No. The enhancement bonus in the chart is only to show you how to price the item.
As an example if you have +2 armor with a special ability that has a +3 beside it then the armor is priced as a +5 item.
The max of the actual enhancement is +5. The total value is +10 when combing the enhancement with the special abilities.
The special abilities on their own don't have a set limit, but the armor still can not go above +10 overall.
As an example you can +1 armor with +9 worth of special abilities for a total of +10.
As an example you can +1 armor with +9 worth of special abilities for a total of +10.
This is incorrect. The special abilities cannot go above a +5 bonus in total. This, when added to the maximum +5 enhancement bonus, comprises the overall +10 maximum.
I don't think so, Heaven's Agent. A magic weapon has to have at least a +1 enhancement bonus, and no more than +5, but there is no cap save the total +10 on properties. Wraithstrike is entirely correct unless you can point to a specific forbidding clause somewhere that we both missed?
As an example you can +1 armor with +9 worth of special abilities for a total of +10.This is incorrect. The special abilities cannot go above a +5 bonus in total. This, when added to the maximum +5 enhancement bonus, comprises the overall +10 maximum.
Quote please. I see one limiting the enchancement, but not one limiting special abilities.
It is in the chart.
As an example--> Invulnerability +3 bonus
So lets say you have +1 armor with Invulnerability.
That total enchancement of the armor for the purpose of pricing is +4.
Looking at the tables again you can see that +4 armor is 16000 gp
Special abilities do not add to the actual enhancement bonus. In other words special abilities do not improve AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the replies, but I'm still confused... how much of an "enhancement bonus" does a special ability confer?
Are each of the ones that list a value in gold in the Base Price Modifier a +1? How many + is each special ability worth?
The enhancement is something you have to buy separately? And if you add a special ability to an armor, the "enhancement bonus" value in the Base Price Modifier is not added to the value of the actual enhancement bonus the armor gets to its AC?
Lets walk through an example.
I have a masterwork chain shirt. I want to make it magical. This requires I add a +1 enhancement bonus. That costs me 1000 gp (based on chart 15-3: Armor and Shields).
Later, I have lots of spare gold, and I want to make my armor better. I get it enchanted up to +2. This costs me the difference on that chart between a +1 (1000 gp) and a +2 (4000). So I pay 3000 gp and my armor is now a +2 chain shirt.
Later on, I want to add light fortification (a +1 bonus) to it. This would raise the effective bonus up to +3: +2 from the AC bonus, and +1 from fortification. So I look at the difference between +2 (4000) and +3 (9000) and pay that. I still only get +2 to my AC from the magic, even though I just paid as if it was going to give me +3. But instead, I now have a 1-in-4 chance of negating any crit or sneak attack.
If I wanted to upgrade my armor again, I'd need to pay the difference between +3 (9000 gp) and whatever I wanted to add. Adding ghost touch (which is +3 on its own) would bring me up to a total of +6 (36000 gp), so I'd be paying 27000 gold to get it. If I instead wanted to get energy resistance (fire), I'd only need to pay 18000, regardless of how enchanted the armor was to begin with. This is because it lists a specific price, rather than a +X.
The book specifically says:
1 Armor and shields can't have enhancement bonuses higher than +5.
There is no such limit on special abilities.
There is no limit on the number of special abilities you can have. The only thing that matter is the value the special abilities+ the value of the enhancement bonuses.
Once you get to +10 nothing else can be added.
That is correct. It is an effective +3 armor.
If they list a gold price they don't have an effective bonus.
To your last question all armor must first be enhanced with a +1 before any special abilities can be added.
A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
Sorry, I always forget the limit on special ability bonuses is +6, not +5. It's a technical limitation, not voiced directly but the result of the magic item crafting rules.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
As a result the bonus from special abilities cannot exceed +6, and such an item can only be created by a character with a caster level of 18 or greater.
That is not correct either.
That statement is telling you to compare the actual weapon enhancement to the special ability with the highest caster level. Whichever one is higher sets the minimum caster level.
It in no way stops you from going above +6 for special abilities though.
This line is key:
If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
If I have 9 special enhancements equal to +1 on top of a +1 suit of armor then the special ability with the highest caster level will take precedence if it is higher than 3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an example you can +1 armor with +9 worth of special abilities for a total of +10.This is incorrect. The special abilities cannot go above a +5 bonus in total. This, when added to the maximum +5 enhancement bonus, comprises the overall +10 maximum.
Not true. A +1 animated arrow catching arrow deflection bashing blinding spell resistance (13) heavy steel shield (total enhancement bonus +1, total special ability effective enhancement bonus +9) is a perfectly legal item.
As a result the bonus from special abilities cannot exceed +6, and such an item can only be created by a character with a caster level of 18 or greater.
Not true. The minimum caster level of the above item is the highest caster level for all the properties and (according to the special CL rule for enhancement bonuses) the minimum caster level for a +1 item. The CL for the enhancement bonus is 3rd. Arrowcatch is 8th, arrowdef is 5th, bash is 8th, blind is 7th, SR13 is 15th, so the item's overall CL is 15th.
It's just like creating any other sort of item: if your item has minimum caster levels A, B, and C, the item's overall caster level is the highest of those three.
You're right; I never realized the CL was included in the components description, thereby making it an exception to the rule stating CL does not need to be met by the spellcaster creating a magic item. Without realizing this what you state would not make sense, because there would be no CL requirement that needed to be met.
Wraithstrike is correct, all the way down the line on this.
To clarify one point ( I hope), to have any special properties at all, a weapon or armour must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. Any number of special properties may be added, as long as the total effective bonus does not exceed +10. Special properties with only a gold piece cost do not count against this, so it is possible to have a suit of armour with +1 enhancement bonus, +9 worth of special properties, and then add Energy Resistance, greater; Undead Controlling; Etherealness; Shadow, greater; Slick, greater; and Glamered, for a total value of 224,200 gp (if my maths is right).
It's just like creating any other sort of item: if your item has minimum caster levels A, B, and C, the item's overall caster level is the highest of those three.
Except that in most other cases the CL does not have to be met in order to craft a magic item. In this magic armor and weapons seem to be an exception to the general rule. Thank you for clarifying.
Let me ask it this way... how would you go about coming up with what the effective bonus for an ability would be that you would homebrew, but try to use RAW as a guideline for how big that bonus should be? Like, if I wanted to make an armor of X spell effect... how would I determine how much that should be in both gold, and effective bonus?
It would depend very much on the spell itself. There's no method of calculating such values in the game rules.
Perhaps it would be easier if you provided examples of items you are unsure about, and everyone can explain what the effective bonus, enhancement bonus, and price of those items are. Breaking things down in this way might make it easier for you to understand.
Superscript "1" for the Base Price Modifier on the Armour, Shield and Weapon special ability tables.
1 Add to enhancement bonus on Table: Weapons to determine total market price.
(To answer part of your question)
Ah, keyboard rather than iPad.
Right.
The important thing to note is that the "Price" column of the Armour and Weapon special ability tables is "Base Price Modifier" - that explicitly informs you that the detail given in that column of the table is a modifier (not an addition) to the Base Price given by the Enhancement Bonus of the weapon or armour in question.
So, one way to read (which you allude to) it is "+2 Armour, Invulnerability, Heavy Fortification" is 4,000 + 9,000 + 25,000 = 38,000gp.
However, that doesn't match what the table says. It says "+x bonus [1]", where [1] says "Add to Enhancement Bonus on Table: Armour and Shields to determine the total market price". So actually said armour is +2+3+5 = +10 armour at 100,000 gp.
If you are homebrewing there are no exact rules. There are only guidelines, which I would be careful with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean's post didn't cover if an item with only a gold price listed doesn't add to the effective bonus. For right now, I'm only able to take people's word on that one, as I still can't see in the rules how that is the case.
Plus-based properties costs obey the +10 rule and are priced according to the plus-based pricing chart. Non-plus-based properties have nothing to do with the +10 rule, they ignore it, and are just added to the price of the item. You could add all of the non-plus-based properties (or multiple copies of some of them, like energy resistance acid/cold/elec/fire to a +1 or +10-equivalent item and it would be totally legal.
As for whether a new ability has a plus or a gp value: the purpose of armor and shields is to protect the wearer against melee and ranged damage. If the new property makes the armor better at doing that, it should be a plus-based property; otherwise, it should be a gp-based property. It gets a little blurry for some of them (energy resistance is gp-based but spell resistance is plus-based), but if the summary of the ability is "this really needs to be an armor property" vs. "this could just as easily be a ring, robe, or necklace, it should be plus-based.
It's just like creating any other sort of item: if your item has minimum caster levels A, B, and C, the item's overall caster level is the highest of those three.Except that in most other cases the CL does not have to be met in order to craft a magic item. In this magic armor and weapons seem to be an exception to the general rule. Thank you for clarifying.
Actually, I think that section is just trying to state what the final caster level of the item will be. It's not a prerequisite. Compare the Spell Storing weapon property where a specific caster level is a prerequisite.
As has been mentioned elsewhere an item's caster level has almost no game effect (it increases the craft DC and makes it harder to dispel). Really, calling it a caster level is probably a bad idea. It ought to just be the item level (or something similar).
Only if the item is a +5 if its +1 you have +9 left to play with as SKR showed above.
Actually, I think that section is just trying to state what the final caster level of the item will be. It's not a prerequisite. Compare the Spell Storing weapon property where a specific caster level is a prerequisite.
It is a prerequisite in the case of magic arms and armor, for no other reason than the item creation rules state that it is.
Actually, I think that section is just trying to state what the final caster level of the item will be. It's not a prerequisite. Compare the Spell Storing weapon property where a specific caster level is a prerequisite.It is a prerequisite in the case of magic arms and armor, for no other reason than the item creation rules state that it is.
That would make calling it out as an explicit prerequisite in Spell Storing pointless (and notice that it's only called out in a few spell-related properties). Combined with the FAQ, it seems that it's not really supposed to be treated as a prerequisite, but even if it is, you can get past any prerequisite by raising the DC.
That would make calling it out as an explicit prerequisite in Spell Storing pointless (and notice that it's only called out in a few spell-related properties). Combined with the FAQ, it seems that it's not really supposed to be treated as a prerequisite, but even if it is, you can get past any prerequisite by raising the DC.
In the case of magic arms and armor, the caster level requirement cannot be bypassed by raising the crafting DC. The crafting rules specifically describe this as a "special prerequisite" that "must be met," and specific rules always override general rules.
Why doesn't it make since?
You have listed maximums for total maximum and for the actual enhancement bonus. You do not have a listed max for special abilities.
I won't fault SKR's ability as a game designer. I will say however if that's the official Paizo position, it makes no bloody sense.
I just checked, and this has nothing to do with SKR's ability as a game designer or Paizo's position. This rule is unchanged from the 3.5 rule set; agree or disagree with it, the rule's origin lies with WotC. Now that my initial misconception was pointed out, there's no mistake that this is how it was always intended to function.
What WOTC did is irrelevant. Pathfinder is a creation of Paizo, so what's in the book is their lookout, even the parts they copied from the original SRD.
Not in this case. To maintain reverse compatibility, this is one rule they could not have changed. It would have invalidated all non-bonus abilities (which had always confused me due to my misunderstanding of the rule), as well as items included in existing materials that were created under the rule.
It doesn't make sense because it's an inconsistency to limit one side of the +10 total and not the other.Why doesn't it make since?
You have listed maximums for total maximum and for the actual enhancement bonus. You do not have a listed max for special abilities.
The number side, just like for weapons is generally better than the special abilities. By limiting the numbers you can keep a tighter reign on AC. Even with they way numbers are now people can get really high AC's. If the enhancement side was not limited then between armor and shields people would be harder to hit. I don't think the issue would be so big that nobody could deal with it, but I can see it being a problem for many people.
That would make calling it out as an explicit prerequisite in Spell Storing pointless (and notice that it's only called out in a few spell-related properties). Combined with the FAQ, it seems that it's not really supposed to be treated as a prerequisite, but even if it is, you can get past any prerequisite by raising the DC.In the case of magic arms and armor, the caster level requirement cannot be bypassed by raising the crafting DC. The crafting rules specifically describe this as a "special prerequisite" that "must be met," and specific rules always override general rules.
That doesn't override the "you can overcome any prerequisite with a +5 DC" though. You can choose to read it that way, but it's not explicitly so.
Edit: This has come up many times. I don't know of any official ruling on this specific sub-issue, but to me all that passage is really saying is what the item level for a straight +X weapon is.
That doesn't override the "you can overcome any prerequisite with a +5 DC" though. You can choose to read it that way, but it's not explicitly so.
It does override it. In Pathfinder, and 3.5 before it, specific rules always override general rules. That's the way the game is defined at its most basic levels.
General Rule Any prerequisite can be ignored by increasing the crafting DC by +5.
Specific Rule The caster level requirement of magic arms or armor is a special prerequisite that must be met.
The specific rule takes priority.
By that same logic, the line after ignoring prerequisites where it says "The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory" is as specific as it gets.
That's a general rule. It is applied to all item crafting. As a result it is overridden by the specific rule.
Again, you can choose to read it that way. I choose to read it differently.
There are many 'must be met' references all throughout the magic item rules. There is even a statement that states that prerequisites 'must be met' two lines above the massive exception (CRB p549). It flies in the face of the english language to phrase things this way and I think that is why so many people have an issue with it.
If they had done away with 'must be met' and just said what is a prerequisite then we would all be having an easier time with it.
- Gauss
P.S. I had a nice, long, semi-sarcastic (trying to be funny) post but the internet ate it. Perhaps it was trying to protect me (or you, the public). We shall never know.
Edit: P.P.S. I am firmly on the side of +5 for each prerequisite not met. Including Weapons and Armor caster level prerequisites.
There have been various posts in the past suggesting ways of clarifying some of the magic item creation rules - and the language used in them.
I would like to see an explicit clarification from the devs of what prerequisites absolutely, positively must be met and which ones can be circumvented with a +5 to the DC.
And before anyone responds that the rules are clear.....save the typing. There have been so many posts on these forums demonstrating a huge range of interpretations - some understandable and some a tad loopy - that it is clear that the rules are not clear and some official clarifications would be nice.
It doesn't make sense because it's an inconsistency to limit one side of the +10 total and not the other.Why doesn't it make since?
You have listed maximums for total maximum and for the actual enhancement bonus. You do not have a listed max for special abilities.
There is no inconsistency. The limitation is a special rule for enhancement bonuses only. The +5 limit for enhancement bonuses doesn't limit plus-based abilities, and it also doesn't limit non-plus-based abilities. You can have +1 greater energy resistance (acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic) full plate for 200,650 gp* or +5 greater energy resistance (acid, cold, electricity, fire, sonic) full plate for 356,650 gp. They're both legal items.*** So why would you think those two items are allowed and the +10-equivalent +1 animated arrow catching arrow deflection bashing blinding spell resistance (13) heavy steel shield is not?
Where is the rule that says armor, shields, and weapons have a limit of +5 for plus-based non-enhancement-bonus properties? I don't believe there is one.
* 1000 + 1500 + 150 + 66000 x 5 gp
** 25,000 + 1500 + 150 + 66000 x 5 gp
*** Ignoring the unofficial rule that non-artifacts shouldn't exceed 200,000 gp market price.
It doesn't make sense because it's an inconsistency to limit one side of the +10 total and not the other.Why doesn't it make since?
You have listed maximums for total maximum and for the actual enhancement bonus. You do not have a listed max for special abilities.
There is a practical reason to limit things to +5 enhancement in order to cap AC. There's no practical reason to limit the special properties, so why do it?
I've always looked at it as a balancing act (and I'm pretty sure this was the design intent behind the rule) - you can either enhance your AC to the max (+5), and lose out on more general defences, or you can restrict your AC and get a greater number of alternative defensive options.
For "in universe logic" - there's only so much concentrated magical power doing one thing that an item can hold.