whiterabbit's page

1) the cost of crafting it.

2) see above.

3) there's this thing called expected wealth by level, if the gm gives out loot in excess of it, then yeah, the player will be able to afford more than expected.

4) If the DM gives approval for bonuses greater than +6, then nothing. If the GM allows something special, then they need to deal with any issues it causes.

5) Why does it need a caster level requirement? It's not like that would stop any crafting of it at lower levels anyways.

I'm really asking for the sake of a high level game I'm in. And by high level, I mean well beyond level 20. I figured a CL requirement would give me a framework to work within, because at the level we're playing, money is just no real impediment.

So, I've been flipping through the archives, searching for this particular subject, but haven't seen it quite answered. Since there is no formula for determining caster level requirement of say, a Belt of Giant Strength, what's to keep a creator from making nothing but +6 Belts? Why bother having a +2 or +4 when you can have a +6 with no additional work? I know that money can be a limiting factor, but if a player got lucky and ran into a pile of bandit loot, or by some stroke of luck killed a dragon single handed, they could have the requisite cash to go whole hog. Furthermore, what's to keep a creator from going beyond the max (in the book) +6 (assuming the DM give his approval)?

What I'm asking is, why doesn't this type of item have the same CL restrictions that other enhancement items do (CL 3 x Enhancement bonus)?

I doubt anything is relevant to this specific thread at this point (considering it’s almost 5 years old), but it would stack with your STR modifier, not replace.

I fail to see how a thread's age affects its relevance to a rule question that hasn't been changed since it was published, but thank you for the reply. :)

Possibly relevant tangent: does the bonus from this replace the strength bonus, or stack with it like the Intimidating Prowess feat?

A few other items have the same limitation:

Amulet of Mighty Fists creator's caster level must be at least three times the amulet's bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities

Amulet of Natural Armor creator's caster level must be at least three times the amulet's bonus

Bracers of Armor creator's caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers, plus any requirements of the armor special abilities

Ring of Protection caster must be of a level at least three times the bonus of the ring

but it is mostly for defensive or offensive items.

My gaming group limit the stat enhancing bonus items to a +1 for every 3 caster levels, but that is an house rule.

BTW, the FAQs say that you can lower an item CL, the minimum CL is the one required to cast the spell. So the minimum CL for an headband of mental superiority is 3. That don't change the item price.

Thank you. That was very helpful. :)

I've been searching for a rule on this particular question, but have so far been unsuccessful. The magic item creation rules state that when creating a magic weapon or armor, the creator caster level needs to be three times the enhancement bonus, but there is no such rule explicitly stated for any other magic item. What I want to know is, if I was say, a 9th level caster, and wanted to create a headband of mental superiority (enhancement bonus to Int, Wis, and Cha), what is the maximum bonus I can get?

My group met for it's weekly game this weekend, and one of the player's wanted to take the assassin prc. Now normally, I would have hand-waved the special prerequisite, but he kept going on about killing someone to fulfill that requirement. He (and everyone else in the group) took that to mean that he could kill just anyone and declare himself an assassin. I argued that he needed to do it for some sort of profit, whether it was for coin or to gain the attention of an assassin guild.

Now this question is directed more towards the Pathfinder creators (since my group will take their word over any others), but all opinions are welcome. Who here is right according to the RAW and the RAI (if different)?

"Because it makes no sense for this monster to have this ability" is a perfectly valid "reason why not," as is "this makes combat too slow," or "this is going to frustrate an entire category of PCs" or "this makes the monster too powerful."

I'm just trying to make you look at the problem from a different perspective.

I'd much rather see a monster get an ability that makes it a cool and interesting encounter, even if there's no obvious explanation why the monster has that ability, than to rule out weird monsters having weird abilities because you don't have a strong justification for it having that ability.

For example, a marilith has crushing coils, an extraordinary ability that knocks unconscious a creature who takes damage from its constrict attack, even if it rolls minimum damage (2d6+10, Fort save negates). No other monster has that ability, so "you took a little damage, so you're KO'd even though you're well above half hit points" is unprecedented. There is no "reason why" the marilith should have this ability if a giant octopus doesn't. But there's also no "reason why not" to give it this ability--it doesn't make the monster too hard, it doesn't make the encounter silly, and so on.

Sometimes monster design is knowing when to say, "this monster needs more to make it stand out from other monsters of its type, environment, or CR." And sometimes monster design is knowing when to say, "time to pull back on what I'm giving this monster, it's too complex/too silly/too strong."

Does it hurt the silver dragon concept to make it immune to acid? No. Does it make...

I guess I'm trying to apply too much logic to the situation. It just doesn't make any sense to me to have a creature that has no offensive capabilities that include acid, or doesn't have to defend itself against acidic attacks on a regular basis from it's environment should have immunity to it.

If I had to guess, editing error back when 3rd edition was being designed, since 3rd is when it showed up on silver dragons. Here's my just-so story:

1st and 2nd edition gold dragons could breathe both "poisonous chlorine gas" (same stuff as a green dragon) and fire (same stuff as a red dragon), and so in 2nd edition were immune to both gasses and fire.

Third edition converted the green dragon's breath weapon from "poisonous chlorine gas" to "corrosive (acid) gas" and its immunity from gasses to acid. I expect the gold's second breath weapon was made acid at the same point in drafting. So the gold dragon was then supposed to get a conversion of its gas immunity to acid immunity like the green dragon, but it was accidentally marked down on the silver dragon instead.

Later in drafting the gold dragon's breath weapon was converted from acid gas to weakening gas . . . but nobody noticed the incongruous presence of acid immunity over on the silver dragon.

Anyway, it isn't a lie if it could be true!

That's the most plausible reason I've seen yet. I guess I'll dust off my old WotC account and ask them on their message boards to see what they say.

@Thraxital: The only chromatic dragons with acidic breath are blacks and greens, neither of which share the silver dragon's preferred terrain. Why would they come up against those types more often than say reds, who DO share their preferred terrain?

@Trainwreck: Silvers aren't celestials, let alone outsiders. Just because they often work together and towards the same ends, doesn't mean that their immunity would "rub off" on them. By that logic, silvers should be able to smite evil.

@Sean K Reynolds: I disagree. If I were to make a slime immune to all energy forms, DR30/magic and good, 25 hit dice, and regeneration 20/negative energy, I better have a darn good and logical reason for giving it such a weird combination of defenses. And if you want "a reason why not" then how about they are extremely unlikely to come across situation in their natural habitat where acid immunity comes into play?

@AvalonXQ: Except that they're not. The only acid-breathing dragon they're likely to encounter would be greens, and even then, a red is about ten times more likely to tussle with a silver. A copper is more likely to go head-to-head with a green or a black (warm hills, temperate forests, and warm marshes respectively), and they are immune to acid.

Sorry if all that sounded sarcastic. Such was not my intent.

Thanks for the promptness of your replies everyone. ^_^ I've never been able to accept "just because" as a good reason for anything. Magic may not always be logical, but it does work within guidelines as set by the game. When it breaks those rules, it breaks the suspension of disbelief, because it makes you think, "Now why is it like that?" shattering the immersion. This is one of those instances where the illogic brings you up short. Now there may be a good reason for it, but I have never seen one, and would like this explained with something other than "because it's magic".

This has been bugging me for a while since I can find no clarification as to why a creature with the cold subtype and no acid attacks is immune to it. I doubt it's a typo since it's in the PRD as well as having been discussed here on the boards (albeit without an explanation that I can find). So what's the deal?