|
I'm not seeing anything for pathfinder that's limiting me from creating "boots of perception" or other items that wouldn't have normally been able to be made under previous rulesets. The only thing I see is "you have these 15 magic item slots" but not "these 15 slots can have these types of bonuses".
Is there anything (other than the gm) that actually prohibits me from making such items?
|
Any custom items are GM-permission only, so the rules do not in fact allow Boots of Perception - they just don't strongly prohibit them. The GM may permit you to make them, as they may decide to allow any situation not expressly covered by the rules.
As for whether the GM should allow items in unusual slots:
Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the standard rules are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. In particular, the magic belts and circlets that give enhancement bonuses to ability scores are in this category—characters who want to enhance multiple physical or mental ability scores must pay extra for combination items like a belt of physical might or headband of mental prowess.
If there is a trend of all items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.
Classes Value Some Slots More Than Others: This is a combination of the two previous warnings. Because most belts enhance physical abilities, wizards rarely have need for standard belt items. This means a wizard can change an item that's useful to wizards into a belt and not have to worry about a future slot conflict by discovering a wizardly magic belt in a treasure hoard. Likewise, fighters have little use for most standard head items, so altering an existing fighter item to use the head slot means it has little risk of competition from found head slot items. GMs should consider carefully before allowing you to bypass these intentional, built-in item slot restrictions.
I think this is overstating the issue a bit, and I would allow for example Gloves of Dexterity rather than a Belt of Dexterity) but I personally would not allow Boots of Perception because it doesn't make thematic sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't work like "If they don't say I can't, I can." If they don't say you can, you can't unless the DM says otherwise.
The rules don't work like "If they don't say I can't, I can." If they don't say you can, you can't unless the DM says otherwise.
There's alot of things the rules don't specifically say that you can do. Taking an exclusive (you can only do what the rules say) view of the rules is far more problematic than a permissive (you can't do what the rules exclude) view.
The dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions. That's only the start of a permissive view, so no, I'm going to have to say you're wrong here. A DM can fix that, yes, and he can fix the exclusive view too.
The dead condition doesn't say you can't take actions. That's only the start of a permissive view, so no, I'm going to have to say you're wrong here. A DM can fix that, yes, and he can fix the exclusive view too.
What page does it say that a character can eat? Not the effects of starvation, but that they are capable of eating, even better if it indicates what foods they are capable of eating.
I don't think there is a wrong, but I do think it varies from person to person. Some people like rules that act like a map, guiding them to find the treasure of a game, while letting them choose their path. Other people like rules that act like a building full of corridors, leading them to their destination of a game down precise paths.
What page does it say that a character can eat? Not the effects of starvation, but that they are capable of eating, even better if it indicates what foods they are capable of eating.
In the Bestiary, with the description of the creature types. And many of the monster descriptions include diet.
Constructs do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
Oozes eat and breathe, but do not sleep.
Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.
What page does it say that a character can eat? Not the effects of starvation, but that they are capable of eating, even better if it indicates what foods they are capable of eating.In the Bestiary, with the description of the creature types. And many of the monster descriptions include diet.
Constructs do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
Oozes eat and breathe, but do not sleep.
Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.
Fair enough. Now, what can they eat? How about sleep, do the rules say that characters can sleep someplace other than a bed, or bedroll? Is there a rule permitting snoring? Do they say that a character can have a dagger with an ivory handle and a ruby pommel? If not, I guess it's not possible to have an eleven rogue who snores lightly while sleeping amongst the tree branches, bearing a fancy dagger pilfered from a wealthy merchant, and adheres to an approximation of a kashrut diet.
You see, requiring the rules to permit each action can become every bit as absurd as the "being dead doesn't say you can't move" bit.
|
Food, Drink, and Lodging
These prices are for meals and accommodations at establishments in an average city.
Inn: Poor accommodations at an inn amount to a place on the floor near the hearth. Common accommodations consist of a place on a raised, heated floor and the use of a blanket and a pillow. Good accommodations consist of a small, private room with one bed, some amenities, and a covered chamber pot in the corner.
Meals: Poor meals might be composed of bread, baked turnips, onions, and water. Common meals might consist of bread, chicken stew, carrots, and watered-down ale or wine. Good meals might be composed of bread and pastries, beef, peas, and ale or wine.
We get what you are trying to say, but Ipslore statement was:
"The rules don't work like "If they don't say I can't, I can." If they don't say you can, you can't unless the DM says otherwise."
You are completely discounting the bolded part of his post. Making absurd examples don't help your position, it weaken it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not the rules in general are permissive is actually irrelevant, since the magic items rules specifically state that creation of items not directly out of the book relies on GM approval:
"For most other items, GMs should use the multiple different abilities rule to determine the item's new price:..."
"Example: Lisa's paladin has horseshoes of a zephyr and wants to hire Patrick's wizard to add the powers of horseshoes of speed to her current horseshoes. Their GM, Jessica, decides that this is a suitable item and tells Lisa and Patrick they can proceed."
"...If this happens and nobody can agree on a fair price, it's best to not upgrade the item, or ask the GM for permission to pseudo-upgrade the item by swapping it for a different item with a price that can be calculated with the normal rules."
"Because staff pricing is so complex, a GM might want to forbid adding new abilities to staves, or limit new abilities to the lowest-level spell already present in the item."
"If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect."
I'm with Weirdo here, it's up to GM approval. Boots of Perception seems like something that just shouldn't fly. Seems to me like the whole 'abilities assigned to slots' would be for something more like Gloves of Giant Strength or like the Cloaks of Charisma from 3.5e. Or even for adapting items from other media, like turning a Heavyload Belt into a wrist slot item to get the Goron Bracelet from the Legend of Zelda games.
But I hit a tangent. GM has to approve, which means 9 out of 10 times, it has to make sense.
Ok, on topic then, maybe the boots let you sense the vibrations from things moving nearby, thus increasing your ability to perceive what's around you. Or, you know, "magic". Things can get messy when you try to make magic operate on principles of science.
In my games, I don't have any problem with slot switching. Not only do I think you can explain nearly any slot if you try, I don't really require it to make logical sense, being a magic item and all.
|
|
Ok, on topic then, maybe the boots let you sense the vibrations from things moving nearby, thus increasing your ability to perceive what's around you. Or, you know, "magic". Things can get messy when you try to make magic operate on principles of science.
In my games, I don't have any problem with slot switching. Not only do I think you can explain nearly any slot if you try, I don't really require it to make logical sense, being a magic item and all.
Magic works by certain rules, though. Sympathy and contagion - the general idea that like affects like - are big ones. It's not unreasonable to say that an item would be hard to make magically because of low sympathy between the slot and the effect ("doesn't make sense"). Getting a general +5 perception bonus for sensing vibrations lacks sympathy because regardless of the physical role of certain senses in overall perception, touch/feet do not have nearly as strong a symbolic association with perception as sight/eyes. In some views of magic, symbolic logic is more important than the physical logic. Tremor boots are fine because the effect is more specific so the symbolism is different.
There's also a "chakras" system for item slots that I think may have been mentioned in a 3E splatbook. The idea was that the reason magic item slots are limited was because each one tapped into an innate power point or chakra on the wearer - so even though you could wear a second necklace, you only had one throat chakra through which to accept magic. Since the chakras have a specific realm of influence on the person, and the item needs to function through/with the chakra, making an item to enhance something that the chakra it tapped into did not influence would not work.
Magic works by certain rules, though. Sympathy and contagion - the general idea that like affects like - are big ones. It's not unreasonable to say that an item would be hard to make magically because of low sympathy between the slot and the effect ("doesn't make sense"). Getting a general +5 perception bonus for sensing vibrations lacks sympathy because regardless of the physical role of certain senses in overall perception, touch/feet do not have nearly as strong a symbolic association with perception as sight/eyes. In some views of magic, symbolic logic is more important than the physical logic. Tremor boots are fine because the effect is more specific so the symbolism is different.
There's also a "chakras" system for item slots that I think may have been mentioned in a 3E splatbook. The idea was that the reason magic item slots are limited was because each one tapped into an innate power point or chakra on the wearer - so even though you could wear a second necklace, you only had one throat chakra through which to accept magic. Since the chakras have a specific realm of influence on the person, and the item needs to function through/with the chakra, making an item to enhance something that the chakra it tapped into did not influence would not work.
Your magic works off of those things, that's fine. My magic works like... well, magic. I've never had an occasion where I felt that a discussion of magical energy and bodily energy co-mingling and resonance would improve a game, so I focus more on what's fun. If a player came to me and said "So, I was thinking I'd like to have boots that give me a + to Wis", I would say "Ok, wise boots it is.".
I don't feel there's any gain or benefit in restricting what stats can go with what slot. The quoted section from a book above suggests that this leads to players having to make tough choices. No, it doesn't. It leads to all other items in the "attribute acceptable slots" being ignored. The only side effect I've seen from allowing stats in any slot is happy players.
Your magic works off of those things, that's fine. My magic works like... well, magic. I've never had an occasion where I felt that a discussion of magical energy and bodily energy co-mingling and resonance would improve a game, so I focus more on what's fun. If a player came to me and said "So, I was thinking I'd like to have boots that give me a + to Wis", I would say "Ok, wise boots it is.".
I don't feel there's any gain or benefit in restricting what stats can go with what slot. The quoted section from a book above suggests that this leads to players having to make tough choices. No, it doesn't. It leads to all other items in the "attribute acceptable slots" being ignored. The only side effect I've seen from...
You're entitled to your opinion and can run games as you see fit. However, the magic system is set up to force tough choices. Yes, that often means that certain item slots become set for certain items.
I feel that rather than allowing reslotting of items, the better way to handle this is instead allow for the 50% cost increase for adding additional affects to an item.
For instance, if you want a belt of mighty strength and an aquatic cummerbund you don't say "No Jimmy, it's fine put that on your head slot." You say, "Jimmy it's fine, but since the aquatic cummerbund is cheaper than the strength belt increase it's cost by 50% and you can add it to the belt". Benefiting from the extra affect of an item that normally competes with something else should cost extra. It balances how valuable certain items and affects are. It also keeps the power level of players more balanced for their level.