| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
How boring. Do you also tell them heroes don't build castles? Or heroes don't fight town guards? Or heroes don't pick locks? Or...
Anyway, Cheapy, in all fairness, I agree that you can't dismiss the worst case, but I still say you can't write the rules assuming everyone is malicious either. I also think that the common shared wisdom of any group isn't always right. In the case of a true strike item (when appropriately limited) it seems like it was decided long ago that it would never happen (maybe back in 3.0) and has never actually been reevaluated in the current system and given a fair chance. The same goes for the magic item creation guidelines in general.
Not going to get into that one again, but I will mention something interesting I found: "hands" are a pseudo-slot, meaning that if you have to hold the item to activate it, you don't have to consider the "double the price for slot-less" suggestion.
In other words, the slot-less suggestion is for something that you don't need to manipulate or wear in anyway (such as the luckstone).
How boring. Do you also tell them heroes don't build castles? Or heroes don't fight town guards? Or heroes don't pick locks? Or...You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
Eh, it's an attitude some people have. I've gotten insulted by folks on messageboards before for being a member of a stealthy ninja-for-hire sort of party once. Most of the nastier responses mistook not kicking down doors or not charging into battle head-on for cowardice.
Eh, it's an attitude some people have. I've gotten insulted by folks on messageboards before for being a member of a stealthy ninja-for-hire sort of party once. Most of the nastier responses mistook not kicking down doors or not charging into battle head-on for cowardice.How boring. Do you also tell them heroes don't build castles? Or heroes don't fight town guards? Or heroes don't pick locks? Or...You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
It's easy to misunderstand things on the interweb. Many people that I have engaged in <ahem> fierce debate with are people I have also learned to respect and listen to.
Sometimes people try and be funny, sometimes they try to use sarcasm, hyperbole, or banter and it doesn't come across in the written text the way they intended. I try not to get offended these days.
Not going to get into that one again, but I will mention something interesting I found: "hands" are a pseudo-slot, meaning that if you have to hold the item to activate it, you don't have to consider the "double the price for slot-less" suggestion.
In other words, the slot-less suggestion is for something that you don't need to manipulate or wear in anyway (such as the luckstone).
Yeah, I'm not sure why they label weapons as "slot: none" when it would make more sense to say something along the lines of "slot: wielded."
Even things like the lanterns that you can light and then leave sitting around don't take the slotless penalty (IIRC).
Sorry if someone has mentioned this (I took a quick look at earlier posts and didnt see this) but you are essentially adding a No space limitation (An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double) spell to a weapon. So I would also double the base cost of the spell before apply all the modifications. So correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure a weapon doesnt count as a space of the body.
Thoughts?
The weapon slot is a space (even if it's not labeled as such). You use the x1.5 for multiple different abilities in most cases.
Though that does assume the weapon has to be wielded to have an effect, which is usually the case.
Fact 3: And there are players who accept that when a GM has given a Final No on the subject and move on.
Fact 1: The custom item rules states that they require GMs to balance them.
Fact 2: Players sometimes try to ram items priced by formula which are actually underpriced items down a GMs throat.- Gauss
Fact 4: There are some people in this world who will argue with everything.
I agree with you in principal, though.
Those whining about TS 1/day on an item: ok, as a player I buy a rod of TS 50 charges for 750 gp.... or I dip level into waz/sorce/etc... wtf is the big deal? Just the quickened? That any 5th cl caster can do? really?
Good luck finding a wand of Quickened True Strike (last time I checked, Wands stopped at Lvl 4).
Also, 'something that every 5th cl caster can do'... actually, this requires Level 9 at minimum. Feel free to do a nine level dip :)
Those whining about TS 1/day on an item: ok, as a player I buy a rod of TS 50 charges for 750 gp.... or I dip level into waz/sorce/etc... wtf is the big deal? Just the quickened? That any 5th cl caster can do? really?
As a note, further in the discussion I removed the swift action from the weapon, turning it into a standard action to activate. I'd actually forgotten at the time that I originally made the weapon that a swift activation would count as quickened, and the NPC the weapon was for didn't have the resources to afford a weapon with a 5th level spell on it.
Most of the disagreement in the topic so far has actually been with the instant-hit aspect of True Strike, and the idea that if you allow 1/day of something you have to allow an infinite-use at-will version of the same to anyone willing to pay for it.
It's an idea I disagree with, as my players aren't problematic and will accept my decisions as GM decision, and therefore final. Some others prefer to err on the side of caution however and simply avoid True Strike on a weapon at all to avoid having the 1/day vs. infinite-use argument with difficult players.
Overall it's been a very good discussion. I'm enjoying it.
Glad to be of service!
Those whining about TS 1/day on an item: ok, as a player I buy a rod of TS 50 charges for 750 gp.... or I dip level into waz/sorce/etc... wtf is the big deal? Just the quickened? That any 5th cl caster can do? really?As a note, further in the discussion I removed the swift action from the weapon, turning it into a standard action to activate. I'd actually forgotten at the time that I originally made the weapon that a swift activation would count as quickened, and the NPC the weapon was for didn't have the resources to afford a weapon with a 5th level spell on it.
Most of the disagreement in the topic so far has actually been with the instant-hit aspect of True Strike, and the idea that if you allow 1/day of something you have to allow an infinite-use at-will version of the same to anyone willing to pay for it.
It's an idea I disagree with, as my players aren't problematic and will accept my decisions as GM decision, and therefore final. Some others prefer to err on the side of caution however and simply avoid True Strike on a weapon at all to avoid having the 1/day vs. infinite-use argument with difficult players.
Overall it's been a very good discussion. I'm enjoying it.
I've never understood that mentality of 'assuming the worst' in a situation posted. When I post something, I try and assume a reasonable group of people. Not ones that live and breathe to try and break the game and "win" it instead. If I included a True Strike item, I know they'd think it's really cool, and can't let it fall into enemy hands, and likely keep it on them. They aren't going to immediately assume they can have an infinite True Strike item. I would assume most players are the same way. We aren't looking to break the game, we're looking to have fun. Corner cases are corner cases and should be treated as such, not assumed to be the norm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rethinking it a bit, I can see writing rules assuming people are a bit dumb, but still not malicious. It does lead to writing legalese-style rules, but linguistic quibbles are much more common than people trying to game the system outside theorycraft.