FAQ on Hat of Disguise duration


Rules Questions

101 to 147 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw, really? What do you base this on? Because it is right in the description:

CRB p481 Ring of Invisibility wrote:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
Nothing about the state. Instead it references the spell 'invisibility'.

The reason the spell is referenced, rather than the condition, is that the item always referenced the spell, because in earlier editions the state of Invisibilty was described in the spell effect description; there was no 'conditions' section to reference.

Secondly, read that quote again:-

Quote:
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.

The 'benefit' from a spell is the effect it has on the target; in this case, being invisible. Cause and effect are different things. The spell causes invisibility, and the ring causes invisibility, but their effect is the same: the state of invisibility as described in that spell effect description.

But the causes are different. One cause casts the spell, and conforms to the rules on spellcasting. The other doesn't cast the spell on the wearer, it simply gives the effect of invisibility, caused by activating the ring, not by getting the ring to cast a spell.

If the ring did cast the spell, then it would have the same parameters as if the spell were cast from memory, or from a wand. Yes, it would have the same duration, including not being ended by removing the ring, allowing the wearer to 'cast' the spell and then pass the ring on to the rest of the party, allowing the same ring to make the whole party invisible at the same time, just as if the spell was cast from a wand or any other source.

No-one thinks the ring works that way! But if the ring works by casting the spell on the wearer, then that would be the consequence according to the rules of PF and 3rd ed.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Malachi it casts the spell and the effects end when you remove the ring. Why? Because PF Devs say so. They didn't see anything in the rules to disagree with that assertion and you haven't shown a rule to back your interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really have to say that discussions like this are the reason I like the approach 5E has taken (and that the old Basic took). Just describe what the item does without hiding details and changes behind references to other things.

However you actually want the item to work, actually say that in the item description. If you want it to cast invisibility on the wearer when the command word is said, say that. If you want it to make the wearer invisible until he attacks, say that. If you want it make the wearer invisible when the command word is said, but only for up to 3 minutes or he attacks or the ring is removed, say that.

It's a style of rules writing that purports to standardize everything but doesn't actually succeed, because it's not clear what falls into what category. It generally worked with potions, scrolls and wands since they really are standardized, but not so much with more complex items.


thejeff wrote:
I'm also amused by fretgod hand waving the price calculation of the hat away after so many pages arguing based on the price guidelines. The hat is the only item we've talked about that actually matches the command word pricing, but hey, no reason it can't be use-activated.

I said it matches up with the command word price, so *shrug*. And the argument about the pricing of the Ring is explicitly different, primarily because people were trying to reverse engineer the price to demonstrate it couldn't be command word, when we've been expressly told otherwise. Also, I've said that I prefer a mental activation for the Ring, anyway (and that's how I plan on playing it in my games). To be frank, my position on the two items has been pretty consistent in all regards throughout the multitudinous discussions.

So, if you want to stick by the pricing guidelines, fine. No skin off my back. It's command word. If you want to go by other guidelines, fine. It's mental activation. RAW? Probably command word, but one can at the very least argue it. And as I've always said, how you play it in your game is of no moment to me.

However, in no conceivable way can one argue that either the Ring or, more specifically for this thread, the Hat are continuous use. There is no justification for it in any of Pathfinder's rules.

Silver Crusade

James Risner wrote:
Malachi it casts the spell and the effects end when you remove the ring. Why? Because PF Devs say so. They didn't see anything in the rules to disagree with that assertion and you haven't shown a rule to back your interpretation.

That FAQ is actually a sneaky errata.

Without any dev comment, and the CRB being the sole source of your understanding, it's not possible to infer that spells cast on you by a worn item spontaneously end when the item is removed.

If the devs are going to errata this item, then errata it to be activated by a silent act of will and last until the ring is removed, the wearer uses a standard action to dismiss the effect, or the wearer attacks (as 'attack' is defined in the spell).


Malachi, it is relatively obvious that items that provide spell effects (where the word 'cast' is not used) end when the item is removed. Until this debate I seriously doubt people even questioned that.

Such items are not actually casting the spell, they are providing the benefits of the spell as per the spell. Thus, while it is not an actual spell being cast you still use all the rules (CRB p460 "Caster Level") for determining the variables as if it were.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

That FAQ is actually a sneaky errata.

Without any dev comment, and the CRB being the sole source of your understanding, it's not possible to infer that spells cast on you by a worn item spontaneously end when the item is removed.

If the devs are going to errata this item, then errata it to be activated by a silent act of will and last until the ring is removed, the wearer uses a standard action to dismiss the effect, or the wearer attacks (as 'attack' is defined in the spell).

Not errata. You just read the book differently than we do.

I'm pretty sure the second sentence is why you are so passionate about this. You may believe that if you keep demanding they change their stance, they will. That is not going to happen. There are maybe 10 people on her passionate like you, another 10 like me who doesn't believe they should errata to your view, and the rest of the world doesn't care.

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Malachi, it is relatively obvious that items that provide spell effects (where the word 'cast' is not used) end when the item is removed. Until this debate I seriously doubt people even questioned that.

Such items are not actually casting the spell, they are providing the benefits of the spell as per the spell. Thus, while it is not an actual spell being cast you still use all the rules (CRB p460 "Caster Level") for determining the variables as if it were.

If what you're saying is true, then is it not possible to have an item which grants the wearer the benefit of a spell effect, able to be activated and deactivated while worn, unrelated to the spell where the effect is described?


Sure, if the magic item states this. But it has to state it. If it states 'as the spell' and provides no contradictory information then it is 'as the spell'.

None of the items we are discussing provide any exceptions to the general rules where magic items provide an effect based on a spell. If the magic item does not state otherwise then (as per the rules) the magic item's caster level is used to calculate all level dependent variables of the spell's effect.

Things like Duration and Range are typically level dependent variables.

This is a simple case of specific vs general. The General rules hold true UNLESS a magic item specifically states otherwise. Do you have such text to show that either the Hat of Disguise or the Ring of Invisibility shows otherwise?

Silver Crusade

How would you word an item which gives the spell effect, the 'benefit' of the state that is described in a spell, without being tied to the spellcasting information?


Such an item would have to have all information provided to override the general rules. Any specific elements of information not provided would default to the spell effect.

This is not something I am simply coming up with, it is already stated (I have quoted this several times).

Grand Lodge

Is there any reason that a spoken command word could not be whispered? I have looked through my books and found nothing indicating the command has to be spoken at any specific volume or higher. It just says it must be spoken. (just curious if I am missing something somewhere)

As for the "at will" being unlimited usage that was mentioned a couple of times, I found that that only came up as a part of spell-like abilities and was not found in with magic items.


R2D2TS wrote:
Is there any reason that a spoken command word could not be whispered? I have looked through my books and found nothing indicating the command has to be spoken at any specific volume or higher. It just says it must be spoken. (just curious if I am missing something somewhere)

I don't think there's a specific reference, but lacking one, I'd treat it like other magical speaking: You can't whisper vocal casting components, you can't Cackle quietly, you shouldn't be able to whisper command words either.

I believe Silence prevents command words from working, which also suggests the item has to "hear" them somehow.

Silver Crusade

Well, I'd use the same language that they did in the first two editions, where the ring gave the benefit of the spell, which in this case is the state of invisibility, as described in the spell.

When they used language that was could not be taken either way, in D&D basic and D&D 5th ed, the ring did not work by allowing the wearer to 'use/cast' the spell, but simply allowed the wearer to become invisible, and stay invisible until deactivated, the ring was removed, or the wearer attacked.

So every time the wording was unambiguous it worked this way, and every time the wording was ambiguous then it could be understood the same way. Even now, the description doesn't say the wearer can 'use' the spell, it says the wearer 'benefits' from Invisibility! The effect of invisibility!

When old players have the knowledge of how it worked before, and the current description is readable as working the same way, why would they think it works differently?


Because the current description is NOT readable as working the same way. It clearly works in another way if you but read the rules.

In any case, what rules may or may not have existed in 1st and 2nd edition is really not relevant to the rules discussion for 3.X/PF.

Feel free to houserule it of course, but the rules have not changed. If you would like to discuss how it *should* work then I suggest the PAthfinder RPG General Discussion.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Well, I'd use the same language that they did in the first two editions, where the ring gave the benefit of the spell, which in this case is the state of invisibility, as described in the spell.

When they used language that was could not be taken either way, in D&D basic and D&D 5th ed, the ring did not work by allowing the wearer to 'use/cast' the spell, but simply allowed the wearer to become invisible, and stay invisible until deactivated, the ring was removed, or the wearer attacked.

So every time the wording was unambiguous it worked this way, and every time the wording was ambiguous then it could be understood the same way. Even now, the description doesn't say the wearer can 'use' the spell, it says the wearer 'benefits' from Invisibility! The effect of invisibility!

When old players have the knowledge of how it worked before, and the current description is readable as working the same way, why would they think it works differently?

Because pathfinder is a completely different game from any other? I know that an argument can be made for 3.5/3.0 carryover and I would be willing to listen to that, but any argument about game systems prior to that is similar in nature to saying that the experience a mechanic has in fixing WWII era planes applies to fixing modern fighter jets and is just not true.

The mechanics are completely different even if the names are the same.

Silver Crusade

There is no written rule in either 3.0, 3.5 or PF which even hints that items only cast the spell and never give you an effect as described in a spell. There is no rule which says it's the first unless it says the second.

Sure, if it 'casts' the spell, you use the CL of the item. But that doesn't mean that items 'cast' the spell by default. It depends on what the item description says.

If it says 'the wearer may use (spell name)...', then it effectively 'casts' the spell, and once this had been done then the wearer is affected for the duration, regardless of whether he continues to wear the item.

If the item says 'the wearer benefits from (spell effect)...', then this is not a 'cast' spell and doesn't use those rules.

You can supply quotes that tell you how to adjudicate the first case, but you cannot supply quotes that say that all items are this kind of item by default. Because that's not the case.


I have quoted the relevant sections several times Malachi. They clearly state otherwise.

CRB p460 wrote:
Some individual items, notably those that just store spells, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it. Items with full descriptions have their powers detailed, and each of the following topics is covered in notational form as part of its entry.
CRB p460 wrote:
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

These two quotes state that if an item casts a spell or if the power(s) of the item have variable level-dependent aspects then the Caster Level is used UNLESS specified otherwise.

So yes, it does cover both cases you provided.

All magic items that have variable level-dependent effects default to these rules unless specified otherwise. They have done this since 3.0 (I can provide quotes for 3.0/3.5 too if you'd like).

Summary: If the magic item's spell or power has a level dependent variable and is not otherwise defined then you use the item's Caster Level to determine what it does.


thejeff wrote:
R2D2TS wrote:
Is there any reason that a spoken command word could not be whispered? I have looked through my books and found nothing indicating the command has to be spoken at any specific volume or higher. It just says it must be spoken. (just curious if I am missing something somewhere)

I don't think there's a specific reference, but lacking one, I'd treat it like other magical speaking: You can't whisper vocal casting components, you can't Cackle quietly, you shouldn't be able to whisper command words either.

I believe Silence prevents command words from working, which also suggests the item has to "hear" them somehow.

I agree with this. I think it's probably best to assume that it follows the same strong, clear voice necessary for spellcasting and cackling and whatnot.

You probably shouldn't be able to circumvent the requirement of a spoken word by inaudibly whispering. If it's a home game, do what you will. Of course, if you're circumventing command words like that, you might as well make them mental activation.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
How would you word an item which gives the spell effect, the 'benefit' of the state that is described in a spell, without being tied to the spellcasting information?

How would you word it? It seems obvious through several debates with you that you want more technical wording, and I understand that, but "

not being as technical as Malachi would like" does not make someone wrong. Different people require different amounts of information to reach a certain conclusion. You are confusing "I don't like the wording" with "this should not make sense to most people", but since most people I have met tend to agree with the FAQ's even before the devs post them I am having a hard time looking at the way the rules are written as the problem. Now if only Gauss, myself, and a select few others were having issues then I would say push for more technical wording. Any just to make sure this is not lost,---> How would you like for it to be worded and yet have the same affect the devs want it to have?


I actually like the results of this ruling since it makes lots of class abilities like the disguise hex or various stealth abilities more valuable than I previously thought.

But I was just struck by the pricing difference between a ring of invisibility and bracers of falcon's aim. To start with, the bracers grant the equivalent of the improved critical feat for all types of bows and crossbows. Then they grant the numerical equivalent of skill focus (perception) as well as weapon focus (for every ranged weapon) all of which will stack with the actual feats! And all of these effects are continuous. (As a side benefit, they even removed the physical changes caused by the original spell.) These benefits come with a 4000 g.p. price tag.

Meanwhile a ring of invisibility only has one effect which has to be reactivated at frequent intervals. And the method for reactivating it may negate the stealthiness which is the sole purpose of the ring. This has a cost of 20,000 g.p.

Now I know that invisibility is a second level spell and aspect of the falcon is a first level spell, but both items have a caster level of 3 so the price difference seems pretty steep to me. Honestly, just looking at the descriptions of the items, I would think those pries should be reversed. It is an odd pricing system.

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:

I actually like the results of this ruling since it makes lots of class abilities like the disguise hex or various stealth abilities more valuable than I previously thought.

But I was just struck by the pricing difference between a ring of invisibility and bracers of falcon's aim. To start with, the bracers grant the equivalent of the improved critical feat for all types of bows and crossbows. Then they grant the numerical equivalent of skill focus (perception) as well as weapon focus (for every ranged weapon) all of which will stack with the actual feats! And all of these effects are continuous. (As a side benefit, they even removed the physical changes caused by the original spell.) These benefits come with a 4000 g.p. price tag.

Bracers of Falcon's Aim are an admittedly mispriced item, so they're not a good comparison for anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bracers of Falcon's Aim is one of those major mistakes when it comes to magic items.

First, it fails the 'does an item already do this' test.
Lesser Bracers of Archery has a price tag of 5,000gp for a +1 attack bonus (it is either the +1 attack bonus OR proficiency, most bow users will already have proficiency).

Second, it grants a +3 bonus to perception checks, that should cost an extra 900gp.

Third, it is granting a major combat feat for only 4,000gp.

Ultimately, the item is one of those examples of an item that should have never been made or at least should have been priced significantly higher (8-10,000gp sounds about right to me).

Another item in Ultimate Equipment that I feel they made a major error with is the Feather Step Slippers. A magic item that replaces two feats and an entire class feature for the low low price of 2,000gp? Who wouldn't want these?


Jeff Merola wrote:
Bracers of Falcon's Aim are an admittedly mispriced item, so they're not a good comparison for anything.

Who admitted that they are mispriced? I couldn't find a FAQ or errata changing the pricing.


Gauss wrote:
Another item in Ultimate Equipment that I feel they made a major error with is the Feather Step Slippers. A magic item that replaces two feats and an entire class feature for the low low price of 2,000gp? Who wouldn't want these?

Oh, those are very nice! Thank you for pointing them out. Between the Bracers of Falcon's Aim and these slippers, archers got a nice, cheap magical boost from Ultimate Equipment.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Bracers of Falcon's Aim are an admittedly mispriced item, so they're not a good comparison for anything.
Who admitted that they are mispriced? I couldn't find a FAQ or errata changing the pricing.

There's no FAQ or errata, no, but as a CL 3 item of their kind, the guidelines place their cost at 12k, not 4k. Add in James Jacobs saying that there's something wrong with the price, and the fact that Mike Brock talked with Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer, if didn't already know that), who said they were underpriced.


You also need to consider that the pricing of an item is more about how useful it is, not so much the spell it uses. Not all spells are equal, which is why the magic item rules suggest a GM ad-hoc the prices when needed.
Haste and Fly are going to generally be more useful that most any other 3rd level spell as an "always on ability" even if the other spells have the same duration.


Which reminds me that I intended to reprice those bracers and never got around to it. Those slippers were supposed to get a 2nd look from me also.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Bracers of Falcon's Aim are an admittedly mispriced item, so they're not a good comparison for anything.
Who admitted that they are mispriced? I couldn't find a FAQ or errata changing the pricing.
There's no FAQ or errata, no, but as a CL 3 item of their kind, the guidelines place their cost at 12k, not 4k. Add in James Jacobs saying that there's something wrong with the price, and the fact that Mike Brock talked with Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer, if didn't already know that), who said they were underpriced.

Those unofficial posts are from 2012 and 2013. If the design team really thought there was an error, there has been more than enough time to FAQ or errata it. That they haven't taken five minutes out of all that time to post a FAQ, speaks louder than the two individual opinions you cited.

Under the rules set down by Paizo, the official price is still 4000 g.p. Since the bracers and the ring both appear in the same rulebook, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to compare the two items. And as I said, the pricing is weird.


wraithstrike wrote:

You also need to consider that the pricing of an item is more about how useful it is, not so much the spell it uses. Not all spells are equal, which is why the magic item rules suggest a GM ad-hoc the prices when needed.

Haste and Fly are going to generally be more useful that most any other 3rd level spell as an "always on ability" even if the other spells have the same duration.

That actually was my point. The ring of invisibility now seems way less useful than the bracers, yet the pricing would suggest otherwise.


Gisher wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Bracers of Falcon's Aim are an admittedly mispriced item, so they're not a good comparison for anything.
Who admitted that they are mispriced? I couldn't find a FAQ or errata changing the pricing.
There's no FAQ or errata, no, but as a CL 3 item of their kind, the guidelines place their cost at 12k, not 4k. Add in James Jacobs saying that there's something wrong with the price, and the fact that Mike Brock talked with Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer, if didn't already know that), who said they were underpriced.

Those unofficial posts are from 2012 and 2013. If the design team really thought there was an error, there has been more than enough time to FAQ or errata it. That they haven't taken five minutes out of all that time to post a FAQ, speaks louder than the two individual opinions you cited.

Under the rules set down by Paizo, the official price is still 4000 g.p. Since the bracers and the ring both appear in the same rulebook, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to compare the two items. And as I said, the pricing is weird.

It has taken them longer than that to FAQ/errata things before. They have an FAQ priority list. So time is not really a good argument.

I also don't know how much of a push there has been since people care more about specific rules than magic items.

The amulet of mighty fist took a really long time.


Gisher wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

You also need to consider that the pricing of an item is more about how useful it is, not so much the spell it uses. Not all spells are equal, which is why the magic item rules suggest a GM ad-hoc the prices when needed.

Haste and Fly are going to generally be more useful that most any other 3rd level spell as an "always on ability" even if the other spells have the same duration.
That actually was my point. The ring of invisibility now seems way less useful than the bracers, yet the pricing would suggest otherwise.

3 minutes is a long time to scout assuming your GM does not handwave time away to make spells end before they should. <--A common practice I have seen.

All you have to do is reset it when nobody is around, and you can get a lot more than 3 minutes out of it.


wraithstrike wrote:

It has taken them longer than that to FAQ/errata things before. They have an FAQ priority list. So time is not really a good argument.

I also don't know how much of a push there has been since people care more about specific rules than magic items.

The amulet of mighty fist took a really long time.

I am basing my arguments on the current official rules. If I understand your position, I should instead be basing my arguments on potential future rule changes. That strikes me as an odd way to argue, especially in the Rules Forum. Don't you ever base your opinions on current rules?


Even ignoring the scouting element, a Ring of Invisibility means you start each and every combat invisible. I don't know about you but that is a COLOSSAL bonus. And for those people who are primarily summoners or buffers it is even more effective.


wraithstrike wrote:

3 minutes is a long time to scout assuming your GM does not handwave time away to make spells end before they should. <--A common practice I have seen.

All you have to do is reset it when nobody is around, and you can get a lot more than 3 minutes out of it.

Gauss wrote:
Even ignoring the scouting element, a Ring of Invisibility means you start each and every combat invisible. I don't know about you but that is a COLOSSAL bonus. And for those people who are primarily summoners or buffers it is even more effective.

Reasonable positions. As my screen name suggests, I usually play Gish types. So I normally have other means of becoming invisible. For me the bonuses granted by the bracers are harder to duplicate.

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:

Those unofficial posts are from 2012 and 2013. If the design team really thought there was an error, there has been more than enough time to FAQ or errata it. That they haven't taken five minutes out of all that time to post a FAQ, speaks louder than the two individual opinions you cited.

Under the rules set down by Paizo, the official price is still 4000 g.p. Since the bracers and the ring both appear in the same rulebook, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to compare the two items. And as I said, the pricing is weird.

Your position reveals your ignorance on how the errata and FAQ system actually work. Errata doesn't happen until a book is reprinted. Ultimate Equipment is still on its first printing.

As for FAQing, until Mark Seifter joined the team, turnaround time for pretty much any FAQ was stupidly long, and many things that should have been FAQed went unanswered.

So, no, the fact that there has been no official errata or FAQ on the subject does nothing to change the fact that it's a known problematic item, and as such really shouldn't be used as a basis for any argument on balance.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Gisher wrote:

Those unofficial posts are from 2012 and 2013. If the design team really thought there was an error, there has been more than enough time to FAQ or errata it. That they haven't taken five minutes out of all that time to post a FAQ, speaks louder than the two individual opinions you cited.

Under the rules set down by Paizo, the official price is still 4000 g.p. Since the bracers and the ring both appear in the same rulebook, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to compare the two items. And as I said, the pricing is weird.

Your position reveals your ignorance on how the errata and FAQ system actually work. Errata doesn't happen until a book is reprinted. Ultimate Equipment is still on its first printing.

As for FAQing, until Mark Seifter joined the team, turnaround time for pretty much any FAQ was stupidly long, and many things that should have been FAQed went unanswered.

So, no, the fact that there has been no official errata or FAQ on the subject does nothing to change the fact that it's a known problematic item, and as such really shouldn't be used as a basis for any argument on balance.

It is true that I am new to the forums, but I still think that I am correct when I say that Bracers of Falcon's Aim are 4000 g.p. by RAW. Is the current edition of Ultimate Equipment not official? Have I misread the text for that item?

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:


It is true that I am new to the forums, but I still think that I am correct when I say that Bracers of Falcon's Aim are 4000 g.p. by RAW. Is the current edition of Ultimate Equipment not official? Have I misread the text for that item?

Yes, it's RAW. I never claimed otherwise. What I did claim is that it's a mispriced item that even the dev team think is mispriced, and should not be used as a basis for any form of argument. Just because it hasn't been fixed yet doesn't mean that it's any less mispriced. It's a very minor issue, which they really don't like fixing with FAQs even now that they do them more frequently than they used to, so it'll probably stay mispriced until they reprint Ultimate Equipment, whenever that is.


But my argument all along has been that the RAW pricing difference for the two items didn't make sense. Either the bracers should cost more or the ring the should cost less or both.

I don't see how could I possibly make that argument without citing the current RAW prices, but when I did, people started telling me that I shouldn't. It's strange since all of you seem to agree with my conclusion.


Gisher wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It has taken them longer than that to FAQ/errata things before. They have an FAQ priority list. So time is not really a good argument.

I also don't know how much of a push there has been since people care more about specific rules than magic items.

The amulet of mighty fist took a really long time.

I am basing my arguments on the current official rules. If I understand your position, I should instead be basing my arguments on potential future rule changes. That strikes me as an odd way to argue, especially in the Rules Forum. Don't you ever base your opinions on current rules?

I was not making a rules based argument. I was stating why I thought you logic was incorrect. There is no rule for magic item creation when it comes to pricing. There are only guidelines. Your said you wanted proof of dev consideration and it was posted. Then you tried to say its been X amount of time so I countered that.

By the rules the price is what the price is. However what is official and what is consistent are not the same thing. It takes two feats and you still get less than what the slippers give you. I don't know of any magic item giving you two feats for less than 10000 gp.

Grand Lodge

Gisher wrote:

But my argument all along has been that the RAW pricing difference for the two items didn't make sense. Either the bracers should cost more or the ring the should cost less or both.

I don't see how could I possibly make that argument without citing the current RAW prices, but when I did, people started telling me that I shouldn't. It's strange since all of you seem to agree with my conclusion.

Because that one item that you picked is already known to have a problem. The Slippers are a better choice for that kind of argument, because as far as I'm aware there's nothing even unofficial from the devs that that item is considered problematic.

Taking a known problem item and an item that the devs seem to be totally fine with and comparing their price difference doesn't really tell you anything at all useful, unless you were trying to prove that the problem item wasn't actually a problem (which you weren't, obviously).


Gisher wrote:

But my argument all along has been that the RAW pricing difference for the two items didn't make sense. Either the bracers should cost more or the ring the should cost less or both.

I don't see how could I possibly make that argument without citing the current RAW prices, but when I did, people started telling me that I shouldn't. It's strange since all of you seem to agree with my conclusion.

As I said an item is priced based on usefulness, or it should be at least. Going by usefulness the slippers are underpriced. The ring if going by the formula is underpriced so it was adhoc'd to its current price based on how good it is.

I don't know how much your GM's use difficult terrain or how well they use it, but it is annoying. You can not approach or escape if you are losing a fight nearly as well. Unless you have flight you basically have to suck it up and deal with it. Flight comes on line at level 5 at the earliest for most people since fly is a 3rd level spell.

Continuous flight per magic items is done by the flying broom and the carpet of flyig. Now admittedly flight is generally better than ignoring difficult terrain. However, whether I fly over difficult terrain or pretend they are not there the effect is about the same unless you are in a campaign that is mostly outside and you can fly high enough to not be attacked. Most fights inside have enemies that can still reach you or they have ranged attacks.

The flying carpet for one person is 10000gp.

I would say based on that, the slippers should be 7500 to 8000.

PS: Personally I think the carpet is underpriced but since we are going by established items I will go by what is in the CRB.


wraithstrike wrote:
Your said you wanted proof of dev consideration and it was posted.

I think I see the source of the difficulties in communication now. I never meant to ask for proof of dev consideration. I thought that Jeff Merola was referencing a FAQ or errata indicating that the official price had changed. It turns out that he wasn't, and since my point was a critique of the official pricing, unofficial dev posts were irrelevant to my argument. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been, and I apologize for that.

Note that if the changes mentioned in those posts were ever made, they would actually support my position that the current pricing was unbalanced, but using changes that might never take place to bolster my argument really would have been flawed logic.

wraithstrike wrote:
Then you tried to say its been X amount of time so I countered that.

My comments that the long time waiting for a FAQ indicated that these rules changes were unlikely to occur seems to have been incorrect. I rescind that argument in its entirety. Since I have been here, I have seen a number of quicker FAQ responses, and I assumed that they were typical. But I am new to the forums, and therefore ignorant of the history behind these processes. Regardless of the likelihood that those changes will occur, they have not yet occurred, and that is all that mattered for the point that I was trying to make. It may well be that my earlier lack of clarity led some of you to think that I was making a different point, so again I apologize.

wraithstrike wrote:
By the rules the price is what the price is. However what is official and what is consistent are not the same thing.

That was my original argument exactly. I think that we actually agreed all along. The rulebooks define the price as 4000 g.p. and to me that seems inconsistent with the pricing of other items like the ring of invisibility. I actually think that all of us agree on that fact. I think that we also all agree that the price of the bracers should be raised. There appears to be some disagreement on whether the ring should be lowered. I'd be fine leaving it where it is, but as I stated earlier it isn't all that useful for my style of play, so my perception is that it is a bit overpriced. That part is entirely a subjective opinion, by the way, not a reasoned argument. :)


Jeff Merola wrote:
Taking a known problem item and an item that the devs seem to be totally fine with and comparing their price difference doesn't really tell you anything at all useful, unless you were trying to prove that the problem item wasn't actually a problem (which you weren't, obviously).

The pricing of the bracers was a new issue for me. I was posting about how great they are in another thread when the disparate pricing struck me. I thought I would bring the discussion here because I had posted in this thread before and it seemed relevant. I wasn't aware of the dev posts when i made my first post, so the comparison seemed useful to me. You did know about those posts so my argument seemed useless to you.

After you mentioned the posts, i still didn't think they were relevant because I apparently had some misunderstandings about how Paizo defines "official." I had previously read comments by both James Jacobs and SKR stating that their postings were unofficial and that only FAQ's and errata that came from the design team should be considered official. I took them at their words, but apparently that is not the way these things are viewed here in the rules forums.

I apologize if my ignorance of the conventions led you to believe that I was making a different argument than the one that I meant to convey. And I apologize to everyone for wasting your time. I won't waste any more of it.


I do agree that the price of the ring can be subjective based on how you play the game, and how the GM runs a game.

Gisher I think I see the communication now. (2 thumps up)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gisher wrote:
Those unofficial posts are from 2012 and 2013. If the design team really thought there was an error

They don't follow the pricing rules of the game, period. Knowing it is a pricing error and changing an existing item up or down is something they prefer to never do. I know of one instance where they made a change, Amulet of Mighty Fists got shifted from 5,000 to 4,000 gp.

Gisher wrote:
Either the bracers should cost more or the ring the should cost less or both.

No, you are saying you think the rules of item creation should be changed to no longer price items by their power. If you want the ring price lowered, you are essentially saying "ignore it is powerful and don't raise the price of the ring of invisibility" and "keep the bracer 1/3 of what it should be".

You will probably get your wish on the bracer, but you will never get your wish on item creation or the ring.

Silver Crusade

GG Gisher, you must be happy now -_-

Bracers of Nearsighted Falcon’s Aim:

Each of these crimson leather bracers is emblazoned with the image of a soaring golden falcon scanning the ground for easy prey.

Once per day, on command, the wearer gains the benefits of aspect of the falcon for 1 minute. The wearer must wear these bracers continuously for 24 hours before activating this ability.

101 to 147 of 147 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ on Hat of Disguise duration All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.