the +1 from Masterwork(which I aways found strange)
I think this weapon needs an FAQ all to itself
I understand that's how the FAQ ruling works; I was asking for a house-ruling in this instance. Using the hammer in fortress style is similar to using a one-handed weapon and shield. One can enchant a shield with the defending weapon property, and make use of it when making bash attacks.
If you enhance one end with Defending and use that end to attack with in fortress style, you can activate the Defending ability and gain bonuses to your AC in addition to the +1 for fortress style.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you are wanting to do. Are you wanting to enhance one end with defending and the other end with an offensive enhancement, then attack with the offense end activating its ability plus reduce its attack to also activate the defending ability at the same time. That would work if the same end had both enhancements.
In your example with a shield, you'd only get the defending ability of the shield if you also attacked with the shield by doing a shield bash to counter the loss of not having the shield in your AC. Moving that to the fortress style meteor hammer, you are not attacking with the shield end and therefore wouldn't be able to use the defending ability. If you attacked with the shield end, then you are in meteor style and it works as intended.
Or are you arguing that by using the hammer in fortress-style, the style requires both ends to be used together in a certain way to perform a single attack with a 10 foot reach. Therefore, both ends are attacking together to form a single attack. And because of this, both abilities could be activated together, thereby allowing the attack to be reduced to increase the AC, even if the end with defending is not the end that flew out 10 feet to hit the opponent. I'll allow this argument only for defending as flaming, shocking, etc requires the end that contacts the opponent to have the offensive enhancement on it.
All the discussions I've read on the subject pretty much agree it is treated as a non-magical weapon; for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction, you would use the enhancement bonus that remains after the defending property was activated.
This is the way I would have leaned if I had to rule it. It makes the most sense given the rules.
My request is simpler than all that.
I want to enchant one end of my hammer with the defending weapon property. That end of my weapon would always be the defensive end when I utilize fortress style.
Per the FAQ, I would not be able to utilize the defending property in this instance, as the defensive end of my weapon is not used as part of an attack. However, since this is an intended use of the weapon, I'm asking if you to allow me to use the property in such circumstances anyway.
In your example with a shield, you'd only get the defending ability of the shield if you also attacked with the shield by doing a shield bash to counter the loss of not having the shield in your AC. Moving that to the fortress style meteor hammer, you are not attacking with the shield end and therefore wouldn't be able to use the defending ability. If you attacked with the shield end, then you are in meteor style and it works as intended.
Yes, but when a shield is not used for a shield bash, it still functions fully as armor; it provides its full shield bonus, plus any armor enhancements it may be enchanted with. When this same situation is applies to fortress style, I get a +1 shield bonus, but there is no way to increase this. A meteor hammer cannot be enchanted with armor enhancements; it is equivalent to being a sword-and-board fighter, but only having a basic small shield and never being able to replace it with anything better. In the upper levels, that shield is going to have little effect, and the fighter isn't going to be able to do his job effectively.
So what you are looking for is a new defensive enchantment outside of what the current Defensive weapon enchantment provides. In other words, you want to apply an armor/shield enchantment to one end of your weapon that only takes effect when you are in Fortress-Style with the weapon.
I'll go with that. I'll give you the ability to apply shield enchantments to one end of the meteor hammer. But if you also want to apply weapon enchantments to this end as well, just figure out the difference in cost for the cheapest combination (since armor/shield bonuses are half the cost). So a +2 Weapon/+2 Shield (Total +4) on one end would cost 8,000 (+2 weapon) + (16,000-4,000) (+4 armor - +2 armor) = 8,000 + 12,000 = 20,000. Though I'm assuming you'll just do a shield enchantment on one end and a weapon enchantment on the other.
That's not quite what I was looking for; this method means I have to essentially focus one one combat style, and abandon the second. I would need shield enhancements for fortress style as well as weapon enhancements for meteor storm style. Not only can I not afford to do this equally, the +10 limit per item becomes an issue. By level 12, it is feasible to have a total +8 enhancement bonus on an item. Per the method you outlined, I would have to pay the equivalent of a +16 armor in order to remain at peak effectiveness. Even coming short of peak, I'm going to hit that +10 cost quickly, a cost that there's no way for me to pay.
The entire appeal of the meteor hammer is its versatility, and that's how I've been building my character. I don't want to place defensive enchantments on the item. I just want to be able to use the defending property of one end when it provides a shield bonus in fortress style.
Let me try to illustrate. Imagine that I currently had a +3 defending/+3 flaming meteor hammer. In meteor storm style, this would give me two attacks:
If I put all of my defending end's enhancement bonus into AC, and continued to use meteor storm style, I would end up with the following:
These situations are not in question. That's how the abilities function in normal circumstances. However, if I were to use the same situation in fortress style, I would get the following break down:
Fortress style is a defensive stance. I only get one attack, with a slightly better bonus, reach, and the ability to trip my opponents. That makes sense. However, for the cost of loosing an entire attack roll that round, and even more once I progress further down the two-weapon fighting feat chain, I only receive a 1-point boost to my AC. In this case, fortress style is a less-effective defensive stance than meteor storm style; as I demonstrated in the example, I could boost my AC to 28 without loosing that second attack.
Now, if I could activate the defensive weapon property of end of my weapon in fortress style, it becomes a more effective wall stance:
Now I lose any excess attacks I might have, currently only from Two Weapon Fighting, but at later levels from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as well (if we get that high in level). In exchange, I gain a slight boost to any attack(s) with the purely offensive end of my weapon, and the best AC possible in any scenario. In this case, fortress style becomes a useful defensive tactic, boosting my AC while keeping any foes off-balance and some distance away. This is what I'm asking you to allow me to do: use the defending property while in fortress style normally, even though I don't attack with it in that round. I hope that makes things a little clearer.
I'll go back to what I stated two posts ago, which almost matches what you are looking for:
Or are you arguing that by using the hammer in fortress-style, the style requires both ends to be used together in a certain way to perform a single attack with a 10 foot reach. Therefore, both ends are attacking together to form a single attack. And because of this, both abilities could be activated together, thereby allowing the attack to be reduced to increase the AC, even if the end with defending is not the end that flew out 10 feet to hit the opponent. I'll allow this argument only for defending as flaming, shocking, etc requires the end that contacts the opponent to have the offensive enhancement on it.
Looks like the only difference between this and the example you gave is that you don't want to reduce your attack to use your defending ability. And that's the kicker. You want the benefits of activating defending on the shield end even though you are attacking with the other end.
Based on the argument that fortress-style requires both ends to be used in conjunction for the attack to be successful, you could argue that the defending end is being used in an attack. Given that you are going to be spending twice as much to enhance your weapon and using this for only a single attack in this style (verses two-weapon attack), I'll go with this.
Yes, but the way you mention here still makes meteor storm style a more effective defensive stance than fortress style. In meteor storm style I would get the following if I fully activate the defending property:
In fortress style, I would only get this:
I get no net increase to attack rolls with the offensive end of the weapon, actually lose damage potential for attacks with it, lose any attacks with the offhand end (currently only one attack, but up to three in total), and all it nets me is a single point addition to my AC. I can't even trip as effectively in this scenario, as the hit to my attack roll also applies to my trip attempt. I'd be better off just keeping a tripping weapon in addition to my hammers; it make fortress style altogether pointless.
Okay, now I'm confused.
Now, if I could activate the defensive weapon property of end of my weapon in fortress style, it becomes a more effective wall stance:
- +3 flaming meteor hammer 1d20+9; Damage 1d10+5 plus 1d6 (fire)
- +0 defending meteor hammer (used defensively, provides +1 shield bonus, plus +3 enhancement bonus allocated to AC)
- AC 29
Go with this for Fortress Style.
- +3 flaming meteor hammer 1d20+7; Damage 1d10+5 plus 1d6 (fire)
- +0 defending meteor hammer 1d20+5; Damage 1d10+1 (+3 enhancement bonus allocated to AC)
- AC 28
And this for Meteor Storm Style.
I believe this is what you are asking for.
You will have some time once you get to Katapesh to craft items between events. There will be time for all to go shopping as well. The GP limit for Katapesh is well above anything you'd have funds to buy.
I'd allow working on items during adventuring, as long as you have downtime. Such as the group rests half the day to recuperate, then you could spend that time working on your magic item.
*DING*
Level 7:
Sorcerer 7
hp:
skills(5 ranks): +1 rank to diplomacy, know(arcana), know(planes), sense motive, and spellcraft.
Feats:
empower spell (bloodline bonus feat)
Forge Ring
spells: gain additional 2nd and 3rd spell per day.
1L - feather fall
2L - resist energy, mirror image (favored class bonus)
3L - fireball (bloodline spell), dispel magic
Note: gain additional +1hp and skill point per level for favored class due to Finding Haleen trait.
Mah'ysa
Level 7:
Add Cleric level 6
hp:
add +1 to all saves
add +1 to base attack bonus
skills (4 ranks): +1 rank to Perform (Sing), diplomacy, heal, acrobatics.
General Feats:
Selective Channeling
spells: gain additional 2nd and 3rd spell per day.
Note: gain additional skill point per level for favored class.
Level Up Inquisitor 7
HP
BAB +1 (+5 total)
Saves No change
Class Features
Judgement +1/day (3/day total)
Bane +1 round/day (7 rounds/day total)
Spells per Day
3rd-level +1/day (1/day total)
Spells Gained
3rd - dispel magic, searing light
1st - divine favor
Feat Combat Expertise
Skill Ranks
Acrobatics +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
Climb +1 Rank (1 rank total)
Intimidate +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
Knowledge (arcana) +1 Rank (2 Ranks total)
Knowledge (planes) +1 Rank (2 Ranks total)
Perception +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
Sense Motive +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
Spellcraft +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
Survival +1 Rank (7 Ranks total)
I have always played it as moving diagonally costs 5' of movement for the first square then 10 for the next square, IOW 15' of movement for 2 diagonal squares. I think the PRD backs me up here as well. As for the gnoll not getting an AoO for the 5'step he would not get one anyway.
As for the reach question, I believe there is a burst template in the PCR that covers reach for large creatures.
As far as I can see in the CR, it just states large creatures get 10 foot reach. The examples don't cover this situation.
Given Bahir's argument that not allowing reach to effect the diagonal would allow an opening for creatures to advance on the large creature without drawing an AoO, it implies that the large creature does in fact threaten that space and therefore allowing them to attack into that space. So I'll give Bahir's both of his attacks with deadly results. For the gnolls at least.
It's a bit crazy for me right now. I've been working to get applications submitted for my master's program, and struggling to keep my homework up to date at the same time. In addition, I will be going out of town this weekend.
I should return, and be done with the majority of my school work, by Monday.
I think it is slow all around. I just got back from a week in Chicago for training, which is why I was slow to post last week, and I'll be flying to the other side of the planet on Friday. I leave Wisconsin on Friday afternoon and will get into India very early Sunday morning. I will then crash. I don't know what my internet access will be like from the hotel, plus I expect to be extremely busy while I'm there with long work hours and evening activities with the local team there. I leave the following Saturday and get back to the US on Sunday.
Most of the third book of LoF is roleplaying. The city of Katapesh is a very vibrant and exciting place. I want to play up the roleplaying aspect as much as possible, even if you guys go off the main story thread.
Efreat's magic item crafting lists (order crafted is order presented):
"Sorcerer's headband of charisma": headband of chr +2 with restriction that it works only for people with levels in sorcerer (PFRPG p.549)
base 4,000 x 70%(restriction)=2,800; 2,800/2=1,400gp(final price). Spellcraft: 5+8(cl)+5(no eagle's splendor spell)+5(not 8th level)=23
*(#$#$ so after 3 days, it blows up in his face or it is a cursed item, dm's choice. guess i'll move on to the next items.
"Sorcerer's cloak of resistance": enhance existing cloak to cloak of resistance +2 with sorc class restriction. base 4,000 x 70%(restriction)=2,800; 2,800/2=1,400; 1,400-500gp(worth of old cloak[see PFRPG p. 553)=900gp (final price). Spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no resistance spell)=15; take 10 on spellcraft roll. takes 2 days to craft.
"Amulet of Basalt Skin": amulet of natural armor +1 with sorc class restriction. base 2,000 x 70%(restriction)=1,400; 1,400/2=700(final). spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no barkskin spell)=15. take 10 on spellcraft check. takes 2 days to craft.
"Ring of Sorcerer's Shield": ring of protection +1 with sorc class restriction. base 2,000 x 70%(restriction)=1,400; 1,400/2=700(final). spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no shield of faith)=15. take 10 on spellcraft check. takes two days to craft.
"Amulet of the Warrior's Skin": amulet of natural armor +1 with fighter class restriction [making this for Haleen]. same calculation as "Amulet of Basalt Skin." take 10 on spellcraft [if you want to add 5 to the dc because i don't have the fighter class, i can see that but i will still make the roll by taking 10].
Things like class restrictions aren't meant to be utilized to decrease the price of magic items, but to be used on thematically appropriate items. It's not something that's supposed to be applicable to general items, only to newly designed items; it's not something that is supposed to be applied to items that are already listed in the book without them.
Additionally, caster level is not a requirement for crafting an item; you don't suffer a +5 to the crafting DC if you fail to meet it.
Things like class restrictions aren't meant to be utilized to decrease the price of magic items, but to be used on thematically appropriate items. It's not something that's supposed to be applicable to general items, only to newly designed items; it's not something that is supposed to be applied to items that are already listed in the book without them.
Additionally, caster level is not a requirement for crafting an item; you don't suffer a +5 to the crafting DC if you fail to meet it.
Respectfully, why not? Since the advent of the crafting system in 3.0, there has been the availability of the class restriction. In every system since then, I am unaware of any such restriction as you propose. If there is one, please let me know as I have been laboring under a false pretense.
I do not find it an abuse particularly in adventure path campaigns. For instance, there is not a lot of down time which is the only time that a character with craft feats has to utilize them. Given the days needed to craft the item and the fact that the class restriction reduces the base price (which affects any resale value), I fail to see the harm. To further expand on my example above, say I craft all these items; if there isn't enough time to craft items in the rest of the adventure, then in order to increase their power, i must sell them (getting no more money out than i put in minus time that i could have used doing other things) and pay full market price on the increases.
In addition, I have taken it upon myself to outfit Haleen with my own funds. In order to successfully do this, I need extra funds to keep each of us at our expected treasure levels.
Finally, last time I checked, my character had the least amount of the loot and was behind on my expected treasure level.
Alas, the DM has the final say. I await judgment ;)
Even the text states that the restrictions are to determine the price of newly designed items, not to modify what's already been designed. In fact, no where in that section does it indicate that the market value of items can be altered in this manner. In fact, it goes so far as to state that the preferred method of adjudicating an item's worth is to take the value from a similar item that has already been designed.
The concept behind these restriction-based discounts isn't to make the item easier to craft, but to reflect its lessened utility. An item crafted in such a manner cannot be sold on the market as readily, and as such its price is decreased in order to reflect the lessened demand for such items. It should have no actual impact on the crafting costs of the item in question.
From a balance standpoint, decreasing the construction costs in this manner allows characters to create character wealth from nothing; all of the items you wish to make are as valuable to the character as the versions in the book.
Additionally, you have to consider the setting. If decreasing crafting costs were as simple as adding such restrictions, why don't all magic items include them? Granted, magic items created for general sale wouldn't boast restrictions like this, but most magical items aren't created for general sale. If the addition of such restrictions are allowed, then the vast majority of the items we encounter in the game should include them.
Even the text states that the restrictions are to determine the price of newly designed items, not to modify what's already been designed. In fact, no where in that section does it indicate that the market value of items can be altered in this manner. In fact, it goes so far as to state that the preferred method of adjudicating an item's worth is to take the value from a similar item that has already been designed.
The concept behind these restriction-based discounts isn't to make the item easier to craft, but to reflect its lessened utility. An item crafted in such a manner cannot be sold on the market as readily, and as such its price is decreased in order to reflect the lessened demand for such items. It should have no actual impact on the crafting costs of the item in question.
From a balance standpoint, decreasing the construction costs in this manner allows characters to create character wealth from nothing; all of the items you wish to make are as valuable to the character as the versions in the book.
Additionally, you have to consider the setting. If decreasing crafting costs were as simple as adding such restrictions, why don't all magic items include them? Granted, magic items created for general sale wouldn't boast restrictions like this, but most magical items aren't created for general sale. If the addition of such restrictions are allowed, then the vast majority of the items we encounter in the game should include them.
First, the language on the restictions reads "..., this limitation cuts the price by 30%." PFRPG p. 549. The restriction reduces the cost. The market price is twice the cost. Hence, the restriction reduces the market value.
Second, I reread the first paragraph which reads "[m]any factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items." PRRPG p. 549. Based upon that, I think that you have a point on whether or not one could modify an existing magic item with such a restriction.
If the DM rules that adding a restriction to an existing magic item is not allowable, then I will have to modify my crafting choices.
Okay, I've read through all the magic item creation rules and did some searching through the message boards. Here's are some of the posts I referenced:
Magic-Item-Creation-ClassAlighnment-Discount
Magic-Items-Creation-Question
Magic-Item-Creation-Costs-Concern
Magic-Item-Creation-Costs-Concern
Most people who responded to these posts were against using the class/alignment restriction for discounts to the magic supplies for items. The third one includes a post from a Paizo Lead Designer who expressed his opinion against it.
In my own opinion, I agree with the argument that the cost to create the item doesn't change even you want to add some special restriction to protect it from being taken and used by someone else. The item still performs the same function and therefore it still costs the same to make. But by adding extra restrictions (e.g. Only Good users can activate it), you cause it to have less demand on the open market and therefore it has a reduce resale value. (Some argued that by adding the restrictions, it should increase the cost to create.)
Therefore my ruling is that you cannot take the 30% discount when crafting an item. Do you wish to revise your crafting choices?
On a side note, I have updated the loot list to divide up the depository note, the party cash, and the gems acquired among the six PCs. I'll assume that you each collect your money from the Temple of Abadar and get a fair trade on the gems.
Depository note: 23625 / 6 = 3937.5
Party Coin: 1005 / 6 = 167.5
Gems: 400 / 6 = 67
Total GP added to each PC: 4172
Also, in your down-time, you will be able to figure out the magical items in your possession, or be able to find someone to identify them. The unknown items in the party loot category are:
Block of sweet-smelling incense:
- Incense of Meditation (Market value: 4900 GP)
Metal Raven:
- Figurine of wondrous power, silver raven (Market value: 3800 GP)
Cloak:
- Cloak of Resistance +1 (Market value: 1000 GP)
As an aside I was under the impression we would return the silver raven and gems to their owner seeing as he had yet to wrong us and we are not common thieves. I think Pae may have been of the same mind when he reluctantly turned the gems over to Bahir or at least he was willing to let Bahir do as he will with them. If I am in error on this than that is fine but Bahir will not be taking (or frankly even aware of the sale) a share of these items. He left it in the laws hands as too what to do with these individuals and turned over the gems at least at that time. I was probably remiss in mentioning that tho.
Once Bahir and Mah'ysa have returned from their expedition, Hazreem would wish to head into Katapesh and purchase a set of Druid's Vestments.
He will not put in a claim on any other magic items. Mah'ysa should use the incense.
Paes shopping list once he has arranged the girls manumission
160 - Masterwork Rapier
167.5 - Masterwork Light Crossbow
85.5 - Masterwork Studded Leather
130 - Gold necklace
151 - Masterwork Dagger
Garnering him 694 gp in total
giving a total of 12500 GP (including his bag of PP)
He spends as follows.
Rapier +1 2320
Light Crossbow +1 2335
Dagger +1 2302
Studded leather +2 2175
Scorpion whip +1 2305
A total of 11437GP
leaving 1063Gp
He then finds a reputable Osiriani Captain at the docks and arranges passage for the three girls to his home city..Any money left over he divides between the girls as gifts.They are being sent to his mother with a covering letter asking her to look after them and make sure they don't get into trouble as they adapt to being free women.
Efreat's magic item crafting lists x2(order crafted is order presented):
headband of chr +2
base 4,000; 2,000gp(final price). Spellcraft: 5+8(cl)+5(no eagle's splendor spell)=18. take ten on spellcraft check. takes 4 days.
enhance existing cloak to cloak of resistance +2.
base 4,000; half base 2,000; 2,000-500gp(worth of old cloak[see PFRPG p. 553)=1,500gp (final price). Spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no resistance spell)=15; take 10 on spellcraft roll. takes 4 days to craft.
amulet of natural armor +1. x2(one for me and haleen)
base 2,000; 1000(final). spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no barkskin spell)=15. take 10 on spellcraft check. takes 2 days to craft.
ring of protection +1. x2(one for me and haleen)
base 2,000; 1000(final). spellcraft: 5+5(cl)+5(no shield of faith)=15. take 10 on spellcraft check. takes two days to craft.
What are the enhancements on Haleen's equipment? I was going to enchant them but i don't know what the bases are. I should have enough magic left to enchant her rapier to +1 and either her buckler or her armor (which ever isn't).
Haleen has a +1 Rapier and a +1 Buckler on her. She is currently staying at Rayhan's villa for a few days as she doesn't feel safe yet venturing around town.
I am setting up a timeline of for your time in Katapesh, figuring out when Efreat's crafting will take place, and rolling for availability of items that you are looking for, determining commission time for those that aren't available, and comparing all this against the planned events. It's taking me a little bit of time. I'll post again soon...
You are currently on Day 2 in Katapesh, assuming you arrived on the evening of Day 1. I'll refer to time in Katapesh in reference to this.