Magic Items... do I have this straight?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

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 ;).


Xum wrote:

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.

With your logic, what would be your justification for an item getting above +1?
BTW spells do stack. if you haven't noticed as you go up levels, you get extra dice to magic missile etc. they give you another spell that is more powerful. shield type spells get more powerful. Strength spells get more powerful.
In a sense they do stack as you gain levels and the ability to make them do so. Not much of a difference from a GM giving out another item at higher levels.

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.


Kolokotroni wrote:
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 spent my entire gaming time being nothing but a GM before I went to college, because people I met up with didn't want to play any other campaign. There are all sorts of ways to balance things that fit within the story if you want to do something other than read a module like someone reading bedtime stories to their kids.

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.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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 exception. So the stacking rules are there to make it easier as a DM, just like the templates to enhance creatures and tons of other little nuances.

I have a house rule document which currently only has rules related to interpretation of 3.0 and 3.5 content, campaign-specific additions (like regional feats), the Pathfinder spiked chain, and a clarification on monks and gauntlets (since I feel it is RAW). They are documented so players know what to expect.

That being said my world does operate on the assumption that money + time = any magic item the player wants (barring artifact-level stuff). I mean hell, they could just craft it if they took the feats. It means I deal with optimized characters, but they also get s lot of flavor stuff because they can without any real hassle. This is not to say they can go to any magic shop and buy a +3 Flaming Keen Rapier off the shelf. But they could commission one, if they travel to a big enough town, pay enough money, and wait for the thing to be made. More generic magic items, like +1 longswords, are commonly available, but small towns still aren't likely to have them instead of the supplies they need to stay safe from goblins and the like. If they do, they might be family heirlooms, even though our heroes got six just like 'em in the last battle. Guess who's in the market for them? Only the big towns, again. Sadly, that never seems to be where all the good dungeons are. Maybe because civilized folk already cleaned all the nearby ones out? And maybe there's just not time to go commission a sword of dragon-bane before the dragon goes to destroy your home town. Guess they'll have to make do...

So that works for me. I don't tell players "no" very often, but give them choices and consequences. There are lots of ways to balance your campaign. You are clearly aware of enough to do just fine.


Run a game the way you want to. Get a better perspective on the game than by being a player. From the subject of the topic I'd say that a GM is doing exactly what you tell other GM's to do, they have told you "No you can't stack stat bonuses from items. Don't like it do your GM a favor and stop playing and go back to the MMO's you are used to.


Saddiztic wrote:


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

It's not a "bad idea", it's an idea you don't like.

saddiztic wrote:


With your logic, what would be your justification for an item getting above +1?

More advanced magic. More powerful mage. The stars are right. Better (possibly supernatural) materials in the items construction. Divine intervention. Item created at a location with great magical power. Item created while in a very passionate state of mind. Item is engraved with the first words uttered after the world's creation. Item has a soul to power it. Item has a elemental to power it. And about a few hundred more that people more creative then me can think of.

saddiztic wrote:


BTW spells do stack. if you haven't noticed as you go up levels, you get extra dice to magic missile etc. they give you another spell that is more powerful. shield type spells get more powerful. Strength spells get more powerful.
In a sense they do stack as you gain levels and the ability to make them do so. Not much of a difference from a GM giving out another item at higher levels.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's not "stacking" by the definition of the rules.

saddiztic wrote:


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...

I think it's been covered quite well already, but here's one more try. When a spell is cast it has a certain mystical resonance, this resonance is defined as the different bonuses (i.e. armor, deflection, what have you) two of the same resonances can't enchant the same object (or person). The "stronger" (the one with the larger bonus) will overwrite the "weaker" one (the one with the lower bonus), though if the weaker one has a longer duration it will still stay in effect after the stronger one has worn off.

It's not a perfect analogy, but whatever.


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


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.


Jabor wrote:
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?


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?

Quote:
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.

They don't craft another item for themselves. Instead of sitting in their tower for years producing a huge warehouse of slotless gloves of dexterity, they actually go out and adventure for improvements. Or craft items for other people. Or any number of other actually productive things.

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.


Jabor wrote:
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.

and I don't allow the sorcerer bloodlines. Even though they are pretty cool, it doesn't fit into my storyline to let players know they have these abilities from the start.
I have always used a bloodline type of thing but it tends to be a reward for play and i award them what I feel is appropriate for the way the player plays and according to my campaign, and generally they have to figure that out.

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.


Jabor wrote:


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?

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.

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.


RicoTheBold wrote:
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.


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?


Jabor wrote:
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.

That would fall under the same category of why you can't take 5 pieces from 5 different +5 suites of full plate and call it a +25 to your AC.


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

So you would arbitrarily ban slotless items?


Jabor wrote:
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.

what armor leggings, crowns, boots, backpacks or any of that stuff is 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:
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.


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.

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.


Saddiztic wrote:
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:
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.

Quote:
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.

"Slotless" means "does not occupy a slot". You can indeed wear a hundred or even a thousand slotless items.

The exact "type" of a slotless item (whether it's a glove, boot, amulet, ring, nose-flute, etc.) is largely irrelevant fluff.


Jabor wrote:
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.

When you get them all on let me know.
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.

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.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One could make the argument that seriously restricting what magic items can be obtained easily (through crafting or other means) is unbalancing the game and stacking is necessary to rebalance it. If a player must go through hell and back to get a +6 strength belt (as opposed to in my campaign, where you're less likely to find one but could have one custom-made if you had the money and could find someone to do it), then if they go up against a monster that assumes a certain level of power...they could find themselves woefully unequipped. So stack away.

Still, in my campaign of relatively large market for magic items, the cost is a deterrent. As the bonus gets higher the cost exponentially rises. My players are more likely, I've found, to spend all their time and money aggregating lots of little advantages with their magic items rather than burn all their gold on one item. Damn near guaranteed every party member will eventually buy a bag of holding or, more likely, a Handy Haversack (or whatever Pathfinder renamed Heward's Handy Haversack). Rings of Sustenance are popular, too. Cuts down on nighttime ambushes and reduces party downtime. If a player has to choose between being out of their armor because they were sleeping during an attack or having an extra +2 to one attribute, they'll probably opt for the ring. Plus, it gives more time to study new spells, craft new items, travel in a day, whatever. If the world has deadlines a magic item that gives more functional time before the deadlines expire can be way more powerful than a mere extra +2.

But since they are the magical equivalent of a lifetime supply of Starbucks, most peasants will still not afford them. While they may be trivial to obtain for a PC, they're not just everywhere.

Again, that's just a different way of balancing. I've also played in a campaign (not D&D or Pathfinder based) where the most powerful items we saw were what amounted to a decanter of endless water, a cloak with a spontaneous fear effect (it was awesome, but only because of the rarity of magic), and a badass magic bow I crafted by binding a demon (at great risk of permanent penalties to my character based on rolls alons, nevermind the process of actually capturing the demon)...which broke the first time I used it because I rolled a wicked low percentage. Then I had to fight the (now freed) demon spirit...in the middle of another battle. It was lame.

It created a bit of an arms race, and that system wasn't well equipped to handle it because it wasn't balanced for it. In Pathfinder I can have confidence that any given item is unlikely to break the campaign, And I can handle the exceptions as they come.

Other ways seem harder, frankly. But different GMs see things differently, and I get great stories out of my players. The equipment is just numbers until it affects player choices. I don't find worse stories because they get cool items. I get better stories because the characters have goals, even if they start out as basic capitalist ones. The best antagonist I ever saw in a campaign was made that way by the players' betrayal on the path to acquire some incrementally increased power.


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.


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?


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.


Jabor wrote:
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.

By all means, create your own "BIG BAD" to have to deal with.


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?


Lathiira wrote:
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.


Jabor wrote:
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.


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

You mean how often the DM allows downtime for crafting.

Quote:
if you go anywhere around people sooner or later someone tougher than you

Considering all your stats would be in the hundreds, I'm not sure how this would happen.


Jabor wrote:
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.

There really isn't one little magical fix all for it. If you have one magic fix all for balance, your game is going to get pretty lame pretty quick.

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.


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.


Saddiztic wrote:

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.

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

Saddiztic wrote:


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.

This is not completely true, there are plenty of stories about people making magic items for other people in exchange for gold. However, if you don't want to base the value of magic items off gold, that's fine, it's your game and your world. But you'll have to explain why when they do get a +2 sword they can't trade it for a castle since magic items are rare. And you'll also have to tell the players they can't take item creation feats, since they woudl then create their own magic items left and right. I'm not saying you can't have it the way you want it, just saying that every decision has consequences. Balancing a rules system is a complex job that takes a LOT of effort (Pathfinder took a year of beta testing before it got published, and it was working off a rules set that had been around for 10 years and was polished up a lot). Remember that your world has to be a logical analogue of a world that makes sense to your players. It needs to be internally consistent or your players are going to get frustrated.

Saddiztic wrote:

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.

Again, I'll have to disagree with you. What makes a story bad is poor writing, failure to get the reader interested in the characters, bad plot pacing, and a hundred other things. Good story telling is an art and a science.


mdt wrote:

[

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??


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.


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.


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.


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.


Jabor wrote:

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.

And when your players want to move on in their teens, you'll be heading to playing online games.


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.


Lathiira wrote:
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.


Saddiztic wrote:
mdt wrote:

[

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.

Since the post didn't quote what you were responding to, it sounded like you were still upset at things not stacking.

As to maintaining a GP value on magic... Let me ask you this. Diamonds are wonderful things. They can cut steel, they shine pretty, they make girls go weak in the knees, they are rare, the more flawless they are, the rarer they are. Why is it that people go into a jewelry store and plunk down $1500 (IE: 2-3 ounces of gold) on a diamond ring so they can get down on a knee and ask someone to marry them? Diamonds are precious things, why would we maintain a gold value on them?

Because, not everyone can go to a mine and mine their own diamonds. That is what an economy is for. Magic is a commodity, whether it's a rare commodity or it's a common commodity depends on the world. Whether it's rare or not someone somewhere will always be willing to pay gold to buy an item, and someone will be willing to sell it. Once you get enough of those going, you get an average value for any magical item. If you don't believe me, check out any book on auctioning. Auction houses hate selling things they don't have a history on, because they don't know how much it's worth.

Saddiztic wrote:


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 able to get a castle for one. but would they want to??

My question wasn't why wouldn't you trade a +2 magic item for a castle, my question was, why wouldn't the +2 item be worth a castle's ransom if magic is so rare that you can't find a +2 item in a large city for gold. Obviously if you can't buy one in a major port city, they are ungodly rare, which means they are worth a princes ransom. If a +2 can't be bought in a port city, then, a +5 Holy Avenger is worth a small country.


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.

Uhm,

Antiquity trades have a very very very standardized method of dealing. If you look at a rare piece of art (Say, a Van Gogh), an art dealer will tell you 'It will go for between X and Y' where X and Y are relatively close within scale (say, one and half to one and three quarter million). This is a monetary value attached to an aniquity, just as a +1 sword is worth about 1,000 to 2,500 gps (depending on how you do on your haggle rolls).


Saddiztic wrote:
Jabor wrote:

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.

And when your players want to move on in their teens, you'll be heading to playing online games.

If you can't discuss things without dropping to the level of hurling insults, then please return to the discussion when you are out of your teens.


Jabor wrote:
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.

buying an antique in real isn't like buying a coke.
You can't just walk into walmart and find them on every shelf.
and most time in the stores you rarely do find the one you want they are far over priced.
In role play setting the concept of a wizard isn't to sit around making things they already know how to make. The entire concept of a wizard is discovery of knowledge. This is what makes them a wizard instead of a magical avon sales person.


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.


Saddiztic wrote:


Guy you aren't comprehending the difference.
buying an antique in real isn't like buying a coke.
You can't just walk into walmart and find them on every shelf.
and most time in the stores you rarely do find the one you want they are far over priced.
In role play setting the concept of a wizard isn't to sit around making things they already know how to make. The entire concept of a wizard is discovery of knowledge. This is what makes them a wizard instead of a magical avon sales person.

No, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with your argument.

As to a wizard making discovery of knowledge, yes, I'm sure there are a certain percentage of them that do that. Just like advanced geneticists are today. On the other hand, for every advanced geneticist researching for the sake of knowledge, there are a 1000 general practicitioner doctors who learned just enough medicine to make a good life for themselves and their families. And another 1000 specialists who learned twice as much as the general practitioners to make a REALLY good living.

In a fantasy campaign, that would equate to a bunch of 8th level wizards cranking out spells and items and potions to make a living that was comfortable. And a bunch of 12th level wizards cranking out bigger items and better potions and casting bigger spells to make a much nicer living.


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.

The Exchange

Saddiztic wrote:

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??

Alright, so we've now established that a +2 weapon isn't worth as much as a castle. What if it's a small castle? Would a +2 weapon be worth a house? How big of a house? How powerful and rare of a weapon would it have to be to be worth a castle?

What's the gold value of the castle? If a +5 Holy Avenger is worth a castle, and a castle is worth 500,000 gp, then you've just put a gp value on a +5 Holy Avenger. It's worth at least 500,000 gold.

If one person offered the castle owner 500,000 gp for his castle, and another person offered him a +5 Holy Avenger, which would he take? What if the first person offered only 400,000, or conversely, 600,000? Eventually you have to put a gp value on anything that might eventually trade hands. Unique and extremely unusual and rare items, such as artifacts, might truly be invaluable, but only if they mean so much to the person who owns them that there is absolutely no object or service in the world they'd be willing to part with them for.

101 to 150 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magic Items... do I have this straight? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.