Tell me if I've understood the magic item creation rules correctly here


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hey people. This is the first magic weapon I've created using the custom magic item rules. It's for an (8th level) NPC, and I want to make sure that I've understood the rules, especially on pricing and caster level, correctly:

Tama’s Striking Jutte
Aura faint divination; CL 3rd
Slot weapon; Price 3396gp; Weight 1lb.
---
DESCRIPTION
---
This +1 cold iron jutte is decorated with faint crisscrossing lines along its length. Once per day while making an attack (but not an attack of opportunity) with the striking jutte, the wielder can command the weapon to cast True Strike as a swift action. This effect must apply to the first attack with the striking jutte if making a full attack, and the effect of the true strike must be used in the round it is activated.
---
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
---
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, True Strike; 1698gp

Caster Level 3rd is based on the weapon's +1 enchantment. The True Strike ability only needs CL 1st, and I believe the caster level only needs to meet the highest requirement.

Cost is as follows:
8gp (jutte)
8gp (cold iron)
300gp (masterwork)
2000gp (+1)
1080gp ([Spell level x Caster level x 1800] / [5/1] for # of uses per day) (i.e. [1 x 3 x 1800] / [5/1] = 5400 / 5 = 1080gp)


You need to add 2,000 for enchanting a cold iron weapon.

As best as I can tell, you can use a CL 1 for the true strike effect; however, a quickened true strike is a much higher level effect, and I don't think requiring it to be used up in the same round is that severe of a limitation in this case, so I would price it more along the lines of a quickened true strike, which would be a 5th level spell (CL 9) and would cost 18,000 gp (as a use activated ability, since a command word always takes a standard action, so couldn't be quickened) plus the 4,316 for the weapon.

Now, if you did want to just give a 1/day CL 1 true strike without the quickened part, it'd only be 360 over the weapon price (total 4,676 gp). You'd have to give the command word the turn before you attack though.

Edit: For the quickened true strike effect, you can probably give some discount for requiring it to be used up in the first attack of the same round, but it wouldn't be much and the guidelines offer no help here.


Not a good idea. There's specific game-balance reasons that certain spells are not a good match in the item creation rules - using true strike is such a spell. The appeal is obvious, of course, getting an automatic hit (more or less) once a day is a great deal for a character - but also too good to be true. At the price that you put up, a character at level 15+ would typically run around with 20 of these juttes and laugh all the way through encounters.

THAT SAID. Your maths is wrong in multiple places:
- you missing an additional +2000gp for making a magical cold-iron weapon
- true strike needs to be quickened to be able to work as a swift-action activation, so the price is calculated for a 5th level spell at caster level 9: 5 * 9 * 1800 / 5 = 16200.
- total cost 8 jutte + 8 cold-iron + 300 masterwork + 2000 (+1magical) + 2000 (magical cold-iron) + 16200 (swift true strike) = 20516


At the cheap price, wasting a second action is probably worth the discount and shouldn't be terribly game breaking. At the more expensive quickened price, you couldn't afford a whole bag full of them anyway.


Ah, true... I forgot it'd count as quickened to use it as a swift. I may rework it to be a standard action then, as the NPC it's for doesn't come even close to being able to afford something that expensive.

(Also, really? +1 cold iron adds the 2000 twice? I just gave it cold iron for the flavour of the iron colouration, so I may drop it if it's that restrictive on the price)


MagiMaster wrote:
Now, if you did want to just give a 1/day CL 1 true strike without the quickened part, it'd only be 360 over the weapon price (total 4,676 gp).

I believe that the rules require it to be at least a +1 weapon to have a spell effect, and that the minimum caster level of the weapon has to be at least triple the enchantment bonus, making it CL 3rd at minimum.

(1 x 3 x 1800) / 5 = 1080

So for a +1 jutte with the true strike effect usable as a standard action, if I'm right the price would be...

8 + 300 + 2000 + 1080 = 3388

...Right?


Cold iron doesn't add 2000 twice. The first 2000 is for a +1 weapon (any +1 weapon). The second 2000 is for any enchantment on a cold iron weapon. (BTW, the look of a magic weapon can be anything you want without needing special materials.)

A +2 cold iron weapon would be 8000 for the enchantment, 2000 for enchanting cold iron and the 300-something for the masterwork weapon.

Edit: In reply to the second ninja question: Nothing I've found says that all the effects on a magic item have to have the same caster level. It's not an unreasonable interpretation, but I don't think it's strictly RAW either. I'll see if I can find an existing item that demonstrates otherwise.

Edit again: Flame Tounge is priced as a +1 flaming burst longsword (CL 12) plus a low level scorching ray. It doesn't even charge full price for the ray, but it's definitely not priced at CL 12. That said, many items do raise the CLs to match when there isn't a good reason not to.


The rules I remember said to use the highest CL of the various effects as the weapon's overall CL, if it has multiple effects at various caster levels.

So in my above case the whole thing would be CL 3 despite the CL 1 of True Strike.


Yes. The overall CL would be 3 from the +1. The true strike effect can still cast (and priced) at a lower CL though. If it cast at a higher CL, the overall CL would go up. See Flame Tongue. It would be much more expensive if scorching ray were raised to CL 12 (and would do more damage).

BTW, the overall CL of a magic item has very little effect. IIRC, it raises the (still very low) DC to craft it, and makes dispelling it (or was it disjoining it) harder.


Ah, okay I see what you mean. In the case of True Strike it makes no difference, as CL doesn't really affect that spell, but it would potentially matter for items with other spell effects.

I can only see a higher CL on an item being particularly useful if that item involves magic with power based on the caster's level, like magic missile or fireball.


Right, though most spells do have some effect based off CL (usually the range, area or duration goes up at the very least). True strike is somewhat unusual in that it has no statistics that improve with CL. Of course, I can't really imagine what would improve in that case.


I just want to emphasize again that it is a Bad Idea(TM) to put true strike on an item.


^ I don't particularly see a once-per-day usage as that bad. Especially now that I've changed it to require a standard action to activate.

It's for a (non-enemy) NPC anyways. I anticipate him fighting alongside the PCs once, maybe twice, and I want him to be able to land at least a couple hits (if he gets forced into melee) despite his poor Str and 3/4-progression BAB.


never make an item assuming your pc's can't get it.. what happens if the npc dies in combat? you should always consider even when it's a friendly npc "do i want my players to possibly get their hands on this?"


I'm assuming the PC's likely won't get it, but not that they can't.

If the NPC dies, which is unlikely, I still don't see a once-per-day True Strike that you have to sacrifice a standard action for as that big of a deal.

He's not that likely to die though. He's more of a back-line ranged fighter, whereas the enemies that I intend to have show up near him are mindless undead that will target whoever is nearest to them (i.e. one of the melee PCs).


The bigger issue will be that they'll see him use it, and want to commission (or build) one for themselves, but I agree that giving up a round to guarantee that you'll get in one good hit next round one time per day is not overpowered.


Until 1/day becomes 5/day becomes infinite becomes WTF happened? I've said it before and I shall repeat this again: As a GM I start with 'no' and progress to 'maybe' when it comes to custom magic items.

- Gauss


As a GM I don't like maybe. :)

If you want to avoid that issue, state up front (or at least as soon as the PCs start asking about getting one for themselves) that an unlimited use version will never happen (or it'll cost as a +20 bonus, around 800k).

If a once a day version is ok, I don't really see why a 5/day version isn't. It'll be more expensive and it still wastes a lot of actions.


The problem is that once you open the door by allowing 1/day because the rules say so, the door is then open for 5/day on a swift action = as many as you want on a swift action = broken game.


If you want to limit it from the PCs, play it off as some sort of Heirloom weapon that only works for his family. Mention how others have tried to emulate the weapon in some way, but they could never get the magic to work (because they bought reagents for a RAW 3,000 gp-ish true strike sword instead of the ungodly expensive one). That way, they know the Sword can't be duplicated, and only works in the hands of his bloodline.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic creation Guidelines.

Sorry, pet peeve. Rules are allowed for everyone, guidelines are subject to GM ruling.

Ask your GM "is this going to be a problem in my game" and whatever they say is correct.

If you disagree, start your own campaign and allow it to be used in your game.

I wouldn't allow an item made with truestrike if I were GM.


Gauss wrote:

Until 1/day becomes 5/day becomes infinite becomes WTF happened? I've said it before and I shall repeat this again: As a GM I start with 'no' and progress to 'maybe' when it comes to custom magic items.

- Gauss

My players shun the complexity of designing or upgrading custom magic items of their own. It's not moving beyond 1/day unless I tell it to do so.

Also as a note, just because I create an item with a 1/day usage doesn't mean I'm automatically forced to allow the same effect to work on an at will, swift action trigger item.

The idea that if you allow something once, you have to always allow it is just plain wrong. I'm the GM; I can draw the line where I deem appropriate in situations like these, and occasionally cross it while still attempting to be fair to the players. I know my players don't mind me occasionally doing so, as I usually make attempts to be as accommodating to their weird ideas as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My pet peeve is people endlessly repeating that "these are just guidelines," or "if you allow 1/day, you have to allow unlimited use." First, the guidelines work very well in 99% of cases. Most of the items in the books follow the guidelines with a few well-known exceptions. Second, the GM can allow partial use of the item creation guidelines without allowing everything automatically.

Is one good hit a day for ~3000 gp and an extra standard action really that broken?

Edit: Also, just because 5/day costs the same as unlimited use doesn't mean you have to allow either both or neither. You, as GM, can say that, for example, personal spells can't be made unlimited, but can be made 5/day. Adjust the guidelines to taste, but don't throw them out altogether.


MagiMaster wrote:
...Also, just because 5/day costs the same as unlimited use doesn't mean you have to allow either both or neither.

Exactly.


MagiMaster, I happen to agree with you despite my opposing stance. The reasoning behind my opposing stance is that by and large if you give players an inch they try to take a foot. Give them a foot and they will take 20feet and hang you with it. To shortcut that battle I simply start with 'no'.

- Gauss


If the guidelines worked very well in 99% of cases, that makes me wonder why they are explicitly the backup option.


It makes me wonder too, but they still work fine. I'm reasonably sure the folks at Paizo could hammer out the worst abuses (as someone pointed out, personal spells seem to be a major chunk of that) and throw away the "guideline" label, but that's a lot of work for little gain. Too few people bother to use them as is.

I think the biggest reason why it's labeled that is so players don't think that the crafting feats automatically give them full access to use that table. IMO, the GM should still have final say, but I don't think that means they'll need to worry about it as much as everyone implies.


I suppose my point was lost. The reason they're the backup option is because they do not produce balanced items all the time. The devs have been quite clear that you should always figure out the item's power level and compare it to other items, and only if you fail that should you rely on those guidelines to get a rough idea of the price.

And it's not just your opinion that they're GM only. That's what they are :) That's not "the player should compare an item...".

In any event, it's simply not true that all spells of a given level have the same power level. An item that casts Shared Languages, Communal is nowhere near as powerful as an item that casts Haste. Erase is not as useful as Enlarge Person. But if you go by the guidelines, lo-and-behold, they have the same price.

After asking quite a few of the paizo contributors and other designers, it seems that one of the more popular methods of item pricing is figuring out it's power level, looking at the WBL of the level where it should be, and then messing with the price from there. It, of course, requires you to be distanced from the item, as if you're making it for your own use, you're going to make it a lot cheaper, especially if the guidelines would make it cheaper.


I do realize the rules state they're GM guidelines only. I'm saying that that's mostly unnecessary. Most of the in combat spells you want to use more often than 1/day. Most of the out of combat spells, 1/day is fine. They aren't the same price any more.

Look, I know how most people feel about item creation, and I'm not under any delusion that I'm going to convince anyone to change their minds, but I'm just saying that most of the item creation hate/fear is misplaced. That section of the book is not radioactive.

I'm also not saying that the GM should just allow the players free reign, but allowing someone with the item creation feats the option of actually creating a unique item seems like a good idea to me, and I know I don't want to flip through hundreds of pages of existing items, and then disembowel a chicken and read its entrails just to figure out a reasonable price. [/hyperbole]

The best suggestions I've heard for making the item guidelines generally usable are:
- Use the table from the top down. If it's covered by the top section (bonus squared stuff), use that.
- Keep careful control on personal range spells, or disallow them on items in general.
- Be sure to apply all the appropriate multipliers. Constant items can get expensive quickly.
- Ignore the race/class discounts. They should only apply to price, not cost, anyway.
- If constant/unlimited items bother you, disallow them, but allow more than 5 charges per day at an increasing cost.
- If constant abilities bother you, but not enough to disallow them, require a 24 attunement period. RAW, it only applies to ability boosters and gives no discount (at least as far as I've found).

Liberty's Edge

MagiMaster wrote:

I do realize the rules state they're GM guidelines only. I'm saying that that's mostly unnecessary. Most of the in combat spells you want to use more often than 1/day. Most of the out of combat spells, 1/day is fine. They aren't the same price any more.

Look, I know how most people feel about item creation, and I'm not under any delusion that I'm going to convince anyone to change their minds, but I'm just saying that most of the item creation hate/fear is misplaced. That section of the book is not radioactive.

I'm also not saying that the GM should just allow the players free reign, but allowing someone with the item creation feats the option of actually creating a unique item seems like a good idea to me, and I know I don't want to flip through hundreds of pages of existing items, and then disembowel a chicken and read its entrails just to figure out a reasonable price. [/hyperbole]

The best suggestions I've heard for making the item guidelines generally usable are:
- Use the table from the top down. If it's covered by the top section (bonus squared stuff), use that.
- Keep careful control on personal range spells, or disallow them on items in general.
- Be sure to apply all the appropriate multipliers. Constant items can get expensive quickly.
- Ignore the race/class discounts. They should only apply to price, not cost, anyway.
- If constant/unlimited items bother you, disallow them, but allow more than 5 charges per day at an increasing cost.
- If constant abilities bother you, but not enough to disallow them, require a 24 attunement period. RAW, it only applies to ability boosters and gives no discount (at least as far as I've found).

In the hands of reasonable people, sure. I almost always approve what my players come up with.

But I game with reasonable people.

In the hands of people who argue with the Devs about what items they can make, not so much...

YMMV.


I'm curious just how much room there is for abuse if you apply a few sanity checks. I'm going to start a new thread for that though.


MagiMaster, the problem is not the GM applying sanity checks (although that can be an issue at times). The problem is that the GM may open a door to which certain players will try to drive a truck through. Those players will fight and argue and it just isnt worth the battle. The number of players on the boards that propose things that are overpowered is just an indication of this.

Thankfully, my players are not like that. However I think that my stance in general is a good stance to take because any player (even the ones that are usually not like that) will occassionally come up with something that they want and do not understand why you say no. If no is the default it saves everyone a headache.

- Gauss

Edit: P.S. This also presumes that the GM and the players are experienced enough to know what is broken and what isnt.


That may be your play style, but it's not mine. I would prefer everything possible to be upfront with the understanding that if the GM says no, he means it. Arguing with the GM shouldn't happen, and designing rules assuming that it will seems counterproductive.

Anyway. Discussions of play style don't really get anyone anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do mean no. That doesn't mean no is permanent. I believe the rules on custom items are ideally meant for GMs only. Not for every player to try to break the game. That is what creates the arguments.

Player: The book says infinite command activated Cure Light Wounds is only 1800gp!

GM: And Im charging you 90,000gp because it is equivalent to a Ring of Regenerate.

Player: but it doesn't regenerate lost body parts.

GM: there are no lost body parts in PF.

Player: But regenerate is a level 7 spell, this is only a level 1 spell.

GM: yeah, but you can heal an average of 3,300HP per hour to anyone while regenerate can only heal 600 and only to you.

Player: But regenerate stops bleed.

GM: Bleed doesn't usually have that much of a game effect anyhow.

This fictional discussion is based on a spell in which people on the boards have suggested be turned into an infinite use magic item.

That is what 'maybe' gets you. I will keep saying 'no' as my default. If a player provides me with a rationally priced item that is not game breaking then no becomes maybe and possibly even yes. However the onus is on him to provide that item in a reasonable manner to prevent such arguments. By starting from a position of 'no' 100% of the time it PREVENTS arguments since 'no' doesn't allow for an argument.

Example of 'No':
Player: I'd like to bring in a custom item idea.
GM: let me see it. Ok, no.
Player: dang, thought so.

Example of the rare 'maybe':
Player: I'd like to bring in a custom item idea.
GM: let me see it. Ok, it has some merit, Ill think about it and get back to you.
Player: Cool

- Gauss


I'll just say that I'd avoid taking the item creation feats (or anything else that would normally offer a chance of customization) in your games.

Edit: Do you apply this same logic when some non-item-crafter wants to do something slightly outside the rules? What do you do when the finesse-fighter wants to swing from the chandelier and kick the bad guy off the balcony? "No"?

Edit again: You said yourself you don't play with those kind of players, so where is this idea that this happens coming from? This kind of logic bugs me a lot because it's the same kind of logic that leads to DRM software that cripples the legitimate users. "Someone could misuse it, so lets make sure no one uses it." I know that's an exaggeration, but I don't think it's hyperbolic.


The item creation feats are (mostly) fine. I have some issues with them in general but that is not the point. Custom items are the problem not manufacuring items. And anyhow, just because they cannot create a custom item themselves doesn't mean they wont try to commmission one. Same difference really.

As for the swinging from the chandelier? Nope, no problem with that. Move action Acrobatics or Climb covers the chandelier (depending on your pov) while a bull rush covers knocking the bad guy off of the balcony.

- Gauss


ciretose wrote:

In the hands of reasonable people, sure. I almost always approve what my players come up with.

But I game with reasonable people.

In the hands of people who argue with the Devs about what items they can make, not so much...

YMMV.

Exactly. I have unfortunately met people who will argue black is white to get their way with things - and some of them otherwise perfectly reasonable people, too. Hell, Ciretose and I have butted heads on these boards over issues before, and I think we are both intelligent, reasonable people - we just see things in different ways.

Bottom line, it's easier to say "No magic items with True Strike" than it is to argue the toss of each and every proposal.

Liberty's Edge

The item creation guidelines are the Devs allowing GM a look behind the curtain so that they can have help making things for their game an pricing them appropriately.

They aren't player tools, and they shouldn't be player tools. If I am a player who wants something not in the book, I need to go to my GM and discuss how I can get it. I am not entitled to it because I can figure out a way to make it in the guidelines.

Players who don't get this are why the Devs are hesitant to open up the game to more flexible options.

Anytime you give someone rope with a spell like Simulacrum, someone tries to make a Genie to grant them wishes, then screams you are cruel and ignoring the rules if you don't allow it.


ciretose wrote:
Anytime you give someone rope with a spell like Simulacrum, someone tries to make a Genie to grant them wishes, then screams you are cruel and ignoring the rules if you don't allow it.

Really? Wow. If a player screamed at me for being cruel when I said no to them pretty much everyone who has ever sat at my table would tell them to calm down, and point out that I pretty much always make an effort to let my players have what they want, except in rare cases where I'm seriously concerned that something they want will badly affect the game.

I can understand being hesitant to put such rules and items in the hands of players who'll do anything to get what they want, I guess. Though I honestly can't fathom the existence of such players

I tend to give my players access to every part of the rules, and I improvise in their favour when the rules don't cover what they want. I've pretty much never had any trouble.

Happy players don't try to cheat their GM, or "prove them wrong" to get something the GM says no to.


This is very true, but no DM is perfect and no player is perfect, and some are a lot less perfect than others.


Gluttony: some players are only made 'happy' by trying to prove others wrong. The fact is, there are many types of players. It is easy to say 'just dont play with those types' but they could be your brother or your friend rather than just some random stranger.

- Gauss


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not forced to let someone in my game just because they have some relationship with me. If they're mature, they'll understand that I don't have to let them into every situation. If they're not mature then they don't really belong in the game.


Gauss wrote:

Gluttony: some players are only made 'happy' by trying to prove others wrong. The fact is, there are many types of players. It is easy to say 'just dont play with those types' but they could be your brother or your friend rather than just some random stranger.

- Gauss

If you're writing the rules around those kind of players, you've already lost. No rule, closed or open will make these players any better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MagiMaster: I agree and frankly, I wouldnt 'rewrite' the rules. But preventing the use of what amounts to an optional section of the book (since it is entirely GM fiat) is not rewriting the rules.

Gluttony: I am not saying you should. I wouldnt either. I am saying some people do.

Some people's argument is that the custom item rules are 'fine as is' while it is my assertion that without knowledgable, mature, and reasonable players and GMs it is not fine as is. I provide evidence of what happens when those criteria (knowledgable, mature, and reasonable) are not met and you shoot that evidence down as 'not in my games'. But the 'fine as is' argument is not limited to 'my games'.

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.

These two facts cannot be disputed. You have just to look around the boards for fact 2. The book itself states fact 1.

Now, I am not saying it occurs in your group. I am not saying that your group is not knowledgable, mature, and reasonable. They probably are all of those things. I am saying that not all GMs have that kind of group. I've been in a few that had unreasonable people in it and without the GM to balance things such as the custom item rules things get broken in a hurry.

- Gauss


I disagree with so many of those points that I barely know where to begin.

Why is item crafting any different than any other part of the game? Why is "I want to do something slightly outside the written rules" ok, but "I want to make a unique item" not? Do you ban all summoners, all custom races, all custom spells (even reskins), all customizable spells (shadow spells, wish, simulacrum, etc.) and all other customizable rules/guidelines?

Do you really mean that the reason you are so afraid of item crafting is that some people on the forum have tried to do something stupid with it? As if they haven't done the same thing with every other part of the game, customizable or not. Not only that, but in many cases its because they've misunderstood the guidelines anyway (forgetting to apply the continuous duration multiplier or trying to use a command-word item multiple times per round for example).

I've played with similar players too. Banning custom items would not have made the slightest difference in their play style especially since they often didn't bother with item crafting. They didn't need it to make broken characters, and because it has explicit GM oversight, while feats, races, classes, PrCs, etc. only had implicit oversight, it would have been harder to get past the GM anyway.

Ok. I'm going to stop ranting for now. I can't guarantee that I won't start again later as this is one of my pet peeves.

One last thing though. In this thread in particular, Gluttony is the GM, and I haven't said that this should be opened up for the players. (I know I've said something along those lines elsewhere, and I still stand by it.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Banning and requiring approval are two different things.

There are people on this board who argue with Devs about creating +1 ability items and partially filled wands.

As I said, the magic item creation guideline are a tool for a discussion of creating magic items. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything not in the book is subject to GM permission. Hell, a lot of stuff in the book is subject to GM permission.

If you are a reasonable player, with a reasonable GM, you'll come to reasonable solutions.


I am not afraid of item crafting. I never said I was afraid of it. I said I start with 'no' and if someone presents a REASONABLE custom item then I might consider it.

MagiMaster: I believe that the fundamental difference we have is you start from a viewpoint of 'yes' while I start from 'no' and we proceed from there. It is a difference in styles. I never said my 'no' is immutable. It is just socially easier to start from no and proceed to a yes if warranted. If a 'no' is expected there are no hurt feelings compared to when a 'yes' turns into a 'no'.

Anyhow, I do believe that custom items are fine as a general idea IF they are balanced. It is the balancing that is the problem and that is where players and GMs get into trouble. My method simply sidesteps the trouble (both social and game mechanics).

- Gauss


The problem is this:
- GM comes to boards asking if item is balanced, having started from the printed guidelines for pricing magic items
- Everyone and their dog chimes in with "No. Just black that whole section out, and go find a chicken to disembowel, or maybe a deck of tarot cards." [/hyperbole again]
- GM likely decides custom magic items, GM or player made, are not worth the trouble

The thing is, many magic items in the printed books use the guidelines, and there are a few rules of thumb that can make them much less likely to break. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of the people give it credit for (at least out loud).

Differing playstyles is one thing, but what most people on here imply with their responses to threads like this is that the item creation guidelines are worse than worthless.

Also, balance is not as simple as a yes or no. Is 3000 gp balanced for a once per day guaranteed hit at the cost of an extra action? Probably. Is it balanced at 1000 gp? How about 5000? 1 gp? 100000? What about a guaranteed hit against only undead? What about in a city intrigue game?

Will allowing the item at 3000 gp cause a game to fall apart? Probably not.

And now I want to make some magic item creation guidelines that uses a deck of tarot cards.


I agree that some people have that response. But I have never stated that. I never stated that the section should be blacked out nor have I stated it should not be used. I have stated that certain items should never be made and one of those is anything involving the spell true strike.

My first comment on this thread was simply a statement that if you allow an item in as a 1/day it won't be long before someone is pushing for 5/day or infinite use (even if that DOES break the game).

It does not matter if that item does not break the game at 1/day or not. People always try to push boundries. This is why I start from a position of 'no'. It makes socializing less problematic (compared to having to constantly defend your disallowing one item but not another).

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:
My first comment on this thread was simply a statement that if you allow an item in as a 1/day it won't be long before someone is pushing for 5/day or infinite use (even if that DOES break the game).

While that's a fair concern, all one really needs to do is be firm in drawing the line between X/day and infinite where applicable.

As I've said before, mature players will understand. Those who aren't mature may not belong in the game.

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Tell me if I've understood the magic item creation rules correctly here All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.