|
I think Alex is right and the ring will cost 14k, would that be more acceptable?
In the Making Stuff Up Dept., most DMs inclined to permit such a thing are more likely to suggest it as a weapon enhancement rather than a ring. After all, a ring is supposed to enhance the wearer, not a piece of equipment they're carrying.
Given that it'd be +1d8 versus every target in the Bestiary, it should be a +2.
@ James Risner: I'll clarify my post then ;)
Essentially my point is that by the time a character can get their hands on an item/enhancement that will allow their weapon to inflict damage as if it were a size larger, that extra damage is not going to be a huge deal in the grand scheme of things as the base weapon damage is a relatively small portion of the overall damage a given attack might inflict.
Obviously this extra damage is a big advantage for a low level character but, in my view, it's not such a biggie for the kinds of levels who can afford it.
(Also, don't forget, if the PCs are running about with these kinds of weapon enhancements, there's nothing to stop their enemies acquiring/making the same kinds of things...)
Making it a weapon enhancement seems reasonable.
Or make a slotted wondrous item: "Bracers of Gravity Bow" (or "gloves of leaden blades")just price it at DM discretion (8 - 10k seems ok to me)
It is a weapon enhancement...only for melee at this time though
Price +2 bonus
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Weight —DESCRIPTION
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus; this includes all bull rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull's strength, lead blades, righteous might or giant form I; Cost +2 bonus
You can simply allow this for ranged
If someone already mentioned this way early in the thread then I apologize...I wasn't going to read the really old posts just yet
|
One thing to note in 3.5 there was a caveat for spells into magic items and that is if the item duplicated one of the effects of other magic items then use that price rather than the continuous price of a spell. So for example a ring of continuous mage armor would cost 16,0000 since it adds an armor bonus just as bracers of defense and would be priced accordingly.
The ring of true strike would be based on an item that gave a +1 bonus to hit, similar to bracers of archery. Assuming that just the +1 cost 2000, similar to an cracked ioun stone in pathfinder, a +2 would be 8k and so forth.
so the formula can be assumed to be #^2 x 2000 for to hit or for a +20 would be 400 x 2,000 or 800,000 for a ring of continuous true strike according to the rules of 3.5.
As for gravity bow the problem here is that the damage it adds is inconsistent. For a small bow user it would move from 1d6 to 1d8 adding a mere +1 damage. For a large user it would go from 2d6 to 3d6 adding 3.5 avg damage. God forbid a titan would get this and start firing arrows as colossal.
For comparison consider an enchant from 3.5 called telekinetic, +1 bonus, added 1d4 damage, avg 2.5. If i was going to make a enchant that simulated gravity bow I would simple say for a +1 enchant your bow does damage as if it magnified your strength when firing, adding an additional 1d4 damage. This way you got the "effect" of the spell but damage is consistent and slightly less than elemental but not as easily resisted.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
in my view, it's not such a biggie for the kinds of levels who can afford it.
That isn't how things are priced tho, we price things based on what it is worth. And it is worth a lot (even if only to the lower level) so there isn't any reason to discount it if it isn't optimal for someone else.
|
|
in my view, it's not such a biggie for the kinds of levels who can afford it.That isn't how things are priced tho, we price things based on what it is worth. And it is worth a lot (even if only to the lower level) so there isn't any reason to discount it if it isn't optimal for someone else.
Actually, even at higher levels it is nothing to be sneezed at, since it would stack with things like Vital Strike, so that 1d8 longsword doing 2d6 becomes 4d6 instead of 2d8 with Vital Strike.
in my view, it's not such a biggie for the kinds of levels who can afford it.That isn't how things are priced tho, we price things based on what it is worth. And it is worth a lot (even if only to the lower level) so there isn't any reason to discount it if it isn't optimal for someone else.
Actually, it IS how they are priced. If an item is something that nearly everyone will get at a given price, then the price it too low. If no one will buy at the given price, it is too high. This is why a number of items do not match the spell formula expected value. It is the way the play tests determine the price of magic items in the book. At least, this was the way it was in 3.5. Since PF uses much of 3.5 for pricing, I expect PF would use the same concept.
/cevah
Sylvanite:
The number of posts just on these boards claiming that a ring of true strike should cost only 4K gold because that's what the rules "guidelines" say is enough to make it clear that just that one spell is a source of continual GM/Player debate. Throw in THIS thread's attempt to create a permanent gravity bow ring at the same price, now you've got 8K gold for +20 on your 2D6 arrows.
Yes, many players will agree that 4K for a ring of true strike is broken. What bout 4K for permanent gravity bow? How many posts above are arguing exactly that? Another 4K for permanent aspect of falcon, another 8K for permanent versatile weapon...
Forcing the GM to constantly say "no" not only creates a conflict between player and GM, it actually flies in the face of the actual Paizo recommendation which is for GMs to say "yes" as much as possible, FURTHER increasing the GM/Player conflict.
It's a broken, crappy mess. Period. Putting GMs in the position of making arbitrary house rules just to keep your game from being totally broken is not high praise for the game designers.
But, as with most things, we can always take solace in the fact that 4e's magic item system is broken even worse.
Agreed, AD, as usual. It's also why, when I am GM, there is no magic item crafting beyond consumables and no magic mart. Once you have solid restrictions in place from the start you can much easier allow things to appear without throwing any semblance of balance out the window. Putting the cat back in the bag is a lot harder, especially with entitled players (i.e, almost all players that started D&D with 3.x instead of older editions).
I'm not saying they are good I'm just saying the DM can stop any abuse. This ranting about the magic system should be its own topic. Please don't derail the thread and be more respectful to others. As for ways to get a permanent gravity bow I would talk to your DM. He can probably fix a price for your desires.a question was asked. how do i acquire something. we said build it. the point was brought up that the craft magic item system is a bit wonky in pathfinder. and the rest of this has done a pretty adequate job of educating the original poster of everything he needs to know on how to acquire what he wants. so shut up about respect. his options as it stands are
carry a wand to save yourself the spell slots.
try to talk your gm into allowing you to craft the item or have it crafted for you. since most conversations with gms take the form of arguments it is best to be prepared when you go to your gm saying id like to make this item.
another thing id like to point out. chiming in 2 pages into a debate on "how to get this guy where he wants to go" and start acting like your defending the posters honor u just come off as a troll.and im going to give adragon a high five. if every time a player wanted an answer the only thing these forums said was "ask your dm to make it work for you" or "homebrew a solution" then wtf is the point of these forums. it is to find an educated player that might be able to lead you to a solution that is actually pathfinder supported.
people who lack the ability to think for themselves or at least the desire to find answers irritate the crap out of me. then there are people like you who take teh time out of there schedules to create a forum id just so you can tell people to have there dm fix there problems instead of supporting the "this is the raw way to fix it but there may be some issues" which has been the freaking consensus from almost every single poster in this thread.
Would it be too much to ask for you to start using punctuation? Sentence structure in your word miasma would be nice, too, but we can probably interpret most of that. As it stands, though, I've just stopped reading your posts.