Ice_Deep wrote: 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 Goes Here
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+.
To be fair, if they have Forge Ring, they could have the ring by 11th level. But an NPC should probably be focused on having other items, especially if they're an entirely urban dweller, for example.
On the other hand, it's not entirely uncommon to make an NPC follow PC wealth, but unless the feats are spent for it, and unless they're a wilderness wanderer, they'd still benefit more from having other items, and not every Wizard is a crafter.
Nigrescence wrote: Ice_Deep wrote: 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 Goes Here
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+.
To be fair, if they have Forge Ring, they could have the ring by 11th level. But an NPC should probably be focused on having other items, especially if they're an entirely urban dweller, for example.
On the other hand, it's not entirely uncommon to make an NPC follow PC wealth, but unless the feats are spent for it, and unless they're a wilderness wanderer, they'd still benefit more from having other items, and not every Wizard is a crafter. If they actually follow the rules for the game as far a NPC being Heroic, and the max WBL using all there wealth (generally not accepted as ok, NPC's don't spend every copper on just one item, how did they get to that high a level?)...
They would have to be level 13
If they forged the ring, then they would still need to be level 12 at least.
Now if they actually follow the NPC spending chart for magic items, and forge the ring (how it should be) they can have it on a level 16 NPC.
So really level 16 is the earliest 90% of any NPC's should have this "super powered ring" doesn't seem like many NPC's are going to have it to me.
Edit: (noticed your last comment at the end) Yes you don't have to follow NPC wealth guidlines, but guess what when someone "harps" on about the rules, and how someone is breaking the rules for item creation, then they better darn sure be using the NPC WBL rules as well. We can discuss home/house rules all day, that won't get us anywhere.
By the rules of the game NPC's have a wealth level like PC's, if you ignore the NPC WBL for anyone other than a BBEG then the PC's should be able to (and will) ignore the PC WBL guidlines, and have even more money and magic items.
Is the price reduction for class limitation even intended for crafting purposes at all? It's neither a blessing nor boon to the crafter, since the intended user can use it - sure, you can't pass it around to your friends, but neither can a thief use it.
I just thought it was a restriction to the market price when you're actually selling or buying the item.
Ice_Deep wrote: By the rules of the game NPC's have a wealth level like PC's, if you ignore the NPC WBL for anyone other than a BBEG then the PC's should be able to (and will)... Yeah, I see your point about how if someone's going to try and browbeat someone with the rules, they should be rebutted with the rules. Part of the reason I made the base ring a valuable one is to prevent it from being too affordable and easily available to low-level players, yet enough to see good use and even better to be a sustainable investment through the levels (just as a Cloak of Resistance or a Ring of Protection would be a highly sustainable investment through the levels). I was trying to decide between using the Ring of Counterspells or the Ring of Spell Storing as the base item, and the Spell Storing seemed to fit the theme more in my opinion (and wasn't as cheap as Counterspells).
The chart is still just a guideline more or less. You can put treasure that the PCs would find on an NPC that they're supposed to fight, and that will still give them the treasure but will allow you to outfit the NPC better and total the value of the wealth up so that you might be able to give better individual items to the players. But that's the exception or the special circumstance to employ as a DM, and not the rule.
stringburka wrote: Is the price reduction for class limitation even intended for crafting purposes at all? It's neither a blessing nor boon to the crafter, since the intended user can use it - sure, you can't pass it around to your friends, but neither can a thief use it.
I just thought it was a restriction to the market price when you're actually selling or buying the item.
"Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:
Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%."
It sounds like it's vague. One says "cost" while the other says "price". But that's odd because they're both tied to the item and relate. An item like the Robe of the Archmagi requires a specific alignment, but only a partial class restriction (just arcane, but can be any arcane), and the cost to craft is still by the books just half of the purchase price.
Is there an intentional difference in the wording that changes the value, or is it an accidental distinction that effectively means nothing? It seems to me like the intent is that they're the same thing, even if the exact wording is different.
Nigrescence wrote: Is there an intentional difference in the wording that changes the value, or is it an accidental distinction that effectively means nothing? It seems to me like the intent is that they're the same thing, even if the exact wording is different. Yeah, I know the RAW is vague (though they are guidelines more than rules, so GAW would me a more fitting term xD), but when there's two possible interpretations, you usually go by what makes most sense.
Not reducing cost to create makes sense both from a world perspective, and from a balance perspective. Skill usage is a bit different, as it can hinder the user too and it kind of makes sense - you have less magic in the item and instead rely on the user supplying the rest of the skill required. So with skills I could see it going either way in the matter of what interpretation to use, but the class/alignment thingy really doesn't make sense to apply. Especially since you don't have to fulfil the requirement yourself to craft it, AFAIK.
Quote: 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). Because it is a single minor effect that takes up an entire slot. The value of cramming more stuff into slots is non-negligible. It is also a flaw in the game that stacking multiple effects onto a single slot is linear when the benefit is nonlinear as they were well aware when making the various armor bonuses be nonlinear in cost. Also be aware that power itself is not the only indicator of value. The summoner monster series are decent spells not because of their ability to go boom 20d6 or drop SoS's, it is the fact that they cover a wide variety of situations.
Quote: 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. And you're absolutely right. There are core items that are under-priced (Handy Haversack just off the top of my head); that is why there is a set of items called the big 6. They're simply the most cost effective set of items by a significant margin. There's two approaches to dealing with this reality, first is to make more items on that level of cost-effectiveness or to tone down the cost-effectiveness of those items. I do not do the former because it leads to an arms race, especially at high levels. Arms races are only amusing for a brief amount of time in my opinion. Your ring is well beyond the cost-effectiveness of the big 6, which is very problematic.
Quote: 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. CL's for making items is very very wonky. RAW, the CL to make a pearl of power level 1 is 17. I have a feeling that level 17 wizards have better things to be making than pearl of power level 1. To solve this I view CL as a guideline for most cases (where do they get CL 8 for belt of giant strength+6?), and just outright change in it others (such as PoP). Also really the only ones that matter are your relevant BBEG's. By time that you can make this, do you want to be going against someone else who has it? Remember that beating the BBEG is more than just that one combat, he has to travel too.
Quote: 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. I suggest that you get a friend of yours to read your statement out loud to you and still tell me that it wasn't inflammatory.
Quote: 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. And so you shouldn't be telling him to go to a dictionary if his interpretation is perfectly valid. It is OK to have disagreements over the meaning of a particular word, however it is not OK to go
Quote: If you still don't know the difference, I don't know how to help you. just over a difference of interpretation, especially since you did not expound upon your interpretation prior.
erik542 wrote: The value of cramming more stuff into slots is non-negligible. It is also a flaw in the game that stacking multiple effects onto a single slot is linear when the benefit is nonlinear as they were well aware when making the various armor bonuses be nonlinear in cost. Are you fine with making a bunch of slotless effects as Kevin Andrew Murphy proposed? I find that suggestion even more ridiculous. I don't think it's a flaw as long as there is some limit (such as theme, quantity, CL, cost, etc), which these proposed items both have. As noted, the Robe of the Archmagi provides definitely non-negligible effects at superb discounts compared to what it would be normally. The belts and headbands that grant bonuses to two or three stats in the physical or mental group follow the formula exactly, and cramming stat bonuses into one slot is FAR from negligible. Even the Helm of Comprehend Languages and Read Magic seems to be at a discount when it grants three effects (Comprehend Languages, Read Magic, and +5 skill bonus), and that's a very helpful tool.
These are ALL examples of linear single slot stacking effects, and these are all Core book examples. There's also a difference between making the individual power of a single effect non-linear (AC bonus, Skill bonus, Spell Level) in cost and making the stacking linear (1.5x modifier or 2x for slotless) If they knew what they were doing and completely agreed with you, it would not be a static 1.5x modifier to stack an effect on an existing item. It would be a scale of some sort. It isn't. That's because if it were a scale then making compound theme items like the ones I pointed out would be ridiculous in cost and nobody would ever have them, and there would be no reason for anyone to even try to make a new item. Why not try applying this to the Helm of Brilliance? Yeah, you'd end up with a ridiculously expensive thing that does the same, and therefore not worth having any more for the cost. It's chock full of multiple effects.
There's a reason why your ideas aren't the case.
erik542 wrote: And you're absolutely right. There are core items that are under-priced (Handy Haversack just off the top of my head); that is why there is a set of items called the big 6. They're simply the most cost effective set of items by a significant margin. There's two approaches to dealing with this reality, first is to make more items on that level of cost-effectiveness or to tone down the cost-effectiveness of those items. I do not do the former because it leads to an arms race, especially at high levels. Arms races are only amusing for a brief amount of time in my opinion. Your ring is well beyond the cost-effectiveness of the big 6, which is very problematic. So you do the latter? Or do you do nothing at all? I disagree that it would lead to an arms race. As another person noted, there are in fact limitations on these items. And, as I noted, their use is less general than you are suggesting.
ALL of these effects are situational (even the Sustenance effect, because in towns or civilized areas food and drink isn't really a problem, especially if you're in a group, and though the sleep reduction might be great, it takes a week to kick in and if you travel with a party then you shouldn't really "need" it). As I pointed out with the Endure Elements, this is even a weaker effect than having a bunch of scrolls or a wand because I can't share the effect with others (which would be valuable in a group - I could have even made it a 4 or 5 a day casts of Endure Elements item instead for a little bit cheaper or about the same cost, but that would have been over the top and definitely wouldn't fit in with the theme of it).
Now that I think about it, do you think that would be even more acceptable? A ring (or a wondrous item) that casts Endure Elements 5/day. I think that would be even more silly, even if it does not occupy the same slot, because it would be cheaper, would cover the whole party, AND would not interfere with equipping slotted items. I think your objection is quite ridiculous, and I've explained in depth why.
An item like this would more or less be a drain on your wealth that could go to other, better things. Just buy the Sustenance and Spell Storing rings separately (maybe even a Sustenance/Feather Fall joint if you don't think that simple stack is TOO FAR), and have a Feather Fall scroll handy, and now you'll save the whole party too (or just use your Arcane Bond, and now you don't fumble for scrolls). Endure Elements is cheap to cast when you really need it. Oh, look, I'm devaluing my own item! Woe is me! I made it for the flavor and for the theme, fully knowing that there are other, better ways to do the same thing. Yet you still persist. Fine, how about this? Remove the Endure Elements from the ring. Better yet? How would you feel about a wondrous item that appears to be a miniature house, with what appears to be a roaring fire inside (Continual Flame). Five times a day, this item can be used to grant Endure Elements to any creature who bends over the house, rubs their hands, and blows through their fingers. Well? (Actually, I really like that idea now, but if anyone has a better flavor suggestion I'm willing to listen, perhaps a more interesting or less weird form of activation).
Is the ring still too much? How about dropping Spell Storing? Still too much? I don't know if there's anything that can be done to appease you. Giving good reasons and arguments and evidence does nothing to assuage your sore spot on having an item like this. I think you're just committed to turning this down no matter what.
erik542 wrote: CL's for making items is very very wonky. RAW, the CL to make a pearl of power level 1 is 17. I have a feeling that level 17 wizards have better things to be making than pearl of power level 1. To solve this I view CL as a guideline for most cases (where do they get CL 8 for belt of giant strength+6?), and just outright change in it others (such as PoP). Also really the only ones that matter are your relevant BBEG's. By time that you can make this, do you want to be going against someone else who has it? Remember that beating the BBEG is more than just that one combat, he has to travel too. The CL is in fact just a guideline and, IIRC, merely the difficulty to craft it. A good example given was the Universal Solvent (as well as the Pearl of Power). In fact, there is errata on the PoP, which clears things up. It was even mentioned in the errata that someone could even try to make a PoP of a spell level that they cannot even cast yet, but would have to increase the DC accordingly. That alone is proof enough that CL is merely a guideline and DC for crafting. Although that makes things easier, it also makes things more wonky in some ways, but I think overall it evens out.
A good BBEG should know where to go. He's not an adventurer or a wanderer. He's a man (Beast? Demon?) with a plan. He knows what he wants, how to get there, how to get it, and that you're on his tail. He wouldn't need or want something like this. There are far more important things that his gold should buy. Unless, of course, a specific BBEG is exactly a wanderer, in which case maybe he has some justification and some use for an item like this. Otherwise, this is mostly useless and a waste of gold.
You're STILL overplaying the value of this item to general NPCs. This is not a Cloak of Resistance. This is not a Handy Haversack. This is not a Ring of Protection. STOP pretending as if it were. You are doing yourself a disservice because every time you overstate its value I get the feeling that you are making a knee-jerk reaction to this, and not actually making valid points (because none of those ARE valid points - it is not comparable to the "big 6" for general NPCs, and due to restrictions is not comparable even for PCs, unless everyone invests in the skills necessary to operate this item).
erik542 wrote: I suggest that you get a friend of yours to read your statement out loud to you and still tell me that it wasn't inflammatory. Ah, here you go trying to use words again, but failing (and just before you get into a tiff prematurely, this is a jab at you for calling my previous statement inflammatory - I will admit that this sentence here may be inflammatory, but I'm illustrating the difference - one is antagonistic and the other was merely incidentally perceived to be inflammatory, and I don't think I should have to explain exactly which is which - at any rate, I'm using it as a literary technique, not as an actual affront or offense, though the fact is that you did try to use a word and failed as I shall now illustrate).
There is a difference between something being inflammatory and something that "defames, abuses, stalks, harasses, or threatens". Inflammatory remarks in themselves do none of those (although it's possible that they can), and further it is entirely in control of the person being inflamed, whereas the others are not.
Even said, I disagree that it was inflammatory (though you may be more hot-headed than myself - this is just my opinion and it matters not even if it was inflammatory). It was a direct statement, and it was honest. Honesty can sometimes be inflammatory to someone with a thin skin. I'm trying to have a discussion, and was pointing out the importance of the word, because it seemed as if he disregarded the word itself and suggested "travel" instead, because I know the difference between the two words, and the difference seems quite obvious to me.
Either way, my intent was not to inflame anyone. My intent was to draw the person back to the meaning of the word I had originally chosen, because the word's meaning matches the intent and theme of the item.
I can't control the emotions of another person, nor do I try. It's entirely beyond my control whether someone works themselves up into a furor after an innocent comment.
At any rate, you're derailing the discussion by insisting oh-so-strongly that I did something I did not. Drop it, and we can move on to the meaty bits.
erik542 wrote: And so you shouldn't be telling him to go to a dictionary if his interpretation is perfectly valid. It is OK to have disagreements over the meaning of a particular word, however it is not OK to go "QUOTE" just over a difference of interpretation, especially since you did not expound upon your interpretation prior. I had originally posted the names of the items without my "interpretation" because I had assumed that anyone familiar enough with the word would agree that it's at least close enough, and anyone not familiar with the word would look it up before insisting on a different word. And if the argument was that it should be "travel", then it's doubly silly that the other argument was that "wanderlust" is about the same as "travel". Do you see the contradiction? I should hope so. I only explained my reasoning for the name after I felt it was necessary. It's as if I named a red dagger the "Crimson Tooth", only for someone to say it should just be called the "Red Tooth", instead. Just as silly, especially when no significant argument is made for why "Crimson" truly does not fit aside from their personal opinion, and why "Red" should be the default. Believe it or not, I have valid reasons for naming it one over the other (and I explained those reasons later). If your only argument after explaining the reasons is just that you don't like it or for some mysterious reason you still don't think it fits, then I don't know what to do other than disregard your opinion on the name, since it seems obvious that you aren't listening or giving reasons.
As I said before, I don't mind criticisms, arguments, and disagreements, but provide reasons for it and avoid handwaving and fallacies (because I cannot judge/interpret an out of hand dismissal or a logical none, nor can I use it in consideration towards changing an idea).
It still seems to me as if you just don't "like" it, and have yet to provide reasons that make sense to me and are consistent with themselves, but I'm willing to stay and listen for however long it takes.
Let's look at the robe of archmagi:
+5 armor bonus: 25k (this is base)
+4 saves: 24k
SR 18: 24k
+2 vs SR: shot in dark but about 30k seems reasonable
Use restriction: -30%
That's 102k before discount, which ends up at 71.4k. If you value the +2 vs SR at 35k you get their value which seems little on the high side because an Ioun stone for +1 CL is 30k yet Ioun stone provides larger benefits and is slotless so +1 CL ought to be ~22.5k when added onto something else. If you look at the steep price of 75k then remember WBL guidelines that you probably won't have any single item worth more than 25% of WBL that puts the robe as a level 16 item. Since it is only usable by an arcane caster, we can easily compare the armor bonus to simply having mage armor up since mage armor will last 16 hours. Quite frankly that +5 armor bonus is a tax to anyone who will likely use or have this. The actual value of this is closer to 50k. Anyone who is making this wouldn't value it past 50k due to non-stacking with mage armor; anyone who finds one has a 1/6 chance of it being useless.
Yes, the Helm is at a discount simply because the effect doesn't match up with the power of other things that cost ~8k, granted there might be a discount applied to the the linguistics check because it does not apply to all linguistics checks.
Quote: The belts and headbands that grant bonuses to two or three stats in the physical or mental group follow the formula exactly, and cramming stat bonuses into one slot is FAR from negligible Yes, but adding to more than one stat is rarely worth the extra investment.
Quote: A good BBEG should know where to go. He's not an adventurer or a wanderer. He's a man (Beast? Demon?) with a plan. He knows what he wants, how to get there, how to get it, and that you're on his tail. He wouldn't need or want something like this. There are far more important things that his gold should buy. Unless, of course, a specific BBEG is exactly a wanderer, in which case maybe he has some justification and some use for an item like this. Otherwise, this is mostly useless and a waste of gold. Or if you have him on the run, or if he ever needs to travel to construct his scheme. That being said, the latest incarnation is something that I'd allow (mostly railing against the really really bad early ones).
Quote: Either way, my intent was not to inflame anyone Your intent really doesn't matter because intent is very easy to lose over the internet. All I can say is that such comments wouldn't fly in the real world during meaningful discussions. Such comments have a tendency to quickly degrade the conversation.
Quote: I had assumed that anyone familiar enough with the word would agree that it's at least close enough, and anyone not familiar with the word would look it up before insisting on a different word Let's take a look at the dialogue that occurred.
Kevin wrote: I'd expect a "Ring of Wanderlust" to have something like Teleportation, Scrying, and Know Direction. That makes thematic sense with the name. Quote: 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. Kevin opened with giving his interpretation of Wanderlust which is quite clearly attuned to a high fantasy setting.
Now going line by line.
You throw a dictionary at him. While fine if they have a serious misunderstanding, but not for arguing over interpretations unless you have a nuanced point (like my debate about quantization of time in PF).
The next one is fine.
The last one is flat out condescending and unnecessary. I simply cannot think of a good reason to make such a comment except to inflame someone. It's just about being polite.
erik542 wrote: Let's look at the robe of archmagi:
Miscalculations and incorrect statements about robe here.
I already posted with a breakdown of the robe's stats and its costs. You're horrendously off on the price of the SR (it comes out to 60k by the chart and by comparing to existing items which also follow the chart). I literally have no idea how you arrived at valuing SR of 18 at 24k, nor am I going to try that hard to figure out how you devalued it so. I'll just assume that you tried to total the figures to match the value you wanted. That's dishonest at best. Granted, it could have been an accident, but I'd still like an explanation if this was an honest mistake. Regarding the +2 vs SR, I compared its effect (equivalent to a feat) with an item like the Bracers of Arrow Deflection to arrive at a value of around 10k for replicating a feat (but obviously that seems undervalued - though I used that figure because it was as low a figure as I could reasonably determine, so I used it against my argument and my argument still came out ahead). It was a tricky science at best, so the actual price value of +2 vs SR may still be up in the air.
Mage Armor may last that time, but it doesn't last when you're asleep, and more importantly casting it every day consumes one 1st level slot. That's a slot you can put towards more important spells. The robe also provides more of a bonus than Mage Armor. Finally, the armor bonus won't be dispelled normally, and freely returns when the dispelling suppression is gone, instead of having to be recast. There ARE clear advantages to having the armor bonus constantly on through an item and not through a spell, and I covered this before. It's not a tax at all (especially considering how the robe gets some hefty discounts compared to other items). It's a benefit no matter how you look at it, especially if your DM would allow you to upgrade the individual benefits of the robe at cost.
erik542 wrote: Yes, but adding to more than one stat is rarely worth the extra investment. For a good many of the classes, it is. Even for a Wizard, CON and DEX are both valuable. Depending on the kind of Wizard you make, even INT and another mental stat can be valuable.
Multiple stat belts/headbands are higher level items anyway due to the price, but that's not an argument against them. They're still following the formula exactly, and benefit a good majority of the classes.
erik542 wrote: Or if you have him on the run, or if he ever needs to travel to construct his scheme. That being said, the latest incarnation is something that I'd allow (mostly railing against the really really bad early ones). That all depends on the kind of BBEG. Is he a Wizard? Teleport. Otherwise? He has a Wizard assistant if he needs to travel, or he puts up with it, or he DOES invest in it. Sure, that's fine.
The early ones were, more or less, meant to be bad. They have been entirely dropped. If you're arguing against them, you're arguing with yourself. The rest of us have moved on in the conversation. I suggest you do the same. If you no longer have this argument against the current items, then please stop wasting time by beating a dead horse (and it is quite dead, I assure you).
erik542 wrote: Your intent really doesn't matter because intent is very easy to lose over the internet. All I can say is that such comments wouldn't fly in the real world during meaningful discussions. Such comments have a tendency to quickly degrade the conversation. Well, I've got shocking news for you. This is "in the real world", whether it's online or not. I've also got even more shocking news for you. Such comments would fly, especially if you can more easily ascertain my intent at the moment (due to noticing that I'm not saying it viciously or with any scorn). Intent does matter, but I'm not going to get into philosophy at the moment. Suffice it to say that your personal opinion on it does not change reality.
erik542 wrote: Let's take a look at the dialogue that occurred. Must we go through another one of your misrepresentations, just like you misrepresented the robe? Fine.
erik542 wrote: You throw a dictionary at him. While fine if they have a serious misunderstanding, but not for arguing over interpretations unless you have a nuanced point (like my debate about quantization of time in PF). I thought it was a serious misunderstanding, and I explained why. As for a nuanced point, I mentioned its classical use, which often involves more than mere traveling alone. You provide no reasons why referring him to a dictionary in this case was wrong in any way. As such, I'll discard your opinion.
erik542 wrote: The last one is flat out condescending and unnecessary. I simply cannot think of a good reason to make such a comment except to inflame someone. It's just about being polite. This is merely your opinion, and even if it was condescending (which it wasn't), it still does not "defame abuse, stalk harass, or threaten" anyone, which was the argument against it. I suggest you stop accusing me of violating policies I did not violate, lest you violate them yourself. I did no such thing, and you really should stop harping about this nonexistent offense.
Just because you cannot think of a good reason does not make it nonexistent. I am not limited by your imagination, nor am I limited by your experience with conversation and debate. As such, I suggest you stop pursuing this dead path, because you simply aren't going to win this one. You're wrong, clearly so, and that's all. The fact is that I was not intending to inflame anyone, and even were I intending such a thing, it is still up to them to be agitated.
For example, your continual insistence that I am violating policies that I am not agitates me to a considerable degree, but I am responding in a level and reasoned fashion, and I am not accusing you of being deliberately inflammatory, even if by your illogic you would be considered deliberately so. I suggest you take your own comments into consideration, that there is no good reason to make a continued assault against my "politeness" for a wholly perceived offense, other than harassment. The rest of us have dropped it and moved on to discussion about the topic. You are continuing to harass me about policies I did not violate. I suggest you stop harassing me, lest your hypocrisy progress to the more ridiculous stages.
As for being polite or not, that's subjective entirely. I did not think it was especially impolite. It was a precursor to further discussion. If a discussion is about a word in particular, then it should first be established that both parties are familiar with the word. Believe it or not, it is remarkably often that someone arguing against a word simply does not know the word at all (or very well), and as such it is especially helpful to lay the ground with a dictionary before discussing dissent. As such, I wholeheartedly feel that my intent was clearly in the benefit of a good-natured discussion rather than a remark intended to inflame.
Either way, my intent is made clear, so you can drop your accusations regardless. If you continue with this absurd insistence, I have no choice but to suspect you of harassment. I suggest we all move on in the discussion rather than derailing with this irrelevant point. If you are unable to abandon this irrelevant point, I kindly ask you to extricate yourself from this thread.
Ehh, I erred on the SR (for some reason I glanced and read it as 1k instead of 10k). Second time I've made that mistake.
I'm not going to waste my time continuing this discussion. If you don't understand basic internet manners, then we'll see where that gets you. And my comment about distinguishing the internet from the real world is that much is lost in the translation; you say that you are responding in a level-headed fashion, but try following my suggestion and get someone else to read these posts to you aloud.
erik542 wrote: Ehh, I erred on the SR (for some reason I glanced and read it as 1k instead of 10k). Second time I've made that mistake.
I'm not going to waste my time continuing this discussion. If you don't understand basic internet manners, then we'll see where that gets you. And my comment about distinguishing the internet from the real world is that much is lost in the translation; you say that you are responding in a level-headed fashion, but try following my suggestion and get someone else to read these posts to you aloud.
+1, I do not mind giving my opinion in the hopes of helping out, but reading some of your responses you often come across as rude and condescending, not accusing you of violating policy, just saying your good manners are lacking.
erik542 wrote: Ehh, I erred on the SR (for some reason I glanced and read it as 1k instead of 10k). Second time I've made that mistake.
I'm not going to waste my time continuing this discussion. If you don't understand basic internet manners, then we'll see where that gets you. And my comment about distinguishing the internet from the real world is that much is lost in the translation; you say that you are responding in a level-headed fashion, but try following my suggestion and get someone else to read these posts to you aloud.
I think it's you who does not understand basic internet manners, evidenced by your statements in this thread. I've probably gotten farther than you have, and it is most likely that I've been on the internet before you even knew about it.
But that is irrelevant in any case. You cannot actually address the arguments and the statements, so you default to attacking my person. This is yet more illogical, fallacious bull. The last of yours that I shall tolerate. Frankly, it doesn't matter that you think it is rude and condescending. Your opinion does not change reality.
Remco Sommeling wrote: +1, I do not mind giving my opinion in the hopes of helping out, but reading some of your responses you often come across as rude and condescending, not accusing you of violating policy, just saying your good manners are lacking. Did you bother reading the posts my responses were addressing? I think you'll find that my manners were quite fine until accusations such as his were thrown around. I'll thank you for not falsely accusing me of things I did not do, at any rate.
I am quite direct, especially when someone does something as brazenly bad as erik542, and I do not pull punches on anyone. Frankly, my friends and I all address each other directly and honestly, and that leads me to be direct and honest in turn. We would consider it poor in manner to hold back criticism. We would argue that our manners are just fine, and probably much better than most people's.
At any rate, your arguments against my person are wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I read the FIRST post and immediately stopped.
I believe you need to read the "game mastery guide" with the section on item creation. It basically re-hashes all the 3.5 themes about which formula's to use.
mage armor as a spell on an item is not technically allowed. It really would be covered under 'armor bonus' PLUS taking up the wrong slot +50% PLUS increased base item +50%
(just to give an idea)
Shield spell is fine...
lets do the math (7 LVL caster(min caster level for forge ring) x 1(Spell level)) * 2000)*4(rds per level spell)*.7 = (7x1x2000)x4).7= 36,000 for all day shield.
yes.. shield spell all day is 36,000 if ONLY used by a wizard.(sounds like a fair price to me...)
(If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.)
So shield spell ALONE costs 56,000 times .7 = 36,000 GP now to ADD on an ability it is 1.5 times MORE 55,600 GP (thats just for a ring of shield and another effect...)
thats just ONE EFFECT!!!
also.. why did you .7 in between the creation process?? your math smells of math errors when it comes to creation.
your sort of taking the stance that mindblank usable once per day on an item is different from a continuous effect therefore costs less..
WRONG..
READ THE GAME MASTERY GUIDE please.. it will help you in determining which formulas to use.
Dragonslie wrote: I read the FIRST post and immediately stopped. Then I suggest you read some later posts. Many people have already addressed this, but the wild difference in the exact nature of the responses has been thought-provoking nonetheless.
Suffice it to say, as I have already said, the first proposal was meant to be a bit ridiculous. I honestly didn't expect anyone to agree with it as a whole, but there were a few interesting cases of people allowing it with some exceptions, and they all gave good insights/ideas/comments that I would have never considered.
Dragonslie wrote: mage armor as a spell on an item is not technically allowed. It really would be covered under 'armor bonus' PLUS taking up the wrong slot +50% PLUS increased base item +50% This has already been said. While I agree with probably being classed under "armor bonus", I disagree with it necessarily taking up the wrong slot (but that can be argued ad nauseum - let it sit that armor bonus items are not confined to the body slot as is, but whether you think it can only be body/wrists or general enough to be a non-specified slot is debatable - at any rate the whole concept there has been dropped entirely).
As I had said, I already accounted for the 1.5x modifier for additional effects.
Dragonslie wrote: min caster level for forge ring Not the minimum caster level for the items, however. Only Create Staff has the limitation of a minimum caster level of 8 for all spells in the staff created. Notorious items of note in this case are, in Wondrous Items: the Pearl of Power (as low as CL 1 for the 1st level pearls, despite the requirement of level 3 for the feat), Hand of the Mage (CL 2), Hat of Disguise (CL 1), Phylactery of Faithfulness (CL 1), and the Brooch of Shielding (CL 1). In Rings (where the feat is level 7 required) we have: the Ring of Arcane Signets (CL 1), and Ring of Feather Falling (CL 1), and even the Ring of Invisibility (CL 3), and others that I don't feel like listing in their entirety.
The minimum level for the feat does not equate to the minimum CL for any items that can be crafted by the feat.
Dragonslie wrote: *4(rds per level spell) If you'll examine the spell description, the Shield spell has a duration of minutes per level.
Already, it seems apparent that your math should have some checking before you criticize my math.
Dragonslie wrote: now to ADD on an ability it is 1.5 times MORE 55,600 GP (thats just for a ring of shield and another effect...) Actually, the base item property has its original price. The 1.5x modifier is only applied to all following effects. The original effect (or most expensive effect in the case of items starting of vanilla) is unchanged in its price. If you do the breakdown on the cost of other existing items, you will notice that this holds true.
Dragonslie wrote: also.. why did you .7 in between the creation process?? your math smells of math errors when it comes to creation. I did the .7x modifier at the end of totaling everything else. The .7x is applied to the item itself. This is irrelevant, however, since the current items have no "discount" reduction factored in at all, even if they still have restrictions. I explained this earlier on in the thread. If you would look at the second page, around halfway down or towards the end, you will find the current iteration of these abilities.
Dragonslie wrote: your sort of taking the stance that mindblank usable once per day on an item is different from a continuous effect therefore costs less.. Well, that's simply because it IS different. If you'll read up on the magic item creation guidelines, it explicitly differentiates between continuous and command word items, and applies its own modifier for use per day items.
Dragonslie wrote: WRONG.. Pot. Kettle.
I would appreciate you checking your own math before criticizing my own, and additionally to check the guidelines before telling me to do so. Other people in this thread have made many valid points that don't target my math but my concept. I have tried hard to do the math correctly.
In the future, however, it would be a good idea for me to display every formula for every property and for the whole item. That way people can see the steps I took as I took them, and will not have to make guesses like you have that don't match up.
I appreciate you revealing this error of format to me, though. This will remove much ambiguity and guessing, ultimately improving communication.
For the most part this seems pretty mild. The only thing I'd complain about is that the % discounts for stuff like class and skill restrictions are not rules, but suggested guidelines. Unlike the standard pricing formulas, they call themselves out as considerations that may be applicable for the item.
For example, items like the Holy Avenger that would be far too expensive for its theme otherwise, should likely be subject to the 30% reduction for class-based limitation, whereas a "ring of protection +1 usable by wizards" wouldn't be acceptable in most cases.
Someone mentioned it being like an artifact, and I must laugh at this statement. Artifacts can trump the limitations of what a normal character can create (such as a +6 weapon with special abilities, such as the axe of the dwarvish lords), and artifacts are nearly impossible to destroy without very, very specific methods; whereas most magical items are pretty easy to destroy by whacking them with other magic items and the like.
Likewise, this item has a lot of abilities, but it's a lot of minor, weak abilities. Even continuous mage armor is questionable for its value. It uses a magic item slot to give the rough equivalent to a slightly overpriced non-magical mithril chain shirt. Woop-di-doo. A standard wizard can sport a +5 mithril buckler, and a +5 mithril studded leather armor (yes, it's legal) with a variety of cute special abilities. However, that's beside the point...
What is the point is that if you calculated the price without the odd 30% discount for "my class only" which seems misplaced, the item seems fine. It's not particularly powerful for its price. There are a lot of items I'd take over it in a similar price range.
PS: For those wondering, true strike is not a legitimate consideration when discussing the item creation rules and the continuous item creation rules, because true strike cannot be made continuous because it doesn't have a normal duration. It cannot be made continuous in the same way that fireball cannot be made continuous or permanent.
That being said, an at-will (standard with */day) or swift-action (quickened) true strike would be 100% fine, and also very much not overpowered.
|
