Consider a rod that has several metamagic feats crafted into it. Does it take up "no slot," thereby following these rules: (?)
Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.
Or does it take up "one of your hands while you use it" slot, thereby following these rules: (?)
For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
If the former, the logical thing for a player with craft rod feat is to just craft one rod, not multiples, and throw everything into the same rod for cheaper, correct?
Next question, can the same rod be enchanted with the same metamagic feat multiple times? Can a player throw Empower in there twice for six uses total of it? And if so, is the second Empower cheaper than the first because of the first quote above? Or would the player have to build a second rod to carry to use Empower six times?
**
I'm currently inclined to rule that a player can throw multiple feats into the same rod, that multiples are indeed cheaper, but they can't throw duplicates. However, I'd rather go with an official rule if there is one. I looked around and can't seem to find this discussed on the forums.
Thanks in advance.
|
They are not "multiple similar abilities".
Well, actually, they could be. The "Multiple Similar Abilities, 1st at 100%, 2nd at 75%, rest at 50%" rule applies if and only if they share the same resource. Staves are the primary example; pick a staff with only 2-3 spells and price it out using the custom items rules, you'll see.
A metamagic rod with multiple feats would only get the "multiple similar abilities" rule if each feat draws from the same 3/day pool.
If you want to "duct tape" them together, with each keeping its own separate pool, not only do you not get to use "multiple similar abilities", but the "50% increase in price" applies.
The "base" ability of the rod occupies a "held item" slot. Yes, I know, technically there's not such thing as a "held item" slot. But the analogy works in this case.
By the Rules As Written, you cannot combine multiple metamagic rods into a single item. Period. Not even with duct tape.
So, if a DM were to allow it (using any of the custom item creation rules requires DM permission), applying the "additional bonuses have a 50% increase in price" rule makes sense, because it means the spellcaster doesn't have risk dropping valuable items and waste an action pulling another one out (or wasting two actions, one to put the first away).
If a spellcaster wanted a "rod of empower" that could be used 6 times/day, he'd have to pay 250% of the cost of the basic rod (which can be used 3/day). 100% of the base rod, plus 100% of the other rod, plus 50% of the other rod (since the second item does not take up a slot). Since both the base rod and the other rod have the same price, we can add the percentages together: 100% of the base rod + 150% of the other rod = 250%.
+1
The "Multiple Similar Abilities, 1st at 100%, 2nd at 75%, rest at 50%" rule applies if and only if they share the same resource.
That makes sense, and it's intuitively how I'd told the player to do it originally, before we started reading the pesky rules. Where do you see that in the rules? A link or quote would be pretty helpful.
Or is that based on trying to mirror the staff costs when creating custom staves? Also - aren't staves just as "handed" as rods? This player is going to be creating both at some point, so we need to have the rules nailed down for both.
By the Rules As Written, you cannot combine multiple metamagic rods into a single item. Period. Not even with duct tape.
What makes you say that? Or do you really mean, "a player must use the custom item creation rules to combine multiple metamagic rods into a single item." ..?
I don't see anywhere in the rules where it states the section on custom item creation is "optional."
|
|
The "Multiple Similar Abilities, 1st at 100%, 2nd at 75%, rest at 50%" rule applies if and only if they share the same resource.That makes sense, and it's intuitively how I'd told the player to do it originally, before we started reading the pesky rules. Where do you see that in the rules? A link or quote would be pretty helpful.
Or is that based on trying to mirror the staff costs when creating custom staves? Also - aren't staves just as "handed" as rods? This player is going to be creating both at some point, so we need to have the rules nailed down for both.
I do not have a quote at the moment, no. There was no quote, no "definition of similiar vs different" included in the 3.0 or 3.5 core rules, either; you had to figure it out by reading through lots of items and reverse-enginerring them. It was commented on several times by the Sage - Skip Williams - who answered questions every month in Dragon Magazine; his answers usually worked their way into the FAQ.
But all of his responses, the FAQ, and any clarification or definition of terms that might exist is all for 3.5, not pathfinder.
The best "by the book" I can give you is: re-create the "Staff of Fire" and the "Helm of Brilliance", showing all your math every step of the way. The Helm has multiple spells, each of which has its own set of charges, while the Staff has multiple spell that share the same pool of charges; the only other difference between the two is the exact spells used. Show the player the math.
Alternatively, get the player to do it for you. Tell him:
I am ruling "different", not "similar"; here's two items (staff and helm) that are mostly identical - the only significant difference between them is one shares charges, while the other has separate charges for each ability (also, one is spell trigger, the other is command word, and the spells are slightly different).
If you re-create these items using the Item Creation rules, showing your work as you go, and prove that they are both "similar", I'll change my mind.
That's all I got, unfortunately.
By the Rules As Written, you cannot combine multiple metamagic rods into a single item. Period. Not even with duct tape.What makes you say that? Or do you really mean, "a player must use the custom item creation rules to combine multiple metamagic rods into a single item." ..?
I don't see anywhere in the rules where it states the section on custom item creation is "optional."
It does not say "optional", you are correct. It does, however, say
"Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values"
and
"Not all items adhere to these formulas. 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. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls."
Emphasis mine. All of these mean "you need to think this through, do comparisons to other items, and ask your GM". Though it would be nice if this were stated directly; I suppose they did not want to discourage players from trying to use them.
Thanks a bunch for the help.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Multiple Similar AbilitiesCan a player throw Empower in there twice for six uses total of it?
They should rename MSA, as the way it is describe (while crystal clear to me) is very frequently misunderstood.
The meaning of that section is:
If the abilities share a common pool for expenditure.
In other words, the following are examples of MSA:
- Staff with 2 or more spells that use charges.
- An item with 1 daily use that can be used to cast magic missile or grease (but not both)
- Any other situation where using one thing blocks you from using the other thing.
Multiple DIfferent Abilities can be described as follows:
- A rod with 3 charges of Empower and 3 charges of Maximize usable each day
- A helm of +6 Wis and +1 Natural Armor
I have a related question. If I were to create a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Silent Spell, but as a ring instead of a rod, would the base price be 1500 instead of 3000 because the item takes up a ring slot?
I'll have to call you out on the uses/day shtick.
Uses per day items generally follow the /5 rule, and are completely linear when you figure them out. 1 charge a day is 1/5th of a permanent or 5/day item.
A Wand of Empower usable 6 t/day would be twice the price of one usable 3t/day, not 250%. Consider that there is NO difference between having one rod usable 6 times and 2 usable 3 times...except you can have another person using the second rod at the same time as the first one.
So, if you want an Empower Rod usable twice as many times a day, it's not a new rod, it's extra charges, and those are increased in a linear fashion, no +50% penalty.
==Aelryinth
I have a related question. If I were to create a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Silent Spell, but as a ring instead of a rod, would the base price be 1500 instead of 3000 because the item takes up a ring slot?As a non-standard item it would be entirely up to your DM.
Yes, clearly all non-standard items require GM approval and pricing. In this case, I happen to be the GM and I'm wondering if I'm applying the generally agreed upon rules correctly.
If I were you, I would think that 1500gp would be too cheap.
I'd put it at 2250 because I'd rule ring as nonstandard slot for metamagicking things. Fine for constant magic or charges, but metamagic seems to be exclusively rod territory.
I'd put it at 2250 because I'd rule ring as nonstandard slot for metamagicking things. Fine for constant magic or charges, but metamagic seems to be exclusively rod territory.
If I were you, I would think that 1500gp would be too cheap.
What is this "nonstandard slot" you speak of? I think that was eliminated in Pathfinder.
Yes, clearly all non-standard items require GM approval and pricing. In this case, I happen to be the GM and I'm wondering if I'm applying the generally agreed upon rules correctly.
As a non-standard item it would be entirely up to your DM.
If they wanted to enchant a ring with multiple enchantments, how much would it be priced? In other words, what would a slotless version then be priced at?
Why would I ever want to get a rod then? A rod I have to hold/wield to use.
I'm not sure that I would allow it in the first place honestly. But if I were to do so, I would price it *above* the price of the rod. Holding a rod is far more limiting than wearing a ring.
1) The slot-less version would cost 3000, no?
It's odd, but the rules don't consider a held item to be taking up a slot. It seems to me that "held in left hand" and "held in right hand" are actually very important slots that should have been priced accordingly. But, as wands, staves, rods, weapons, etc. don't take up any slots, they seem to be priced as slot-less items, don't they?
It's odd, but the rules don't consider a held item to be taking up a slot. It seems to me that "held in left hand" and "held in right hand" are actually very important slots that should have been priced accordingly. But, as wands, staves, rods, weapons, etc. don't take up any slots, they seem to be priced as slot-less items, don't they?
I don't think they are priced as slotless items.
Specifically wands are not. They are priced by the entry in the magic items creation table '50 charges, spell trigger'. That is the price of a wand, and there are no corrections for being slotless.
If you make a ring that duplicates a wand following the rules, it actually becomes more expensive. Making a 'charged (50 charges)' magic item cost half unlimited use price. So it becomes 900*caster level*spell level for a command word triggered ring with 50 charges, compared to the 750*caster level*spell level of the spell trigger wand.
There aren't rules for creating other magic items that function like metamagic rods. Based on that, we can't conclude that there has been added any slotless item increase to the price. Just like it isn't the case with wands, scrolls, magic weapons, staves or potions, I don't think it is with the rods.
Allowing other magic items to function as metamagic rods becomes rather problematic, as it seriously changes the value of the creation feats (which in my opinion favors craft wondrous items too much al ready). Allowing it becomes a GMs call, and making it more costly should really be considered.
*I* would think that allowing a ring that does what a rod does is no less silly than allowing a pair of boots that does what a staff does.
Rods, Staves, and Wands area always lumped together in my mind (perhaps from 1st/ed saves .. /shrug) as specific, different, unique ways to deliver spells and spell like effects.
I do not think someone with Craft Ring or Craft Wondrous Item should be able to suddenly replicate every magic item in the book as a slotted item.
This discussion is of great importance to me, because I'm overseeing our current PF game by managing the campaign and the overall ruleset as we rotate GMs in our campaign. Which means I'm not coming from a position of "I want to do it this way because I'm the GM," which would be easy, but rather a position of "I have multiple highly intelligent experienced GMs in my game, each of which is going to be GMing at some point and playing at some other point, and we all have to be playing by the same body of rules as we create custom gear during our GM stints and as we craft custom gear during our player stints."
This discussion is of great importance to me, because I'm overseeing our current PF game by managing the campaign and the overall ruleset as we rotate GMs in our campaign. Which means I'm not coming from a position of "I want to do it this way because I'm the GM," which would be easy, but rather a position of "I have multiple highly intelligent experienced GMs in my game, each of which is going to be GMing at some point and playing at some other point, and we all have to be playing by the same body of rules as we create custom gear during our GM stints and as we craft custom gear during our player stints."
Ja, me too. I sympathize!
I don't think they are priced as slotless items.
It's odd, but the rules don't consider a held item to be taking up a slot. It seems to me that "held in left hand" and "held in right hand" are actually very important slots that should have been priced accordingly. But, as wands, staves, rods, weapons, etc. don't take up any slots, they seem to be priced as slot-less items, don't they?
I looked at a few examples, and I think you're right about that. Items that require a hand to use seem to be priced the same as items that require a slot, which seems appropriate. The "slotless" penalty only seems to apply to items that do not require a slot or a hand.
.
Allowing other magic items to function as metamagic rods becomes rather problematic, as it seriously changes the value of the creation feats (which in my opinion favors craft wondrous items too much already).
I think the item creation feats are too numerous and biased, so in my campaigns I use house rule that combines some of them.
Craft Wand, Rod, and Staff - a single feat that allows you to craft wands at 5th level, rods at 9th, and staves at 11th.
Craft Wondrous Item - Includes rings, just like all the other jewelry.
That brings the total number of item creation feats down from 8 to 5 (Potion, Scroll, Arms & Armor, Wand/Rod/Staff, Wondrous) eliminating the ones least often taken by players. In fact, in a survey of over 100 characters, I was unable to locate a single one who had taken Craft Rod, Staff, or Ring.
Since I've never been in a party where the item creation feats were used exclusively for the benefit of the character who took them, but always for the benefit of the entire group (as opposed to most of the other wizard options like metamagic, which only enhance the user) I don't have a problem with making them slightly stronger.