hey, can anyone find where it says that amulet of natural armour, rings of protection etc. are limited to +5? Or can you go as high as you want?
I thought not, but am struggling to find a specific ruling.
From the description of the ring on page 481 of the core PRPG book:
This ring offers continual magical protection in the form of a
deflection bonus of +1 to +5 to AC.
The description for the amulet of natural armor also gives a range of +1 to +5. The same for the max bonus for armor and weapons. This has pretty much been the standard range for bonuses on magic items for as long as D&D has been around.
The description for the amulet of natural armor also gives a range of +1 to +5. The same for the max bonus for armor and weapons. This has pretty much been the standard range for bonuses on magic items for as long as D&D has been around.
True.
If you want to go higher you need epic level rules. According to the 3.0 Epic Level Handbook a Ring of Epic Protection +6 costs 720,000 gp. According to the PF Core Rulebook a Level 20 character is supposed to have equipment worth 880,000 gp....
The caster level needed is 18, however you also need the Forge Epic Ring feat which has Forge Ring and 35 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft as prerequisites. So you would have to be level 32 to take it.
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.
how's that?
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.
This would give you a +6 Bonus, but IMO, it should have the same cost as a "regular" +6 ring.
Stefan
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.
So...are you talking about 2 different rings? If so, that's not helping. If not, what do you mean?
There must be rules for this, whether epic or not. Seeing as Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 tho, not sure whether that applies.
you can tack both powers on the same ring, for 45,000 gold. they are 2 seperate +3 bonuses. not a lone +6.
Yup. Being bonuses of different type, they stack ;-)
You can stack different powers in the same item. I made some calculations, once, for an Amulet of Mighty Fists and Natural Armor... expensive, but doable, especially as a Crafter :-)
You getting those bonuses from old 3.5 books? I see nothing like that in the Pathfinder RPG book.
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.So...are you talking about 2 different rings? If so, that's not helping. If not, what do you mean?
There must be rules for this, whether epic or not. Seeing as Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 tho, not sure whether that applies.
You can stack multiple abilities on a single item for a 50% increase in price. The armor class cheese basically works by stacking +1 AC from multiple sources, since the exponential price increase for each bonus value above 1 outpaces the 50% cost of adding another +1 from a different source.
So an item with +5 deflection on it comes out to 50k. An item with +1 to AC from five different sources comes out to 17.5k, 2.5k for the first point of AC + 3750 for each further point. Same AC value, but a lot cheaper (the +5 deflection gives you 1 AC per 10k gold, while stacking five +1s gives you 1 AC point per 3.5k)
I wouldn't necessarily consider it legal though. While it does follow the custom magic item price guidelines, you are supposed to compare new magic items to existing ones for a price approximation, and pricing it like the existing AC items passes muster for me.
Edit: Ok I just got ninja'd by like, four people. I need to learn to write faster.
There must be rules for this, whether epic or not. Seeing as Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 tho, not sure whether that applies.
In my opinion everything that wasn't overwritten or can be easily converted still applies. There's still a Forge Ring feat in PF, there are the Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) skills and Rings of Protection go up to +5, there doesn't seem to be a newer version of Forge Epic Ring for 3.5 or PF, so until Paizo or WotC releases one it's still good. After all it's all about backwards compatibility.
Where the problems start is if you try to make epic belts and headbands that add to multiple ability scores....The ring of ultimate cheese, +3 deflection, +3 dodge, +3 natural armor, +3 armor, +3 shield, +3 luck, +3 sacred plus it comes in your choice of stylish colors.
I salute your collection of splatbooks. :D However what would be the cost of that ring? And why not add +5 on everything if we are at it? :D
Heh. All that is a nice example for letter vs. spirit of the rules. The rules allow it, but I would disallow 0gres Ring of Ultimate Cheese ;-)
Stefan
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.So...are you talking about 2 different rings? If so, that's not helping. If not, what do you mean?
There must be rules for this, whether epic or not. Seeing as Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 tho, not sure whether that applies.
You can stack multiple abilities on a single item for a 50% increase in price. The armor class cheese basically works by stacking +1 AC from multiple sources, since the exponential price increase for each bonus value above 1 outpaces the 50% cost of adding another +1 from a different source.
So an item with +5 deflection on it comes out to 50k. An item with +1 to AC from five different sources comes out to 17.5k, 2.5k for the first point of AC + 3750 for each further point. Same AC value, but a lot cheaper (the +5 deflection gives you 1 AC per 10k gold, while stacking five +1s gives you 1 AC point per 3.5k)
I wouldn't necessarily consider it legal though. While it does follow the custom magic item price guidelines, you are supposed to compare new magic items to existing ones for a price approximation, and pricing it like the existing AC items passes muster for me.
Edit: Ok I just got ninja'd by like, four people. I need to learn to write faster.
"You can stack multiple abilities on a single item for a 50% increase in price."
i didn't see any such rule on calculating price.
i did see this part though.
Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.
i would say any "other" bonus to AC would easily fall under that rule. your adding to a ring that that is already using that body slot so the "other" bonuses are not taking up any body slots. with that rule the cost would make a lot more sense.
+1 (deflection) 2000gp
+1 (sacred) 4000
+1 (luck) 9250
+1 (insight) 14500
+1 (dodge) 25687.5
55,437.5 gold
this seems more on par and perfectly legal.
I would probably limit it to one bonus type per item. If you want both natural and deflection, get an amulet and a ring. If you want all the bonuses, either you're wearing nothing but AC or your AC bonuses are sharing space with other effects (+50% cost).
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.This would give you a +6 Bonus, but IMO, it should have the same cost as a "regular" +6 ring.
Stefan
Two separate +3 rings should cost the same as a +6 ring? Bullocks.
Two separate +3 rings should cost the same as a +6 ring? Bullocks.True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.This would give you a +6 Bonus, but IMO, it should have the same cost as a "regular" +6 ring.
Stefan
I agree. AC tends to tapper off in effectiveness at higher levels anyway. This is probably because most games/modules don't grant these additional type of bonuses. The seems to have factored these bonuses in, but no one ever implements it.
"You can stack multiple abilities on a single item for a 50% increase in price."i didn't see any such rule on calculating price.
i did see this part though.Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.
Take a look at the very next paragraph under the one you quoted.
"Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price."The paragraph you quoted is only for similar abilities on non-slotted items.
The next paragraph is for different abilities on slotted items.
When you stack abilities on a slotted item, you have to pay more becauase you're getting to use the one body slot for multiple things.
True, but you could make a ring with a +3 Sacred bonus and another with a +3 Dodge bonus. Flame on.This has been covered in weapons. And until Paizo comes out with official rules, I house rule to extend logic of the total limit for any plus related bonus is +5 for armor/hit/saving throw bonuses, and +6 for stat boosts. And in the ring mentioned above the Sacred bonus would invoke a +50 percent cost hike over and above the usual doubling for an unusual bonus for the item slot.
And remember with the exception of dodge and untyped bonuses, bonuses of the same type, whether enhancement, sacred, or whatever do not stack.
For the extremely cheesy, an additional house rule is that sacred and profane bonuses neutralise each other so a +2 sacred and a +3 profane worn by the same character "stack" to a +1 profane.
Also note that not all bonuses are equal. Dodge, for example, doesn't work if the person is denied their dexterity or is otherwise unable to move.
Heh. All that is a nice example for letter vs. spirit of the rules. The rules allow it, but I would disallow 0gres Ring of Ultimate Cheese ;-)
Stefan
Why not? First at lower levels access to people that can create items such as this. Sacred, Profane, and dodge are no small apples. Dodge might be accessible shortly after deflection, but still it isn't cheap. These extra types of AC might start to exist as items around the same time AC from other sources start to tapper off, say around 16.
Yeah, stacking for cheapness of price might be cheese, but one might want to test it. Also remember what is good for them is good for the NPCs. Having a game where AC is higher might be more fun as both the PCs and the NPCs are harder to hit, and thus longer battles.
Yeah, stacking for cheapness of price might be cheese, but one might want to test it. Also remember what is good for them is good for the NPCs. Having a game where AC is higher might be more fun as both the PCs and the NPCs are harder to hit, and thus longer battles.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion it's better to not allow the cheese rather than engage in a cheese arms race.
Also note that not all bonuses are equal. Dodge, for example, doesn't work if the person is denied their dexterity or is otherwise unable to move.
Yes. Although it can be a little more nuanced than this, there are basically three kinds of AC: AC that works against touch attacks (like dodge), AC that works when you're unaware (like armor), and AC that works against both (like deflection). The third kind of bonus is usually the most expensive. You can get more out of the first kind by having abilities that reduce the number of situations where you're unaware, like Uncanny Dodge.
Also, note that not all bonuses are created equal in terms of source. If a player in my upcoming game (with a sharp social divide between "good" and "evil" magic) wanted an item with a profane bonus to AC, I would be very interested in where/how the player proposed to acquire such an item; exactly who are you making friends with?
Frankly, I'm of the opinion it's better to not allow the cheese rather than engage in a cheese arms race.
Yeah, stacking for cheapness of price might be cheese, but one might want to test it. Also remember what is good for them is good for the NPCs. Having a game where AC is higher might be more fun as both the PCs and the NPCs are harder to hit, and thus longer battles.
But when your faced with extremely high to hit bonuses, it makes the combat a bit more sane, and more meaningful. This isn't an arms race just more dramatic combat.
I agree. AC tends to tapper off in effectiveness at higher levels anyway. This is probably because most games/modules don't grant these additional type of bonuses. The seems to have factored these bonuses in, but no one ever implements it.
My contention was mainly with his statement that two separate rings should cost the same as a single ring with their combined bonuses. That's like saying a +3 shield and +3 armor should cost the same as +6 armor.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
0gre, I would be thrilled if someone in my campaign decided to try to craft a ring that produced a +21 bonus to armor class. That's an annular-shaped plot seed, right there.
"Mirror, mirror, tell me hence, who has the finest magic defense?"
"No longer thou that title sieze, for 0gre's ring is made of cheese."
But when your faced with extremely high to hit bonuses, it makes the combat a bit more sane, and more meaningful. This isn't an arms race just more dramatic combat.
The arms race is pretty much just about an NPC investing in cheese because a PC can, not related to simply raising ACs to extend combat.
But, for my money, the dramatic combats are the shorter, more intense, ones. Longer ones run into what I consider to be one of 4e's weaknesses - combat grind. I'm all in favor of PCs building up excess attack bonuses - makes them feel more comfortable in using feats like power attack and combat expertise.
"You can stack multiple abilities on a single item for a 50% increase in price."
i didn't see any such rule on calculating price.
i did see this part though.Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.
i would say any "other" bonus to AC would easily fall under that rule. your adding to a ring that that is already using that body slot so the "other" bonuses are not taking up any body slots. with that rule the cost would make a lot more sense.
+1 (deflection) 2000gp
+1 (sacred) 4000
+1 (luck) 9250
+1 (insight) 14500
+1 (dodge) 25687.555,437.5 gold
this seems more on par and perfectly legal.
I've been trying to reverse engineer your price and frankly I have no idea how you're getting it. The rules you quoted are for items that don't take up a slot, if you're going to rule that the AC bonuses fall under that then you should be applying the discount that comes along with it, and your item should be even cheaper than mine.
The reason that ring is made and used is because AC scales terribly. The higher you go in level, the easier it is for you to be hit, due to how attack bonuses jump like they found a spider on their headrest on waking up, while AC just lays there and continues sleeping.
AC is also binary, which means it either works...or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, it's a complete waste.
AC is also binary, which means it either works...or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, it's a complete waste.
I have always appreciated one-stat "damage on the margin" systems for this very reason.
|
Not read the entire thread but thought I'd mention this. In 3rd and 3.5 Dodge bonuses could never be given by a magic item because they are the only bonus that stacks with itself.Unfortunately unless they've hidden it somewhere very hard to find that line did not make it over to the PRD.
Might have been in Sage Advice or a post by a developer. Was definitely a WotC source but I'd be hard put to find it. Not to mention I'm posting from work. Shhhh....
Might have been in Sage Advice or a post by a developer. Was definitely a WotC source but I'd be hard put to find it. Not to mention I'm posting from work. Shhhh....Not read the entire thread but thought I'd mention this. In 3rd and 3.5 Dodge bonuses could never be given by a magic item because they are the only bonus that stacks with itself.Unfortunately unless they've hidden it somewhere very hard to find that line did not make it over to the PRD.
It IS in the 3.5 SRD. ;)
Just not in the PRD.
|
0gre, I would be thrilled if someone in my campaign decided to try to craft a ring that produced a +21 bonus to armor class. That's an annular-shaped plot seed, right there.
"Mirror, mirror, tell me hence, who has the finest magic defense?"
"No longer thou that title sieze, for 0gre's ring is made of cheese."
hahahaha, Very nice Mortika
Doesn't that sort of thing make a player feel singled out (in a bad way)? Often my players would rather get killed in game than lose a favored magic item. I don't really care for taking care of meta game issues in game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If there's a ring that grants a +21 bonus to armor class, that's an in-game situation.
The same would be true if the party were to uncover an artifact. Go wave it around where bards and sages can see it, and see if an NPC or three don't take notice.
For the ring of cheese, the question the GM should ask herself: do powerful NPCs have comparable magic iems? If not, then either (a) there's a reason it's a bad idea, or else (b) the PC is a genius for thinking up something that no other person in history has been able to fashion.
Usually, cheese falls into (a). The GM is invited to ponder this. Maybe +21 AC rings really are familiar magic items in the world.
The ring of ultimate cheese, +3 deflection, +3 dodge, +3 natural armor, +3 armor, +3 shield, +3 luck, +3 sacred plus it comes in your choice of stylish colors.
Basically custom magic items are house rules so the rules are whatever your GM lets you get away with.
I disagree with you there Ogre, it's RAW that you can combine the abilities, but if the GM has a problem with players creating magic items that abuse the system, it's just as easy to give similar items to GM characters that are consumable.
There's not a single mention of the word "Optional" in the Magic Item creation heading...
=D
I disagree with you there Ogre, it's RAW that you can combine the abilities,
Actually, the RAW in this case are only guidelines. Except for specifically listed items, the amount it costs to do anything else (and whether anything else can even be done) is up to the GM.
The cheese is strong in this one.
I see several posts that clammer that "AC scales horribly". There is a reason for it - the game is balanced around the fact that a PC will be hit maybe 25% of the time at level 1; but gets hit pretty much 70+% of the time after level 4.
AC is not supposed to make a character untouchable against a creature's primary attack - it only determines how well you fare against iterative or secondary attacks.
Otherwise you should also build your ring of +1 insight/circumstance/sacred/racial/rotund/regal/whatever bonus to attack.
As a GM I'd generally at most allow unusual (profane, insight, etc) bonuses to AC to go up to +1 each - and I'd make those hard to get too. It's not enough to go to a cleric of Asmodeus to get a spellhelp to make a profane ring - you'll have to delve into hell itself and form binding contracts, etc
|
|
The ring of ultimate cheese, +3 deflection, +3 dodge, +3 natural armor, +3 armor, +3 shield, +3 luck, +3 sacred plus it comes in your choice of stylish colors.
Basically custom magic items are house rules so the rules are whatever your GM lets you get away with.
I disagree with you there Ogre, it's RAW that you can combine the abilities, but if the GM has a problem with players creating magic items that abuse the system, it's just as easy to give similar items to GM characters that are consumable.
There's not a single mention of the word "Optional" in the Magic Item creation heading...
=D
What it says is
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.
So it says first and foremost the tables are an inadequate way to price things and that they are only a starting point. So right there in the rules they say the tables don't cut it and judgment is required.
So look at the specifics; Is a ring that gives you a +6 bonus to your AC actually worth more than a ring that gives a +5 bonus? I think almost everyone would agree that it's worth more than the +5 ring except in certain corner instances.
Ultimately those sort of decisions are something that your group needs to deal with. You know, sort of like a house rule.
Limits on what bonuses you can put into such rings are only valid if spells are restricted the same way. The reason why spellcasters can often attain higher levels then Melees is because they have access to bonuses that the Melees just do not get.
I have no problems restricting 'odd' bonuses to +1, if no spellcaster can wave his arms and pop up a +3 Luck bonus or something at will.
Otherwise, all you've done is move a buff from needing to a spell to costing gold and being a constant effect. the wearer won't benefit from Prayers or Chants or the like when they are cast, but that's fine for him.
Non-casters spend an absolutely tremendous amount of money on defensive items. Any technique they can use to mitigate the cost of doing so should be valid on its face.
The term I use is DISMAL (Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale, And Luck) bonuses, all valid for ring use (Dodge and Nat AC are usually part of something else). For practical purposes, you are restricted to +3 Dismal because of stacking costs, which nets you out +15 to AC, and will set you back about 165k or so. Restrict the secondary bonuses to just +1, you replace reliance on cast spells with gear, which IMO is a good thing. Gear and gold are much easier to control, and I really don't favor letting spellcasters have the highest AC, you know? They've got enough other defensive effects.
==Aelryinth
also like to point out that the +5 restriction is a 3.5 invention. 1E and 2E both had +6 swords in them, and Rings +6 AC/+1 Saves. Even 4E has them now.
But there are generally far fewer bonuses to hit out there then there are to AC. Kindly note that a Uber Shield user can get a whopping +13 bonus from a shield, all touch AC...+18 vs Ranged attacks)
(Uber Shield: Heavy +5 Shield, +5 Defender Spikes, Shield Spec, Shield Ward, +Augment Gem vs Missiles). with bashing and Shield Mastery, you can even use it as a weapon, not use the spikes, and enjoy full attack bonuses!
==Aelryinth
also like to point out that the +5 restriction is a 3.5 invention. 1E and 2E both had +6 swords in them, and Rings +6 AC/+1 Saves. Even 4E has them now.
But there are generally far fewer bonuses to hit out there then there are to AC. Kindly note that a Uber Shield user can get a whopping +13 bonus from a shield, all touch AC...+18 vs Ranged attacks)
(Uber Shield: Heavy +5 Shield, +5 Defender Spikes, Shield Spec, Shield Ward, +Augment Gem vs Missiles). with bashing and Shield Mastery, you can even use it as a weapon, not use the spikes, and enjoy full attack bonuses!
==Aelryinth
No. If you don't take a penalty to attack you don't get a bonus to AC from the Defending special property.
No. If you don't take a penalty to attack you don't get a bonus to AC from the Defending special property.also like to point out that the +5 restriction is a 3.5 invention. 1E and 2E both had +6 swords in them, and Rings +6 AC/+1 Saves. Even 4E has them now.
But there are generally far fewer bonuses to hit out there then there are to AC. Kindly note that a Uber Shield user can get a whopping +13 bonus from a shield, all touch AC...+18 vs Ranged attacks)
(Uber Shield: Heavy +5 Shield, +5 Defender Spikes, Shield Spec, Shield Ward, +Augment Gem vs Missiles). with bashing and Shield Mastery, you can even use it as a weapon, not use the spikes, and enjoy full attack bonuses!
==Aelryinth
That's what he said, don't use them (the spikes) for defense and you enjoy full attack bonuses.
Although, technically, you don't take a penalty to attack. What you do is give up a bonus to attack. The way defending works is you may, at your option, give up some or all your enhancement bonus to attack in exchange for a bonus to your defense that is equal to the bonus you give up on the attack.
So, technically, you get yoru full attack bonus with the spikes whether you use the defending property or not. Note that the property only applies to attacks with that weapon. So, for example :
TWF has a +4 Flaming longsword, and a +5 Heavy Shield with +5 Defender spikes. Assuming his BAB is 15, and his STR is 20, and a 24 AC without using the defender option, then he'd have the following to-hits :
Base Melee : 15 + 5 = 20
Base AC : 24
TWF Melee : 15 + 5 - 2 = 18
TWF AC : 24
TWF Melee with weapons as stated, no use of Defender :
Longsword : 15 + 5 - 2 + 4 : 22
Shield Spikes : 15 + 5 -2 + 5 : 23
AC : 24
TWF Melee with weapons as stated, using Defender at Maximum :
Longsword : 15 + 5 - 2 + 4 : 22
Shield Spikes : 15 + 5 - 2 + 0 : 18
AC : 24 + 5 : 29
So, note, he's getting full base attack bonus at all points, not taking a penalty. He is just giving up, optionally, a bonus to attack/damage in exchange for a defense bonus.
My contention was mainly with his statement that two separate rings should cost the same as a single ring with their combined bonuses. That's like saying a +3 shield and +3 armor should cost the same as +6 armor.
I agree. AC tends to tapper off in effectiveness at higher levels anyway. This is probably because most games/modules don't grant these additional type of bonuses. The seems to have factored these bonuses in, but no one ever implements it.
You are walking an irrational line.
So you have boots of dodge and a ring of protection, so you combine one of these with another effect, like boots of speed. You would be spending the same amount, if not less and free up a slot by doing this. It is no different than just combining the two AC items.
Edit: So in the end your real problem is probably with players using game listed bonus types to up their AC.