I'd also like to note that if you have a caster in the party that casts Haste on a regular basis, nobody is going to bother with the boots. The boots are for when you don't have a caster on your side.
The problem with the infinite ring of cure light wounds is simply that is IS unlimited healing. You don't need a village priest...you need someone owning a ring like this. Wands wear out. This ring does not. Furthermore, it's faster then a RIng of Regeneration, and it can heal wounds that were inflicted while the Ring was not worn.
Limitations on healing, be it gold or otherwise, are a stopgap measure in the game. IF warriors have unlimited hit points, it's like a mage having unlimited spells...you'll always enter each fight at full hit points, your rest time to get back to full strength is measured in minutes, not a day or two, and you become completely independent of casters for getting back to full strength.
It destroys game balance, more then anything. If you allow something like this, you're going to have to upgrade enemies to deal out more damage more consistently, because attrition is never going to do the job.
==Aelryinth
As for the ring that casts mage armor and shield 3 t/day...that's effectively the same as owning bracers and a +4 Shield effect, and note that there is NO magic item that provides a shield bonus to AC, for balance reasons.
An item like this would effectively be in place for every fight, and should be priced as if it were a constant item. The absolute minimum cost would be 50,000 gp...+4 AC + 4ShieldACx1.5. Then you walk over to the Ring of Protection +5 at the same price, consider the implications, and let it stand.
Stacking more and more types of AC should be limited to fighters. If you want a shield spell, buy a wand, fill your hand, and expend gold.
==Aelryinth
The belt doesn't say you can cancel it at will. Magical effects persist for an entire round unless noted that you can will them away as another free action.
Thus, the belt's enlarge would persist until the beginning of your next turn, at which point you can decide if it will go on for another round or not. It doesn't say anywhere that you can make it do 'partial rounds'. In effect, it's similar to a barbarian choosing when to end his rage..the only time he can is the beginning of his turn, not the end.
And most free actions concerning spells CANNOT be done twice a turn. So, turning invisible might be a free action once, but that doesn't mean you can do it twice a round.
==Aelryinth
Both spells stated can be dismissed at will. Seeing as the caster is the person wearing the item who wills it to work, they can actually will it to stop working. Nowhere in any spell does it say that it only works or ends at the start of your turn. It works when you cast a spell/activate an item, or when you choose to dismiss the effect of it.
Free actions concerning spells aren't really stated. The free action rules basically give the GM the power over it. RAW, the cloak could be used multiple times in a round. Free actions and whatnot. As long as the GM allows it. But like I said before, personal preference here, free action items like this are grossly overpowered.
Stand directly infront of an enemy. Use a free action to go invisible. Full attack out of invisibility, gaining all the bonuses therein. And then use another free action to go invisible again when done. Since the item is broken up into rounds instead of uses, you've only actually used a single round of invisibility.
You are aware that invisibility breaks when you attack (which means that you don't get the benefits of being invisible on iterative attacks during your full-attack) and you have already activated a round of invisibility this round. You cannot use multiple rounds of something in the same round, unless specifically called out that you can. Thus, you cannot activate a round of invisibility multiple times during the same round.
In other words, you have already activated this round's worth of invisibility, so I don't believe that it works the way you're thinking.
=================
That being said, swift and immediate actions were not added to the game until post 3.5, when the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out. During this time, several other effects within the game were altered from a free-action to a swift-action (such as Quicken Spell, Quicken Spell-Like Ability, etc). It would probably not hurt anything (and might simplify combat turns) if you applied the same treatment to items like the Boots of Speed, and the items posted here (making them a swift-action to activate).
Just a consideration, for those who are frightened by the free action aspect.
Yes, I am aware a ranger has a caster level of 1. But the text that you quoted does not say 'caster level'. It the 'lowest possible level caster'. There is a difference. And a 3rd level cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard is lower than a 4th level ranger.
Master Arminas
|
Just a thought, as this seems like an appropriate thread to ask this question:
I'm currently DM'ing a new game, and I was thinking of trying to include inherent Enhancement bonuses. Basically, at certain levels, the party gets a +1 bonus to AC, Attack Rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws, maybe with additional boosts to attributes.
This would, of course correspond with a decrease in WBL. Of course, most of that money would go towards the previous boosts anyways, so that still leaves a bit of party wealth to go around.
In the opinion of these posters, would it be fair to substitute magic items with spells/abilities tied to them as a means of providing flavor to the world... without overpowering characters.
Example: I LOVE that shield of Burning Hands mentioned earlier. Would items of a similar power level overpower a group with the above benefits built into their characters?
Both spells stated can be dismissed at will. Seeing as the caster is the person wearing the item who wills it to work, they can actually will it to stop working. Nowhere in any spell does it say that it only works or ends at the start of your turn. It works when you cast a spell/activate an item, or when you choose to dismiss the effect of it.
Dismissing a spell requires a standard action (see magic chapter). You can dismiss something at-will, but you cannot do it without spending a action. Likewise, spell duration are not measured by round 1, 2, 3, and 4, but instead round 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the point they were activated.
Here's an example. If I cast invisibility on myself on my turn, at the end of round 1 (as in order of initiative), then a round has past at the beginning of my next turn, not the beginning of the next initiative rotation.
Free actions concerning spells aren't really stated. The free action rules basically give the GM the power over it. RAW, the cloak could be used multiple times in a round. Free actions and whatnot. As long as the GM allows it. But like I said before, personal preference here, free action items like this are grossly overpowered.
Again, I disagree. Each time it's activated you are using a round of its duration, and even as written (you do not need to use multiple rounds consecutively, but it doesn't say you can use them at the same time either) it doesn't work. Again, due to the fact you have already activated the effect which is measured in rounds. The effect lasts until your next turn (1 round), and the effect being cancelled earlier would not indicate that you can bypass the per round limitation.
Yes, I am aware a ranger has a caster level of 1. But the text that you quoted does not say 'caster level'. It the 'lowest possible level caster'. There is a difference. And a 3rd level cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard is lower than a 4th level ranger.
Master Arminas
You do realize that the formula is spell level x caster level right? That's pretty imperical right there. A 4th level ranger is CL 1, which means that it's a CL 1 effect. The lowest that a 4th level ranger can make it fr is 1 * 1 * X. It also calls out "caster of the lowest possible level". The lowest possible casting ranger is...caster level 1.
Stand directly infront of an enemy. Use a free action to go invisible. Full attack out of invisibility, gaining all the bonuses therein. And then use another free action to go invisible again when done. Since the item is broken up into rounds instead of uses, you've only actually used a single round of invisibility.You are aware that invisibility breaks when you attack (which means that you don't get the benefits of being invisible on iterative attacks during your full-attack) and you have already activated a round of invisibility this round. You cannot use multiple rounds of something in the same round, unless specifically called out that you can. Thus, you cannot activate a round of invisibility multiple times during the same round.
In other words, you have already activated this round's worth of invisibility, so I don't believe that it works the way you're thinking.
=================
That being said, swift and immediate actions were not added to the game until post 3.5, when the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out. During this time, several other effects within the game were altered from a free-action to a swift-action (such as Quicken Spell, Quicken Spell-Like Ability, etc). It would probably not hurt anything (and might simplify combat turns) if you applied the same treatment to items like the Boots of Speed, and the items posted here (making them a swift-action to activate).
Just a consideration, for those who are frightened by the free action aspect.
Yes, I realize that you don't get the benefit of invisibility on iterative attacks, but you're still basically guaranteed to get off that first hit. Especially after having stood directly in front of someone and simply popped invisible for a split second before pounding on them.
Multiple activations in the same round? I couldn't find rules on it anywhere. It's likely GM decision, but even as such it's an argument that would come up at some point.
As far as Free vs Swift vs Standard action goes... Well, we could likely argue that in circles all day, but I don't feel like derailing your thread any further. I'd rather just see more people's magic item ideas.
PS: Yes, my bad. Dismissing is a standard action. I've always played with it as a swift action, so I'll retract that part of my argument.
|
|
You do realize that the formula is spell level x caster level right? That's pretty imperical right there. A 4th level ranger is CL 1, which means that it's a CL 1 effect. The lowest that a 4th level ranger can make it fr is 1 * 1 * X. It also calls out "caster of the lowest possible level". The lowest possible casting ranger is...caster level 1.
Actually, the text calls out the "caster of the lowest possible level" not a "caster with the lowest possible caster level." It may seem like pedantic semantics, but it's actually a crucial distinction, as level/=/caster level.
The lowest possible casting ranger is...caster level 1.
This statement is incorrect. The lowest possible casting ranger is level 4, albeit with a caster level of 1.
Words
Straight from the CRB:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note
that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of
the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the
item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than
her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to
cast the needed spell.
So, Ranger caster level: 1
Precisely, Davor. Otherwise, you have to believe that the costs to purchase and craft a ring of energy resistance (minor, major, and greater) all need to be corrected in an eratta. Since Pathfinder has not done this, I don't think it supports your conclusion Ashiel.
However, despite our disagreement over this point, Ashiel, I do believe that custom made magic items have a place in the game. Provided that they are properly priced and appropriate for the campaign and level in which they are placed.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a thought, as this seems like an appropriate thread to ask this question:
I'm currently DM'ing a new game, and I was thinking of trying to include inherent Enhancement bonuses. Basically, at certain levels, the party gets a +1 bonus to AC, Attack Rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws, maybe with additional boosts to attributes.
This would, of course correspond with a decrease in WBL. Of course, most of that money would go towards the previous boosts anyways, so that still leaves a bit of party wealth to go around.
In the opinion of these posters, would it be fair to substitute magic items with spells/abilities tied to them as a means of providing flavor to the world... without overpowering characters.
Example: I LOVE that shield of Burning Hands mentioned earlier. Would items of a similar power level overpower a group with the above benefits built into their characters?
More than likely, it shouldn't overpower them. You already noted that you are drawing back on their WBL and giving them the static modifiers for free. Essentially, all you are doing is making certain "standard" modifiers innate. Thus, it should not make them any more powerful than if they possessed those magic items and then purchased these items with their remaining resources.
You can also use these guidelines if you want to give people innate abilities in the same way. If you run a more free-form game, you might grant the heroes special powers and abilities while using the item creation rules as a starting point. This is especially useful if you decide that you want to run a Final Fantasy style game where characters acquire points to unlock hidden abilities (say via Espers, Materia, Equipment, etc).
====================
Example of Final Fantasy-esque System: You could convert their price in gold pieces into ability points. Say every 100 or even 1,000 gp worth of value in an ability was equivalent to 1 AP. Then you would pass out AP during adventures, just like XP, which could be used to purchase special powers.
You could set it up so that by carrying the appropriate crystal, weapon, armor, or other source of said power, would allow you to spend these AP to unlock that item's power for yourself.
For example, maybe you want to run a Materia system. So in the game you include magic stones that let you cast spells 1/day at the minimum caster level. Maybe you can only have 5 of such stones to draw from at a time. However, you could spend the AP to "learn" the spell in that stone one charge at a time, making it an innate ability (such as once you expend 8 AP, you could learn to use enlarge person for 10 rounds per day without the use of the magic stone). Maybe once you had amassed enough to pay for 10 charges per day, maybe it becomes an at-will ability (so if you expended 80 AP, you could use enlarge person at-will). Once you had learned magic from a particular stone, you could swap that stone out of your limit of 5 stones (hypothetical limit of course) to begin learning a new magic.
Likewise, you could do the same with weapons. Final Fantasy 9 introduced the concept of wielding weapons and armor until you had acquired enough AP to master an ability that you got to use in the weapon. Using the shield above as an example, the shield lets you use burning hands because of the magic in the shield. You might make it so that as long as you're wielding the shield, you can invest your AP to learn the magic inside the shield, so that eventually maybe YOU breath fire like the dragon on the shield.
One of the benefits of such a system is money becomes a bit less important compared to the AP you will amass during the game, which would effectively be another form of experience points. This is excellent for games that don't want excessive magic markets, or even a great emphasis on treasure. It can be easily adapted to make it so that your heroes never have to pick up a single gold piece in their entire adventures, while still being ready to rock socks at high levels due to their myriad of innate abilities they have acquired through their connection with their shiny rocks, gear, or other source of power.
Maybe you will find some of this helpful?
Just a thought, as this seems like an appropriate thread to ask this question:
I'm currently DM'ing a new game, and I was thinking of trying to include inherent Enhancement bonuses. Basically, at certain levels, the party gets a +1 bonus to AC, Attack Rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws, maybe with additional boosts to attributes.
This would, of course correspond with a decrease in WBL. Of course, most of that money would go towards the previous boosts anyways, so that still leaves a bit of party wealth to go around.
In the opinion of these posters, would it be fair to substitute magic items with spells/abilities tied to them as a means of providing flavor to the world... without overpowering characters.
Example: I LOVE that shield of Burning Hands mentioned earlier. Would items of a similar power level overpower a group with the above benefits built into their characters?
I think that part of the fun and adventure in playing any RPG is when you finally clear your way through that tough dungeon/castle/dragon/whatever and waiting like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is... a pot of gold. And whatever other magical fun is there too. So if you're looking to straight up substitute magical items for inherent bonuses, well, that'd take some of the fun out of it for me. It'd feel too much like just being handed something instead of earning it.
Would it overpower things? No idea. You'd have to gauge it as you go. If your players are wrecking house, maybe you just need to bump out the encounters a bit. It's a hard thing to judge.
|
|
Straight from the CRB:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note
that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of
the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the
item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than
her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to
cast the needed spell.So, Ranger caster level: 1
Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of the lowest possible level can make it for. Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item.
Emphasis mine.
Oh, I would still include magical gear, loot, gold, etc. It just wouldn't be flat +2 to X attribute items. They would all be unique effect items that do cool things.
On the subject of the caster level nonsense, a ranger who crafts a wand of resist energy is not going to craft it at CL 3rd at ranger level 4 because a wizard gets the spell as a 2nd level spell at 3rd level, he is going to craft it at 1 * 1 * 750 gp.
In all cases the prices are based on the caster level. If the caster level is lower, then the item will be cheaper. It doesn't say the lowest level character capable of casting the spell, it says the caster of the lowest level. Caster. Level. A 4th level ranger is Caster Level 1. When he is the caster, his caster level is 1. The lowest level caster that can cast it is 1.
EDIT: Like I said before, it's not uncommon to find little mistakes in the rulebooks. Some things were adjusted and simplified from the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and some things are missed (same with 3E to 3.5). I mentioned the ogres who don't have proficiency with their clubs. Why don't they? Because now they're humanoids with the giant subtype (Giant used to be a type and had martial proficiency) and they forgot to swap the weapon when they converted it. Easy.
Same with the ring. They made it so that all casters use the minimum spell/caster level for item effects, regardless of who uses it (before the cost of a magic item you craft depended on what class was crafting it). Whomever was going through the magic items and adjusting the magic item prices and effects probably didn't think about the ranger being the lowest level caster in terms of resist energy.
** spoiler omitted **
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level
and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.Lowest possible caster level for a ranger: 1
Oh, PS: Basically what that's saying is that if a Sorcerer makes an item, you base the price off of a Wizard who made that same item. Basically to avoid item price inflation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very interesting item Mage Evolving. Can you give us a breakdown as to the method you used to come up with the effect, caster level, and price thereof? This thread is as much about helping people understand the magic item system, and to help others understand it (it is a little complex, if effective, after all).
This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So question here. Do the combined bags share a single combined space just accessed from 4 different points. So a type 1 of this bag would be able to hold the equivalent of 4 type 1 bags of holding? Or is it the space of a single bag of holding that can just be accessed from 4 different points?
So question here. Do the combined bags share a single combined space just accessed from 4 different points. So a type 1 of this bag would be able to hold the equivalent of 4 type 1 bags of holding? Or is it the space of a single bag of holding that can just be accessed from 4 different points?This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I read it as being a extradimensional space (and having the space of a single bag) but being accessed by four different bags. Essentially, it's a magic item that is pretty much designed for the idea of "party funds". :P
|
|
It doesn't say the lowest level character capable of casting the spell, it says the [b]caster of the lowest level[b]. Caster. Level. A 4th level ranger is Caster Level 1. When he is the caster, his caster level is 1. The lowest level caster that can cast it is 1.
A ranger is a spellcasting character. He casts the spell as though he were 1st level. However, a ranger must be level 4 before he can cast the spell. Therefore, a ranger has the lowest caster level, but is not the caster of the lowest level.
Now, if a ranger PC were to craft his own item, then he would, in fact, use his caster level to determine the price of the item, according to the written guidelines. However, when determining market value, a ranger is not the caster of the lowest level, and is not used when determining the value of the item.
I read it as being a extradimensional space (and having the space of a single bag) but being accessed by four different bags. Essentially, it's a magic item that is pretty much designed for the idea of "party funds". :P
That's the way I was looking at it too, but just wanted some clarification. Also curious if they're limited by distance apart also, because then you run into some fun and interesting alternatives to teleport.
So question here. Do the combined bags share a single combined space just accessed from 4 different points. So a type 1 of this bag would be able to hold the equivalent of 4 type 1 bags of holding? Or is it the space of a single bag of holding that can just be accessed from 4 different points?This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a single extra dimensional space accessible from 4 different points. So the four bag can hold no more than the combined weight of 250 lbs and 30 cubic ft of stuff.
That's a very interesting item Mage Evolving. Can you give us a breakdown as to the method you used to come up with the effect, caster level, and price thereof? This thread is as much about helping people understand the magic item system, and to help others understand it (it is a little complex, if effective, after all).
You know I've always introduced it with some hand waving. I suppose I could come up with some ad-hoc justification but honestly the price and the caster level have always just seemed correct considering it functions as a bag of holding I with the price of a bag of holding IV.
Wow, thank you Mr. Wesley. I appreciate that a lot. ^-^No prob and well deserved!
For one reason or another a lot of folks seem to shy away from building their own magic items. This might be a topic for another thread - I'm not trying to derail here, so do start up a new thread and link it here if you feel like getting into this - but why do you think that is (beyond that the system is mighty and daunting!) and do you feel like you've come up with any tricks that have helped you overcome your magic item creatophobia?
My response Mr. Wesley. :)
It doesn't say the lowest level character capable of casting the spell, it says the [b]caster of the lowest level[b]. Caster. Level. A 4th level ranger is Caster Level 1. When he is the caster, his caster level is 1. The lowest level caster that can cast it is 1.A ranger is a spellcasting character. He casts the spell as though he were 1st level. However, a ranger must be level 4 before he can cast the spell. Therefore, a ranger has the lowest caster level, but is not the caster of the lowest level.
Now, if a ranger PC were to craft his own item, then he would, in fact, use his caster level to determine the price of the item, according to the written guidelines. However, when determining market value, a ranger is not the caster of the lowest level, and is not used when determining the value of the item.
The market value determines the cost to craft it.
You know I've always introduced it with some hand waving. I suppose I could come up with some ad-hoc justification but honestly the price and the caster level have always just seemed correct considering it functions as a bag of holding I with the price of a bag of holding IV.
That's a very interesting item Mage Evolving. Can you give us a breakdown as to the method you used to come up with the effect, caster level, and price thereof? This thread is as much about helping people understand the magic item system, and to help others understand it (it is a little complex, if effective, after all).
Truthfully, I'm not really certain that it needs to cost more than a normal bag of holding. I mean, it doesn't hold anything else, and in many cases it is a larger risk (if someone got one of your 4 bags, such as the BBEG who captures the party's scout) for the sake of convenience in sharing your items with your party.
I believe you could have a variation of it for each type of bag of holding, and probably keep it the same price for those reasons. The worst I could see being done with it was using it as a sort of way-gate (climb into the bag on one end and climb out of one of the other bags) or passing items between each other (*yells into the bag* "Hey, can you guys throw that flaming sword into the bag, we need to melt some ice in this hallway"). If that was an issue, you could put a limiter on the range in which the bags functioned away from one another.
Ah. Don't know how I missed that. In any case, that just makes the ranger sad, because he gains no benefit when crafting items, despite his lower caster level.
The market value determines the cost to craft it.
I think we may have to agree to disagree then. You seem to think it means lowest character level, and I believe it means lowest caster level. Since it continually speaks of the caster (and not the crafter, creator, or whatever), and the formulas are all based on caster level, and it only mentions in terms of the caster, I am pretty much sold that it is speaking of caster level and not character level, hit dice, or anything else related to level.
I will not be changing my position on this because I don't think that the alternative is as likely, nor as insinuated, and definitely no clearer, than the position I hold currently. I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Hopefully I'll be back to posting items and such when I next post.
|
|
stuff
Hopefully I'll be back to posting items and such when I next post.
It's not a waste of time, nor would I consider wasting your time. It's that kind of semantic disagreement that bogs down a table in the middle of a game, but without the game going on XD. Still, I hope I didn't sound offensive or anything.
Note that ranger/Paladin/bard pull away after 1st level.
So I don't really want to throw gas on the fire here, but how is a 4th level ranger making any items? The feat to make wondrous item require CL 3rd, whic h means the ranger couldn't even take the feat til 6th level minimum, but since feats are gained at odd levels, it means the ranger would have to be level 7. Did you miss this or am I missing something.
Note: scrolls are the only thing that you can craft at Cl 1, everything else is Cl 3 or higher.
So I don't really want to throw gas on the fire here, but how is a 4th level ranger making any items? The feat to make wondrous item require CL 3rd, whic h means the ranger couldn't even take the feat til 6th level minimum, but since feats are gained at odd levels, it means the ranger would have to be level 7. Did you miss this or am I missing something.
Note: scrolls are the only thing that you can craft at Cl 1, everything else is Cl 3 or higher.
this is incorrect, you can craft items at a lower caster level than is required to take the feat, you can craft items lower than your caster level. You just can't do it until you qualify for the feat, conversly if you have the feat you don't need a caster level equal to the items to make it as long as you can make the spellcraft check and meet the other requirements(spells or +5 dc increase).
this is incorrect, you can craft items at a lower caster level than is required to take the feat, you can craft items lower than your caster level. You just can't do it until you qualify for the feat, conversly if you have the feat you don't need a caster level equal to the items to make it as long as you can make the spellcraft check and meet the other requirements(spells or +5 dc increase).
I do not believe that anything that I write is incorrect, however I did just find the entry about creating items at lower caster levels. My only real problem remaining is that it seems that the writer goes out of their way to say "lowest level caster" instead of lowest caster level which would have been a copy and paste. Minimum level for the ranger to make wondrous items would still be level 7 or CL 4, though he could make items that acted at CL 1.
It's not a waste of time, nor would I consider wasting your time. It's that kind of semantic disagreement that bogs down a table in the middle of a game, but without the game going on XD. Still, I hope I didn't sound offensive or anything.stuff
Hopefully I'll be back to posting items and such when I next post.
Nah man, we're cool. I didn't think you were offensive at all. Just, I feel there is far more evidence towards it being caster level rather than character level. In this particular instance, you're arguing character level because it says "level" a few times in the paragraph without it specifying it as "caster-level". But the paragraph is explaining it based on the "caster", and the formulas and rules are all derived from "X * caster level", and existing magic items show that the cost of magic items by rangers and paladins have the same market price as CL 1 magic items made by other classes, and so forth.
In other words, it seems you would need to insert a lot more text into the paragraph to make even a fair argument that it means anything other than caster level. And that's just what I would tell my players as well. If we were keeping score, we have 3 vs 0.5 in terms of strong points for our respective arguments.
============
I do know a thing or two about semantics arguments. Ugh, if you've seen some of the players on OpenRPG and the stuff they try read incorrectly to gain some sort of weird advantage or make something work like they want it to. I even have a tabletop player who stops by now and then who tried to count Monstrous Humanoids as humanoids for purposes of buffs and templates and such because it had the word "humanoid" in its name.
^-^"
I do not believe that anything that I write is incorrect, however I did just find the entry about creating items at lower caster levels. My only real problem remaining is that it seems that the writer goes out of their way to say "lowest level caster" instead of lowest caster level which would have been a copy and paste. Minimum level for the ranger to make wondrous items would still be level 7 or CL 4, though he could make items that acted at CL 1.
ignoring the first line as thats a whole other can of worms if i understood what you typed there that would be correct. A single class ranger would need to be level seven the take the feat to craft items and at that time their caster level would be four, however the requirement to take the feat and craft items are two different things.
This is supported by the broach of shielding entry in the core rule book, the item is caster level one dispite the fact craft wonderous item is a pre req feat.
I do not believe that anything that I write is incorrect, however I did just find the entry about creating items at lower caster levels. My only real problem remaining is that it seems that the writer goes out of their way to say "lowest level caster" instead of lowest caster level which would have been a copy and paste. Minimum level for the ranger to make wondrous items would still be level 7 or CL 4, though he could make items that acted at CL 1.ignoring the first line as thats a whole other can of worms if i understood what you typed there that would be correct. A single class ranger would need to be level seven the take the feat to craft items and at that time their caster level would be four, however the requirement to take the feat and craft items are two different things.
This is supported by the broach of shielding entry in the core rule book, the item is caster level one dispite the fact craft wonderous item is a pre req feat.
Sorry, I meant, wrote. Typing on a tablet has not been kind to me :P and as my books are PDFs, can you tell me where that item can be found so I can have a look?
Heh, touchscreen can be a nightmare. Should be page 506 in the crb if your on a pdf viewer.
Heh, touchscreen can be a nightmare. Should be page 506 in the crb if your on a pdf viewer.
OK, after looking at that and rereading what you typed I understand. I was meaning to say that my problem was with what should be considered 'market value' of the item. I have no problem say that a ranger could make something cheaper than a wizard could, eventually. If anything the ranger could stand to make a better profit if wizard prices were considered market value. So my main question about the item posted here is this: are these items meant to be bought by PC's or crafted by them? What is the intention? Over all the items do seem pretty awesome. I'm just missing the price gap of the buying price.
It's a single extra dimensional space accessible from 4 different points. So the four bag can hold no more than the combined weight of 250 lbs and 30 cubic ft of stuff.So question here. Do the combined bags share a single combined space just accessed from 4 different points. So a type 1 of this bag would be able to hold the equivalent of 4 type 1 bags of holding? Or is it the space of a single bag of holding that can just be accessed from 4 different points?This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, how far apart can these bags be?
Can you shrink everybody down in one bag, and have them come out another across the continent?This is like a ring gate combo with a holding capacity and open an unlimited amount of time. Unless these bags have to stay within 30' of one another, you have problems.
They could also be used, for instance, as Passwall style devices (crawl in one bag, crawl out the other on the other side of a gate), boulder droppers (drop it in one bag and out the other one); flooding devices (put a stream of water through a pipe in one and out another); and so forth and so on.
These would be the ultimate smuggling devices. Put the stuff in one bag in Waterdeep, unload it in Calimshan. If you're big, shrink you down, instant Gate/Teleportation.
Very overpowered device. The price for such a thing would be massive. Unless you've got a SEVERE range restriction...and it might have to be VERY short. Could still be used to get around walls if you can get one person on the other side. Awesome for pickpockets...slip the item in the bag, your accomplice takes it out so its empty when checked. Loot the dragon hoard, and your friends unload the bag even as you're filling it up. Who needs a Portable Hole?
Yeah, way too easy to abuse.
==Aelryinth
With the exception of the shield, all of the items in the OP are totally broken, not so much for what they do, but for their listed prices.
They are much, much too cheap.
With the exception of the shield, all of the items in the OP are totally broken, not so much for what they do, but for their listed prices.
They are much, much too cheap.
Why? All of these I've actually seen used in games from both sides of the screen with absolutely no issues whatsoever. So why are they overpowered?
It's a single extra dimensional space accessible from 4 different points. So the four bag can hold no more than the combined weight of 250 lbs and 30 cubic ft of stuff.So question here. Do the combined bags share a single combined space just accessed from 4 different points. So a type 1 of this bag would be able to hold the equivalent of 4 type 1 bags of holding? Or is it the space of a single bag of holding that can just be accessed from 4 different points?This is an item I often introduce into my games. Nothing pisses me off more as a player than when the cleric who is holding the stone to flesh elixir gets turned to stone and no one can do anything about it.
Bags of Many Hands
Aura conjuration; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 25 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bags of many hands opens into a nondimensional space: its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed Amount. Unlike normal bags of holdings the contents of the bag can be accessed via no more than 4 separate bags. The separate bags all operate as normal bags of holdings but the contents of any bag can be accessed by any other bag of many hands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Um, how far apart can these bags be?
Can you shrink everybody down in one bag, and have them come out another across the continent?
This is like a ring gate combo with a holding capacity and open an unlimited amount of time. Unless these bags have to stay within 30' of one another, you have problems.
They could also be used, for instance, as Passwall style devices (crawl in one bag, crawl out the other on the other side of a gate), boulder droppers (drop it in one bag and out the other one); flooding...
I've used the bags for a while and never run into abuse from my players but I suppose they could if they wanted to. You could easily make the range limit 100 ft and the mouth of the bag have a 6 inch radius, making it nearly impossible for someone to squirm through. Or you can have a rule that if a living object enters one bag it can not exit through another.
Why? All of these I've actually seen used in games from both sides of the screen with absolutely no issues whatsoever. So why are they overpowered?With the exception of the shield, all of the items in the OP are totally broken, not so much for what they do, but for their listed prices.
They are much, much too cheap.
At the listed prices, many of the items would be must haves in our games. That's my chief reason.
Being able to turn invisible 30 times a day as a free action is FAR too useful for less than 4,000gp. It overpowers some classes while making others obsolete. (Why play a rogue, when you can get this? The fighter gets huge combat boosts to his attack 30x/day. Etc.) I think it would be better at 20k or 40k gold. At the levels people have that kind of money, invisibility is a bit more common place and can be more easily countered.
I tend make a great deal use out of the rules. Admittedly however it's not so much because of my games as much as it's I hate the idea of them getting stuff for free.
That's right mr. paladin. You can have all the +5 vorpal swords you want....just let me add a template or two here.
At the listed prices, many of the items would be must haves in our games. That's my chief reason.
Isn't that kind of like saying the big six are overpowered or underpriced because you always want them? :P
Being able to turn invisible 30 times a day as a free action is FAR too useful for less than 4,000gp. It overpowers some classes while making others obsolete. (Why play a rogue, when you can get this? The fighter gets huge combat boosts to his attack 30x/day. Etc.) I think it would be better at 20k or 40k gold. At the levels people have that kind of money, invisibility is a bit more common place and can be more easily countered.
Why play a Rogue at all? Burn! :P
Actually, rogues benefit due to such a cloak. Being able to do like my brother and turn invisible once per round (my brother favored the end of the round unless he was trying to evade something) to gain sneak attack opportunities. The "huge combat boost" you speak of is +2 to hit in terms of the Fighter.Also, to show why I think you're drastically over estimating the value of the item is because you say it should be 20,000 or 40,000 gp. An actual ring of invisibility in the book that allows you to be invisible infinitely is only 20,000 gp.
Don't get me wrong, I think the item is awesome, but if it wasn't why would you want it or consider it? My brother used this very item on his ranger in our Red Hand of Doom remix. He was a hard nut to pin down because he would appear, shoot, then vanish again, while his dog companion tag-teamed with him. Finally the hobgoblins got fed up a bit and all turned and shot at him when he appeared, and one set him on fire (kind of hard to be so sneaky when you're on fire). He was actually the only PC to drop during the initial encounter.
But yeah...ring of infinite invisibility? 20,000 gp in the book (a bit under priced by the item creation standards, actually). The same price you're suggesting the 30 rounds per day should be. Do you not see a slight issue with that?