I'm considering seeking out Enlarge Person on myself Permanently, since it's a buff that happens to my Barbarian almost every combat. At this point, the cost of the spell and casting itself is quite doable, just a matter of finding a 9th-level wizard willing to do the deed.
The question is though, do I need to also factor in the cost of replacing all my equipment with large-sized versions? Ordinarily when the buff is cast, all my stuff gets enlarged too. The trick is that if anything leaves my "possession it instantly returns to its normal size." So when I take my armor and weapons off to go to sleep in my big bed, I'm going to have problems.
Is there any arguement to be made that the Permanancy negates this part of the spell? That everything that is enlarged becomes permanently so, unless a Dispel Magic wrecks the whole thing?
No, once it leaves your possession, the effects of the Enlarge Person is removed.
What you want, is a constant effect Ring of Enlarge Size. Whenever you put the Ring on, you and all your gear are Enlarged. If the GM allowed it, this would cost you 4,000 gp (1 x 1 x 2,000 x 2).
I should mention, that a 4,000 gp item that enlarges you every time you put it on, would probably not be allowed by most GMs.
Yes, but a potion is a consumable and requires an action to drink. Once you put the ring on, it stays constant, and therefore, needs no further actions.
I should mention, that a 4,000 gp item that enlarges you every time you put it on, would probably not be allowed by most GMs.
why not it costs more then permanency and any gm i know just ignores the mess implications of getting naked when permanently enlarged its a very common tactic
Potion should only be 50 gp. If it's listed as 250, then it's a remaning (very embarassing) copy/paste error from the 3.0 conversion. 3.5 having it was pretty pathetic, PF not even fixing such a blatant mistake is just amazingly poor proofreading.
(The potion cost 250 gp in 3.0 because in 3.0, you did not get the full mechanical benefit of enlarge or reduce person until CL 5. The more you know.)
Potion should only be 50 gp. If it's listed as 250, then it's a remaning (very embarassing) copy/paste error from the 3.0 conversion. 3.5 having it was pretty pathetic, PF not even fixing such a blatant mistake is just amazingly poor proofreading.
(The potion cost 250 gp in 3.0 because in 3.0, you did not get the full mechanical benefit of enlarge or reduce person until CL 5. The more you know.)
I did a quick look at the Core and didn't see anything about a 250 potion. 1st level potions are listed at 50 gp for clerics and sorcerers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much food would an enlarged person need to eat?
Anyway why would food intake matter? Just make sure he has some food on him when he puts the ring on. The food is part of his equipment and is enlarged along with him. It stays "big food" until it ...erm ... leaves his body.
Don't get stuck.
One of my characters always carries a couple of enlarge person potions, but as for a permanent enlargement, remember, most doorways and some corridors are 5 ft. wide--a large creature will need to squeeze through them. Inns and taverns are typically cramped with 5 ft. wide spaces everywhere, especially stairwells.
Not that it happens often but a large creature may just have to wait behind if the rest of the party ever has to perform Escape Artist checks to get to another part of the dungeon.
I should mention, that a 4,000 gp item that enlarges you every time you put it on, would probably not be allowed by most GMs.
Why?
Why?
Because custom items are optional, the table prices are only guidelines to be used when a comparable item isn't available and many people will feel the item is worth more than 4000gp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much food would an enlarged person need to eat?The usual amount. He's a Medium creature under a spell that we know doesn't apply all the expected consequences of being Large. It doesn't change things if the enlarge person happens to be permanent.
Speaking of unexpected consequences, there would be new challenges in finding a sex partner (and a bed that could hold that kind of action).
Why?Because custom items are optional, the table prices are only guidelines to be used when a comparable item isn't available and many people will feel the item is worth more than 4000gp.
All of the rules are optional. The item creation rules are not called out as being any more optional. They are actually rules too. Merely effects not called out as being part of the formulas require ad-hoc adjustments. The rules themselves are not optional, and are clearly used throughout the rulebook. However, what is created within those rules is just as subject to GM review and potential banishment as anything else within the rules (that is to say, everything). A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.
All of the rules are optional. The item creation rules are not called out as being any more optional. They are actually rules too. Merely effects not called out as being part of the formulas require ad-hoc adjustments. The rules themselves are not optional, and are clearly used throughout the rulebook. However, what is created within those rules is just as subject to GM review and potential banishment as anything else within the rules (that is to say, everything). A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.Why?Because custom items are optional, the table prices are only guidelines to be used when a comparable item isn't available and many people will feel the item is worth more than 4000gp.
So you're okay with an always-on ring of True Strike then?
Edit: Or Mage Armor, Protection from Evil or Shield for that matter?
A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.
And a good player will not try to loophole the item creation guidelines in order to get an item whose cost-to-benefit ratio is clearly outside of the bounds of existing magic items in the CRB.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of the rules are optional. The item creation rules are not called out as being any more optional. They are actually rules too. Merely effects not called out as being part of the formulas require ad-hoc adjustments. The rules themselves are not optional, and are clearly used throughout the rulebook. However, what is created within those rules is just as subject to GM review and potential banishment as anything else within the rules (that is to say, everything). A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.Why?Because custom items are optional, the table prices are only guidelines to be used when a comparable item isn't available and many people will feel the item is worth more than 4000gp.So you're okay with an always-on ring of True Strike then?
Edit: Or Mage Armor, Protection from Evil or Shield for that matter?
Yes. You cannot create an always-on ring of true strike because it does not have a standard duration. The cost of a 1/round swift action casting of it is about 90,000 gp; as was determined by several other posters in another thread.
Mage Armor provides an armor bonus, which is already covered on the chart. A continuous armor bonus or shield bonus is bonus^ * 1000 gp. Continuous protection from evil is fine, because it doesn't apply versus everything. If you follow the rules as they are presented, then you get a very nice and robust system that has been functioning for about 12 years now; as it has been relatively untouched from 3.0 to Pathfinder.
Monte and the gang gave us really damn good rules here. If anything, it is the portion of the rules that has changed the absolute least through editions, because it works. Races, classes, combat, magic, feats, skills, all of those have went through huge revisions; but the item creation rules and most of the items have mostly gone unchanged except in the case where spells have been altered and such.
The time where the item creation rules seem to fail are almost always the result of misapplication of the rules. Tons of people don't read the fine print, forget to apply duration modifiers, or try to make continuous versions of spells which do not have a standardized duration and thus are not covered by the item creation formulas (such as with True Strike which has a unique effect and duration, as it only lasts until your next attack, which would make a continuous/use-activated version nonfunctional/worthless).
The second mistake is when people try to use spells to cheat the system where something already covers it. Using the aforementioned Mage-Armor example, a flat armor bonus is bonus^ * 1000 gp, and thus you would take that formula for the cost, though if Mage Armor was a spell used it its creation it would make logical sense that it would also be a Force effect and the item should reflect as such. Same with shield-based items. When dealing with stuff that is notably more specific (such as protection from evil which provides a deflection and resistance bonus under very specific conditions) it is easier and more reasonable to use the spell cost as written. For example, an amulet of protection from evil at CL 1st is 4,000 gp (spell level * caster level * 2000 * 2 for 1 min/level duration), which is reasonable for what it gives (+2 deflection/resistance vs 1 alignment, prevents charm/domination by 1 alignment).
The third problem that sometimes springs up with item creation is actually not the fault of the item system, but a fault of spells themselves. Some spells are just made too good. For example, the Paladin spell "Bestow Grace" released in the APG grants the beneficiary a Sacred bonus to their saving throws equal to their Charisma modifier if they are good, and is a 2nd level Paladin spell. That makes it a really sexy option for a magic item for good Cha-based characters like good Sorcerers or Oracles. Barring the item creation formulas, it's still somewhat abusive as even banning it from permanent items, it's easy to get as a potion. Due to the changing benefits based on the wearer's own Charisma, there is no set formula for governing such a thing. Spell's fault, not the item creation rules' fault.
Incidentally, if the GM was not comfortable with bestow grace on an item, you could use the item creation rules to set a more static item based on the spell. For example, you might make something like...
Bead's of Grace
Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd
Slot neck; Price 1,400 gp (+1), 5,600 gp (+2), 12,600 gp (+3), 22,400 gp (+4), or 35,000 gp (+5); Weight —
========================================================================
These prayer beads provide enhanced protection to those of pure heart. Good creatures wearing the beads receive a sacred bonus to saving throws ranging between +1 to +5 depending on the beads. Evil creatures wearing the beads instead suffer a penalty equal to the bonus a Good creature would receive. Neutral creatures wearing the beads experience no positive or negative effects.
========================================================================
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bestow grace, creator must be of Good alignment; Cost 700 gp (+1), 2,800 (+2), 6,300 gp (+3), 11,200 gp (+4), 17,500 gp (+5)
And a good player will not try to loophole the item creation guidelines in order to get an item whose cost-to-benefit ratio is clearly outside of the bounds of existing magic items in the CRB.
Agreed, as noted above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good, well thought out stuff
We'll have to agree to disagree on some things then. First, even with using the armor/shield costs provided, the tables do not provide a market value of a force effect AC. This would be worth more than normal bonuses since it protects against incorporeal attacks. Plus the immunity to Magic Missile that Shield gives as well. So either the player is getting a good deal, or there is GM fiat required.
As for 4,000 GP for an always-on Protection from Evil item... +2 Deflection bonus (8,000 GP), +2 Resistance bonus (4,000 GP), immunity to almost an entire school of magic that happens to be most melee-type's Achillies heel (priceless?) Oh, and the only drawback is that it only works against the most-likely alignment that I'll be fighting? That's worth far more than 4,000 GP in my book.
You also suggest that 4,000 GP is acceptable for a Ring of Enlarge Person. I'd also have to take exception to that. Enlarge Person grants a +2 size bonus to Strength (which means it'll stack with more common Enhancement bonuses), gives you a -2 penalty to Dex, and makes you Large size. While the these changes do come with negatives (net -2 AC, potential squeezing issues), the benefits (at least +2 ave damage, reach, +2 CMB, +1 CMD) generally outweigh them. More importantly however, the benefits outweigh those granted by a Belt of Giant Strength of the same cost (4,000 GP, +2 enhancement bonus to STR).
Since my original question has been answered, I'll pose a new one along the lines of the current direction of the thread. Since I think 2,000 - 4,000 GP is too little to pay for an item of Enlarge Person, how much would a use-activated (i.e. I can turn it on or off on command/at will) item of Enlarge Person cost? Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bead's of Grace
Aura faint transmutation; CL 3rd
Slot neck; Price 1,400 gp (+1), 5,600 gp (+2), 12,600 gp (+3), 22,400 gp (+4), or 35,000 gp (+5); Weight —
========================================================================
These prayer beads provide enhanced protection to those of pure heart. Good creatures wearing the beads receive a sacred bonus to saving throws ranging between +1 to +5 depending on the beads. Evil creatures wearing the beads instead suffer a penalty equal to the bonus a Good creature would receive. Neutral creatures wearing the beads experience no positive or negative effects.
========================================================================
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bestow grace, creator must be of Good alignment; Cost 700 gp (+1), 2,800 (+2), 6,300 gp (+3), 11,200 gp (+4), 17,500 gp (+5)
I agree with everything you said, though I would think about pricing this item differently. I know it's priced according to the guidelines in the CRB but I tend to agree with the comment in the Gamemastery Guide around items with alignment restrictions. Specifically it says:
Disadvantages That Aren't: Be wary of items that are designed with a class or alignment restriction in order to lower the price. Since the item's restriction doesn't restrict the character who is going to use it, it isn't really a drawback at all and shouldn't reduce the price. -Gamemaster Guide, page 117
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paragraph most people seem to ignore on magic item creation:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
Basically, there are no hard/ fast rules to item crafting, the formulas get you stated and after that it's a judgment call which means the GM is always going to be involved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good, well thought out stuffWe'll have to agree to disagree on some things then. First, even with using the armor/shield costs provided, the tables do not provide a market value of a force effect AC. This would be worth more than normal bonuses since it protects against incorporeal attacks.
No they don't. Then again, that's because they don't heave too, because it's already there in the rules if you look closely. Bracers of armor are already a force effect. It uses Mage Armor as the base spell, and even notes it surrounds the wearer in an intangible field of force. Why does it get this benefit? More than likely because it's its own effect (as opposed to improving the bonus of existing armor) and is keyed off Mage Armor (bracers of armor use mage armor as a required spell). So what you find to be an abuse of the system is actually the way the game is, including Bracers of Armor being force effects at the standard cost.
Plus the immunity to Magic Missile that Shield gives as well. So either the player is getting a good deal, or there is GM fiat required.
Incidentally the shield effect is covered by the Brooch of Shielding which is 1,500 gp market price, and allows you to negate 101 points of magic missile damage. Incidentally, it's actually priced far below the 8000 gp the spell formula says it should cost, but then the shield spell itself negates magic missile. Personally I think 8,000 gp is more than enough to justify protecting from a single 1st level spell. Hell, 4,000 gp would probably be fair, since you're only getting half the effect of the spell itself.
You also suggest that 4,000 GP is acceptable for a Ring of Enlarge Person. I'd also have to take exception to that. Enlarge Person grants a +2 size bonus to Strength (which means it'll stack with more common Enhancement bonuses), gives you a -2 penalty to Dex, and makes you Large size. While the these changes do come with negatives (net -2 AC, potential squeezing issues), the benefits (at least +2 ave damage, reach, +2 CMB, +1 CMD) generally outweigh them. More importantly however, the benefits outweigh those granted by a Belt of Giant Strength of the same cost (4,000 GP, +2 enhancement bonus to STR).
You do know that 4,000 gp is the equivalent of 80 potions of enlarge person right? That's enough juma-juice to boost you for 8 levels worth of enconters (assuming roughly 10 encounters each level, at 4 encounters per adventure, or so). At this point you're paying for convenience. It's alright for magic items to actually be nice to have. It has enough drawbacks just from the effects of enlarge person (easily troubles your movement, squeezing means an additional -4 to hit and AC, etc).
As for 4,000 GP for an always-on Protection from Evil item... +2 Deflection bonus (8,000 GP), +2 Resistance bonus (4,000 GP), immunity to almost an entire school of magic that happens to be most melee-type's Achillies heel (priceless?) Oh, and the only drawback is that it only works against the most-likely alignment that I'll be fighting? That's worth far more than 4,000 GP in my book.
I think you're overlooking a few things. Firstly, arguing that a magic item, or effect, is actually useful for what it does seems a bit odd. The only reason you would spend 4,000 gp for such an item would be if you actually thought that you would be fighting evil creatures regularly. If you aren't, why would you bother spending 4,000 gp for a +2 vs specific alignment when you could get similar modifiers against all enemies for the same or less. Holy Weapons don't cost more than Unholy Weapons merely because most GMs use more Evil enemies than other alignments. That is purely metagame and has nothing to do with the item itself, but purely the type and style of game the GM is running. For example, you could end up in a game where you never encounter an enemy who isn't alignment X (good guys vs forces of evil, perhaps), or you might go through a campaign where it's rare to fight alignment X (party vs mostly neutral army, perhaps). That has nothing to do with the items themselves, but the GM's specific campaign. Such items are basically made for such things. I mean, you don't increase the cost of goblin-bane weapons just because you plan to make your entire campaign about fighting goblins.
As for the secondary mind-condom effect of a Protection from Alignment spell, that's near about the only reason to invest in such an item. Similar modifiers vs all alignments are available, and deflection and resistance bonuses do not stack with required gear (everyone will be wanting +4-5 resistance gear, +3-5 or higher deflection gear, and so forth) which means its aforementioned effect obsoletes quickly, which makes it even less valuable. The protection against succubi and the like is basically only reason to have this.
Incidentally, 4,000 gp (or +6000 gp if adding the effect to an existing item) seems more than fair to avoid becoming someone's minion every other adventure. Especially since it would take up 4 item slots at 4,000 gp or a single item slot at about 24,000 gp to get similar protections vs Chaos, Good, Law, and Evil (can't guard vs Neutral, sorry).
Finally, like with the enlarge person, a potion of protection from X is only 50 gp. You're paying for the convenience. That's how magic items function at their core. You can keep applying oils of magic weapon for 50 gp, or you decide "Ok, I want a +1 often enough to warrant forking over 2,000 gp for a +1 on my weapon". Instead of keeping an oil of greater magic weapon (caster level 15) (2,250 gp) handy, you decide to actually buy a +5 weapon for 50,000 gp. Same thing here.
Since my original question has been answered, I'll pose a new one along the lines of the current direction of the thread. Since I think 2,000 - 4,000 GP is too little to pay for an item of Enlarge Person, how much would a use-activated (i.e. I can turn it on or off on command/at will) item of Enlarge Person cost? Thoughts?
It's the same cost. Command word or command thoughts to activate or deactivate are standard actions.
=============================================Incidentally, I tend to strive for efficiency when dealing with magic items. For example, I'm not going to spend 2,000 gp on a +1 weapon with a Masterwork Weapon does the job just fine and I can carry an oil of magic weapon for 50 gp in the odd case I need to penetrate magic DR or fight an incorporeal foe (I usually grab such an oil as early as 1st level in case of such foes actually, since a CR 3 shadow is something you can run into as low as 1st level without the GM going beyond standard encounter guidelines).
I would be hesitant to drop 4,000 gp on a belt of enlarge person. I just wouldn't feel like I'd get my money's worth most of the time. An x/day belt would be cheaper and more useful, IMHO, at low levels. For example, a belt that let's you pop enlarge person for 10 rounds per day divided as you like would be 800 gp. I'd only use it in cases where I felt like I really needed it; much like Boots of Speed.
I'd actually be more interested - on some characters - in a belt of reduce person that was continuous. That would be helpful in dealing with adventuring situations, especially tight spaces with creatures like kobolds, goblins, mites, darklings, and so forth, and would have uses for things like Stealth. I might consider that, but only if I had the extra cash lying around, because more pressing staples are usually needed.
I agree with everything you said, though I would think about pricing this item differently. I know it's priced according to the guidelines in the CRB but I tend to agree with the comment in the Gamemastery Guide around items with alignment restrictions. Specifically it says:Disadvantages That Aren't: Be wary of items that are designed with a class or alignment restriction in order to lower the price. Since the item's restriction doesn't restrict the character who is going to use it, it isn't really a drawback at all and shouldn't reduce the price. -Gamemaster Guide, page 117
I tend to go with the rules that have been working since the game has been around. These rules are reflected in items such as the Holy Avenger, and the various Robes of the Archmagi, which upon reverse engineering show their true colors. Incidentally, the Archmagi robes even come in a variety for every alignment (one good, one neutral, one evil) but they still get the cost reduction. The reduction appropriate for those items.
The reduction was applied to the Bead example because it was in keeping with the flavor of the spell. The spell works for only good creatures, and the magic item does as well. The 30% reduction is only for these sorts of flavorful things. It is unsuitable for most types of items. For example, a player who petitions to create generic copies of normal items with alignment restrictions would rightly be subject to GM scrutiny. If a GM is fine with this sort of thing, however, the GM can use this for NPCs as well (evil group of cultists who are using all-evil items, for example). I don't recommend either however.
A fun bit of trivia is that the alignment and skill reductions were guidelines not part of the core rules, but included in the SRD, in 3.0 and 3.5. Specifically, they were located in the "Behind the Screen" notes in the 3.x DMGs. The beginning of the DMG specifically noted that the Behind the Screens stuff were not rules, and were only to give advice to GMs and designers. It's less clear in Pathfinder, where they are included as standardized rules.
That being said, they still work wonderfully when people aren't trying to abuse them by trying to apply the reductions to every item they can. Again, this is where a GM is free to scrutinize the rules. It is the GM's option as to whether or not he wishes to send the player back to the drawing board, lay out any special requirements, or work out a compromise (the Beads of Grace is an example of a compromise using the rules where an item actually granting Bestow Grace seems a bit extreme).
============
Hopefully these posts will be of help for others. ^-^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the tables been around forever. And do you see a large number of at will/constant spell level items at caster level 1?
Did ring of invisibility follow the formula? No.
The Ring of Invisibility has been off-priced for pretty much ever, because the lead designers specifically noted that they felt 10,800 gp was too cheap for invisibility on demand. I'm not sure I agree, since it's not improved invisibility or something that doesn't require you to keep re-activating it constantly, so they priced it at 20,000 gp. Incidentally a continuous ring of invisibility costs 24,000 gp, and since invisibility shuts off when you attack, you'd have to keep re-activating the invisibility but would have it until you attacked again (basically the same general benefit as the at-will version). Hm, how amazingly close to the final price that is (a bit more conservative as well)!
Did boots of Levitation follow the formula? No.
Also actually cheaper than the item creation rules set. The boots of levitation are about 30% cheaper than the creation rules suggest them at. Not sure what the reason for the ad-hoc adjustment here is, but maybe they just felt like nobody would buy them for the standard price.
Did boots of Striding and Springing follow the formula? No.
Objection! The cost is exactly correct for a +5 competence bonus plus a continuous Longstrider on a single body slot.
Did belt of giant strength +4 follow the formula? No.
Did hat of disguise follow the forumla (one of the very few CL 1, Spell level 1 continuous items, and the only Core one) No?
Darn strait it does. It's priced exactly as a command word/thought magic item. 1,800 gp * 1 * 1 = Hat of Disguise.
Did horn of blasting follow the formula? No.
It does, but there's an ad-hoc adjustment because instead of only being usable 1/day (costing about 10,000 gp) it can be sounded multiple times with a cumulative 20% chance to make it explode. The price is almost identical to a shout 2/day item, presumably due to the odd special quality added to the item outside of the mechanics.
Did horn of fog follow the formula? No.
Actually, it follows the formula exactly. A use-activated item (blow the horn) that creates an effect based off of and almost identical to the 1st level spell associated with it. 2,000 gp.
Did horn of goodness follow the formula? No.
Seeing as it has a unique property that isn't covered by the formulas, the closest we can do is use the item creation rules to estimate it. By tinkering with the rules, we can find different ways that land really, really close to the correct price. However, this item is ad-hoc'd, and obviously so.
You get the idea. The table is a guideline. The price is set by how powerful the item is, not what the table says.
On the contrary, the majority of the items you presented either follow the rules, have been given ad-hoc discounts, or have effects that have nothing to do with the basic magic item creation rules. The magic item creation rules specifically cover this and suggest comparing unique powers and capabilities to other items in terms of relative power (for example, there is sadly absolutely nothing for Bags of Holding type items in the item creation rules), and one of the trio of core designers for the system noted the following:
Assigning a market price to a magic item is covered in detail in Chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. See Table 7-33. Items that provide simple bonuses to attacks, Armor Class, saving throws, or checks are fairly easy to evaluate.
If your item doesn't provide any bonuses and has no clear spell analogy, try comparing it against similar items. If that's not helpful, consider the question of when you think it would be appropriate for a PC to have one of your items. Should he have it at 7th level? According to Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level in the Dungeon Master's Guide, a 7th-level PC is assumed to have 19,000 gp of gear. A reasonable cost for a single item that such a character might own would be somewhere between 10% and 40% of the character's total wealth. In this case, that's 1,900 gp to 7,600 gp.
The vast majority of magic items are actually made with the item creation rules pretty much as-is, and can be reverse engineered as such. I know, I've checked (I have no life. Q.Q).
You can't seriously consider consumables are replacements for always on effects. A potion of enlarge person is cost a standard action to drink and probably a move action to pull it out. Getting rid of the action cost is huge benefit.
Absolutely it's a huge benefit. That's why it's a hell of a lot more expensive than a potion. Let's look at the item I said I might consider purchasing. A belt of enlarge person 1/day, activated like boots of speed (personally I'd go with swift action, but swift-actions weren't added into magic item rules when they replaced stuff like quickened spells with them) would be 800 gp. That would cost me 16 potions of enlarge person and a body slot, but would give me 10 rounds of enlarge person per day (the equivalent to 1 potion). It would be a bum deal if it wasn't for the fact I don't have to waste time quaffing the potion. I could just be all like "Grrr" and then I get big and beefy, and all is right in the world.
Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with a 5/use day CL 1, enlarge person ring. At 4k. But that's 5 minutes a day. Sure its available every combat. But he has to spend the action to start it up which is a significant expense.
If I had to still burn an action, it'd be a lot cheaper! A 1/day belt of enlarge person activated as a command word or command thought (standard action) would only be 360 gp. Still way more expensive than a potion, and costs me a body slot, but it's affordable enough that I might pick it up because it would be somewhat useful and it has the coolness factor if I get to pick the command word. Be all like "I am the powaaaaaah!" and BAM super muscles! Oh yes, good stuff.
I think you're over-estimating the value of a lot of magic items.
What I really wish they had was some guidelines for evaluating the +value of custom weapon/armor enchantments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ring of Invisibility
This item has had the same price since 3.0. But its a pretty iconic items, and amazingly enough it came out in the very same book as the table which same formula was printed. And the price might be similar. But it doesn't use the either continuous or at will formula.
That's because the designers specifically changed it because they wanted to, because they felt Invisibility was too awesome for 10,800 gp (I'm not sure I agree, but I actually quoted the designer saying they broke the rules on that one).
Boots of Striding and Springing:
Longsrider: SL 1 * CL 3 * 2000 (continuous) = 6000
+5 skill compentence: Bonus 5 ^ 2 * 100 = 2500Combined = 6000 + 2500*1.5 = 9750
There is nothing that prevents items from having different abilities that are based off different caster levels (the exception being staffs). This is especially clear for adding new abilities to items, where adding a CL X ability to a CL Y item only costs the usual +50% for a new ability on a body slot item.
The Boots of Striding are clearly priced at 1 * 1 * 2000 * 1.5 plus the cost of the competence bonus. It is CL 3 because it is CL 3. Obviously the item cannot be created earlier than 3rd level (minimum level for the feat) and the creator loses nothing by crafting it as a higher caster level, but makes it a little harder to dispel and gives it better saving throws.
Belt of Giant Strength
It doesn't follow the spell in a can formula of SL * CL * 2000 * duration modifier. They decided to make a different formula for a different type of spell.
*sigh* That's because it has a spell used in its creation, but it gives an enhancement bonus to ability scores, so it uses the normal formula for enhancement bonuses to ability scores. That's actually on the chart before you even reach "spell in a jar" magic item prices, so how do you miss this twice after it's been pointed out?
Yes, there are magic items that do not follow the rules. The horn of fog for example doesn't actually work exactly like obscuring mist (in has some special rules), and I admit I don't know why boots of levitation are as cheap as they are. However, your bringing up items that are either A) specifically noted by the designers to have been ad-hoced because they thought Invisibility at-will was really sweet, B) include things outside of the item creation rules (such as the modifications in the horns), and what-not is like trying to argue exception-based design.
Yes, not everything fits, but more often than not it actually generates exceptionally accurate prices and is no less part of the rules. You seem to overlook the fact that GMs can discuss item costs and effects with their players if they feel something would be disruptive. That's just like any other rule. Most people don't allow every resource in their games; and I have little desire to go around trying to compile a list of magic items that amount to "spell in a jar" items at CL 1 since there are not only an incredibly small amount of spell in a jar items to begin with (likely because they wanted to fill the item section with something a little more interesting, and then give us the rules for creating spell in a jar items ourselves).
I mean no offense by this, but it's obvious you don't actually know a lot about the item creation rules themselves. You keep incorrectly reverse engineering certain items, aren't drawing on certain other rules correctly, and you have misunderstood arguably the simplest type of item in the game that actually does follow the formulas exactly (ability enhancement items). It is only my business as far as our conversation goes, but it seems to me that you should probably study the system more and get a greater grasp of it and the thought process behind it, before you start crusading about how it doesn't work. Just suggestion. It's hard to take someone seriously who tries gets ability enhancement costs wrong. Again, my apologies if that sounds a bit harsh. (^~^)"
========================================================================
What I really wish they had was some guidelines for evaluating the +value of custom weapon/armor enchantments.
I haven't tried to reverse engineer them, but I could try to do so, or at least come up with a ballpark estimation of it. Probably by comparing the relative value of certain abilities (both in GP and usage) against non +X counterparts, and looking for any similarities or discrepancies, and trying to map out any hidden standardized adjustments (methods they appear to use but didn't write down), and so forth.
At least it could come up with a system that mapped +X with a similar GP range, for a possible conversion process. I would imagine you should likely get a discount for making an effect a +X effect, since it limits the maximum potential of a weapon, while having an exponential cost adjustment. It may actually be that the +X adjustments were just eyeballed based on how they felt X stood next to Y. It would be interesting to examine them more closely, however.
I would like to get back to the first question:
If a character under the effect of a permanent Enlarge Spell drops his weapon (that was also permanently enlarged through the spell), should the weapon shrink back to normal size, or should it remain enlarged?
Now, I KNOW it says:
"Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage."
I understand that the spell is here so you can fight at an enlarged size, and that includes your weapon. If it's made permanent, it should still allow you to fight, which includes your weapon, until it is dispelled.
I belive they added the part that items shrink once they leave your hand to prevent some rule loophole (probably someone tried to turn a bow into a balista to take down a castle gate, or couldn't use "Deflect Arrows" on a boulder). I don't even see a problem with a large Ranger shooting large arrows, I get shoot by large ogrish creatures all the time.
I am more interrested in Rules as Intended here, do you think the permanency spell allows the weapons to remain large if droped (or at least to re-enlarge if grabbed again) in order to allow the Fighter at hand to benefit from the spell as intended?
Thank you for your time.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I should mention, that a 4,000 gp item that enlarges you every time you put it on, would probably not be allowed by most GMs.
And is not consistent with the between 12,000 and 18,000 gp a similar item has cost in the past (in 3.5 for example.)
Ring of Invisibility
This item has had the same price since 3.0.
It has been broken down in 3.5, and it used a 20% or 30% premium (above the table calculation) and they explained that due to it's power the price needed to be increased.
I am not concern with the price of a use active enlarge item, nor with potions.
My question is, if someone is under a Enlarge Person spell with Permanency, do you think the permanency spell allows the weapons to remain large if droped (or to re-enlarge if grabbed again) in order to allow the Fighter at hand to benefit from the spell as intended?
I am not concern with the price of a use active enlarge item, nor with potions.
My question is, if someone is under a Enlarge Person spell with Permanency, do you think the permanency spell allows the weapons to remain large if droped (or to re-enlarge if grabbed again) in order to allow the Fighter at hand to benefit from the spell as intended?
Strictly speaking, the items would shrink and would not re-enlarge when you picked them up. However, I would allow an exception for this in my game. Really, the only issues are weapon and armor because all other magic items resize to the wearer. I think even the most grognard of GM's would just allow 3 castings of permanency to fix that problem. (Especially GM's who allow enlarge to be permanent), otherwise you may just need to upgrade your gear to large size.
A good GM however will rarely if ever have to ban anything that is made with the item creation rules proper, just like they will rarely if ever have to ban other portions of the core rules.And a good player will not try to loophole the item creation guidelines in order to get an item whose cost-to-benefit ratio is clearly outside of the bounds of existing magic items in the CRB.
its not worth more than 4000. If permanency would cost more than 4000 seems pretty spot on. My casters buff my fighters with this regularly. All that would change is that my casters would have a few more level 1 spells per day not used up and the party would give up 4000gp. Seraphs right though, 14000gp would be the price
You can make items at lower level than your caster level.
The cl of the ring doesn't have to be lvl 7. Its a lvl 1 apell. That said I don't know what cl ashiel used.
I see. Well there's no reason for this particular item to be anything above 1st level, so 4000gp. Seems pretty reasonable to me as I attempted to justify in my last comment.
I didn't realize you could still scale items down. Seeing Seraphs comment bolstered my misunderstanding. Ima be sure to mention this in my game tomorrow. It appears one of my players has fooled me into selling him some pretty nice healing potions at no extra cost for quite a some time now.
You people seem to be missing the fact that the prerequisite for Forge Ring is a CL of 7. Hence, you HAVE to be AT LEAST 7th level to make a ring, no matter what the level of the spell.
But you don't have to make the item function as if cast by a 7th level caster.
Magic items are typically statted as being the lowest level to cast the spell. That's why standard CLW potions are 1d8+1, even if made by an NPC that's a 13th level caster. Same with CMW potions being 2d8+3.
For instance, the Ring of Invisibility has a caster level of 3 (the minimum for a Wizard to cast Invisibility), even though you have to be 7th level to take the Forge Ring feat.
No not missing it at all. What I'm saying is it has no bearing on the ring. Cl is set when you make an iyem to your choice.
But the GM has every right to up the price on such an item as 2,000GP for permanent enlarge is far too low. I would make it cost more than a permanency spell (probably around 10,000GP) and probably take a command word to activate. There are several items that you have to activate in order to get enlarge person that cost much more than 10,000GP. Also, you get the benefit of the ring not losing your permanent enlarge person from dispel magic as a permanency spell would, so it should cost more than a permanency spell. If your GM lets make a ring of constant enlarge person for 2,000GP, see if he will let you make a ring of constant true strike for 2,000GP as well.
Edit: To answer the necro post, nothing is stopping you from buying an actual large weapon to use while enlarged that won't shrink when leaving your possession.
Constant true strike doesn't work, because it's a spell with no set duration (it lasts until the first use). You could make a swift action activated version if you want though.
True Strike's duration is one round. If you don't use the benefit the round after you cast it, it is wasted.