Saddiztic's page

Sounds great.
May want to add a place for additional comments.
While a rating scale works well for a basic idea, you run into a similar problem of just having yes or no questions. It doesn't allow people to give an in-depth view of why they gave a certain rating.
While this may not be as important for the five star raters, for this purpose, it might be useful to know why someone gave a lower rating.

Saddiztic wrote:

yes and the greeter will smile and say "have a nice day" as they are handing the next person a shopping cart, and the world will be all rainbows and daisies. LOL. Don't forget your extended warrantee. Stick to the rule, but if it was a good one, TSR wouldn't have abandoned it.

Ah, we're back to the smarmy comments.

In that case...

[Smarmy tone]
Well, have it your own way. Let everything stack, and ignore all the gold rules and everyone will make their character however they want, and since we're throwing out any rule that limits how a player makes their character, we'll let them build them however they want and eveyrone will be happy. It'll be a glorious day, everyone will have a +5 holy avenger, and everyone will smile and lick lollipops and sing Kumbaya around the campfire every night and we'll have +5 armor that stacks with +5 bracers of armor that stacks with +5 rings of armor and headbands of armor and gauntlets of armor and we'll have an AC of 300 and no one will ever die in war again! Won't that be just loverly?!
[/Smarmy tone]

"smarmy" comment? maybe if you missed the earlier part of the discussion referring to that system being like Walmart.

Saddiztic wrote:

mdt wrote:

By ROLEPLAYING that attitude. "Man, I don't want to go out and search that old ruined city, it's infested with demon rats and skeltons." NPC Wife. "I'm pregnant again dear." PC Wizard. "Gahh!!!! Ok, where's my runestaff..."

And... not to make too fine a nit pick of it, but... there are many more npc wizards in your world than there are pcs. Unless your PC's the only wizard in your world? In which case, the local villagers would probably...

in some towns that definitely would happen.

If playing a necromancer type, in most towns that would happen.

Wow you think you would find more in modules wanting to do that if people had that idea that that is what wizards do.

What does being a necromancer have to do with anything?

As to the modules, quite often, modules do have that. They'll talk about magic shops in town, wizards being hirable, etc. Who do you think they are talking about?

in some they definitely would. i didn't say it never does.

Quote:

a Player should be free to build with equipment how they see fit, within the context of the story, instead of being limited by a rule for balance, when that is what the GM is for.

I must wonder why you're playing Pathfinder at all then.

A player should be free to roleplay how they see fit, within the context of the story, instead of being limited by rules like "roll a d20 and add your attack to see if you hit", and "roll some other dice to see how much damage you do".

By your arguments, it seems like you'd be much happier playing an entirely freeform RP, rather than using a game system of any kind.

umm because i feel one rule hinders character development, and roleplay emersion?

Saddiztic wrote:

its no fallacious than to think a certain + on an item grants a certain value, or that the items are mass produced.

And it really isn't an argument, its pointing out the fact that you aren't going to get any antique you want at the price you want, no matter what the average value has been established.

Your analogy of go find 10 micky mantle baseball cards for $10 is exactly like walking into a computer store and saying give me a computer for $10. That is not exactly like going into a town and to a wizard and saying 'Here, make me a magic sword for X gold' unless X gold is 10gp.

If instead, you walk into a computer store and say 'I want a computer for $1000 dollars' then guess what? The salesman will help you find one, take your money, thank you, and send you on your way.

Now, let's put this in D&D terms. You walk into a wizards shop with 2,000 gp and say 'Hi, I want a magical weapon and I want to pay 2000 gp for it.' Now, the wizard will help you figure out which type of weapon, what you want engraved on it, take your gp, thank you, and tell you to come back in 3 weeks. Then in 3 weeks, you come back, he gives you the weapon, and you are both happy.

Your argument is 'If you X and expect Y you won't get Y so therefore your argument is wrong'. The problem is you choose, to be honest, silly arguments. I might just as well say 'I'll give you a penny to eat a slug'. And then when you say no, I can argue 'See, nobody would ever eat a slug, it's an invalid idea'. But that's not true, I just didn't offer you the value of eating a slug. If I said 'Here's a $100, eat a slug' then you might stop and think and might do it. If I offered you $1000 to eat a slug, you would be really really really tempted. That's what the idea of a gold value on magical items is, it's the average price at which an owner of a given magic item is likely to be willing to part with it. An individual might want more or less, but the assigned price is the average, and every other rule for...

yes and the greeter will smile and say "have a nice day" as they are handing the next person a shopping cart, and the world will be all rainbows and daisies. LOL. Don't forget your extended warrantee. Stick to the rule, but if it was a good one, TSR wouldn't have abandoned it.

Perhaps I should emphasize one part of my post:

Quote:

Of course you won't get it at the price you want. You'll get it at the market price or thereabouts.

Quote:

yes but the entire world doesn't have a rule that two antiques will do you no good just because it would throw off that value system.

That's because the value of antiques isn't because they make you more effective when fighting someone.

They are valuable because they are antiques. Not because of some "real-world-mechanical" effect they have on your fighting skills.

Guy it doesn't matter what kind of effect it has. a Player should be free to build with equipment how they see fit, within the context of the story, instead of being limited by a rule for balance, when that is what the GM is for.

If you have all these rules for balance, you can just sit home and run games for your own character and not even bother with a GM.
I mean heck as long as you stick the rules its balanced and great fun. golly what a great time!

Saddiztic wrote:

if it was that easy to purchase antiques at said value, everyone would be doing it, saving them and waiting for their value to increase.
Guess what the problem is with that. When you go to an antique store, and see that antique that has an "average" price of $5 the price tag will be $12. If you buy it for $12 you are the sucker since you could have probably talked the owner into selling it to you for $7-10.
Antiques tend not to have a set price. They have a value ranges depending on many many MANY things.

A) No, everyone wouldn't. Most people don't even consider antiques in todays society. Instead, they think about 'new new new' new sofa, new tv, new new new.

B) Antique dealers will tell you a price that makes them a profit. Then you haggle with them, just like in the game. I agree, if the price is $5, then you pay $12, you're a moron. Or.. you are in a hurry and don't have a choice. This is exactly what happens in the game setting. The +1 sword is worth 2,000 on average. If you take your time in game and do your searches, you can find it cheaper (IE: Haggle roll with diplomacy or gather information to find one someone needs to sell desperately). If you're time crunched though, guess what, you need that +1 sword today? Well, you'll probably end up paying $3,000 for it. Did you et gypped? Yes. Does the real world work like this? Yes. Does that invalidate the fact the sword is really worth 2000? No.

Saddiztic wrote:

So, how do you play a wizard that wants to settle down and have...

By ROLEPLAYING that attitude. "Man, I don't want to go out and search that old ruined city, it's infested with demon rats and skeltons." NPC Wife. "I'm pregnant again dear." PC Wizard. "Gahh!!!! Ok, where's my runestaff..."

And... not to make too fine a nit pick of it, but... there are many more npc wizards in your world than there are pcs. Unless your PC's the only wizard in your world? In which case, the local villagers would probably...

yes but the entire world doesn't have a rule that two antiques will do you no good just because it would throw off that value system.

but anyway, I'm gonna get out of here, its friday.

sorry about the insuting comment, gets kind of fustrating when people dip in to make a silly jab that has no real value to the conversation.
I feel like I am trying to bring science to some folks that are fixated on religion and think anything but is evil.

By ROLEPLAYING that attitude. "Man, I don't want to go out and search that old ruined city, it's infested with demon rats and skeltons." NPC Wife. "I'm pregnant again dear." PC Wizard. "Gahh!!!! Ok, where's my runestaff..."

And... not to make too fine a nit pick of it, but... there are many more npc wizards in your world than there are pcs. Unless your PC's the only wizard in your world? In which case, the local villagers would probably...

in some towns that definitely would happen.

Wow you think you would find more in modules wanting to do that if people had that idea that that is what wizards do.

Quote:

And it really isn't an argument, its pointing out the fact that you aren't going to get any antique you want at the price you want

Of course you won't get it at the price you want. You'll get it at the market price or thereabouts.

No you'll get it for a higher than market price unless you barter the price down, provided that the antique you want is actually available.

Hmmmm with a a description like that you might think I've been involved in business like that before huh?

Saddiztic wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Actually, they do have a monetary value, that's called being a weapons tech company, or being a plane company, etc etc etc. Every item has it's price, that's what markets and economies are all about.

I'm not going to get into this argument, but no they don't.

The price depends on how much the manufacturer thinks each client needs them, and sometimes, how much political currency they can obtain by supplying them to a particular client.

The first problem with this analogy is that tanks and bombers and fighter jets and such are prohibited artificially, and very damn expensive (and yes, they do have price tags, the F22 was 25 million a pop, that's a price tag, and every tax payer paid it).

The second problem with this analogy is that you can't build your own tank (again, because the equipment needed is prohibited by the government).

A better one would be... swords. Think about a sword. If you want a genuine Toshi era katana, you go to an antiquities house and pay through the nose (+5 weapon).

If you want a real sword, but don't care how old it is, you buy from one of the hundreds of people who make them by hand and sell them on the internet for a lot less money (+3 weapon).

If you want a metal sword that looks really good on display, but you don't really care if it's well crafted, good balanced, or can hold an edge, you buy a replica sword cranked out by machines and sold in Little China (+1 weapon)

And if you don't want to pay for it, you go get some spring steel, a small forge, some hammers, an anvil, a book or two on blacksmithing, and you hammer out your own (I knew a guy in college who did this with a spring off a 87 plymouth). It wasn't a pretty sword, but it held a damn nice edge, was decently balanced, and could slice a watermelon lengthwise with a one handed blow.

yes probably is a better anaolgy, but I was just going with what was stated. It was decent enough. to get an idea. I don't plan on nit-picking anologies, when they made a decent enough point.

Quote:

Well you go in there and tell them you want 10 mickey mantle rookie cards and only want them for $10 a piece.

This is quite the fallacious argument, and actually supports our view that things have an actual monetary value.

If I wandered into a computer store and said I wanted 10 high-end desktops and I wanted them for $10 apiece, how far do you think I'd get?

its no fallacious than to think a certain + on an item grants a certain value, or that the items are mass produced.

And it really isn't an argument, its pointing out the fact that you aren't going to get any antique you want at the price you want, no matter what the average value has been established.

Honestly, I think you are looking at a game that is fundamentally wrong for you.

I don't mean that in a snarky way. I just think it is true.

really?

just curious that isn't an attack as it nearly sounds.

Jabor wrote:

Quote:

You can't just walk into walmart and find them on every shelf.

No, you walk into an antiques store or auction house. Other than that, it's roughly the same.

Exactly. If you want a Louis the 15th armoire in good condition with gold knobs, then you go to an auction house or an antiquities dealer. If they don't have it, they'll put out feelers and find it, and they'll be able to tell you about how much it'll cost up front, because those things have been selling back and forth for ages and they know what they are worth.

Now, if you want a specific Van Gogh, no, you can't find that in an auction house. But that's a specious argument in the first place, because an original Van Gogh is like an artifact, it's a one of kind item that can't be made any more.

Jabor wrote:

How is a Wizard going to finance their research and fact-finding? If we want a decent example, compare it to how modern R&D institutions finance their continued research.

And what makes you think every Wizard is devoting their entire lives to finding knowledge and doing very little with it?

Much like scientists, there are undoubtedly wizards who just want to be able to settle down, have some children, and eke out a comfortable living. And if you can produce magical items, that's a very easy way to earn enough money to get by.

Seems we are thinking along the same lines. :)

if it was that easy to purchase antiques at said value, everyone would be doing it, saving them and waiting for their value to increase.

So, how do you play a wizard that wants to settle down and have kids and earn a comfortable living in a group roleplay setting?
that would be interesting to see.

Saddiztic wrote:

buying an antique in real isn't like buying a coke.

You can't just walk into walmart and find them on every shelf.

Around here, they have these things, what are they called...

Oh yeah, "antique stores".

Well you go in there and tell them you want 10 mickey mantle rookie cards and only want them for $10 a piece.

kind of the reason why wolves bane might be a higher price in towns or villages in this game, that has problems with werewolves or similar creatures.

Actually, they do have a monetary value, that's called being a weapons tech company, or being a plane company, etc etc etc. Every item has it's price, that's what markets and economies are all about.

I'm not going to get into this argument, but no they don't.

Saddiztic wrote:

Jabor wrote:

Quote:

I am referring to the fact that by maintaining a GP value on magic, you have unbalanced the game, now have to bring in another rule to fix it.

If you allow crafting of magic items, then such craftable items inherently have a gold-piece value.

If you allow trade of magic items, then they inherently have a gold-piece value.

That is the way economies work.

No! antiquity trade works on finding someone that will pay that amount for the item that you want to sell it for, or finding someone who will sell you the item for the lower price you want to pay.

If you look back you will see where I mentioned magic items should be treated as antiquity rather than trinkets sales on the side of the road.

Ya know, its a good thing people are free to run their games how they wish, because I have a very different viewpoint from BOTH those perspectives.

To me magic items aren't little trinkets for sale on the side of the road, but at the same time they aren't 'antiquity' (and frankly I don't understand how something that any human being with the right abilities in modern times can create can be considerred 'antiquity' in the first place, that word fits artifacts better than magic items with crafting feats permissible for them.)

In my world, magic items are... wait for it... magic items. Their items that are imbued with magic, traces and lines of power that make them special, and valuable, and did I mention special?

Let me put it in perspective. How much do governments pay for Jets, or Missiles, or heck, one man's rocket launcher? That's the way I see magic items. It's the 'high tech' gear of the system, something valuable and powerful, that you have to earn the right to possess (reach appropriate level, achieve the appropriate amount of gold, etc)

Magic items are special and important, but they're a part of the world, rather than an 'antiquity': (A fragment of a long forgotten past.)

I agree, But I was hoping one word would suffice to say the same thing as your very wordy explanation.

Quote:

You can't just walk into walmart and find them on every shelf.

No, you walk into an antiques store or auction house. Other than that, it's roughly the same.

How is a Wizard going to finance their research and fact-finding? If we want a decent example, compare it to how modern R&D institutions finance their continued research.

And what makes you think every Wizard is devoting their entire lives to finding knowledge and doing very little with it?

Much like scientists, there are undoubtedly wizards who just want to be able to settle down, have some children, and eke out a comfortable living. And if you can produce magical items, that's a very easy way to earn enough money to get by.

guy, modern R&D research is funded by companies wanting data, so it can contribute to making a product. typically in a fantasy environment by a creative GM that can be easily done with all sorts of plots of NPCs and adventuring for players.

It is also funded by government that wants data, or by any numerous insitutions that want to promote knowledge. You can trust me on that one.

Very little with it?
No how do you consider it very little when they are gaining spells, power, and most likely large estates to build towers, and labs on to continue their research which will generally flow into planar adventuring and epic levels?

Saddiztic wrote:

Lathiira wrote:

Or even a tattoo, now that I think of it.

Yes because in a world where magic is antiquity, there is a person on every street corner making magical tats.

Then you don't allow creation of magic items? Either you can create a magic item or it's a lost art (antiquity). You can't have it both ways. If the PC's can make X magic items per year game time, and there are 1 billion people in your world, and the PC's represent the top 10% of your population, then you've got 100,000 people making X magic items per year. Even if X is only 2, that's 200,000 magic items per year. Since a magic item will outlive it's maker, you have, after 2-3 centuries, 250 * X * 100,000 magic items. Or, X * 2.5 Million magic items floating around. If you take it back a thousand years, you've got enough magic items for every person in the world to have one.

guy i said treated as antiquity. I didn't say they couldn't be made. We were talking about an economic system, not a real life situation where no more magical items are bein produced.

Quote:

No! antiquity trade works on finding someone that will pay that amount for the item that you want to sell it for, or finding someone who will sell you the item for the lower rice you want to pay.

Exactly - it has a value, and it is traded for (more or less) that value.

Further, if such items are able to be crafted, then any comparison with historical (and thus long-out-of-production) items is invalid.

EDIT: Let's not get on to ad hominims please.

Guy you aren't comprehending the difference.

mdt wrote:

Jabor wrote:

Quote:

Also remember that a slotless item can be something like an ioun stone. How many of those can orbit around/above your head?

Any self-respecting Wizard would have a solar system of orange ioun stones whirling around them.

Technically, a slotless item just has to be on your person. It can be a stick pin on your collar, it can be a clip on your belt, it can be stone in your pocket, it can be a flower stuck in your hair, it can be a piercing in your nose. The idea of slotless gloves just means the gloves are in your backpack but you still get benefit for them.

Or even a tattoo, now that I think of it.

Yes because in a world where magic is antiquity, there is a person on every street corner making magical tats.

There is actually a really easy, utterly straightforward, and logical fix for this, which is:

Don't allow magical enhancements to stack with others of the same type.

yes if you aren't an advanced system gamer that would probably be more of the level of gaming you would want to stick to yes, I'll agree.

Quote:

I am referring to the fact that by maintaining a GP value on magic, you have unbalanced the game, now have to bring in another rule to fix it.

If you allow crafting of magic items, then such craftable items inherently have a gold-piece value.

If you allow trade of magic items, then they inherently have a gold-piece value.

That is the way economies work.

No! antiquity trade works on finding someone that will pay that amount for the item that you want to sell it for, or finding someone who will sell you the item for the lower price you want to pay.

If you look back you will see where I mentioned magic items should be treated as antiquity rather than trinkets sales on the side of the road.

[

I'll have to ask you to prove the game is unbalanced without letting +items of the same type of bonus stack.

I didn't say that, at all.

I am referring to the fact that by maintaining a GP value on magic, you have unbalanced the game, now have to bring in another rule to fix it.

why wouldn't you trade a +2 magic item for a castle?
Probably because the fact that if the castle was owned by someone so weak that they need it, they would have already been defeated and the castle taken anyway.

Now for something like a +5 Holy Avenger, yes without a doubt, someone would be a ble to get a castle for one. but would they want to??

Quote:

and How often the GM decides to let something like that drop.

You mean how often the DM allows downtime for crafting.

that also plays into the situation.

Typically players tend to create their own lack of downtime if you let them, by accidentally creating enemies, or persuing other goals to develop their character.

I'm not sure why that would happen. Are you suggesting that the evil DM Avatar would come along and smite down the player for taking the sensible course of action in regards to magical enhancements?

No I am suggesting what would happen, would be like what would happen in any place where you go around flashing a large wad of cash. if you go anywhere around people sooner or later someone tougher than you is either going to bash your skull in and take your money, or stick a knife to your throat and take it.

It appears people seem to think players are immune to being robbed, mugged, or beat up as a result of actions other than defending the unicorns.

Saddiztic wrote:

never have I once experienced a person sitting back wanting to make a bunch of magic items while everyone else is out adventuring.
never have I experienced anyone wanting to take time out of my adventures to do such silliness.

I would guess-only a guess-this is because in your campaigns it's common to quest for needed materials. RAW, all you need is time, a feat or two, and a mound of money usually. In many games, we might very well let a caster make items, because some of what he/she makes is for the party. And the party doesn't want to leave the cleric or wizard behind, as they're essential to survival.

Also remember that a slotless item can be something like an ioun stone. How many of those can orbit around/above your head?

on such an item like an ioun stone, i guess that would be limited by how many people would see the obvious gain in power as a threat, how many powerful mages see you having something they want, and How often the GM decides to let something like that drop.

Actually in my camapign people tend to be on lengthy quests that don't end at the end of the night... it isn't unusual for a player to start a quest at about 5th level and end up 9th by the time it is done.

Quote:

this is where the GM comes in to limit things within reason.

We shouldn't need a rule to define common sense, such as the fact it is impossible to wear 10 pairs of gloves.

The fact that they are "gloves" is mere fluff, as I pointed out above.

If you would say "you can't wear 10 pairs of gloves, slotless or no" I would instead make 10 slotless gold chains of dexterity and walk around with a few pounds of gold hanging around my neck.

and you would surely attract the attention of someone bigger and badder than you.

Quote:

And how many gloves can you wear at the same time?

You can wear one pair of ordinary (non-slotless) gloves on your hands.

You can wear as many "slotless [x]'s" (where x is "gloves", "boots", "amulets", "headbands", "nose-flutes", "crotch-stuffers", "towels" or pretty much any thing else) as you like, limited only by your encumbrance.

guy, go try to put on 10 pairs a gloves.

If you are allowing this kind of silliness, I can see where you need rules to keep the balance.
might even need to go back to a more basic game.

never have I once experienced a person sitting back wanting to make a bunch of magic items while everyone else is out adventuring.
never have I experienced anyone wanting to take time out of my adventures to do such silliness.

Jabor wrote:

Quote:

Tell me what gloves are slotless.

"Slotless Gloves of [foo]".

If you're allowing players to craft items, they can choose to craft items that do not occupy item slots.

Not sure how you can have a slotless glove, but hey, ok, I'll bite.

And how many gloves can you wear at the same time?

As I already mentioned earlier, I do understand not being able to wear a pair of +4 dex gloves on your hands and a pair on your feet and call it +8 dex.
again, not the kind of stacking I am talking about.

It appears slotless is made more so an item can be place anywhere to confer the bonus, like a set of prayer beads wrapped around a hand or a held holy symbol instead of it worn around the neck, not so you can fill one slot with 100 of them.

Quote:

Tell me what gloves are slotless.

"Slotless Gloves of [foo]".

If you're allowing players to craft items, they can choose to craft items that do not occupy item slots.

And how many gloves can you wear at the same time?

As I already mentioned earlier, I do understand not being able to wear a pair of +4 dex gloves on your hands and a pair on your feet and call it +8 dex.
again, not the kind of stacking I am talking about.

Quote:

that isn't even the kind of stacking I am referring to.

So you would arbitrarily ban slotless items?

Tell me what gloves are slotless.

if you are going to cherry pick comments please stick to the context.
Reason has to come in sometime right?
not like a player is going to be running around wearing 6 full suits of full plate. and there is no reason to allow them to.

Quote:

Something like a +2 Int gear for example, not hard at all. depending on what region they are in, I might not make them quest at all for the components.

In other words, they can just spend a few months making slotless +2 Int headbands before they go off adventuring?

If you are asking if i allow someone to wear 15 +2 INT headbands, put three pairs of +4 dex gloves gloves on and have a +30 INT +12 Dex bonus, no. that isn't even the kind of stacking I am referring to.

Kolokotroni wrote:

You said hey can i make stat boost items stack, and they heard "I want 15 +6 strength items to stack so my power attack can totally own your encounter".

You have to understand your audience ;).

That is pretty much how I read it, until he posted a bunch of statements that contradicted that.

Here's the thing, Saddiztic. You clearly have a handle on how you want to run your campaign. Just make it a house rule, document it for your rules lawyers, and call it a day. If they can't just go buy the stat boost items then you're absolutely right, gold price is irrelevant to them. That said, you (as DM) can still use it as a guideline for how powerful an item is (like character level or challenge rating). The pricelist shows that a +x ability item is worth x^2 times 1000 gold, if I remember correctly. This is how the system indicates the relative importance of the boost, and it's completely broken if items can stack. So as long as they can't buy them, stack away. You can control how many they get. Just be aware that the value of a stackable ability item (relative to other items) is going to be higher than the gold value printed in the manual will indicate.

And really, that's all the gold value is. It's a way to compare the value of one item against another. Not coincidentally, that is the entire point of any currency.

If you want a gameworld where magic is rare and the items aren't available at any price, that's fine. But in a real economy, that means they become absurdly valuable. Trading a +2 flaming sword for a castle would not be out of the question.

Or ignore that, too. It's your world. Every table in the book is made with certain assumptions about what items and the relevant bonuses the player will have. In fact, with ability modifiers Pathfinder is even more strict than 3.0 or 3.5 because they want all of your ability modifiers thrown into only two slots: headbands for mental and belts for physical. Ioun stones, as you mentioned, exist as an...

Probably one of the best, most level-headed posts I've seen concerning the matter so far.

Just as a question, roughly how difficult is it to get the required components for, say, slotless [item] of [attribute] +2?

From what I can see, it's either:

A. So difficult that a crafter has no hope of crafting level-appropriate items, or
B. So easy that someone a few levels higher can churn them out by the dozen without much trouble.

Assuming that your gameworld is actually internally consistent, of course.

How easy for a +2 item?

But as I said, by the time you can make something like that, it is pretty much safe to say that everyone in the party already has something to that affect, if they have regularly been adventuring with the group, and we are running into the same problem as --insert random name of MMORPG here.
So my players tend to make something like +2 INT with Summon monster II once per day, or something simiar. And in that case there will probably be a more rare component to get. (just an example)

If they craft something that rules permit, but is unbalancing, not only does it tend to be real hard to get the components to do so, but they also have to deal with someone else wanting the same component or someone wanting the ite when the word gets around that it exists.
This way, by the time they do achieve making it, it doesn't unbalance the campaign.

Quote:

Its a bad idea to base magic items on a GP value.

So you expect that magical items are going to be inherently "invaluable", with no way of determining if one is of greater worth than another?

What about when someone wants to produce magic items? Do all your games just ban all "Craft X" feats?

NO I don't ban anything but stuff like Luck.

But anyway to answer your question.
Let us say a character has a +3 INT item as a 10th level wizard in the nonstackable system. What reason would they really have to craft that sort of item unless it is for another party member who wasn't there during the adventuring through those 10 levels, so they couldn't have got another one that the Wizard turned down because he already had his?

He might have a reason to craft himself a +4 INT item when he only has a +3 one, but by the time he can, he probably already owns one, if you are balancing your game by level appropriate loot.

When my players start making magical items, they start making things like sword that can drain HP and add them to their own, or something similar and need say ashes of a vampire to make it, another thing I don't think they are going to find on store shelf.

Do you not allow your players to craft their own magic items or something?

Yes I do, but I make them quest for components depending on the kind of item they want to craft. WOW there is a novel idea, make adventurers quest for something... HMMM

If they have a the level appropriate bonus already, why would they want to craft another item that does the same thing, if it isn't going to stack? Oh right.. so they can sell it to someone else that already has that bonus and needs it to give to their alien friend that doesn't live on the same world that doesn't have it.

I mean surely PF or any other game isn't going to allow players to craft magical items that aren't level appropriate.

You see what is happening to magical items when they don't stack?

yes it is a bad idea. If you have to copletely change something like that to balance the game out it pretty much a bad idea.

Its a bad idea to base magic items on a GP value. Look at any fictional story you read. Unless the world is completely drowning in magical items, they are rare, valuable, and people don't go around just buying any and every magical item from a magical jobs with the exception of maybe some healing or love potions.

All the good stories are like that.
Now look at the stories that are bad.
The world is completely bathed in magic, the heroes can go out and buy awesome magical item and then go quest for something just a smidgeon better than they can buy.

I guess this whole thread did move off the subject under which is was posted and probably should have been posted under general dicussion.

Saddiztic wrote:

that would be nice if people were not acting like they are sacred texts from the Roleplay Gods, but they are.

This is the rules questions section of the forums. For the most part people here are going to give you their interpretations of rules as written. Not to mention there seems a fairly significant tendancy to fear the PC's getting out of control on these boards. Most likely because Paizo (prior to PFRPG) put out mostly products for DM's. The overwhelming majority of posters are primary DM's. So you have a bunch of people who have spent their gaming career dealing with crafty Pain in the butt players (all of whom, myself included, have often sought ways to make the dms life unpleasant with unreasonably capable pc's), and you asked if they thought it was cool to circumvent one of the more straight forward limiting factors on PC power. You said hey can i make stat boost items stack, and they heard "I want 15 +6 strength items to stack so my power attack can totally own your encounter".

You have to understand your audience ;).

Guy if you are GM and people are that crafty that you can't balance it out, I'm not sure what advice to give you.

I completely understand concerns over balance, what I don't understand is a GM fearing being able to balance something they have control of.
There is a reason they call you the Game Master, the Dungeon Master, etc.
Crafty players ultimately do things because the GM allows them to.
Worrying about "crafty players" puling something over on you, is like a person worrying about a boyfriend or girlfriend constantly treating them like dirt. If they are constantly doing it, it is because that person is allowing them to.

All it takes is the will to say no, I'm not giving you a +4 sword that I randomly rolled for killing a 2 HD goblin, or being willing to have some pick pockets lift something from PC's when they are in town, when you find you gave a player something too powerful.
BE A GM. YOU HAVE THE POWER.
So why are GMs cowering in the corner as if the players make up the world and the story??!
What you just mentioned I completely understand the concern but ultimately it is rediculous to fear balance when you are suppose to be weaving that into the story.

Now you can be bull-headed and take that as an insult(speaking to everyone who is fearing the act of maintaining balance) or you can take the advice and make a campaign where everyone else doesn't want anyone but you to run the games.

I'm gonna explain why most magical itens don't work together, so it gets simple to you, ok? Ok.

Simply put, the magic supercedes each other cause they are of the same kind, when a Spell like Bear's endurance is in effect for example it does not stack because it is the same kind of energy, adding it on top of that energy does nothing for you. And Itens that give Ability Score bonuses are itens imbued with said spells.

Needless to say, it would be riduculous and "dragonballlike" as explained earlier if said bonuses did stack. Cause it is no biggie for a high level Character have +200 and in an atribute so, everybody would be Goku and Vegeta, which is not cool.(although I do think DB is Awesome ;)

And yet, if said itens would stack, what would be your explanation for Spells that do the same thing not work? So it would be reasonable to say that someone could get a bunch of priests or wizards(or both) to cast cat's grace/owl wisdom and that kind of spell on him basically at the same time, granting him an impossible amount of Ability Score Bonuses, you get it? I'm not saying the rules are sacred, but in this case they make LOTS of sense.

Its like fuel, no matter how much you put in your car, it will not go faster, if will only move further, now THAT is a rule for spells I would not argue (much).

Thanks, but I have had enough of justification for a bad idea, several messages back.

what is the rational for spells like "mage armor" not stacking?
the same rational as there is for not being able to take one legging of +5 armor from one suit, one legging from another +5 suit and a a breast plate form another +5 suit and calling it +15 full plate.
never mentioned this type of stacking.

Characters are balanced on the assumption that they have X amount of gold invested in items at any given level. Stat-boost item prices are calculated by figuring (bonus)^2 * 1,000. Thus, a +2 stat item costs 4,000 gp. A +4 stat item costs 16,000 gp. A +6 stat item costs 36,000 gp.

Additionally, you can make an item slotless, essentially allowing you to wear seven pairs of slotless gloves and gain the bonus from each of them, but slotless items cost twice as much as standard items.

Given this, you could wear one slotted +2 item plus two more slotless +2 items for 4000 + 8000 + 8000 = 20,000 gp, significantly less than a single +6 item. If you were to wear those items in different slots on your body, you'd save an extra 8,000 gp.

The game is balanced on the assumption that you will have spent either 16,000 or 24,000 more gold than you are proposing with your methods.

Let's try something. A wizard 20 has 880,000 gold to spend. If he could spend every bit of that on stackable, slotless +2 Intelligence items, he would have 880,000 - 4,000*15 (number of item slots on the body) = 820,000/8,000 = 102.5 + the 15 slotted items = 117 items of +2 Intelligence. This puts him at +234 Intelligence, or a +117 DC to all of his saving throws. If he crafted these items himself, he'd have twice as much. On top of this, he'd have ridiculous numbers of spells, which lets him prepare for very nearly any situation, and he would think up any possible contingency, since he'd have an IQ somewhere around 2,500.

Yeah, that's right. Two-thousand five-hundred. Now, consider the equivalent of that as Strength. With a two-handed weapon, someone with a Strength of 250 deals +125 damage with a light or one-handed weapon, +187 damage with a two-handed weapon. This character can kill a great wyrm gold dragon in one round -- guaranteed, since he will only miss on a 1. Additionally, for this person, a light load will be 4,644,337,115,725.82 tons. So never mind hitting that great wyrm red dragon with a sword; just pick it up and...

right, but what that is assuming is that someone is going to just drop down write up a higher level character and spend gold on magical items.

And again we are back to the going to walmart ot get magic items issue.
basing magic on monetary value is a bad idea altogether. That is why TSR did away with it. nothing is so unbalancing than the guy sitting back collecting gold without using it on anything and the rest of the party chipping in to help buy the warrior a +5 suit of full plate by 7th level and an awesome sword so they can just point him in a direction and stand around watching hi destroy everything.

So what you are saying really is that things aren't stackable because the rules are using a bad idea to begin with, so making things not stack is the best way to bring balance back to the game after using such a bad idea?
That sounds like what you are actually trying to say any time you are talking to me about magical items and GP value.

Magical items shouldn't be viewed as trinkets and collectible pieces that you can just stop by any shop, plop down a chunk of change and carry out the level appropriate magical item. That is video game logic.
They should be viewed as antiquity.
Something that is part of a storyline, or something the GM feels you deserve as a reward for heroic action. of course that is off the subject a bit, but still it helps with the roleplay environment.
It doesn't help achieve roleplay and emersion into a character if you are giving a wizard a +4 Dex gloves when the player doesn't care about building dex.

And that is still the case. The whole point of a rule system is to help the dm and players tell a story, and act out their characters behavior. Not every dm is going to perfectly balance equipment without guidelines. It is in fact one of the more difficult dming tasks, maintaining balance. The truth is, there is still Rule 0, if you dont like a rule in a system, and feel it should be changed, change it. If you think you and your group can handle stackable items and provide for a fun and interesting bit of gaming, talk to your group/dm about it and go ahead and do it. Everything depends on the group, no rule is sacred (except not re-rolling rerolls, that will bring a poor dice rolling blight upon you the like that has never been seen by the dice gods).

that would be nice if people were not acting like they are sacred texts from the Roleplay Gods, but they are.

Saddiztic wrote:

I understand that, but that is what the GM is for not rules.

Ah, then PRPG is for you. I give you, straight from page 9, the Most Important Rule. Too many people forget this...

PRPG wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

Let no rule constrain fun for the group!

Tell that to the rule lawyers lol

Saddiztic wrote:

My original gripe comes from the fact that you apparently, so I am told, you can't do something like wear a +2 Con amulet and a.... I don't know a +2 con pair of boots and expect a cumulative bonus of +4 total from the two items.

It's a simple matter of game balance, bro. The reason the single item maxes at a certain level, and beyond that you have to be epic, is that otherwise you could conceivably have a level 6 or 7 character with 40 Dex or something equally absurd. The CRs and such in the game aren't designed to handle. If you can't see the problem there, the I don't know how else to explain it to ya. There's a range beyond which you become a broken and unfair character. These limits are here to protect against that. It's like having a 10th level fighter with 70AC. That's not fun for anybody. I had a friend who had worked out a Dwarven Defender build to have mid-70's AC by 15th level, until we showed him an errata on a feat he was using that shot his whole snarky plan to hell (thank goodness).

If you're into that sort of thing, more power to you, but I'm not in that camp.

I understand that, but that is what the GM is for not rules.

i interpret it in this way....
There is only so much of a spellbook one person can logically carry on their person all day every day.

There has to be a limit somewhere. This gives the GM some sort of idea where to limit it.

Now if you were to hire a henchman, take on an apprentice and let them carry a book or drag them around in a cart, you could virtually drag your whole library around as long as it isn't obscene amount of books.

Saddiztic wrote:

I understand that, but i have never experienced balance problems as a GM except with the old school Barbarian class, when stacking attributes.

But then again, I don't go giving 5 +4 magical items to a 3rd level character or anything. maybe because my players generally thought they had a real treasure when they actually had a +1 sword at 5th level. balance wasn't really a problem.

It sounds like you've played AD&D, but not necessarily D&D 3.0 or higher (assumption on my part). The underlying mechanics of the game are so different, that direct comparisons can be difficult. Average wealth for a 5th level character in PRPG is 10,500. So, that character (sticking with a warrior example) should at most have a +2 weapon (8,000), +1 armor (1,000), and +1 shield (1,000). Alternately, he could go with a +1 weapon (2,000) and add in a belt of giant strength +2 (4,000), a cloak of resistance (1,000) and a brooch of shielding (1,500). The DM can balance this via an actual "magic mart" or by monitoring what is handed out as treasure. If you want the player to get a +1 Str belt and +1 Str gauntlets (that stack with the belt) just value the two at 4,000 gp and you're done.

Point is, once you understand the underlying mechanics, you can take it apart and put it back together any way you want. In my upcoming Legacy of Fire game, I plan on awarding "hero points" that the players will use to customize characters with regard to ability, skill, and combat rolls, spells, etc. Very few magic items will be in the game and when they do appear they will be important and unique. I do all this simply by assigning point values to their "hero point" purchases based on the magic item creation rules, then align the points with the wealth per level. The system is yours, do with it as best suits your game.

Very observant. I started into players options and 3.0 just before heading to college and not played since.

great pointers though.

Saddiztic wrote:

Guy it was figurative speaking to empahsize that even a powerful spell caster has weaknesses. there was no scenario. get it? got it? good.

More moving goal posts. First it was your scenario, when you thought it actually proved a point. Then it was my scenario, when you thought making it my scenario would prove a point. Now that I've called you on that, too, now suddenly it wasn't a scenario at all! Next you'll just pretend I'm making it all up.

By the way, I think both of my responses showed that a powerful spellcaster is quite able to take care of themselves.

ok guy you are stuck way too much on that little bit.

Saddiztic wrote:

Well reasoned and very rational point.

to prevent rule abuse it appears we are heading back to basic or intro games, rather than advanced.

I like this version much better than AD&D, I must say. Largely because the rules and mechanics are more consistent and sensible. Now, you can take an alternate path with your games that allows items to stack. Simply treat that characters "wealth by level" as if the items are valued at their total stacked amount rather than individually and the game works fine. You would need to consider making the items a new bonus type, or else reconsider how Enhancement bonuses from other sources (spells, potions, etc.) stack with the items. Basically, if you want to use this approach in your games, you can, and PRPG/d20 provides the mechanical means to do so and still keep the game balanced.

Yup I already planned to as a GM. Matter of fact it seems I am writing an entire book for my own players to follow to reference other books for character creation.

it just becomes fustrating as a player that this rule is written as if written in stone instead of an option. For those of who would prefer to have all our game rules in one place instead of having to write a book like I am currently doing, we can just open that 50 dollar book and its right there.

Saddiztic wrote:

to prevent rule abuse it appears we are heading back to basic or intro games, rather than advanced.

Could you clarify that comment? I'm curious exactly what your referring to by that statement.

old D&D reference.

Sad wrote:

you chose the scenario.

Incorrect.

Sad wrote:

you aren't going to blow through every obstacle no matter how you build your character. a one trick pony spell caster with one high attribute, might be able to lay waste to a town, obliterate undead hordes etc, but when the leader with the ring of spell turning, and high magic resistance comes charging at them, then what?

That was alllllll you, dude. You picked the entirety of the scenario, even the level of the wizard when you moved the goalposts:

Sad wrote:

Oh right because every 15th level INT strong caster has time stop and gate. Thanks I forgot.

By the way, when are you going to respond to my reply to your "Why can't I have +12 attribute at 1st level?" complaint? I noticed you got all quiet on that one. Maybe because you realize you're completely wrong and have no way to back out of it without saying so?

Guy it was figurative speaking to empahsize that even a powerful spell caster has weaknesses. there was no scenario. get it? got it? good.

I'll try my hand...you do understand there is underlying math balancing the game, right? If you want to pump up a specific stat, you can do that. Put all your level bumps into that stat, get a +6 Enhancement bonus item, and get a +5 Inherent bonus item. You've now pumped that stat up by +16 at 20th level, at a cost of 173,500 gp. You've statistically gained an 80% advantage over anyone not pumping that stat. The rest of the game, theoretically, is balanced to accommodate this. Trying to go around this system breaks the math of the game. If you want to do it in your game as a DM, that's fine, but you have to be ready to deal with the balance issues it will cause in your game.

I understand that, but i have never experienced balance problems as a GM except with the old school Barbarian class, when stacking attributes.

Saddiztic wrote:

right, if you are talking about a high magic campaign where the character can just walk right into the nearest walmart and pick up a +4 item lol.

I think you've hit on the crux of the issue here. One thing that D20 does that previous D&D versions didn't worry as much about is to spend a LOT of time trying to put rules into place to stop rules abuse. In doing so, they've taken a lot of the control out of the DM's hands. One side result of this is "storefront thinking".

Most DM's in the 80s didn't really have magic shops chock full of all the items a PC might want. They might have been able to buy some potions or a +1 weapon here or there, but, in general, they could not sit there and calculate what items they needed at what level to gain what abilities. In 3.x, I've met several players who felt that because the rules support purchasing magic items for a certain amount, any character can find any item they want. This does lead to a certain amount of abuse. Rather than make it so the DM is responsible for not giving the party Gauntlets of Orge Power AND a Belt of Giant Strength, they just made them both Enhancement bonuses so it doesn't matter if the DM screws up.

On the one hand, it does make harder for one character to dominate simply by the player's wise purchases. On the other, there can be situations where it's a minor drawback. IMO, any reasonably judicious DM will simply make it so the Gauntlets and the Belt aren't both found in the same campaign (at least until the character's ready to get a better bonus).

Well reasoned and very rational point.