# +1 Stat Bump Item?

### Rules Questions

 151 to 191 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, I keep seeing this statement :

You are ignoring rule #1, stating that similar items for pricing.

There is no item similar to +1, +3, +5, etc. There is no item that gives a +1, +3, or +5.

James Risner even admits it in his post above, despite directly above it saying they are similar. That's a logical disconnect. You can't say 'You are ignoring rule #1' and 'The items are not similar' in the same post.

Another thing, the rules are not intended as a checklist. It doesn't say, 'Apply #1, if #1 doesn't apply, then #2, else if #3'. The rules are presented as a whole. You are supposed to use the one that most closely applies, not the first one you find that can possibly be applied.

In this case, #3 is obviously the most logical and closely related rule to the object. Following #3, you actually do validate against #1 and #2.

Cost of Plus Items :
+1 : 1,000
+2 : 4,000
+3 : 9,000
+4 : 16,000
+5 : 25,000
+6 : 36,000

#1 : Met. Items that are reasonably similar are priced in a reasonably similar way (that is, the price of something that is halfway as effective is about halfway between). A +3 is about halfway between the price of a +2 and +4, that's a reasonably similar pricing.

#2 : Met. Items that are not closely similar to each other (even vs odd) are still priced based on their power. A +3 is not, in and of itself as powerful as a +4, but it's more powerful than a +2.

#3 : Met. Directly met, because we used the formula.

Now, on to the 'It's more useful for A than B'. That's a red herring. Sorry, it is. The book is full of items that are more useful to one character than another. For example, a +1 Int Tome is worth more to a wizard with a 17 Int than it is to a barbarian with a 10 int. A +2 dex belt is worth more to a rogue with a 20 dex and combat reflexes than it is to a paladin in full plate mail that already has a 14 dex. Each item is going to have a different value to a different given person. That value may be slightly different, or wildly different. A +2 str item is just as varied in it's usefulness to different people than a +3 is. If Rob has a 13 str and Tony has a 14, then that +2 str item is worth more to Tony than it is to Rob, because Tony get's more benefit from it (he get's not only a +1, which Tony gets, but also gets more carrying capacity). Same with a dex, int, cha, etc. A +4 int item is worth more to a wizard with a 15 int than it is to one with a 19 int, because for person A, they can now cast their 6th+ level spells, while the 19int wizard only gains a small bonus on save DC's and an extra spell or two at higher levels. I don't think anyone can argue those two characters are getting the same benefit from the same item.

Consider this case:

Two players are generating a paladin. Player A builds

STR 16 / +3
DEX 10
CON 12 / +1
INT 9 / -1
WIS 12 / +1
CHA 12 / +1

for 15 Points.

Player B builds

STR 15 /+2
DEX 10
CON 13 /+1
INT 9 /-1
WIS 13 /+1
CHA 13 /+1

for 15 points. This would normally be considered the inferior selection. But not if you allow (against the intention of the designers) items with uneven stat bonus.

With 4000gp player A buys a stat +2 item, bringing his total attribute modifier from +5 to +6.

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

With the rules working this way, the huge price bumps at even steps on the attribute cost table make no sense any more. No one will ever buy a 18 again for instance.

If the stats are determined randomly, the problem is not as big.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hyla Arborea wrote:

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

Cost is not 4,000gp though for this.

It is, instead, 2,500 and 2,500, or 5,000. Just pointing out.

Yes, it can be gamed at low levels. The GM is supposed to prevent gaming at low levels if it bothers him. At 5th or higher level, it's not as big a deal, and at 15th level it's practically meaningless.

I do agree that it's only a problem in point build (one reason I never liked point build was that it encourages munchkining). For example, using the 'only even numbers matter' logic, there's no reason to ever take a 9, you'd only take an 8 or a 6, never a 7 or 9.

I find 4d6 drop 1 to be the best stat generation routine, personally.

mdt wrote:
Hyla Arborea wrote:

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

Cost is not 4,000gp though for this.

It is, instead, 2,500 and 2,500, or 5,000. Just pointing out.

And why would that be?

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hyla Arborea wrote:
mdt wrote:
Hyla Arborea wrote:

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

Cost is not 4,000gp though for this.

It is, instead, 2,500 and 2,500, or 5,000. Just pointing out.

And why would that be?

You can only put mental stats on a headband. To get two +1's on the same headband costs 50% more for the second +1. Same for physical stats on a belt.

To put them on a non-belt or non-headband would cost even more.

mdt wrote:
Now, on to the 'It's more useful for A than B'. That's a red herring. Sorry, it is.

Best stat to use for discussion is CON. It isn't used for feat prereqs or skills. It affects all classes equally, with the exception of Barbarians, who also use it for Rage points.

Now, how would these be priced?

Belt of Hardiness, minor: either gives the wearer +1 to the number of negative hp they can drop before dying, or gives +1 to the negative hp and +1 hp/HD, +1 bonus to fort, and +1 to CON checks.

Belt of Hardiness, major: gives +2 to the negative hp and +1 hp/HD, +1 bonus to fort, and +1 to CON checks.

Belt of +1 CON: either gives the wearer +1 to the number of negative hp they can drop before dying, or gives +1 to the negative hp and +1 hp/HD, +1 bonus to fort, and +1 to CON checks.

Belt of +2 CON: gives +2 to the negative hp and +1 hp/HD, +1 bonus to fort, and +1 to CON checks.

I would think the way you price the Belts of Hardiness should be similar to the way you price the Belts of CON. If they are radically different, there is an economic incentive for a character to purchase one over the other, since there is little difference for all characters except (nominally) barbarians.

I would have a hard time pricing the minor Hardiness belt at 1000 and the major Hardiness belt at 4000.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FarmerBob wrote:

I would think the way you price the Belts of Hardiness should be similar to the way you price the Belts of CON. If they are radically different, there is an economic incentive for a character to purchase one over the other, since there is little difference for all characters except (nominally) barbarians.

I would have a hard time pricing the minor Hardiness belt at 1000 and the major Hardiness belt at 4000.

See, that's another red herring. Sorry, it is. You are creating a magic item that does not exist in the system (Belt of hardiness). It performs exactly the same as a +1 CON Belt, and therefore, per Rule #1, it should cost exactly the same as a +1 CON belt.

It's a very straightforward logic honestly. Use the rule that most closely models the situation. For a +Odd stat item, it's rule #3. For an item that exactly duplicates the function of a +1, +2, +3, etc stat item you price it exactly the same as the +whatever item. That's pretty much RAW.

mdt wrote:

See, that's another red herring. Sorry, it is. You are creating a magic item that does not exist in the system (Belt of hardiness). It performs exactly the same as a +1 CON Belt, and therefore, per Rule #1, it should cost exactly the same as a +1 CON belt.

It's a very straightforward logic honestly. Use the rule that most closely models the situation. For a +Odd stat item, it's rule #3. For an item that exactly duplicates the function of a +1, +2, +3, etc stat item you price it exactly the same as the +whatever item. That's pretty much RAW.

I absolutely agree they should cost the same. And the RAW gives the bonus ^2 * 1000 as a guideline. My point is how can the minor belt cost 1000 and the major belt cost 4000 if they are often functionally equivalent? That's when the DM looks at the guidelines and makes the adjustment.

pg 549 wrote:

Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. ... other items require at least some judgment calls.

That's pretty clear to me that the DM should gauge the effect of the item in the process of assigning a value. I can't see how the minor version is 25% of the cost of the major one from any perspective. Odd stat bonus items fall into the same category as the hypothetical belt I described. They need to be priced based on their effect, using the formula as a starting point.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FarmerBob wrote:

pg 549 wrote:

Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. ... other items require at least some judgment calls.

That's pretty clear to me that the DM should gauge the effect of the item in the process of assigning a value. I can't see how the minor version is 25% of the cost of the major one from any perspective. Odd stat bonus items fall into the same category as the hypothetical belt I described. They need to be priced based on their effect, using the formula as a starting point.

Hmmm,

Ok, now I get where you are coming from. I agree that the item can be as effective, but the problem is, it's not always as effective, sometimes it's all but useless. Personally, I'd be ok just using the formula, mainly for simplicities sake and to make the prices follow a logical progression. Then again, I'm mildly OCD (especially when it comes to numbers). The idea of it not following an natural progression is, to me, like an itch at the base of my spine while my arms are tied above my head.

I think there's nothing in the RAW that says odd boost items are anathema. At most, they present a sticky point for pricing, depending on the game system and how characters are generated (rolling vs point buy). I use rolling, so it seems like it's less of an issue doing that to just use the formula. If you do point buy, it might require some rebalancing of the base cost (perhaps make it 3/4 the cost of the next highest bonus), so 3,000gp for +1, 12,000gp for +2, and so forth if you are using point buy system since that is where it seems to be very abusable. For random roll, I don't think it enters the same realm of abuse.

mdt wrote:

Hmmm,
Ok, now I get where you are coming from. I agree that the item can be as effective, but the problem is, it's not always as effective, sometimes it's all but useless. Personally, I'd be ok just using the formula, mainly for simplicities sake and to make the prices follow a logical progression. Then again, I'm mildly OCD (especially when it comes to numbers). The idea of it not following an natural progression is, to me, like an itch at the base of my spine while my arms are tied above my head.

I think there's nothing in the RAW that says odd boost items are anathema. At most, they present a sticky point for pricing, depending on the game system and how characters are generated (rolling vs point buy). I use rolling, so it seems like it's less of an issue doing that to just use the formula. If you do point buy, it might require some rebalancing of the base cost (perhaps make it 3/4 the cost of the next highest bonus), so 3,000gp for +1, 12,000gp for +2, and so forth if you are using point buy system since that is where it seems to be very abusable. For random roll, I don't think it enters the same realm of abuse.

Yup, I agree. I'm more of the school in that you can do something unless the rules say you can't, vs. you can't do something unless the rules say you can. So, no written rule against +1, so they are allowed, IMHO.

The entire dilemma is then pricing. I can't figure that out, so I'm punting them.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FarmerBob wrote:

Yup, I agree. I'm more of the school in that you can do something unless the rules say you can't, vs. you can't do something unless the rules say you can. So, no written rule against +1, so they are allowed, IMHO.

The entire dilemma is then pricing. I can't figure that out, so I'm punting them.

I'd rather charge more than I think they are worth and let the players make the choice.

mdt wrote:

You can only put mental stats on a headband. [...] Same for physical stats on a belt.

To put them on a non-belt or non-headband would cost even more.

Oh wow, is that new with Pathfinder? It never came up in my 3.x games anyhow, but it would surprise me if I overlooked this all these years.

Hyla Arborea wrote:

Consider this case:

Two players are generating a paladin. Player A builds

STR 16 / +3
DEX 10
CON 12 / +1
INT 9 / -1
WIS 12 / +1
CHA 12 / +1

for 15 Points.

Player B builds

STR 15 /+2
DEX 10
CON 13 /+1
INT 9 /-1
WIS 13 /+1
CHA 13 /+1

for 15 points. This would normally be considered the inferior selection. But not if you allow (against the intention of the designers) items with uneven stat bonus.

With 4000gp player A buys a stat +2 item, bringing his total attribute modifier from +5 to +6.

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

With the rules working this way, the huge price bumps at even steps on the attribute cost table make no sense any more. No one will ever buy a 18 again for instance.

If the stats are determined randomly, the problem is not as big.

Except that players will want more than a plus 1 if they need an 18 stat. So the item being +1 will be upgrades to +2, +3, 3ect.

The designers designed that worth system. Its in the PHB. Here is the table:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Creati on.

There is no problem. Items like that would be used to even a not very important stat or begin a series of upgrades.

mdt wrote:
Hyla Arborea wrote:
mdt wrote:
Hyla Arborea wrote:

Player B however byus 4 stat +1 items, bringing his total attribute modifier from +4 to +8!

Cost is not 4,000gp though for this.

It is, instead, 2,500 and 2,500, or 5,000. Just pointing out.

And why would that be?

You can only put mental stats on a headband. To get two +1's on the same headband costs 50% more for the second +1. Same for physical stats on a belt.

To put them on a non-belt or non-headband would cost even more.

2 +1s is a +2 and would cost 4000k

xJoe3x wrote:

2 +1s is a +2 and would cost 4000k

Please reread our posts, I think you did not get them right.

Costing the item may be an issue, but consider the following hypothetical item:

When you gain this item, there is a 50% chance that it will boost the modifier of your primary stat by 1. Then, in 1d4 levels, it will either no longer provide the bonus or will begin providing it, depending on what you rolled when you acquired the item. This will reverse once again in another 1d4 levels.

VERSUS

When you gain this item, it boosts the modifier of your primary stat by 1.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, are these really the same cost? Seems to me that the first item would be cheaper, since it's value varies depending on your rolls.

I see the odd-stat item as similar. For an odd stat, it's great, but for an even one, it's meh. That range of usefulness should be reflected in the price, as opposed to an even-stat item that always gives the full bonus, no matter the circumstance. In other words, for any given character with any stat array, there is about a 50% chance that an odd-stat item would be useful to them. If it gives the full bonus, it's worth more than it's price, but if it does not, it is worth much less.

To this end, let's say that we re-priced the odd-stat item to be 3/4 of the even stat item. That gives a price of 3K, 12K, and 27K. Look at the read difference here. Yes, the +1 item increased in value 3-fold, but the +3 item only increased by 1/3, and the +5 item is only up a paltry 9%.

But isn't that fair? The cheap, lower level item gives a bonus that is nearly equal to it's counterpart, but the difference matters less and less over time? Especially since the economic race to keep the primary stat on par with an even-statted character is decidedly disadvantageous to the odd-stated one?

Personally, I never bothered with it. Yes, people did get some odd-stat items, but usually not. Fighters were scrambling for better weapons, Rogues for skill items, and casters for protective items or Wands/Scrolls. Nobody really thought that 1K gp to boost a stat they did not optimize in character creation was worth it.

HOWEVER, I have not yet heard on if people think that odd-stat items would be unbalanced at lvl 4, since that is the first time an even-statted character could game the item to get a discounted boost. In my analysis, you would then move from +1 straight to +4 at level 8, and only to +5 at level 12 (then +6 at level 16).

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
meabolex wrote:

Note that at 4th level, you shouldn't have a +2 item by the guidelines, but you could have 5 +1 items.

Stat items are now Belts or Headbands, BTW. In order to get a belt with +1 to all physical stats, you need 1000 + 1500 + 1500 = 4000gp.

Which, as you point out, you shouldn't have at 4th level, adhering to WBL.

IF we had the old 3.5 item list, THEN that would be a viable plan. I even mistakenly used such an example above, and I should not have. With the changes to PFRPG, that exploit is much, much harder to generate.

I have heard this before, but I can't find in the rules where they banned non belt or headband stat boost items.

Can you point me in the right direction?

meabolex wrote:
Based on what I've read from this thread, I still wouldn't recommend any DM to allow these items. I think they could be used in a non-exploitative manner -- and I think, based on the RAW, they could theoretically exist. But I agree with SKR in that it's just better game design to use the even numbers.

Then why do they have odd stats at all?

Matthew Morris wrote:

James,

Your logic is that a +3 item should cost the same as a +4 item, because they're 'similar'

I'm saying using that logic, a +3 item is just as similar to +2 as +4. After all, the 16 strength character doesn't benefit from it as much as the 17 strength character. Just like the 17 strength character doesn't benefit from the +2 as much as the 18 strength character. It helps that there is a formula that splits the difference at 9k GP to resolve the issue.

I'm agreeing in principle that there it one reason to disallow the +x item, and it's the one that sums up Farmer Bob's points. The GM feels it doesn't belong in his game.

This GM doesn't feel that way.

We've used odd stat boosting items for all of 3.5 and beta using the RAW price formula. IIRC, we used it in 3.0 as well. It's never caused a problem, but we don't use point buy either. This is one case were RAW has worked fine for many years and many games at our tables.

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I have heard this before, but I can't find in the rules where they banned non belt or headband stat boost items.

Can you point me in the right direction?

AFAIK, this is an inference coming out of the following rules:

1) When creating a new magic item, you should first see if there is a similar magic item and make that one

2) Belts have been created for all physical stats, and even combo physical stats. Same for headbands. All non-belt/headband items (gauntlets, gloves, cloak, periapt) have been removed.

The combination of the two creates a clear inference that non-belt/headband stat items should not be used, just like replicating all existing magic items as Wondrous Items or Swords of True-Striking.

If there IS an actual rule, I would like to know as well. Until then, those types of items would be a violation of RAI.

NOTE: I do not feel that the RAW that has been quoted is meant to disallow odd-stat items. There is no mandate the the item be identical, or impossible to customize. Changing the bonus from +2 to +1 is a far cry from creating Boots of Charisma +2 (now with stilleto heels, and in HOT PINK!).

Bitter Thorn wrote:
meabolex wrote:
Based on what I've read from this thread, I still wouldn't recommend any DM to allow these items. I think they could be used in a non-exploitative manner -- and I think, based on the RAW, they could theoretically exist. But I agree with SKR in that it's just better game design to use the even numbers.
Then why do they have odd stats at all?

A) to qualify for feats

B) to give you something to add a point to every 4 levels (delayed gratification)

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

If there IS an actual rule, I would like to know as well. Until then, those types of items would be a violation of RAI.

3.5 had an entry under "Special" in the costs for "Uncustomary space limitation", which multiplied the cost by 1.5. I don't see that in PF. So, if you want Boots of Intelligence, I guess it is permitted at no additional charge.

I thought there was some other verbiage restricting items based on affinity, but I can't find it.

Zurai wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
Not even close. A +1 armor gives everyone who wears it the same benefit, a 5% better chance of avoiding a damaging blow. A +1 weapon gives everyone who uses it a 5% better chance to strike a damaging blow and 1 more point of damage.

False.

Two characters fighting a monster with a +10 attack roll. First character has AC 15 with nonmagic armor. Second character has AC 25 with nonmagic armor. Give both characters a +1 bonus on their armor. The first character gets a 6.67% reduction in chance to be hit; the second character gets a 20% reduction in chance to be hit.

You want to walk me through the math on this? Nevermind that my example was clearly talking about a situation where all other things being equal, not some guy in leather vs some guy in full plate with and without a magic +1 bonus.

Character A = AC15 or 16
Foe with a +10 to hit will connect 80% of the time vs 75%.
Character B = AC25 or 26
Same foe hits 30% of the time or 25% of the time.

Net difference in both cases is 5%. Barring extremes where only a 20 hits anyway. The difference of +1 to each AC is a difference for each of 5%. Not a difference in reduction, a flat difference in net effect.

In any case, the original example still stands. A suit of Leather +1 benefits the AC of Character A the same as Character B. Either character can put on the same suit of armor and get the same benefit. They can sell it to a vendor who doesn't have to worry if his future customer has an even or odd stat, it's equally valuable to anyone who would buy +1 leather armor.

FarmerBob wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:

If there IS an actual rule, I would like to know as well. Until then, those types of items would be a violation of RAI.

3.5 had an entry under "Special" in the costs for "Uncustomary space limitation", which multiplied the cost by 1.5. I don't see that in PF. So, if you want Boots of Intelligence, I guess it is permitted at no additional charge.

I thought there was some other verbiage restricting items based on affinity, but I can't find it.

There was an item slot affinity rule for 3E that was widely ignored. I have found no evidence that a similar mandate was carried over to PFRPG.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

I have heard this before, but I can't find in the rules where they banned non belt or headband stat boost items.

Can you point me in the right direction?

AFAIK, this is an inference coming out of the following rules:

1) When creating a new magic item, you should first see if there is a similar magic item and make that one

2) Belts have been created for all physical stats, and even combo physical stats. Same for headbands. All non-belt/headband items (gauntlets, gloves, cloak, periapt) have been removed.

The combination of the two creates a clear inference that non-belt/headband stat items should not be used, just like replicating all existing magic items as Wondrous Items or Swords of True-Striking.

If there IS an actual rule, I would like to know as well. Until then, those types of items would be a violation of RAI.

NOTE: I do not feel that the RAW that has been quoted is meant to disallow odd-stat items. There is no mandate the the item be identical, or impossible to customize. Changing the bonus from +2 to +1 is a far cry from creating Boots of Charisma +2 (now with stilleto heels, and in HOT PINK!).

I was just curious, even if it were the new RAW I don't see anyone's Gauntlets of Ogre Power or Gloves of Cats Grace evaporating [and certainly not the Dancers Boots of Allure;)] in our games.

Twowlves wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
meabolex wrote:
Based on what I've read from this thread, I still wouldn't recommend any DM to allow these items. I think they could be used in a non-exploitative manner -- and I think, based on the RAW, they could theoretically exist. But I agree with SKR in that it's just better game design to use the even numbers.
Then why do they have odd stats at all?

A) to qualify for feats

B) to give you something to add a point to every 4 levels (delayed gratification)

They are more meaningful than that in our games.

Why not just use the mod and not the stat like true20; just add a real stat/mod every 8 levels? It seems more to the point.

Twowlves wrote:
You want to walk me through the math on this?

Sure. Basic statistics. You have a chance for something to happen. You do something else, and that alters the chance-to-happen. The resultant new chance-to-happen is a |((1 - NewChance/OldChance) * 100%)| change in chance-to-happen.

I will note that I accidentally reversed the math to OldChance/NewChance, which produced the wrong numbers. The correct numbers are 6.25% and 16.67%.

The important thing about armor isn't increasing the required to-hit number by 1; it's shrinking the set of required to-hit numbers by 1. Thus, the character with the smaller set benefits more from any absolute decrease in the size of the set, until the size of the set equals one (technically, one past that, so that the natural 20 cannot confirm a critical against him, but that's a lesser benefit and so not really important to the discussion).

For example, if I can only be hit on a 19 or 20, then increasing my AC by 1 halves my chance of being hit. At the same time, if I can be hit on anything but a 1, changing that to anything but a 1 or a 2 really doesn't help my situation much. Yes, you're just as likely to roll a 19 as you are to roll a 2, but you're not just as likely to roll a 20 as you are to roll any number from 3 to 20. That is what increasing your AC capitalizes on.

Quote:
Nevermind that my example was clearly talking about a situation where all other things being equal, not some guy in leather vs some guy in full plate

Then you're changing the goalposts. Your specific argument was that +1 armor gives everyone who wears it exactly the same benefit. That isn't true. Two different characters can put on the exact same suit of +1 armor and get difference chances to be hit and different changes in chances to be hit. Leather and full plate wasn't the example. I didn't say that the suits of armor they were wearing were different. It could be that the first guy has a 7 dex and no other defensive bonuses, while the second guy has 13 dex, Dodge, an amulet of natural armor, and an enchanted heavy shield. Your premise is that those two characters would derive exactly the same benefit from the same item. Your premise is false.

If you change your argument to be "two identical characters get the same benefit from the same suit of armor" ... well, duh?

I don't see why there is a real issue here. The items listed are the more common variants of the stat item. In the crafting magic item section in the back of the book it gives the formulas for creating magic items that aren't the standard. So for stat increasing items the formula as stated numerous times in these posts are the stat squared times 1000gp in cost, so a +1 item is 1000g, a +2 item is 4000 gold a +3 item is 9000 gold, +4 is 16000 gold, and +5 is 25000g. There is nothing unfair about odd items, they are just not the most common varieties. Just because it isn't a specific magic item listed in the magic items section doesn't mean it can't be crafted. If you want to limit them just rule as GM that they have to be specifically made and aren't as common. The rules for generating magic items are there to be used and not be stifled or constrained by only what is listed in the item lists. If a player can think of it, has the time and gold to get it and it is designed where it follows the rules already listed in the book, The Gm should let him/her have it. Now the gm can and has every right to limit access to who can make it, or the how much gold the players receive in treasures. This is where careful planning by the GM comes into play.

Zurai wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
You want to walk me through the math on this?

Sure. Basic statistics. You have a chance for something to happen. You do something else, and that alters the chance-to-happen. The resultant new chance-to-happen is a |((1 - NewChance/OldChance) * 100%)| change in chance-to-happen.

I will note that I accidentally reversed the math to OldChance/NewChance, which produced the wrong numbers. The correct numbers are 6.25% and 16.67%.

The important thing about armor isn't increasing the required to-hit number by 1; it's shrinking the set of required to-hit numbers by 1. Thus, the character with the smaller set benefits more from any absolute decrease in the size of the set, until the size of the set equals one (technically, one past that, so that the natural 20 cannot confirm a critical against him, but that's a lesser benefit and so not really important to the discussion).

For example, if I can only be hit on a 19 or 20, then increasing my AC by 1 halves my chance of being hit. At the same time, if I can be hit on anything but a 1, changing that to anything but a 1 or a 2 really doesn't help my situation much. Yes, you're just as likely to roll a 19 as you are to roll a 2, but you're not just as likely to roll a 20 as you are to roll any number from 3 to 20. That is what increasing your AC capitalizes on.

Quote:
Nevermind that my example was clearly talking about a situation where all other things being equal, not some guy in leather vs some guy in full plate
Then you're changing the goalposts. Your specific argument was that +1 armor gives everyone who wears it exactly the same benefit. That isn't true. Two different characters can put on the exact same suit of +1 armor and get difference chances to be hit and different changes in chances to be hit. Leather and full plate wasn't the example. I didn't say that the suits of armor they were wearing were different. It could be that the first guy has a 7 dex and no other...

Now who's moving the goalposts? You are measuring the "change in chance to happen" not the "Chance to happen". On a linear 1d20 roll (not even a propper bell-shaped curve), a +1 bonus to the roll (or a 1 point increase in target difficulty) results in a change in probability of 5%. If you went from a 10% chance to be hit to a 5%, yes you have a 50% difference, but the actual number only moved 5 percentage points. But I suspect you knew that already.

+1 armor does give everyone who puts it on the same exact benefit: +1 to their AC over the mundane version. Taking two characters with a 10 point spread in base AC so you can swing the "change in chance to happen" to get a 3-fold difference is intellectually dishonest. My example was as black and white as possible, and you intentionally introduced a 10-point spread in your example to try to counter my example. But the fact remains, a +1 enhancement bonus to a suit of armor benefits everyone who puts on that armor the same. An item that grants an odd bonus to a stat will not benefit everyone that uses it the same. When selling the armor, the value is constant. When selling the stat-booster, the value is relative.

Twowlvs wrote:
+1 armor does give everyone who puts it on the same exact benefit.

No, it doesn't. If you have enough AC already to only be hit on a 19 or 20, adding another +1 gives you the same mechanical benefit on your chance to be hit as total concealment (50% miss chance). If you can be hit on a 15-20, adding that same +1 only gives the mechanical benefit on your chance to be hit as concealment (20% miss chance).

(obviously concealment has other bonuses, I'm just talking about the chance-to-hit effect here)

The higher your AC, the better each additional point of AC is. The lower your AC, the less an additional point of AC matters. 1 point of AC is worth much more to a character with 50 AC than one with 5. EDIT: Incidentally, this is why +2 armor is exponentially more expensive than +1 armor; by arguing that a +1 AC boost benefits every character equally, you're effectively arguing that AC should be a flat price per point.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hyla Arborea wrote:
mdt wrote:

You can only put mental stats on a headband. [...] Same for physical stats on a belt.

To put them on a non-belt or non-headband would cost even more.

Oh wow, is that new with Pathfinder? It never came up in my 3.x games anyhow, but it would surprise me if I overlooked this all these years.

Yep, new with pathfinder.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hyla Arborea wrote:
xJoe3x wrote:

2 +1s is a +2 and would cost 4000k

Please reread our posts, I think you did not get them right.

Yes, he misread. This is referring to +1 INT and +1 CHA for example, not two +1 INT's.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
meabolex wrote:

Note that at 4th level, you shouldn't have a +2 item by the guidelines, but you could have 5 +1 items.

Stat items are now Belts or Headbands, BTW. In order to get a belt with +1 to all physical stats, you need 1000 + 1500 + 1500 = 4000gp.

Which, as you point out, you shouldn't have at 4th level, adhering to WBL.

IF we had the old 3.5 item list, THEN that would be a viable plan. I even mistakenly used such an example above, and I should not have. With the changes to PFRPG, that exploit is much, much harder to generate.

I have heard this before, but I can't find in the rules where they banned non belt or headband stat boost items.

Can you point me in the right direction?

It's based on comments by the devs, and is supposed to be going into the errata. It's also based on the item creation rules, in that the only 'similar' items that give bonuses are headbands and belts, and there exist combinations of 1 stat, 2 stats, and all 3 stats for both. Creating an item that boosts stats that doesn't take up a body slot (like ioun stones) is double cost (per RAW).

I've seen some house rules posted on the blogs where non-standard body slots would be X 1.5 (so gauntlets of ogre power +2 would cost 6,000gp, not 4,000gp), which seems a fine compromise between slotless and slotted. The only time you'd want to use it is if you have a belt you want to use instead of a stat bonus belt (like a monk's belt, or a belt of healing).

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

FarmerBob wrote:
Now, how do you price an item if it does (a) or (b), depending on the wearer? A shopkeeper would likely set the price close to the (c) item and wait for the right buyer.

Exactly. That is a clean way to make my point. The creator of the item would never sell the +1 STR item for the formula price (1*1*1000) since he can just wait for the odd stat fighter and get closer to the price of the +2 item from the +1 STR item he built.

mdt wrote:

Another thing, the rules are not intended as a checklist. It doesn't say, 'Apply #1, if #1 doesn't apply, then #2, else if #3'.

You can't say 'You are ignoring rule #1' and 'The items are not similar' in the same post.

Actually, I see them as a checklist. So it comes down to interpretation of the rules.

If they are a checklist, there are no +1 enhancement STR examples but there are +2 enhancement STR examples (which are similar to +1 for ODD stat players), then jumping to #3 without pricing the +1 close (or equal) to the price of +2 items is ignoring #1.

mdt wrote:
Now, on to the 'It's more useful for A than B'. The book is full of items that are more useful to one character than another. For example, a +1 Int Tome is worth more to a wizard with a 17 Int

Let me put this another way, as you are not getting my point.

The item isn't sold to Barbarians with 10 INT. The shopkeeper will wait for the Wizard with INT 17 to come along and pay the maximum the wizard will pay for a +1 inherent INT item. So any item that is less useful to one PC as it is to another PC, you must ignore the less useful PC in the pricing evaluation.

mdt wrote:
perhaps make it 3/4 the cost of the next highest bonus), so 3,000gp for +1

That seems more in line with my interpretation of RAW, but alas others have different opinions (which is why this thread has gone on so long.)

James Risner wrote:
mdt wrote:
perhaps make it 3/4 the cost of the next highest bonus), so 3,000gp for +1
That seems more in line with my interpretation of RAW, but alas others have different opinions (which is why this thread has gone on so long.)

Actually very little discussion has been made about the pricing of such items, except for the occasional "exact same price as a higher even stat item", which is obviously silly. Most of the discussion has been how it is broken to even have such items in the first place.

3/4 idea is generally fine, though if you allow your players to craft/purchase high level items (+7 or higher), then it stops working so well.

+1 = 3000 (2^2*.75)
+2 = 4000 (2^2)
+3 = 12000 (4^2*.75)
+4 = 16000 (4^2)
+5 = 27000 (6^2*.75)
+6 = 36000 (6^2)
+7 = 48000 (8^2*.75) [note this is cheaper than 7^2 -> 49000]
+8 = 64000 (8^2)

Now compare that to my pricing suggestion for example.

+1 = 2000 (1*2)
+2 = 4000 (2^2)
+3 = 12000 (3*4)
+4 = 16000 (4^2)
+5 = 30000 (5*6)
+6 = 36000 (6^2)
+7 = 56000 (7*8)
+8 = 64000 (8^2)

While my pricing is cheaper initially, it eventually is more expensive and never actually falls cheaper than the standard formula. Of course that initial +1 benefit is probably what some folks are so worried about.

Zurai wrote:
The higher your AC, the better each additional point of AC is. The lower your AC, the less an additional point of AC matters. 1 point of AC is worth much more to a character with 50 AC than one with 5.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Another 1 point of AC to something with an AC of 50 means next to nothing. The vast majority of potential foes in the universe need a natural 20 to hit him with or without the extra +1. As long as the to hit and AC numbers are within the linear range of a d20 roll, a +1 to AC with equally valuable and desirable. Against almost all foes, it means that foe needs to roll 1 point higher to hit him, and on a 1d20, that's 5%.

Zurai wrote:
EDIT: Incidentally, this is why +2 armor is exponentially more expensive than +1 armor; by arguing that a +1 AC boost benefits every character equally, you're effectively arguing that AC should be a flat price per point.

No, I'm not. What I am saying is a +1 is worth a flat rate, and it is. It costs 1000gp to add a +1 enhancement bonus to a masterwork set of armor, no matter what kind of armor you are enchanting. Adding more than +1 costs more in a non-lenear fashion, but all "+1 armor" costs the same, minus the material cost of masterwork armor.

All +1 enchanted armor costs the same becuse it gives the same benefit to everyone. My initial point. Pulling corner cases with huge swings in base AC and measuring anything other than the flat chance of a hit within the linear d20 range is being intentionally misleading.

James Risner wrote:

Exactly. That is a clean way to make my point. The creator of the item would never sell the +1 STR item for the formula price (1*1*1000) since he can just wait for the odd stat fighter and get closer to the price of the +2 item from the +1 STR item he built.

That's why CON is the best stat to use for reference. All other stats have more benefit to one class over another, affect skills, and may have benefits for odd values (feat qualifications, carrying capacity, spell level qualifications, etc). I think this is getting people twisted around the axle when they try to make valuations.

CON is a level playing field, is a secondary stat for all classes, has a small number of tangible benefits, and an odd CON has a near insignificant benefit over an even CON one value lower.

Again, I'd ask for the net wisdom to help price these two items, which do not increase your stats or qualify you for any new feats or class features.

Belt of Hardiness, level 1
Even CON: Adds +1 to max negative hp
Odd CON: Adds +1 to max negative hp, +1 hp/HD, +1 fort saves, +1 CON checks

Belt of Hardiness, level 2
Adds +2 to max negative hp, +1 hp/HD, +1 fort saves, +1 CON checks

Edit: Removed level 2 price estimate.

People with an even CON won't buy the level 1 version, so you could almost consider it as a magic item restricted to people with an odd CON. It is worth less to sell than the level 2 version, since there are fewer people who'd benefit from the item. It is also costs less to buy, since it isn't quite as good as the level 2 version in benefits and restrictions.

What would people price the level 1 version at?

I'd say the level 1 item costs between 5 and 10% less than the level 2 item. Its restriction is less strong than requiring a specific skill to function, which is a 10% reduction, but it also has a slightly reduced benefit vs. the level 2 belt when fully functioning. A 10% price reduction sounds reasonable.

If you can figure out how to price the level 1 item, I would submit that is what you should set for the price of all +1 stat items relative to +2 stat items. Otherwise you need to deal with each stat on a case by case basis and the relative merits of odd values. Yuk.

Once the +1 price is set, hopefully the remaining odd item values can be set via induction.

Why isn't holding your breath effected by your belts? Absorption of Con damage either?

Also would you be able to put a belt of mighty constitution effect on these belts as well (paying the 1.5*price of course)? Would the effects stack? Thus for somewhere around the price of 10,000 gp, you'd get almost the benefit of +4 Con (but with only really a +2 Con increase)?

pres man wrote:
Why isn't holding your breath effected by your belts? Absorption of Con damage either?

I simplified it. Again, it doesn't change CON, but it is a close approximation to the effect of increasing your CON stat by +1 or +2. Hence level 2 is worth 4000, plus or minus. Could be more since the bonuses are untyped. Could be less since it doesn't help with CON damage or increase how long you can swim, etc. I just needed a starting point for reference.

pres man wrote:
Also would you be able to put a belt of mighty constitution effect on these belts as well (paying the 1.5*price of course)? Would the effects stack? Thus for somewhere around the price of 10,000 gp, you'd get almost the benefit of +4 Con (but with only really a +2 Con increase)?

Again, I merely simplified the example. If such a belt were to exist, you'd craft the belt in such a way that it did not stack with enhancement bonuses to CON.

The point is that the level 1 belt should be close to the Belt of CON +1 and the level 2 belt should be close to the Belt of CON +2. Those additional traits shouldn't adjust the belt values by a big multiple.

Well if it doesn't stack with an enhancement bonus then it being "untyped" doesn't really matter much, since it is acting effectively like an enhancement bonus, just in a crappier fashion. Thus the level 2 in that case would be worth less than 4000 gp (a +2 Con belt, getting less of the benefits and still not stacking), say 3000 gp. Obviously the level 1 would be less than that, say 500 gp - 2000 gp range. While the bonus to an even stat con isn't that great, that can be enhanced within 1d4 levels easily.

pres man wrote:
Well if it doesn't stack with an enhancement bonus then it being "untyped" doesn't really matter much, since it is acting effectively like an enhancement bonus, just in a crappier fashion. Thus the level 2 in that case would be worth less than 4000 gp (a +2 Con belt, getting less of the benefits and still not stacking), say 3000 gp. Obviously the level 1 would be less than that, say 500 gp - 2000 gp range. While the bonus to an even stat con isn't that great, that can be enhanced within 1d4 levels easily.

Kinda missing the point of my thought experiment, but that's okay. Even with a highly detailed equivalent magic item description, I don't think I'd persuade you in any case, so I'll let it drop.

Edit: I should not have put a price on the level 2 item. The interesting thing to me is the relative price difference between the level 1 and level 2 items. They are close in benefit, so I think they should be close in price. What that price is exactly isn't that important for the thought experiment.

 151 to 191 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>