Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Nigrescence wrote:
Being only for a Wizard doesn't reek of cheese. A Cleric would love an item like this, and so would a Rogue. I wouldn't have done it if it wouldn't fit the theme.
Oh and the fact that the character you want to make this for...i.e. YOU just happens to be a wizard is of course mere coincidence. Rationalising your cheese does not get rid of the limburger smell. My ruling is simple if the restriction DOES not restrict the character, than it is not a restriction. In fact it's an added feature which not only does not give a discount but it merits a 10 percent price HIKE as it respresents an item that's kept away from "the unworthy."
Look, I'm not attached to it being Wizard only. If anything, this item would be FAR more powerful not class restricted to a class that can use all of the abilities tied to it, and THAT fits in with cheese quite nicely. The fact that you keep on insisting that it's cheese just indicates to me that you're the kind of person who ALWAYS thinks anything ever is always cheese, probably because you're the kind of person who would always goes for cheese. No, your Cleric won't be able to use these things because they aren't Cleric abilities. Your Fighter won't get these cantrips and detections because they're Wizard abilities that this item is meant to supplement.
If you're going to just insist on cheese this and cheese that, go to some other thread. I'm here for a discussion, and ideas. Take your pitiful accusations elsewhere, and return IF you get a brain.
Oh I forgot...your definition of discussion is one-sided agreement. Fact is...I've been a gamemaster in systems other than D20 in which I got a very good lessons in how advantages and disadvantages are gamed by players like you who think they're being clever. There's a very good reason why items like yours never appear in official rulebooks. Because they stink of the worst style o gamemanship and power creep.
If this discussion is theory only, why would any DM want to introduce such a super ring in his game? Not only is it a bad item in design, it cheapens good more restrained itmes that are built along proper guidelines.
I wouldn't allow such an item from a player, and nor would I embarrass myself as a DM by putting it on an NPC.
Yes, I did look through spell lists. No need to get snippy because we're finding fault with your item.
Sustenance is a combination of something on the order of dream feast (1st level) and a personal, less good version of nap stack (3rd) if you want to combine effects. It's way stronger than just a first level spell.
Telepathy is nowhere near as good as telepathic bond or seek thoughts, in that it doesn't allow mindreading and has a range of 100 feet, not unlimited. It's literally only a communication skill. So, you know, like message only with less range.
And yes, it does allow communication with almost anything....which Tongues does just as well?
+4 to a stat is pretty good, so is never having to memorize 10 spells and always getting their bonuses. +4 to a stat is also pretty easy to get in a variety of flavors.
That's a good point about Nap Stack, but Nap Stack also has some other really good abilities. I'd place the Sustenance on level 2 power despite it's low cost except for the fact that it takes a week of wearing it for it to take effect. If that's ever interrupted... you need another week of continual wear to re-establish the connection, making me think it's on the order of level 1 power. I'd wonder about making a more valuable sustenance that only takes a day to attune itself for twice the cost of a regular sustenance ring, though.
I'll grant Telepathic Bond may be different, but it's close enough, and while Telepathic Bond has some advantages, so does Telepathy. At any rate, I'd then value Telepathy at 4th level, but I can't believe I forgot its Tongues ability, which is 3rd level. So that more or less preserves the power I was pointing out.
As far as memorizing these spells, 4 of these are cantrips, which already established items provide at a VERY cheap cost, and as cantrips are unexpended as prepared/memorized spells or are generally unlimited use (e.g. Hand of the Mage - unlimited use AND cheap as dirt). So, I'm going to call bull on you over-emphasizing the power of those cantrips, as it sits. I think a by-the-books pricing on cantrips is fine.
The abilities like Sustenance are already established magic items, and a Ring of Sustenance is also pretty dang dirt cheap, so I'm going to call foul on you trying to hype its power. As for the rest, Feather Falling is an already established, pretty dang cheap ring, so I'm also going to call foul on your estimation on that. Endure Elements lasts 24 hours, which may as well be compared to just one spell a day, a 1st level spell a day, and it would be cheaper to just have it cast Endure Elements 1/day, but I prefer this flavor. Even so, assuming you consider its power as a 1/day level 1 spell, the 1st level Pearl of Power is a prime substitute for that kind of power level, and you should know that they are cheap as dirt (and even more powerful than you might think since they restore your spells... which are cast at your CL).
The only item left that has some real substance for complaint is the Detect Secret Doors constant effect, but it's going by the book, and I can find you items that are comparable to its power at the same price. It may surprise you that a fairly considerable amount of magic items in Pathfinder follow the magic item creation guidelines exactly. Ok, maybe that really shouldn't be very surprising at all.
The best argument leveled against this (with which I agree) is having all of the effects on one item... which I solved in a previous post by splitting them up into more specialized items that focus on different aspects of the "One Ring" conglomerate. That works to solve the over-stacking complaint and the under-slot-occupying complaint.
Oh I forgot...your definition of discussion is one-sided agreement. Fact is...I've been a gamemaster in systems other than D20 in which I got a very good lessons in how advantages and disadvantages are gamed by players like you who think they're being clever. There's a very good reason why items like yours never appear in official rulebooks. Because they stink of the worst style o gamemanship and power creep.
I'm not looking for, nor do I want, nor do I expect one-sided agreement. If you've bothered to read any of the posts in this thread aside from your own, you'll probably notice that I've not only considered arguments from others, but adapted my ideas by taking those arguments into account. If someone makes a stupid argument, I will call it out as stupid, and give my reasons why it is so. If someone makes an irrelevant argument, I will point out and explain its irrelevancy, and on top of that even answer the argument despite its irrelevancy.
I honestly don't think you know what a discussion means. Just because I don't roll over at the first disagreement doesn't mean that I do not consider the disagreement and that I do not change my views based on the reasons for the disagreement. I do, and the only way I think you can even try to suggest that I don't is if you simply haven't been paying attention to the thread (in which case I would suggest you just leave since you clearly have no intention of contributing to a discussion).
I don't think I'm being clever. This is an invention entirely borne out of your imagination.
Does the Robe of the Archmagi stink of poor gamemanship and power creep? It's a staple item, but the more important bits follow.
It provides effectively a +5 AC Armor bonus (25k as Bracers of Armor), SR 18 (which, if you look up the pricing of SR according to the guidelines, would be worth about 60k GP to buy alone), +4 Resistance bonus (16k), and a +2 to CL checks to overcome SR (kind of approaching a feat in power, albeit an enhancement bonus, though there aren't many SR overcoming enhancement bonuses out there - I can't offhand think of a comparable pricing, but let me know if anyone can think of one).
That's 101k, 90.9k if you factor in the alignment requirement (and the "class requirement" just indicates arcane spellcaster, not a specific class, but I'll go ahead and add 10% extra discount because of that). So, 81.81k if you grant that extra discount for partial class restriction.
That's higher than its base price of 75k, and that's WITHOUT including the ability cost that approximates the feat Spell Penetration (and, it should be noted, STACKS with the feat). Not to mention that, since it's in the book already, your crafter can craft it and those restrictions are already a part of it, thus negating the normal "You can't discount it if it's not a restriction.", argument applied earlier. It follows the craft cost of half value exactly. So if the item already exists, I guess you CAN discount something that's not a restriction (note that the item insists the crafter is of the same alignment, but that can be substituted with a +5 DC to the check, although if you make it for yourself there's no need to do that).
Oh, and it uses higher-level powers in it, not low-level powers (and where applicable low-level powers on a boosted scale).
This is just one item. There ARE other items that use multiple abilities, and that follow a theme.
You are flatly wrong when you say that items like these never appear in official rulebooks. There's already at least one, and this is without me going and busting out the rules on OTHER items.
And people were complaining that this used to be "Wizard Only". Hell, I'd make it "Wizard Only" for absolutely no discounted price just because it would be ridiculous to give this stuff to anyone but a full arcane spellcaster. This item is most attractive to non-spellcasters, who wouldn't get these things in the first place. Whereas for a Wizard it merely supplements his already existing abilities.
If you're going to level criticisms against me and the ideas I have proposed, make sure that they are not only relevant, but that they have actual substance behind them.
I don't care what kind of DMing you've done all around. I've also been a DM. It doesn't matter if you've been a DM for twenty years or one year, or no years. What matters are your arguments and the reasons backing them up, and your arguments are as flimsy as paper and your reasons are lacking, if even present. Now, if you don't care to actually discuss things, I suggest you go elsewhere for your bashing and derogatory flaming. There are forums for that kind of thing elsewhere.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote:
Does the Robe of the Archmagi stink of poor gamemanship and power creep?
It provides effectively a +5 AC Armor bonus (25k as Bracers of Armor), SR 18 (which, if you look up the pricing of SR according to the guidelines, would be worth about 60k GP to buy alone), +4 Resistance bonus (16k), and a +2 to CL checks to overcome SR (kind of approaching a feat in power, albeit an enhancement bonus, though there aren't many SR overcoming enhancement bonuses out...
The Robe of the Archmagi represents pretty much the upper limit of how many powers should be stacked into THAT kind of item. Any principle can be taken too far and your ring goes light years beyond both power level and the number of powers attached to that item. The amount of powers contained in your item puts it more in the Staff of the Magi class which is an Artifact, not craftable by mortals.
Does the Robe of the Archmagi stink of poor gamemanship and power creep?
It provides effectively a +5 AC Armor bonus (25k as Bracers of Armor), SR 18 (which, if you look up the pricing of SR according to the guidelines, would be worth about 60k GP to buy alone), +4 Resistance bonus (16k), and a +2 to CL checks to overcome SR (kind of approaching a feat in power, albeit an enhancement bonus, though there aren't many SR overcoming enhancement bonuses out...
The Robe of the Archmagi represents pretty much the upper limit of how many powers should be stacked into THAT kind of item. Any principle can be taken too far and your ring goes light years beyond both power level and the number of powers attached to that item. The amount of powers contained in your item puts it more in the Staff of the Magi class which is an Artifact, not craftable by mortals.
Oh, and I figured out a comparable cost for the essential duplication of a feat. It's about 10k (I worked backwards from the Gloves of Arrow Snatching). I also completely forgot to apply the 1.5x cost multiplier for all abilities beyond the first, which would greatly increase the cost of the robe if it was by the book.
You're still not even taking into account the fact that I changed the items around to be several small effect items as a themed "set". See, I took someone's suggestion to heart and employed it. The reasons they gave were good, and I changed the concept because of it. That right there is proof enough against your baseless claims against me.
I'm not even getting into other things. The Robe of the Archmagi is pretty cheap, relatively speaking. I mentioned the Helm of Brilliance before. Yeah, that's a big bowl of awesome that comes out ahead of the robe at least in price, but a bit differently in power (it's more offensive than the robe), and it combines a TON of individual enchantment effects into one item (due to all of the individually consumed gems).
You're not even considering items that do planar traveling, Wish replication, and so on. Just look at the Mirror of Life Trapping. If anything, that's an item you should consider to be approaching the height of mortal make. There are some fairly impressive rods, too.
The items I am proposing... they're pitiful by comparison. Their power is in their versatility, not their actual strength.
No, a much closer comparable artifact comparison was already suggested, and as I had pointed out even that one has a power level far above this. Especially if I split it up into multiple smaller items (as I did). And if you continue arguing against it even then, you may as well start insisting that nobody ever wears any items unless it's just one ability per item. "Oh, what's that? Boots of Striding AND Springing? Nope, better just pick one!" Yeah, you start to head down the path of ridiculousness.
Look, I can take suggestions, criticisms, and arguments, but you're as good as not even reading the thread, and your posts amount to little more than spam. If you just want to try insulting me with derogatory speech, do everyone a favor and just send it to me in a private message. Then we can all ignore you as it should be, and those of us interested in discussion, and those of us able to actually hold a discussion, may get a chance to do so.
Additionally, 2/day means that there's a good chance you could end up wasting one of the uses if you're too liberal with activating it, or you might simply not have enough uses of it to last through the day.
It's as an immediate action. Which means you don't even need to put one of them up until you're being attacked. There's no way a wizard could waste this. It's actually ridiculously amazing. I don't see a reason why every single character in the game shouldn't wear this ring.
Number one: Gives +4 to AC when you need it, but not when you don't. Who cares about 1 minute duration when you can save your charges and bump it up as an immediate action when you know that you're about to be hit, and not when you know the +4 AC won't help you?
Number two: Is also a +2 ring of protection so you can wear another ring with it
Number three: Is also a ring of counterspells, which every single class in the game can benefit from having dispel magic inside of
Number three: Is also a ring of sustenance, which is usually a flavor vs. crunch decision
Number four: Can give mage armor, which is a bonus to AC that works versus incorporeal enemies, so an extremely handy item for anyone who is fighting incorporeal enemies-- again, there when you want it, not when you don't, lasts 1hr per use
One thing you are doing that I know is wrong is you are considering mage armor and shield as a level 1 spell instead of a +4 AC bonus. Both should cost around 40,000gp. Since they only work 2/day, it's 16,000gp for them. In the case of shield, I'd say you should compare prices and choose the higher. 800gp for a level 1 use-activated spell only usable twice per day, or 16,000gp for +4 AC only usable twice per day. Let's go with 16,000gp.
Also consider that shield is a personal spell. Unless the other party members can use Use Magic Device, they can't even put ranks into it to learn to use a wand of shield. This is likely only one of two ways you're going to get shield cast on you-- this ring, or by using the leadership feat to get an alchemist cohort to give you infusions of shield.
I think having it as an immediate action is fantastic and probably worth a x2 price modifier.
So this item gives +2 to AC all the time and +4 more to AC twice per day for one minute. Costs 800 more than a +3 ring of protection.
By my rules it'd cost
-------Ring of the Warded Wizard
8000 - Ring of Protection +2
6000 - Ring of Counterspells
24,000 - Ring of Reactive Shielding 2/day (As An Immediate Action, can cast Shield that lasts for 1 minute.)
24,000 - Ring of Reactive Armoring 2/day (As An Immediate Action, can cast Mage Armor that lasts for 1 hour.)
Cost: 62,000gp
Technically still worse than a +5 ring of protection, and only 12,000gp more, even though it gives 1 more AC than it in a pinch, provides the functionality of two other rings, and can give you a +4 bonus to your touch AC versus ghosts if you ever run into one.
Assuming you're making the ring yourself I think the 30% discount is fine, but let me tell you why.
You can't sell it
You can't pass it down to your kids
You're limited to the appropriate number of item slots
You can't loan it to another character for any reason.
If you have to get someone else to make the ring they may actually charge +30%. Because I assume you have to be present for the creation process, or give them vials and vials of your blood and hair and toenail clippings.
basically with the exeption of your personal use it's only worth the material cost.
I'm even ok with the permanent Magearmor, but let me tell you why.
You can't make a ring until 9th level, Assiming only you make it yourself and no one else can wear it as discussed. Now we're talking about a single level one spells for a 11th level caster. Mage armor lasts basically all day anyhow, espically if they have a lesser metamatic rod of extend. The only real effect of this item is to free up a level one spell slot. Whoop-de-do
For the Shield item I'm still OK with it, but it shouldn't be continusous. I would make it basically be like a very limited Pnemonic (however its spelled) enhancer. You cast the spell normally, but the spell energy is returned after you cast shield and ONLY sheild and only shield unmodified. The effect would be more expensive (4th level spell effect if memory serves), but you'd get the 30% discount. Also it should be more expensive because it adds to armor and makes one immune to Magic missle. That's something you shouldnt have up constantly.
Additionally, 2/day means that there's a good chance you could end up wasting one of the uses if you're too liberal with activating it, or you might simply not have enough uses of it to last through the day.
It's as an immediate action. Which means you don't even need to put one of them up until you're being attacked. There's no way a wizard could waste this. It's actually ridiculously amazing. I don't see a reason why every single character in the game shouldn't wear this ring.
Number one: Gives +4 to AC when you need it, but not when you don't. Who cares about 1 minute duration when you can save your charges and bump it up as an immediate action when you know that you're about to be hit, and not when you know the +4 AC won't help you?
Number two: Is also a +2 ring of protection so you can wear another ring with it
Number three: Is also a ring of counterspells, which every single class in the game can benefit from having dispel magic inside of
Number three: Is also a ring of sustenance, which is usually a flavor vs. crunch decision
Number four: Can give mage armor, which is a bonus to AC that works versus incorporeal enemies, so an extremely handy item for anyone who is fighting incorporeal enemies-- again, there when you want it, not when you don't, lasts 1hr per use
One thing you are doing that I know is wrong is you are considering mage armor and shield as a level 1 spell instead of a +4 AC bonus. Both should cost around 40,000gp. Since they only work 2/day, it's 16,000gp for them. In the case of shield, I'd say you should compare prices and choose the higher. 800gp for a level 1 use-activated spell only usable twice per day, or 16,000gp for +4 AC only usable twice per day. Let's go with 16,000gp.
Also consider that shield is a personal spell. Unless the other party members can use Use Magic Device, they can't even put ranks into it to learn to use a wand of shield. This is likely only one of two ways you're going to get shield cast on you-- this ring, or by...
I'd be willing to judge AC value via the AC costs, except that it should get more of a discount because those costs are for continual bonus, instead of situational. That, or add another 2x cost on top. I guess it's flaky territory, but you have some good points about how many people could use it. Let me counter-point, though.
A Fighter with sword and board would find it useless, especially at the price you show, and even a non-shield fighter would get better benefit out of a Ring of Protection with the Ring of Force Shield tacked on (since it's a free action to activate or de-activate the Force Shield). A cleric is most likely always going sword and board style, so useless there. It's an item made for unarmored people. A rogue of some sort would only get situational use out of it (but they could drop the mage armor aspect if it's custom anyway).
I think your pricing is more appropriate, though I suppose given how expensive it is for low use, I'd propose bumping it up to 3/day and leaving the cost as is. To be honest, I'm more of a fan of the blur, displacement, mirror image, and invisibility effects than AC, but the item was just a proposal as a thought experiment and an attempt to learn more about custom item crafting through what seems balanced and what other people think (because other ideas can often help), and to start on a path to resolve the AC discussion as a whole.
In that vein, how would you consider an item that adds displacement/mirror image/invisibility as free actions (as opposed to immediate since they wouldn't really help all that much against an attack already coming, at least IMHO) 2/day or 3/day? As the spell by the book? I'll throw together what I'm thinking of and post it in a little bit.
EDIT: It also seems that you're looking at two different items as one. The RoP and Shield/Armor ring is its own separate item. The Sustenance/etc. ring is its other own separate item (and I'm thinking it should be split up between three items as suggested - ring/necklace/glasses).
After you craft this ring, I suggest you also make 3 for the elves, 7 for the dwarves, and 9 for men.
I already beat you to the LotR reference.
Now that I think about it, how would one go about replicating all of the powers of the "One Ring" in Pathfinder? We all know that Ring of Invisibility would be part of it, but what about the rest? Well, a thought for another day, I suppose.
Assuming you're making the ring yourself I think the 30% discount is fine, but let me tell you why.
You can't sell it
You can't pass it down to your kids
You're limited to the appropriate number of item slots
You can't loan it to another character for any reason.
If you have to get someone else to make the ring they may actually charge +30%. Because I assume you have to be present for the creation process, or give them vials and vials of your blood and hair and toenail clippings.
basically with the exeption of your personal use it's only worth the material cost.
I'm even ok with the permanent Magearmor, but let me tell you why.
You can't make a ring until 9th level, Assiming only you make it yourself and no one else can wear it as discussed. Now we're talking about a single level one spells for a 11th level caster. Mage armor lasts basically all day anyhow, espically if they have a lesser metamatic rod of extend. The only real effect of this item is to free up a level one spell slot. Whoop-de-do
For the Shield item I'm still OK with it, but it shouldn't be continusous. I would make it basically be like a very limited Pnemonic (however its spelled) enhancer. You cast the spell normally, but the spell energy is returned after you cast shield and ONLY sheild and only shield unmodified. The effect would be more expensive (4th level spell effect if memory serves), but you'd get the 30% discount. Also it should be more expensive because it adds to armor and makes one immune to Magic missle. That's something you shouldnt have up constantly.
Yep this is what I was getting at last page. Really you can get a Ring of Wizardy II and a lesser extended rod for just about the same cost. It will be more versatile, and more useful in about every way and be able to duplicate 80% of the effects listed.
There have been four major points of contention in this thread, two of which I don't understand. Short version:
Why do people care what power goes in what slot?
Why do people care if lots of powers are on an item together?
Detailed Version:
When a wizard makes an item for his own use that is restricted to "wizard only" he should not get a 30% discount.
This objection is perfectly reasonable. I've never known a GM to give an "only usable by" discount for items intended for one's own use. If the book listed a discount of 10%, I think we might all feel differently, since that's a small discount that would reflect the small inconvenience of not being able to loan or give the item to a party member or follower. 30% however, is huge!
Some of those spell effects (Mage Armor & Shield) have their own costs for balance reasons.
Again, a perfectly reasonable position, and one I agree with. Some spells, especially low level spells, give temporary effects much less expensively than magic items do. there are some really good balance reasons for this. I think it's generally accepted that when the effect has a price, that takes precedence over the spell price.
That effect is in the wrong slot.
I can't imagine why anyone cares about this. If I you have boots of speed and I have a cape of speed, we both pay the same amount for the item, gain the same bonus, and use the same number of available slots. Why does it make any difference at all which slot I choose?
That's too many effects in a single item, it should be split up.If someone wants to pay the +50% penalty for most of the powers, why not let them? If the character doesn't have all 15 slots filled, they're simply paying 50% more to get the flavor they want.
Even if we the character has all 15 slots filled, why should we care if they get up to 30 effects by adding one additional power to each item, or 15 additional effects to one item?
Personally, I think it's cooler to have a signature item with lots of powers than to have 15 generic items. If I pay extra for the privilege, lose the flexibility of selling items individually, and risk more of my power in a single (losable breakable) item, how am I hurting the game?
Look, I can take suggestions, criticisms, and arguments, but you're as good as not even reading the thread, and your posts amount to little more than spam. If you just want to try insulting me with derogatory speech, do everyone a favor and just send it to me in a private message. Then we can all ignore you as it should be, and those of us interested in discussion, and those of us able to actually hold a discussion, may get a chance to do so.
There have been four major points of contention in this thread, two of which I don't understand. Short version:
Why do people care what power goes in what slot?
Why do people care if lots of powers are on an item together?
** spoiler omitted **...
As far as items and slot afinates. This was done in 3.5 when there was a limit on how much GP could be spent on an Item before it went into epic. (the 30% discount was not applied toward this number.) Therefore you could only have one item relating to say fortitude/physical constitution etc. so all effects had to go there. I think If I remember corectly it also shared that spot with Strength.
As far as the 30% goes, in most games I have been in it is only allowed for the person whom has the crafting feat. Typically it is stated as you or one of your decendents (this makes for good story line later on). Also, the 30% is always taken off last so you times and a half(x 1.5) it for multiple effects in a slot (but still right slot) or double it (x 2) if it is not taking up a slot.
The main question is: Are you a player who's trying to get this item approved by your DM, or are you a DM who's wanting to create this item to drop into his game for his players to find?
If you're the first, you've heard from a whole lot of experience DM/GMs who have told you why they would never allow this item in their game, along with guidelines of how they might allow some of its powers in.
If you're the second, why are you bothering to price the powers? Just list them, drop it into the game, and have done with it. The wizard who made the item is long dead and nobody is going to be interested in his personal accounting ledger from magic item creation.
Beyond that, the reason people care about slots is thematic. Slots are used because they make metaphysical and literary sense. You put powers into slots where they don't logically go, you end up with stuff like "The Knee-Pads of Allure," which is a hilarious joke item for Munchkin but would make no sense in a serious game. Change it to "The Crown of Allure" OTOH and you're pretty much good to go.
Yes, the "ring" slot is the catch-all category because literature if filled with magic rings that do all sorts of things. However, even the ones that do multiple things generally don't do them all at the same time. Soloman's ring, for example, had all sorts of cool powers but they only functioned one at a time when you put them on different fingers. Check the fairytale "The Dragon of the North." The same literary device is used in Grania Davis's "The Blessed/Damned Thornston Emerald."
Yep this is what I was getting at last page. Really you can get a Ring of Wizardy II and a lesser extended rod for just about the same cost. It will be more versatile, and more useful in about every way and be able to duplicate 80% of the effects listed.
I guess this is where I disagree with a Ring of Wizardry II and a rod being more versatile and more useful. It depends on the kind of character you're making and/or playing, ultimately.
A Ring of Wizardry is nice, yes, but its real strength is in that it lets you prepare 4 extra different spells a day of that level (assuming you have the max 4 spells/day of the level in question due to base class progression). This means you can prepare 11 different 1st level spells instead of just 7 different 1st level spells, and then use Pearls of Power as needed to replenish them. Or if you don't need the versatility, load up on the spells you do need.
The reason I personally disagree with the opinion that a RoWII and a rod would be superior is that, as a Wizard, I usually end up having spells left over at the end of the day if I've used them judiciously. It's less common that I find myself drained of spells. Of course, your mileage may vary. This all depends on the party composition, campaign style and the DM's style.
If you make the item do not worry about taking a discount beforehand, if you sacrifice mechanical benefit for flavor it should be adjusted for that after the item is finished. The wizard only is not something that mechanically hampers the player, but it adds some flavor, I'd restrict it more such as to a specific order of wizards for example or a bloodline, but it shouldnt be a major factor (at best a very minor one) to determine the cost.
Regarding many effects bunched together in one item :
One additional effect should cost 50% extra, if you add another add 75%, anything after that should be treated as a non-slot item and charge 100% extra. This is a general guideline, but just go with it and see how the cost turns out and adjust from there. You can still determine the order in which to apply the effects, so the most expensive are not doubled.
Wrong slot :
You have the craft ring feat, not wondrous item there ought to be a difference, use the existing items as a guide, if it isnt particulary suited to rings adjust the price by 50%. Keeping powers in certain slots is a mild balancing issue that has been explained by paizo staff before, also it keeps items 'thematic'.
Compare to existing items :
Always see if there are existing items doing basically the same thing and take that base into account, it is most likely more fitting than what you came up with making a custom item. Deflection bonus is appropriate for a ring, armor bonus or natural armor is not, also do not overuse 'rare' modifiers like sacred, profane and luck much, these should come at a higher price by default.
If you did all this just add it up and see if the end result is worth it, ask for feedback from your DM, and adjust the cost based on it's cold efficiency, adding in some flavor and drawbacks is always a good idea when making a custom item, also look at things like caster level relaistically, an item with 10 1st level powers should not have a casting level of 1, but something more appropriate according to the cost of the item. This part is mostly art and creativity, if you have a hard time judging it, best to stick to less complex items.
The main question is: Are you a player who's trying to get this item approved by your DM, or are you a DM who's wanting to create this item to drop into his game for his players to find?
If you're the first, you've heard from a whole lot of experience DM/GMs who have told you why they would never allow this item in their game, along with guidelines of how they might allow some of its powers in.
If you're the second, why are you bothering to price the powers? Just list them, drop it into the game, and have done with it. The wizard who made the item is long dead and nobody is going to be interested in his personal accounting ledger from magic item creation.
Beyond that, the reason people care about slots is thematic. Slots are used because they make metaphysical and literary sense. You put powers into slots where they don't logically go, you end up with stuff like "The Knee-Pads of Allure," which is a hilarious joke item for Munchkin but would make no sense in a serious game. Change it to "The Crown of Allure" OTOH and you're pretty much good to go.
Yes, the "ring" slot is the catch-all category because literature if filled with magic rings that do all sorts of things. However, even the ones that do multiple things generally don't do them all at the same time. Soloman's ring, for example, had all sorts of cool powers but they only functioned one at a time when you put them on different fingers. Check the fairytale "The Dragon of the North." The same literary device is used in Grania Davis's "The Blessed/Damned Thornston Emerald."
I'm a bit of both, actually. As I mentioned before, I'm not just creating this item. This is my first foray into custom magical items theory, and as such things may have gotten out of hand. I've revised the item/s quite a bit.
As for being the first, as mentioned, I've taken many of those comments and suggestions into account. There have been many good insights given. I can understand some never allowing it, obviously, because some DMs feel differently. I was surprised at some of the responses saying that they'd allow certain things I personally thought were no good, but again that's something that varies. If it helps, the biggest impetus for this style of item is that my Wizard is going to have to fill the role of perceptive/trap-finder/unlocker with magic and equipment (and trust me when I say it can be done, at least for the most part), and I figured this would be one way for me to get rid of my wealth (because honestly I don't really need much in the way of wealth to get by as a Wizard), make some interesting items, and fill a missing spot. The majority of things I want to be a part of this are there for flavor (especially with the latest revised set of items opposed to the singular item).
As for being the second, it's important to know the value of some items you give out. Handwaving the value of it strikes me as laziness. It could also lead to accidentally throwing together a 200k item even with just one ability or two and thinking it works out. At least using the guideline will give you a fair figure on how Pathfinder would generally value the item.
I'm agreed about the slots, and if you'll see the relatively recent post where I listed the abilities in different slotted items, I think you'll find that they all tried to be placed in slot-appropriate places (and in fact I'm going to put the Detect Secret Doors ability in a revised version of the spectacles, and possibly change the base enchantment in the ring, or just keep it as Counterspells).
Yep this is what I was getting at last page. Really you can get a Ring of Wizardy II and a lesser extended rod for just about the same cost. It will be more versatile, and more useful in about every way and be able to duplicate 80% of the effects listed.
I guess this is where I disagree with a Ring of Wizardry II and a rod being more versatile and more useful. It depends on the kind of character you're making and/or playing, ultimately.
A Ring of Wizardry is nice, yes, but its real strength is in that it lets you prepare 4 extra different spells a day of that level (assuming you have the max 4 spells/day of the level in question due to base class progression). This means you can prepare 11 different 1st level spells instead of just 7 different 1st level spells, and then use Pearls of Power as needed to replenish them. Or if you don't need the versatility, load up on the spells you do need.
The reason I personally disagree with the opinion that a RoWII and a rod would be superior is that, as a Wizard, I usually end up having spells left over at the end of the day if I've used them judiciously. It's less common that I find myself drained of spells. Of course, your mileage may vary. This all depends on the party composition, campaign style and the DM's style.
I was posting that to people saying your Ring, or your set of items is over powered.
I was trying to point if you don't include the 30% discount (I have never used it) then for the price you could duplicate the effects with a ring and a rod for the most part.
Thus having a ring for several minor effects isn't overpowered because it can be duplicated (for the most part) using core magic items for about the same cost.
First, regarding the artifact, Telepathy/Tongues/Comprehend languages becomes largely redundant. As in multiple similar powers which would lower costs/powers/etc.
Yes, a ring of sustenance is dirt cheap. It has a number of factors that make it so, one of which is that it takes a week to properly activate. The power level is still up there, which is what magic aura would go off of, no?
I'm going to point out that we're talking power level, not cost. These are not identical when we're talking magic aura, etc. Again, consider the number of artifacts less good than the one I put forth that are still flippin' artifacts.
Second, Telepathic bond is good in that it's one of the only limitless range communication abilities available save sending or piggybacking stuff through scry. That's significantly better than telepathy 100ft, which is basically fluff to explain why the demon/devil/etc doesn't have to blow a dozen ranks in linguistics to speak to mortals.
Regarding preparation, cantrip slots are limited and you're using the ring to accomplish an effect similar to the better parts of arcane sight (continuous detect magic), etc. Having a number of continuous effects going at once is stunningly good.
Finally, yes, splitting this up into a set of items makes it far more managable, but stop trying to mitigate the power level by saying these are "minor" effects. Creating a ring that does on its own more than a wizard can do in a day, even if those effects are limited, is kinda significant. Particularly when you start allowing multiple continuous effects of castable spells and/or immediate actions, which lets you start breaking action economy.
This stuff is generally more palatable in a staff or other format that gives you a /day limit on uses. It should be a worry considering balance that I have to go to the minor artifacts list to find a comparable item.
If you make the item do not worry about taking a discount beforehand, if you sacrifice mechanical benefit for flavor it should be adjusted for that after the item is finished. The wizard only is not something that mechanically hampers the player, but it adds some flavor, I'd restrict it more such as to a specific order of wizards for example or a bloodline, but it shouldnt be a major factor (at best a very minor one) to determine the cost.
Regarding many effects bunched together in one item :
One additional effect should cost 50% extra, if you add another add 75%, anything after that should be treated as a non-slot item and charge 100% extra. This is a general guideline, but just go with it and see how the cost turns out and adjust from there. You can still determine the order in which to apply the effects, so the most expensive are not doubled.
Wrong slot :
You have the craft ring feat, not wondrous item there ought to be a difference, use the existing items as a guide, if it isnt particulary suited to rings adjust the price by 50%. Keeping powers in certain slots is a mild balancing issue that has been explained by paizo staff before, also it keeps items 'thematic'.
Compare to existing items :
Always see if there are existing items doing basically the same thing and take that base into account, it is most likely more fitting than what you came up with making a custom item. Deflection bonus is appropriate for a ring, armor bonus or natural armor is not, also do not overuse 'rare' modifiers like sacred, profane and luck much, these should come at a higher price by default.
If you did all this just add it up and see if the end result is worth it, ask for feedback from your DM, and adjust the cost based on it's cold efficiency, adding in some flavor and drawbacks is always a good idea when making a custom item, also look at things like caster level relaistically, an item with 10 1st level powers should not have a casting level of 1, but something more appropriate according...
Right, I'm thinking of mentioning to the DM that I think the class restriction is too big of a discount, and ask if he'd accept only 10%. I'm also not going to do something silly like added alignment restriction, because that simply doesn't fit the theme. Being a Wizard only item/s does fit the theme, though, and prevents it from, as I said, giving someone like a Fighter all of these nifty magic things. But, in either case, I'm fine with the price the way it is, even if adding a Wizard class restriction provides no discount whatsoever.
I do wonder, though, how would people feel about requiring Spellcraft as a skill to use it due to its complex magical construction (even if it's several items - they still have more than one effect)?
That's an assumption of yours that the character has Craft Ring and NOT Craft Wondrous. My character in particular has both. Also, as I said, I'm leaning towards making three different items so that slot-relevant powers go to them for flavor purposes if not also for balance purposes.
The armor issue has been covered quite a bit. Yes, I know that it was silly/wrong. There have been some good ideas to come out of it, though.
The CL of the item (or items) isn't even close to being determined yet, but yes I definitely wouldn't make it CL 1. It would be at least CL 10 for 10 1st level powers, probably CL 15 or CL 20 (1.5x or 2x). Point is, it wouldn't be simple.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote:
I do wonder, though, how would people feel about requiring Spellcraft as a skill to use it due to its complex magical construction (even if it's several items - they still have more than one effect)?
It's an irrelevant change unless you're talking about a meaningful DC that should show a significant failure chance even with your 24 Int level 20 wizard with max ranks in spellcraft. If the requirement for spellcraft does not introuduce a significant chance of failure, than it's a restriction that's not a restriction.
First, regarding the artifact, Telepathy/Tongues/Comprehend languages becomes largely redundant. As in multiple similar powers which would lower costs/powers/etc.
Yes, a ring of sustenance is dirt cheap. It has a number of factors that make it so, one of which is that it takes a week to properly activate. The power level is still up there, which is what magic aura would go off of, no?
I'm going to point out that we're talking power level, not cost. These are not identical when we're talking magic aura, etc. Again, consider the number of artifacts less good than the one I put forth that are still flippin' artifacts.
Second, Telepathic bond is good in that it's one of the only limitless range communication abilities available save sending or piggybacking stuff through scry. That's significantly better than telepathy 100ft, which is basically fluff to explain why the demon/devil/etc doesn't have to blow a dozen ranks in linguistics to speak to mortals.
Regarding preparation, cantrip slots are limited and you're using the ring to accomplish an effect similar to the better parts of arcane sight (continuous detect magic), etc. Having a number of continuous effects going at once is stunningly good.
Finally, yes, splitting this up into a set of items makes it far more managable, but stop trying to mitigate the power level by saying these are "minor" effects. Creating a ring that does on its own more than a wizard can do in a day, even if those effects are limited, is kinda significant. Particularly when you start allowing multiple continuous effects of castable spells and/or immediate actions, which lets you start breaking action economy.
This stuff is generally more palatable in a staff or other format that gives you a /day limit on uses. It should be a worry considering balance that I have to go to the minor artifacts list to find a comparable item.
Telepathy doesn't cover languages. Tongues covers speaking and comprehension (it's inclusive of Comprehend Languages). Telepathy + Tongues is not redundant, but an important complement. Thus it certainly wouldn't lower cost/power for those two effects.
I mentioned that it's dirt cheap and why, but those reasons why are also reasons why it is less powerful as a magic item. Additionally, the aura is faint anyway. I could understand if the item took just 24 hours to work making its power level go up, but as it sits, a Ring of Sustenance is weak on a whole. It's only CL 5 and a faint aura.
Regarding artifacts, most artifacts are far and away better than this item. You may as well insist that the Wondrous Item "Mirror of Life Trapping" be considered an artifact. At least there's a better argument for that.
As I said before, I'd be eager to have most any artifact (except, for example, ones I literally cannot use or at least severely penalize me like the Dwarven axe artifact) instead of these trinkets.
Yes, Telepathic Bond is good in that way, but it was trying to find the closest spell equivalent to the item. Telepathic Bond has its limitations, mainly that it only works on the targets it was cast on, whereas the artifact has a passive range of telepathy. Both have their advantages. Telepathic Bond is superb for party communication, but a blanket 100' telepathy is good for everything. I'd rank them at about the same power level. Maybe even the blanket effect one spell level higher. But at least equal spell level power.
Cantrip slots are limited, yes, but you really must read the Arcane Sight description closer. Arcane Sight is ridiculously more powerful than the cantrip. You can identify on sight, instead of looking and concentrating for up to 3 rounds. That is a huge power leap, and justifies the fact that Arcane Sight is a 3rd level spell, while Detect Magic is still a lowly cantrip. Now that I think about it, I might drop Detect Magic and make the spectacles of Arcane Sight as a base.
I'm not trying to mitigate the power level by reminding you all that these are minor effects. I'm pointing out that these are several minor abilities compared to one major ability (like the ability to fly on command with no limit, go invisible on command with no duration limit, etc.). This is a fact.
You're still hung up on artifacts. You do NOT need to go to any artifacts to find a comparable item. There are plenty good Wondrous items that can be compared, especially if I split it up into three different items (which I already did). The big difference is that these have many little effects while, for example, the Robe of the Archmagi has a few very big effects. And, if you read my breakdown of the Robe of the Archmagi, you'll see just how much the robe largely violates the guidelines that my items follow to every digit.
I do wonder, though, how would people feel about requiring Spellcraft as a skill to use it due to its complex magical construction (even if it's several items - they still have more than one effect)?
It's an irrelevant change unless you're talking about a meaningful DC that should show a significant failure chance even with your 24 Int level 20 wizard with max ranks in spellcraft. If the requirement for spellcraft does not introuduce a significant chance of failure, than it's a restriction that's not a restriction.
The highest CL would be 20 unless it's an artifact. Even plane-traveling items can be CL 15.
You may as well say that ALL Wondrous items have no restriction thanks to my Spellcraft. Well, I invested those skill points into it. Unless you want to say that investing skill points into any skill means that having to pick locks isn't a restriction, or having to swing your sword isn't a restriction.
Stop being ridiculous, and stop trolling. Seriously.
I do wonder, though, how would people feel about requiring Spellcraft as a skill to use it due to its complex magical construction (even if it's several items - they still have more than one effect)?
Maybe knowledge Arcana would be more fitting in this case, and also not an automatic freebee for any wizard, though they are the most likely to have knowledge arcana high, along with bards probably.
Wether you have Craft Wondrous Item too doesn't really matter if it is going to be on a ring, what I was trying to say that you shouldnt have a ring do all that wondrous item or craft staff does. There is a split in functionality of rings and wondrous items that is as important as the different slots they use.
Though I am not particulary opposed to have a ring with the powers of a staff, you should have craft staff for this and a staff usually doesnt take a slot, so that is less of an issue. It would probably not take a ring slot unless it has other powers too, but the crafter would need forge ring and craft staff in my book for example.
Bumping it up to 3/day makes it more expensive. It doesn't make it stay the same price.
Nigrescence wrote:
In that vein, how would you consider an item that adds displacement/mirror image/invisibility as free actions (as opposed to immediate since they wouldn't really help all that much against an attack already coming, at least IMHO) 2/day or 3/day? As the spell by the book? I'll throw together what I'm thinking of and post it in a little bit.
Oh, lord.
Displacement is CL7, level 3 spell. Quicken metamagic (worse than a free action) adds 4 levels, making it CL15, level 7 spell. For use-activated, that's 210,000 gold. For being a spell that's measured in rounds, that's x4 for 840,000 gold. Each time you cast it, it lasts 15 rounds. Since you can only cast it 3 times a day, you dive the total cost by 5 divided by 3. So, 504,000gp.
"The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature’s entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language."
Per Tongues:
"This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect."
Again, functionally identical in terms of communication.
Also, show me comparable items that do multiple things (1 big power and several smaller) in this vein that aren't on the minor artifact list. We can talk about how those are different than what you're putting forth.
As someone who's made a number of new magic items (or tweaked them) for my homebrew stuff, I know the single most important thing to consider is "If this item were largely available, why would anyone ever use anything else?" That was the problem with the swiss army ring. Keep that in mind with the other items.
I do wonder, though, how would people feel about requiring Spellcraft as a skill to use it due to its complex magical construction (even if it's several items - they still have more than one effect)?
Maybe knowledge Arcana would be more fitting in this case, and also not an automatic freebee for any wizard, though they are the most likely to have knowledge arcana high, along with bards probably.
Wether you have Craft Wondrous Item too doesn't really matter if it is going to be on a ring, what I was trying to say that you shouldnt have a ring do all that wondrous item or craft staff does. There is a split in functionality of rings and wondrous items that is as important as the different slots they use.
Though I am not particulary opposed to have a ring with the powers of a staff, you should have craft staff for this and a staff usually doesnt take a slot, so that is less of an issue. It would probably not take a ring slot unless it has other powers too, but the crafter would need forge ring and craft staff in my book for example.
Yeah, I wish I could edit the first post. I've since moved on to a three-piece set of a ring, a necklace, and spectacles. The spectacles have the perceiving and detection/reading effects, the ring has the Counterspells (at least I'm currently planning on using that as the base), Sustenance, Feather Fall, and Endure Elements effects, and the necklace has the Adaptation, Spellcraft, and Mage Hand effects.
Knowledge Arcana might make sense, but perhaps someone has a better suggestion. It was just a thought. It really isn't very important, but since it fit the flavor and would make more sense as a restriction, it would limit who could use it to those who are already spellcasters and add a restriction to it that goes a bit beyond just wealth able to afford it.
Again, as I said, this is a ring/necklace/spectacle combo and not just a ring any more.
"The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature’s entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language."
Per Tongues:
"This spell grants the creature touched the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature, whether it is a racial tongue or a regional dialect."
Again, functionally identical in terms of communication.
Also, show me comparable items that do multiple things (1 big power and several smaller) in this vein that aren't on the minor artifact list. We can talk about how those are different than what you're putting forth.
As someone who's made a number of new magic items (or tweaked them) for my homebrew stuff, I know the single most important thing to consider is "If this item were largely available, why would anyone ever use anything else?" That was the problem with the swiss army ring. Keep that in mind with the other items.
Yeah, sorry I missed the telepathy thing. You're absolutely right that telepathy bypasses languages... while speaking telepathically. I will say, though, that being able to SPEAK and understand the languages is a completely separate effect from being able to communicate telepathically. In that regard, I stick to insisting that they are different effects.
I already pointed out how a Robe of the Archmagi has the one big power (SR 18) and several smaller (AC +5, Resistance +4, Spell Penetration +2 Enhancement), AND that it violates the magic item formula by costing a fairly considerable bit less than it would cost by the formula.
I also pointed out how the Helm of Brilliance has many effects on it, and not just because of the consumable gems. The Strand of Prayer Beads has many effects.
Yes, I know how they're different. We don't even have to talk about that. In case you missed it, and still think it's just one ring, I have since quite a while ago revised the idea to be a ring/necklace/spectacle trio for multiple different reasons.
I already pointed out how a Robe of the Archmagi has the one big power (SR 18) and several smaller (AC +5, Resistance +4, Spell Penetration +2 Enhancement), AND that it violates the magic item formula by costing a fairly considerable bit less than it would cost by the formula.
I also pointed out how the Helm of Brilliance has many effects on it, and not just because of the consumable gems. The Strand of Prayer Beads has many effects.
Yes, I know how they're different. We don't even have to talk about that. In case you missed it, and still think it's just one ring, I have since quite a while ago revised the idea to be a ring/necklace/spectacle trio for multiple...
I am sure the robe will be cheaper, but neither is it optimised, few players will want to pay full price for such an item SR 18 is great for a single powerful item, but the other powers added to it make sure it is a higher level item and thus sees less use for an SR of 18. It is a bit like a CR 7 monster with SR added to it, a CR 15 monster with SR 18 would be mostly redundant.
Not many wizards will invest in that robe for an armor of +5, but it is only for specific alignment arcane casters, spell penetration is nice, but by the same token not many wizards take that feat. It is alot of nice things mixed together but not custom made for a particular character and far from optimised.
I am sure the robe will be cheaper, but neither is it optimised, few players will want to pay full price for such an item SR 18 is great for a single powerful item, but the other powers added to it make sure it is a higher level item and thus sees less use for an SR of 18. It is a bit like a CR 7 monster with SR added to it, a CR 15 monster with SR 18 would be mostly redundant.
Not many wizards will invest in that robe for an armor of +5, but it is only for specific alignment arcane casters, spell penetration is nice, but by the same token not many wizards take that feat. It is alot of nice things mixed together but not custom made for a particular character and far from optimised.
SR is often to always nice. It's an extra chance for any spell on you to fail (which is again one of the big reasons why concealment is a great effect, and why the spell Displacement or in particular the Major Cloak of Displacement is so valuable, because it provides the necessity of any attack to get through yet another set of defenses, meaning more opportunities for that attack to fail utterly - especially valuable if the hit would have normally been a critical hit). This is why SR on monsters is a big deal. Stop downplaying the value of SR just because it suits you to handwave it.
In addition, the +5 effect is minor (although certainly not to be dismissed - it's better than Mage Armor and you don't have to consume a level 1 slot - and it's very cheap on the robe, so why not). The SR effect is the main draw, with the Spell Penetration effect the offensive draw. I also like how you completely disregarded the Resistance +4 on the robe. Yeah, a robe that is already nice, with that bonus added (freeing up the cloak for more valuable things like a Minor Cloak of Displacement or others like even the Wings of Flying).
You also disregarded that the abilities on the robe come with a hefty and not to be ignored discount.
It's not exactly far from optimized. Spend a little gold to make the Resistance a +5 if the DM would allow it, and spend a little more for AC boosting (or armor special effects) if the DM would allow it, and it's far better. It's not even bad the way it is. The important thing about spell penetration is precisely because you'd think Wizards wouldn't take the feat. The robe adds the feat's equivalent for essentially free (note the big discounts on the robe).
You're severely undervaluing the item. Would it be my favorite item? No, probably not. Would it be a staple item when I can afford it? Yes. In my opinion only the Robe of Eyes is significantly superior to the Robe of the Archmagi, and even then the difference is several nice abilities with no severe weakness versus one really nice one (and one or two weaknesses that are definitely not to be ignored).
But even this doesn't matter, because you're asking for existing things and then insisting that they're far from optimized. Not every existing item is made for optimization. Even the items I'm proposing aren't exactly for optimization. Were I to be strictly optimizing, I would do quite a few things differently.
At any rate, we're getting off track by debating the peculiarities of this one specific item.
Well splitting it into three items is much better, if I'd make spectacles that can detect magic continually, I'd probably do away with concentration
on the spells and have the user make a perception check versus a certain DC with a bonus to notice certain effect.
Since your purpose is to replace a rogue, why not bind yourself to similar mechanics rather than make an automatic success, much like a rogue bind yourself to perception checks to detect such things.
The spectacles allow you to find traps like a rogue for example and giving you +5 on perception checks, similary it gives you a chance to detect symbols and glyphs before triggering such if you make a succesful perception check. Secret doors, the spectacles allow you to make a check to detect a secret door when passing within 10' feet even when not actively searching, if you are searching you get a +5 bonus on the check.
You can detect magic with a dc 15 perception check and can make spellcraft checks as normal to determine school by studying it for a full round.
Anyone trying to use the spectacles not being able to use arcane spells, is overcome by a feeling of dizziness as a swirling pattern of colors assaults his senses as he looks through the spectacles, he must make a will save every round or be affected as per hypnotic pattern (DC17).
EDIT: the robe is a nice item, and the fact that I didnt mention the resistance bonus is just because it is a good ability that is just about always useful. It is however a package deal, it shouldnt be modified to suit a player for example because it is a nice and cheap base.
Well splitting it into three items is much better, if I'd make spectacles that can detect magic continually, I'd probably do away with concentration
on the spells and have the user make a perception check versus a certain DC with a bonus to notice certain effect.
Since your purpose is to replace a rogue, why not bind yourself to similar mechanics rather than make an automatic success, much like a rogue bind yourself to perception checks to detect such things.
The spectacles allow you to find traps like a rogue for example and giving you +5 on perception checks, similary it gives you a chance to detect symbols and glyphs before triggering such if you make a succesful perception check. Secret doors, the spectacles allow you to make a check to detect a secret door when passing within 10' feet even when not actively searching, if you are searching you get a +5 bonus on the check.
You can detect magic with a dc 15 perception check and can make spellcraft checks as normal to determine school by studying it for a full round.
Anyone trying to use the spectacles not being able to use arcane spells, is overcome by a feeling of dizziness as a swirling pattern of colors assaults his senses as he looks through the spectacles, he must make a will save every round or be affected as per hypnotic pattern (DC17).
EDIT: the robe is a nice item, and the fact that I didnt mention the resistance bonus is just because it is a good ability that is just about always useful. It is however a package deal, it shouldnt be modified to suit a player for example because it is a nice and cheap base.
Negating the round by round focusing aspect of Detect Magic raises it closer and closer to Arcane Sight, which is much more powerful and expensive as an enchant. No, I want Detect Magic. I feel it's balanced enough that way. Generally in game if I feel like Detect Magic would be important, I keep it up constantly. This is just an item to get rid of that groaning feeling of being a bit ridiculous. And that's right in the category of a magic item to fix.
Having an item that replicates specific rogue class features is a bit controversial for me. I'm paying for the spell, and I want the spell. It should be noted though that my guy will actually be perceptive. The Headband of Vast Intelligence +2 that he made has Perception as the granted skill. He has 1 bonus from WIS and 2 bonus from being an Elf. Add in the +5 Competence from the spectacles and it's a +16, which is a respectable Perception. Even +11 would be decent. The Detect Secret Doors enchantment isn't the cheapest, even for a level 1 spell, so I either want the ability as is or take your idea for a bit of a discount. Keep in mind that, just like Detect Magic, Detect Secret Doors isn't instant recognition. The first round of sight just tells you that something is there, but you don't know exactly where (but approximately where). The second round gives detailed location and the number of ones there.
The point is that I'm using magic, and paying out of pocket, to do these things. I don't want the abilities more powerful than the spells themselves would be, but I also don't want them weakened (or if weakened, not weakened too much - at least something reasonable).
I suppose it shouldn't be said that I'm "replacing" one. I'm just substituting (or partially filling in - because Wizards can actually do that, it just takes investment that otherwise is not necessary or even desired - but I like the concept and I like my Wizards like that sometimes). I'm substituting in my own way, with my own class abilities or methods.
The drawbacks are an interesting idea. I should consider a drawback for non-arcanists on every item perhaps (but only if it makes sense, like with the spectacles).
These are the abilities and costs of the proposed items. I have reduced the critical components to a ring and a pair of spectacles. I might still make the necklace later, but right now it's just Adaptation and Mage Hand, a combining of two existing necklaces. If anyone has a good or cool idea for anything on top of that with the necklace, that would be nice. I just can't think of anything very fitting, so I'm dropping it as a concept for the moment.
The names have been changed, and they are now two separate items.
The spectacles have an additional aspect, "The influx of arcane energy channeled through the eyes with these spectacles is a shock to anyone who has not had training in the arcane. If anyone who is untrained in arcane casting (no levels in an arcane casting class) attempts to equip and then look through these spectacles, they are dazed for one round immediately, and then sickened as long as they try to look through the lenses, and for 1d4+1 rounds after they stop looking through the lenses. In addition, the magic makes no sense to them, and they gain none of the benefits of the item.". I'm still pricing the items at full purchase value, but I'm tentatively proposing a 10% discount on the spectacles, because they would otherwise be very valuable to any class.
The ring has an additional aspect, "The complex magical construction of this device's enchantment means that only someone with five ranks of Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) may operate it with any effect and benefit. This includes casting spells into the ring through the Spell Storing effect. If anyone tries to cast a spell into the ring through the Spell Storing effect and does not have five ranks in either of the two skills, there is a 50% chance that the spell fizzles and is wasted, due to them failing to account for the device's precise construction."
I propose the ring having a CL of 14, and the Spectacles a CL of 13. This is after looking through items of comparable power or spell combinations, and accounting for the existing CL of existing enchantments applied to the ring, and what I'd estimate for the CL of the spectacles. The spells involved and the requirements should be fairly self-explanatory, but if people think these items are ok now, I might post them in a new thread under the homebrew section. Again, thank you to everyone who posted. There were a lot of good criticisms and good ideas and suggestions, and I'm glad that I came here for some advice. If I have a better grasp on the balancing and building of magic items, I may go ahead and put together other themed ones. Even some non-slot wondrous items that do miscellaneous effects (like how a Decanter of Endless Water does no stat boost or ability effect, but provides water, lots of water).
The prices listed are all for full value purchase, as if no restrictions, etc. I have accounted for the 1.5x modifier for enchantments beyond the first, and the effect prices that are not already existing items follow the item creation guidelines.
------- Ring of Wizardly Wanderlust
18000 - Ring of Spell Storing, Minor
3750 - Ring of Sustenance
3300 - Ring of Feather Falling
1500 - Ring of Endure Elements (Continuous)
------- Spectacles of Arcane Perception
4000 - Spectacles of Detect Secret Doors (Continuous)
3000 - Spectacles of Detect Magic (Continuous)
2250 - Spectacles of Read Magic (Continuous)
3750 - Spectacles of Perception +5 (Competence)
-------
Ring: 26550
Spectacles: 13000
Well? Thoughts?
EDIT: Forgot to say, I'm debating having the ring be based off of a Ring of Wizardry I base instead of Minor Spell Storing.
What do you guys think? Which would you rather have? Now that I think about it, Ring of Wizardry I would fit the theme more, although the versatility of Spell Storing especially if you upgrade it to Major might compete especially since the ring is full of life-savers and utility. I guess it's a matter of which is better. One higher level spell at minimum caster level (so 5th for a 3rd level spell, 9th for a 5th level spell, and 17th for a 9th level spell, going by the maximums a Ring of Spell Storing can hold), or 4 extra spells to prepare of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and lastly 4th level?
Yeah, I tried to take everyone's commentary into consideration when revising this. I think as my own rule no more than four individual effects, no matter how minor, should apply to a regular item unless I add a 1.5x modifier to the whole item after every other modifier is applied (and sometimes just not even allow it). This fits in line with a few other items that already exist, and I'd only be comfortable with having four effects if there is some relatively considerable restriction in place.
I suppose I should add to the ring's description that the spell storing can be upgraded as a normal ring of the type, increasing the CL to CL 16 for Spell Storing and then CL 20 for Major Spell Storing, since at least one person earlier commented on advising against innately allowing the Robe of the Archmagi's bonuses to be upgraded. Though I would personally allow someone to upgrade the robe's bonuses (increasing the CL as it's upgraded).
I think the spectacles are fine, but the ring still reads as "all the powers my wizard wanted all stuffed into one slot despite lack of thematic link."
I'd expect a "Ring of Wanderlust" to have something like Teleportation, Scrying, and Know Direction. That makes thematic sense with the name.
The other stuff? If you want a ragbag of unrelated powers that don't take up slots, buy a handful of Ioun stones with the powers you want. If you don't want them buzzing around your head in an obviously magical manner, as your GM if you can wear them as earrings instead.
There's already printed precedent for the latter. Pathfinder lets you put an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder for some powers, and also allows you to implant them in your flesh. Wearing them as earrings seems a perfectly reasonable solution. Ditto nose rings, navel jewels, forehead bindis or whatevever seems appropriate.
I think the spectacles are fine, but the ring still reads as "all the powers my wizard wanted all stuffed into one slot despite lack of thematic link."
I'd expect a "Ring of Wanderlust" to have something like Teleportation, Scrying, and Know Direction. That makes thematic sense with the name.
The other stuff? If you want a ragbag of unrelated powers that don't take up slots, buy a handful of Ioun stones with the powers you want. If you don't want them buzzing around your head in an obviously magical manner, as your GM if you can wear them as earrings instead.
There's already printed precedent for the latter. Pathfinder lets you put an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder for some powers, and also allows you to implant them in your flesh. Wearing them as earrings seems a perfectly reasonable solution. Ditto nose rings, navel jewels, forehead bindis or whatevever seems appropriate.
I disagree greatly with your opinion that a "Ring of Wanderlust" would necessarily have those abilities rather than these abilities. I would call YOUR suggested abilities the "Ring of Teleportation" since those are all spells perfect for enhancing your Teleportation that you get through the ring.
If you know what wanderlust means, you know the difference between it and traveling or teleporting (especially different from teleporting, since you know your destination, and specifically have to know your destination for the purposes of teleporting). I would expect a ring of wanderlust to have things that can save you down time between and during your travels, spare you the need to eat and drink (and search for food - you won't have to carry food around), save your life in a pinch (like from falling) if the bridge you're on collapses or while peering over a cliff something bad happens, and protect you from the elements that would deter your course. And it'd be especially useful to have a spell at hand that can take care of something you need done in a pinch, a spell that you might not memorize all the time, but could really use when you do need it.
I suggest you look up "wanderlust" in a dictionary. There's a big reason why I named it that, and not "travel". If you still don't know the difference, I don't know how to help you.
By suggesting slotless items galore, I feel you're trying to go for the ridiculous aversion to slot limits, whereas I'm trying to make a themed item.
The other stuff? If you want a ragbag of unrelated powers that don't take up slots, buy a handful of Ioun stones with the powers you want. If you don't want them buzzing around your head in an obviously magical manner, as your GM if you can wear them as earrings instead. There's already printed precedent for the latter. Pathfinder lets you put an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder for some powers, and also allows you to implant them in your flesh. Wearing them as earrings seems a perfectly reasonable solution. Ditto nose rings, navel jewels, forehead bindis or whatevever seems appropriate.
Where are the rules for implanting Ioun stones in my flesh. I have never liked them buzzing around my head.
The other stuff? If you want a ragbag of unrelated powers that don't take up slots, buy a handful of Ioun stones with the powers you want. If you don't want them buzzing around your head in an obviously magical manner, as your GM if you can wear them as earrings instead. There's already printed precedent for the latter. Pathfinder lets you put an Ioun stone in a Wayfinder for some powers, and also allows you to implant them in your flesh. Wearing them as earrings seems a perfectly reasonable solution. Ditto nose rings, navel jewels, forehead bindis or whatevever seems appropriate.
Where are the rules for implanting Ioun stones in my flesh. I have never liked them buzzing around my head.
There is one consideration that isn't being considered and always needs to be considered whenever abuses of the system comes up. If something is so obviously better than alternatives and is clearly allowed in the rules, then you can expect the NPC's to use the same thing. I know this will draw the ire of boards but needs to be said: people do need to play the metagame. Let us suppose that your ring of the wandering wizard is allowed, then you can reasonably expect every other wizard worth his salt to have one as well. It is the same reason why I ban Celerity in 3.5, because it leads to a very poor meta in any consistent world. If you want to play in a world that is at least internally consistent, then you have to remember that there are millions of NPC's out there and each one of them is out there to make it for themselves. You and your party are not the only adventures out there. You are not the only wizard in the world. A number of them probably even have a higher int to it would be reasonable to say that they could figure out how to much such a ring themselves. In order to prevent such things from occurring, Paizo decided to put this handy rule in:
Magic Item Creation Guide wrote:
The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.
Nigrescence wrote:
I suggest you look up "wanderlust" in a dictionary. There's a big reason why I named it that, and not "travel". If you still don't know the difference, I don't know how to help you.
I would like to remind you of some board policies:
Text below the post button wrote:
Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
Especially since teleporting is a perfectly valid form of travelling. Taking from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Wanderlust
An eager desire or fondness for wandering or travelling.
With greater teleport, you needn't have been there before, you just need some description of it. So travelling via greater teleport is quite doable especially when you scry ahead of time (I scry that tree outside of town). Just because someone has a different idea of travelling, doesn't mean you need to throw a dictionary at them.
Personally, I don't see a problem with this item, either as one ring or a Diablo II-style item set--depending on the game you're playing in. My group favors one or two magic items per character, that fit your character's personality or theme and grow more powerful as you level up; this item (or item set) would fit in perfectly there. In a "standard" mage-mart campaign, I might think twice about it since item slots are so much more important... but even then, if I were GMing, it wouldn't necessarily be off the table--maybe the NPC inventors of the core items just weren't as creative or ambitious as your wizard :)
(Although I agree with the "No-Wizard-only-discount" comments.)
Just make the Wizard version of Iron Man's armor and call it good. Each slot is accounted for and you dont have to worry about the limit of effects. But considering the level of power we're looking at. We maybe at the artifact level.
If you know what wanderlust means, you know the difference between it and traveling or teleporting (especially different from teleporting, since you know your destination, and specifically have to know your destination for the purposes of teleporting). I would expect a ring of wanderlust to have things that can save you down time between and during your travels, spare you the need to eat and drink (and search for food - you won't have to carry food around), save your life in a pinch (like from falling) if the bridge you're on collapses or while peering over a cliff something bad happens, and protect you from the elements that would deter your course. And it'd be especially useful to have a spell at hand that can take care of something you need done in a pinch, a spell that you might not memorize...
That's not "wanderlust," that's "preparedness."
If you want to sell it as the "Ring of Preparedness," go for it, but you can't Humpty-Dumpty words into meaning things that they don't and still expect people to understand you.
And telling me to check a dictionary? You obviously don't know who you're talking to if you tried that taunt with me.
If you want to sell it as the "Ring of Preparedness," go for it, but you can't Humpty-Dumpty words into meaning things that they don't and still expect people to understand you.
And telling me to check a dictionary? You obviously don't know who you're talking to if you tried that taunt with me.
It still feels like a bunch of stuff crammed into an item to save slots, essentially a spell-in-a-can multi-tool. Just doesn't look like the sort of ring you would find in a sourcebook.
There is one consideration that isn't being considered and always needs to be considered whenever abuses of the system comes up. If something is so obviously better than alternatives and is clearly allowed in the rules, then you can expect the NPC's to use the same thing. I know this will draw the ire of boards but needs to be said: people do need to play the metagame. Let us suppose that your ring of the wandering wizard is allowed, then you can reasonably expect every other wizard worth his salt to have one as well. It is the same reason why I ban Celerity in 3.5, because it leads to a very poor meta in any consistent world. If you want to play in a world that is at least internally consistent, then you have to remember that there are millions of NPC's out there and each one of them is out there to make it for themselves. You and your party are not the only adventures out there. You are not the only wizard in the world. A number of them probably even have a higher int to it would be reasonable to say that they could figure out how to much such a ring themselves. In order to prevent such things from occurring, Paizo decided to put this handy rule in:
Magic Item Creation Guide wrote:
The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.
Nigrescence wrote:
I suggest you look up "wanderlust" in a dictionary. There's a big reason why I named it that, and not "travel". If you still don't know the difference, I don't know how to help you.
I would like to remind you of some board policies:
Text below the post button wrote:
Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
Especially since teleporting is a perfectly valid form of travelling. Taking from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Wanderlust
An eager desire or fondness for wandering or travelling.
With greater teleport, you needn't have been there before, you just need some description of it. So travelling via greater teleport is quite doable especially...
Then why price the individual Ring of Sustenance and Ring of Feather Falling so low? That's right, because their actual power isn't all that high. As for Endure Elements, it's a 24-hour spell, and highly situational, just like Feather Falling. 1500 GP for continuous effect versus carrying around scrolls or a cheap wand or two (and with scrolls or a wand I could cover the rest of the party and not just myself)... Yeah, the actual power of this item is not nearly as high as you're suggesting. The only truly powerful part is the Minor Ring of Spell Storing, but that's why this ring is as expensive as it is in the first place (and with as high a CL).
In fact, your same arguments might be used against existing items in the book. Boots of Springing and Striding, or Boots of Haste? Why should I not expect every Fighter NPC to have a set of those? Your very argument devolves upon itself.
The limiting factor in placing items on NPCs is the CL of the item, and the rarity or difficulty to make/produce/find/buy it. Why wouldn't every NPC have this? Plenty of good reasons. Not every NPC is a wanderer. Many establish themselves in a town and do their business that way. Do you need Sustenance, Feather Falling, and Endure Elements in a town environment? No, obviously not. An item like this would be a pure waste of wealth for that kind of character.
I wasn't trying to "defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten" anyone, and you really need to check yourself when you accuse me of doing so with an innocent remark. Words matter, and their meanings matter. This word is a particular one, and I was merely pointing out that its meaning is particular. In addition, its use in a traditional sense lends itself to this style of enchantment. If you don't know what hibbelgibbeldribble means, and it's the name of the item, and you say that the item has an unfitting name, then of course I would direct you to the definition of the word, because if you DON'T know what it means, then I literally cannot help you aside from directing you to its definition. I wasn't trying to be mean in any way. Don't accuse me of this again.
Yes, teleporting is a perfectly valid form of traveling, and I am not arguing against that, but it does not at all fit the meaning I'm using. This isn't a traveling ring. This is a wandering/exploring/pathfinding sort of ring.
If you want to sell it as the "Ring of Preparedness," go for it, but you can't Humpty-Dumpty words into meaning things that they don't and still expect people to understand you.
And telling me to check a dictionary? You obviously don't know who you're talking to if you tried that taunt with me.
Preparedness is the perfect aid for wanderlust, because otherwise your wanderlust might distract you from such preparations. No twisting of words is necessary. It fits the meaning, but you should at least admit to the vagueness of the meaning (and I would also refer you to classical use of the word).
It's not a taunt at all. I don't know who you are, exactly, but you seemed to have misunderstood the word, so I suggested you examine its meaning since that was your point of contention.
If your response to me pointing at the definition of the word is "How dare you tell me to check a dictionary?!", then I truly don't know how to help you. An earlier poster referenced the meaning and gave their points about it. I suggest you do the same. Attempting to use an argument from authority (through whatever authority you think you can claim) is a fallacy, and does not at all provide an argument I can address or examine, and as such will be ignored. I try to provide reasons, arguments, and counter-points for my posts, and I would expect anyone who wants to be taken seriously to do the same.
To keep us from distraction on what it's called, it's whatever name you want it to be named. If you think of a more suiting name, I don't mind a suggestion. That goes for anyone. Just dismissing a name out of hand because you personally feel it's wrong isn't good enough, and provides no criteria with which I can judge your opinion over another.
But the name isn't the important part. It could even be nameless for now. The important part is the item itself (actually, two different items at this point - if anyone is still thinking it's the first post's item then they should know that it's been heavily revised to be two items).
It still feels like a bunch of stuff crammed into an item to save slots, essentially a spell-in-a-can multi-tool. Just doesn't look like the sort of ring you would find in a sourcebook.
There are a lot of things you won't find in a sourcebook. A sourcebook also wouldn't have a bunch of slotless items carried over from slotted items, but he certainly seems to think I should just be able to go for it. I think there's quite a bit of a silly contradiction to be had there.
A sourcebook is a bottom line guide for all campaigns. If you use a campaign setting, you may get campaign setting items and options for characters in it. If you make your own campaign setting, you might allow all kinds of changes from the core. It's not the be-all, end-all, nothing-else-allowed baseline. It's a baseline that may be built up from.
There is one consideration that isn't being considered and always needs to be considered whenever abuses of the system comes up. If something is so obviously better than alternatives and is clearly allowed in the rules, then you can expect the NPC's to use the same thing. I know this will draw the ire of boards but needs to be said: people do need to play the metagame. Let us suppose that your ring of the wandering wizard is allowed, then you can reasonably expect every other wizard worth his salt to have one as well.
Yeah every level 15+ Caster! DUR!
They can't afford it by the rules of the game until level 15+ so no, I would not "expect the NPC's to use the same thing". Only such high level it is worthless to them NPC's would be able to..
Table 14–9: NPC Gear
Basic Heroic Total
Level Level gp Value Weapons Protection Magic Limited Use Gear
10 9 10,050 gp 3,500 gp 3,000 gp 2,000 gp 1,050 gp 500 gp
11 10 12,750 gp 4,000 gp 4,000 gp 3,000 gp 1,250 gp 500 gp
12 11 16,350 gp 6,000 gp 4,500 gp 4,000 gp 1,350 gp 500 gp
13 12 21,000 gp 8,500 gp 5,500 gp 5,000 gp 1,500 gp 500 gp
14 13 27,000 gp 9,000 gp 8,000 gp 7,000 gp 2,500 gp 500 gp
15 14 34,800 gp 12,000 gp 10,500 gp 9,000 gp 2,800 gp 500 gp
16 15 45,000 gp 17,000 gp 13,500 gp 11,000 gp 3,000 gp 500 gp
17 16 58,500 gp 19,000 gp 18,000 gp 16,000 gp 4,000 gp 1,500 gp
18 17 75,000 gp 24,000 gp 23,000 gp 20,000 gp 6,500 gp 1,500 gp
19 18 96,000 gp 30,000 gp 28,000 gp 28,000 gp 8,000 gp 2,000 gp
Note...
Magic item value for NPC's isn't 25K+ until Level 19, they can't even have a total WBL value of 25k+ until level 13+.
