| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I did my best to search for answers and what I found was less than satisfactory, so I'm starting a more targeted thread and hoping to get some better answers, with good sources.
My friend and I are trying to determine the cost of adding additional enchantments to an already existing magical item. For example, taking an amulet of Natural Armor +1 and adding the Mighty Fists +1 enchantment to it. First, here is the relevant source information:
Magic Item Creation - Adding New Abilities
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Second, here is a few quotes from this thread. Granted it is from the "house rules" section (not sure why it's there), but I have always understood this to be the correct interpretation.
It appears that the RAW for pathfinder leaves a hole in the determination of exact price for magic items with multiple abilities when the item is a body slot item.
Example: If someone was making a ring that possessed invisibility, featherfall, and mind shield, what would be the cost?
Option 1: Featherfall X 100% + Invisibility X 150% + Mind Shield X 150%
Option 2: Invisibility X 100% + Featherfall X 150% + Mind Shield X 150%
Option 3: Mind Shield X 100% + Featherfall X 150% + Invisibility X 150%
This assumes all the pre-reqs are present.
The challenge I come across is that RAW makes it appear that the chronilogical order of how abilities were added are the adjudication for cost/price.
In theory this means that you could have three of the same item sitting side by side and the cost/price for all three would be different.
Has everyone been playing with the chronological pricing or has anyone found support for instituting a value based heiracrchy such as exists when crafting staves?It's not chronological order: The most expensive abilities go first.Can you point me to where I can find that in the Core Handbook?
This is the line that has my players and myself wondering:
Multiple Different Abilities: For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
Many Thanks.I'm not sure that it is directly specified, but look at it this way: The biggest, most expensive power is 'primary'. Everything else is 'additional'.
How I have always done it: (and the way we've always played it)
Example: Adding the Mighty Fists enchantment to my Amulet of Natural Armor +1.
Amulet of Mighty Fists = 4,000 gp (Calculated first, since it's the most expensive.)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 = 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp.
Total Item Value (Amulet of Mighty Fists, Natural Armor +1) = 7,000 gp.
Current Item Value (Amulet of Natural Armor +1) = 2,000 gp
Difference in price between current item and final item = 5,000 gp
Crafting cost = 2,500 gp.
However, the last paragraph of the original quote from the PRD seems to suggest that if the Mighty Fists is added to the amulet second, it should be multiplied by 1.5x meaning the total item value would be 8,000 gp instead. This creates a lot of problems, such as the following - If you find an item with two enchantments on it and then wish to upgrade it, how do you know which one was added first? Also, it seems silly to me that the order in which you create the item should influence it's cost.
Now, in fairness, I want to propose a counter argument:
If you complete something (such as a car) and then decide later to add something additional (let's say a turbo-charger), it would obviously be more difficult (and therefore more expensive) than if you had just included this in your original design. Planning ahead, crafting in a "proper" order, is not penalized.
In the end, I feel like having the second part of an item always cost 1.5x is silly for the following reasons:
1) When you upgrade an item, you're frequently putting more powerful enchantments on it and this feels like a hit to crafting. (Whether this is a good or bad thing is a conversation for another thread, so please leave it alone.)
2) As a crafter, you are required to keep track of HOW you built your items. You also have to know HOW the items that you find were built...
3) Same exact item, built by same exact person, but costs 10% more since it was built "in the wrong order."
4) I have a ring of protection +1 (2,000 gp) and I want to add the invisibility enchantment to it, which costs 10,00 gp. It's cheaper for me to throw my ring away and craft it from scratch than to upgrade it. Feels very wrong.
Anyways, that's all. Thanks for reading and giving feedback.
The order things seems odd. I haven't encountered that in the rules, and it goes against all reason for determining which part was crafted first by some potential unknown wizard who made the item hundreds of years ago. I'd ditch that.
As for the 1.5x thing, that's only if it takes a body slot. Normally, you can't have the effect of two magical items on the same body position, but by adding a little extra in the cost, this allows you to bypass that rule. I think it seems fair, even if it occasionally creates a situation where it's just better to start from scratch than to add an expensive quality to a cheaper item.
The order things seems odd. I haven't encountered that in the rules, and it goes against all reason for determining which part was crafted first by some potential unknown wizard who made the item hundreds of years ago. I'd ditch that.Emphasis, Mine.
Great, so at least one person agrees with me!
As for the 1.5x thing, that's only if it takes a body slot. Normally, you can't have the effect of two magical items on the same body position, but by adding a little extra in the cost, this allows you to bypass that rule. I think it seems fair, even if it occasionally creates a situation where it's just better to start from scratch than to add an expensive quality to a cheaper item. Emphasis, Mine.
Wait a second... I thought you had agreed with me...?
It seems like you've presented arguments both for and against "the order thing." Care to clarify your point of view?
|
I believe the process is supposed to go thusly wise
1) Figure out which enchantment is primary, usually the most expensive.
2) Multiply all other enchantment costs by 150%
3) This is the final price of the item.
4) If adding to an existing item subtract the cost of the existing item. This is the price to uprgade.
This, I think, makes the process work comsistently and doesn't have the upgrading is more expensive problem. I can't find it in the rule book, but that's how I believe Ross' response should be interpreted.
I believe the process is supposed to go thusly wise
1) Figure out which enchantment is primary, usually the most expensive.
2) Multiply all other enchantment costs by 150%
3) This is the final price of the item.
4) If adding to an existing item subtract the cost of the existing item. This is the price to uprgade.This, I think, makes the process work comsistently and doesn't have the upgrading is more expensive problem. I can't find it in the rule book, but that's how I believe Ross' response should be interpreted. .Emphasis, Mine.
This is the part where I'm having some problems - I agree with you that this is the way it should be, and that is the way i interpret Ross's comment... Don't get me wrong, I want it to work the way that you're suggesting, but Ross's response (in a thread from the "house rules" section) is the closest thing I can find to an official statement on how this is supposed to work, and that statement is completely opposed by the RAW. It just seems like everyone (myself included) has decided that the RAW is incorrect and that it should work the way we've suggested because it makes more sense, is simpler, and just generally feels like the proper way to handle things.
What I am looking for is a (more) official statement on the matter. If Ross could clear it up in a thread outside of the "house rules" forum, I'd be happier. For isntance, this one. =)
Well, RAW doesn't define primary, to my knowledge, so it's always a GM issue to interpret. That's why the GM gets paid the big bucks (oh, if only), to adjudicate where the rules aren't clear.
And I've FAQed the original question to draw attention to it.
Yes, I agree that it requires GM clarification, but it really shouldn't. It's a fairly simple issue that can be answered in a sentence or two. (I know Ross already did that, but again - "house rules" section.)
Thanks for the FAQ tag - I did the same myself. I just want a quick answer and it seems simple enough.
See, I really want to agree with james maissen, because that's the way I've always done it, the way I feel it should work, and it makes the most sense to me. However, Nevan Oaks has a very good point, which is basically "this is what the rule say", so I'm a bit torn.
I know that I (personally) would have to see more than just the rule written as it is now to decide that this is the best way to handle it in my own games. From the sounds of it though, this is basically a house rule - one that a lot people seem to accidentally or intentionally use, but it seems to be a house rule, none-the-less.
That said, I would still apprecaite an official response (Ross, I know you're out there!) somewhere other than the "house rules" forum (like this thread). Those of you following this who agree that a bit of clarification, please hit the FAQ button. Paizo - i know you guys are busy as all hell, but could you help a gamer out here?
Thanks all.
The order things seems odd. I haven't encountered that in the rules, and it goes against all reason for determining which part was crafted first by some potential unknown wizard who made the item hundreds of years ago. I'd ditch that.Emphasis, Mine.Great, so at least one person agrees with me!
As for the 1.5x thing, that's only if it takes a body slot. Normally, you can't have the effect of two magical items on the same body position, but by adding a little extra in the cost, this allows you to bypass that rule. I think it seems fair, even if it occasionally creates a situation where it's just better to start from scratch than to add an expensive quality to a cheaper item. Emphasis, Mine.Wait a second... I thought you had agreed with me...?
It seems like you've presented arguments both for and against "the order thing." Care to clarify your point of view?
Sorry for not clarifying well enough. Here's what I meant: regardless of what came first, adding a component to a body slot specific item (like a ring or an amulet) would cost 1.5x. It doesn't matter which is the most expensive or in which order a series of enchantments were placed on it, it only matters that we are adding something new to the original. So the new component would cost 1.5x.
If we had a Ring of Protection +1, adding invisibility would cost 1.5x (or 15,000). If we had a Ring of Invisibility, adding Protection +1 would cost 1.5x (or 1,500). If we had a Ring of Invisibility & Protection +1, adding Feather Fall would cost 1.5x (or 1,650).
However, now that I've reread your OP, I'm actually seeing how my statement does in fact agree with the order of posting, especially when one considers what the true value of the item is for purposes of selling and buying (since the order determines price). With that, I believe I was wrong.
I like the way you have always done it. The most expensive item is first, everything else is 1.5x (even if the most expensive part is the part we are adding). So lets take your Ring of Protection +1 and add Invisibility to it:
Invisibility: 20,000 gp (Calculated first, since it's the most expensive.)
Protection +1: 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp.
Total Item Value (Both) = 23,000 gp.
Current Item Value (Protection +1) = 2,000 gp
Difference in price between current item and final item = 21,000 gp
Crafting cost = 10,500 gp.
Now you have your Ring of Invisibility & Protection +1, and if my rogue "borrowed" it from your character (presumably without the intention of giving it back), and I wanted to add Feather Fall to it, it would break down like this:
Invisibility: 20,000 gp (Calculated first, since it's the most expensive.)
Protection +1: 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp.
Feather Fall: 2,200 gp x 1.5 = 3,300
Total Item Value (All three) = 26,300 gp.
Current Item Value (Invisibility & Protection +1) = 23,000 gp
Difference in price between current item and final item = 3,300 gp
Crafting cost = 1,650 gp.
Or if I wanted to add Blinking to it:
Blinking: 27,000 gp (Calculated first, since it's the most expensive.)
Invisibility: 20,000 gp x 1.5 = 30,000
Protection +1: 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp
Total Item Value (All three) = 60,000 gp
Current Item Value (Invisibility & Protection +1) = 23,000 gp
Difference in price between current item and final item = 37,000 gp
Crafting cost = 18,500 gp
That seems to make the most sense. The order doesn't matter. The most expensive is the base cost and everything else is 1.5x its normal cost.
That seems to make the most sense. Ther order doesn't matter. The most expensive is the base cost and everythin else is 1.5x its normal cost.
Yes, and I also agree with this being the best approach, it's just a shame that by the rules, it seems we're wrong, lol. Hit FAQ if you don't mind bookrat - see if we can get a staff response on this.
|
|
Mech_E,
I would think this is a low priority for the Paizo staff. While it should be fairly simple to solve, they're almost certainly deluged with FAQ requests, as well as doing their day job of actually writing the rules books. This doesn't affect PFS as you can't craft in theat at all so GMs house ruling is a perfectly accetable result and, as you said, most GMs seem to have already gone down that route.
That seems to make the most sense. Ther order doesn't matter. The most expensive is the base cost and everythin else is 1.5x its normal cost.Yes, and I also agree with this being the best approach, it's just a shame that by the rules, it seems we're wrong, lol. Hit FAQ if you don't mind bookrat - see if we can get a staff response on this.
I hit it right after I submitted my last post. :)
However, the last paragraph of the original quote from the PRD seems to suggest that if the Mighty Fists is added to the amulet second, it should be multiplied by 1.5x meaning the total item value would be 8,000 gp instead. This creates a lot of problems, such as the following - If you find an item with two enchantments on it and then wish to upgrade it, how do you know which one was added first? Also, it seems silly to me that the order in which you create the item should influence it's cost.In the end the order in which multiple enchantments doesn't matter, even if changing the order will change the price at any particular step. At every stage of the construction prices are calculated as if that were the final item. And then the differences between the two are calculated out.
So if Item has enchantment A+B+C, in the end it will still have the same price even if the order they were added in was C, A, B. the only thing that might change are the prices of the intermediate stages, the final cost remains the same either way.
It's obvious, right? :)
Let's test it:
1: Blinking: 27,000 gp
2: Invisibility: 20,000 gp x 1.5 = 30,000
3: Protection +1: 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp
Total Item Value (All three) = 60,000 gp
1: Invisibility: 20,000 gp
2: Blinking: 27,000 gp x 1.5 = 40,500 gp
3: Protection +1: 2,000 gp x 1.5 = 3,000 gp
Total Item Value (All three) = 63,500 gp
1: Protection +1: 2,000 gp
2: Blinking: 27,000 x 1.5 = 40,500 gp
3: Invisibility: 20,000 x 1.5 = 30,000 gp
Total Item Value (All three): 77,000 gp
So what's the item's value? Each ring has the same exact components, yet one is worth more simply because invisibility was placed on it first instead of blinking. Or worse, Protection +1 was placed on it first.
While I love the logic you all are trying to add to the issue, I am unsure I understand how the order seemed to always fall highest first. Example:
My wizard selects a ring for their bonded object. At the start it is a masterwork item.
Time goes by and he now has the funds to add Protection +1 to it.
Later he is part of a party that clears out a major BBG and he spends his large pile of gold to add Invisibility to it.
Lastly he gains more gold and wants to add a new ability to his ring. The order didn't just change did it? Based on the "Logic" you are offering I would now calculate the Invisability first but it was not the first. Or am I just missing the point of this?
|
You don't calculate Invisibility "first," because with this method there is no "first" enchantment, only a "primary" (most expensive) enchantment. You calculate total item value with the most expensive enchantment, Invisibility, as the "primary" enchantment, add other abilities as "secondary" abilities with an extra charge for your final item value, and then subtract the current item value from the final item value to get your "upgrade cost." With this "value" method the order in which you add abilities is meaningless, it's just the destination item that is important.
The math is a bit more complicated but the upside is that the total value for an item is always the same regardless of what order its powers were added in.
However, the last paragraph of the original quote from the PRD seems to suggest that if the Mighty Fists is added to the amulet second, it should be multiplied by 1.5x meaning the total item value would be 8,000 gp instead. This creates a lot of problems, such as the following - If you find an item with two enchantments on it and then wish to upgrade it, how do you know which one was added first? Also, it seems silly to me that the order in which you create the item should influence it's cost.In the end the order in which multiple enchantments doesn't matter, even if changing the order will change the price at any particular step. At every stage of the construction prices are calculated as if that were the final item. And then the differences between the two are calculated out.
So if Item has enchantment A+B+C, in the end it will still have the same price even if the order they were added in was C, A, B. the only thing that might change are the prices of the intermediate stages, the final cost remains the same either way.
Bookrat nicely demonstrated that this isn't the case with the chronological method of item cost determination, which is explicitly based on the order in which abilities are added. And despite Ross' statement the example in the rules indicates that a chronological method is used:
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
A Ring of Protection +2 costs 8,000gp. A Ring of Invisibility costs 20,000 gp. If we have to pay 1.5x the Ring of Invisibility cost to add that power, then we are applying the penalty to the most recently added enchantment (invisibility) rather than the cheapest one (protection +2).
Seeing as PFS doesn't allow for this, you have a real life DM. Present this to them, and they should see it as reasonable. Certainly if you went to sell the item the buyer wouldn't offer you more money simply due to the order of the enchantments.
Agreed, it is utterly ridiculous for someone to pay 38,000 gold for a Ring of Protection +2 that had Invisibility added to it, and pay 32,000 for a Ring of Invisibility that had Protection +2 added onto it.
I personally like the value method for that reason, but if you're going to use the chronological method for crafting (because it's inefficient to add a more powerful property to an existing item?) then the market value should still be calculated using the value method because no one is going to pay you extra for having an inefficient manufacturing process.
I hit it right after I submitted my last post. :)
Thanks and thanks for running those numbers for LazarX.
Paul Watson - I know they're busy, but I figured I would give it a shot. It does seem like a fairly easy one to me.
Danielc - the point is that if the same item is made a couple different ways it can be more (or less) costly which brings a lot of questions up, like how do you keep track of HOW you crafted each item, in which order, and this is also relevent for items that you find. How is that known? See bookrat's latest reply for clairification if you are consufed still.
You don't calculate Invisibility "first," because with this method there is no "first" enchantment, only a "primary" (most expensive) enchantment. You calculate total item value with the most expensive enchantment, Invisibility, as the "primary" enchantment, add other abilities as "secondary" abilities with an extra charge for your final item value, and then subtract the current item value from the final item value to get your "upgrade cost." With this "value" method the order in which you add abilities is meaningless, it's just the destination item that is important.
The math is a bit more complicated but the upside is that the total value for an item is always the same regardless of what order its powers were added in.
Ah it was the "First" vs "Primary " that I misunderstood. Ok, now that I am up to speed, I agree with the method you are following. It would keep the costs and values consistant.
MechE,
Apologies for sounding critical. I was trying to encourage realistic expectations of response times. But I can see how you got the wrong impression. Sorry.
No, no, I didn't get the wrong impression at all, I was just typing a reply up quckly from my phone and decided to keep it short and sweet, lol. I completely agree that realistic expectations are the best way to go, so no worries.
At this point, I'm 90% sure the guy who's running our RotRL campaign will side with me on this one based on this thread, so that's good. While I doubt it will happen, it would still be nice to get an official response on this for everyone else out there.
Here's how I've always seen this, and I think it makes things easier to understand. Don't think of yourself as "upgrading" an old item. You're making a new one, with the old one as part of the material cost for doing so. You take 1/2 of its market price, as if you'd sold it, and count that towards making the new item.
At this point, it doesn't matter what abilities were added first, or what order they were done in, or any other ridiculous calculations. Just figure out the cost for making the item.
How do you figure said cost? This table. Specifically, the part that's been throwing people is the bit towards the end, labeled Multiple Different Abilities. Pretty easy, really. The most expensive item effect you're duplicating stays at regular price. Every other item you're adding in, multiply the cost for that by 1.5. Add it all together, and bam. You've got yourself a brand new item.
Hope that take on things helps. This is, more or less, the same way you determined was the most reasonable, it's just easier to have it make sense put this way.
LazarX, you are missing the 1.5 times multiplier that each ability other than the "primary" or "first" one gets. A + B * 1.5 + C * 1.5 Does not equal C * 1.5 + A * 1.5 + B
This thread is about whether the "first" ability avoids the 1.5 times multiplier, or the "primary" ability avoids it. (Primary being defined as the one which is the most expensive.) If you do the "primary" or most expensive ability avoiding the 1.5 times multplier, then a Blinking, Invisibility Ring of Deflection +1 is always the same price.
If you do the "first" (chronologically) ability avoiding the 1.5 times multiplier, then said Blinking, Invisibility Ring of Deflection +1 has 3 different crafting costs depending on which order you make it in. Also, what would a vendor pay for this? What if you find said item and decide to upgrade it - how do you know which part costs less to upgrade...?
The "first" or chronological order method creates some new questions and in my mind, doesn't make sense. Also, when crafting, you are very frequently upgrading your items to more expensive abilities, so in the end, this is a fairly decent hit to crafting, depending on how many multi-ability items you plan to build.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but the rules in the book actually say that if you're making an A+B item the cost will be A + 1.5 B even if B is the most expensive enchantment (the one most people would consider the "primary").
If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character's body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Ring of Protection +2 = 8K
Ring of Invisibility = 20KValue method says the Ring of Invisibility is more expensive therefore "primary" and that the Protection cost gets the 1.5 multiplier.
Chronology method (and the rulebook) says that if Invisibility is added second it gets the 1.5 multiplier.
I expect the rulebook did it this way because the math and explanation is simpler on the surface. But judging by this thread the value method is not only more popular than the official chronology method, but many people (including software developer Ross and myself until recently) appear unaware that RAW supports the chronology method.
So how about we not tell them? Can we all just pretend that the value method is official?
I expect the rulebook did it this way because the math and explanation is simpler on the surface. But judging by this thread the value method is not only more popular than the official chronology method, but many people (including software developer Ross and myself until recently) appear unaware that RAW supports the chronology method.
So how about we not tell them? Can we all just pretend that the value method is official?
+1 for Wierdo. This sounds like a good plan to me. =)
I've ran into this myself recently, and I ruled it like this:
If making a brand new item (I'm making a protection / invisibility / blinking ring out of scratch!), you'd use the value method. If tacking on things to an existing item (I'm adding invisibility & blinking to my protection ring!), you use chronological value to determine what it costs to add the new enchantment.
Either way, the final item value is equal to a brand new item of that type, calculated by the value method. It doesn't matter how the item got to its final form - it's worth X gold, and that's that.
Now, if it costs a character more gold to tweak an item into some other item... well, that sucks for him/her/it - it might not be as gp efficient to tweak an item, but the simple fact that a) it can happen and b) all it costs is gold should be seen as a blessing.
But really, the only reason this "matters" (loose usage of the word, here, IMO) is for WBL, or in-game sale. For the first, value is as a new item by value method, easy. For the second, any discrepancy can be dealt with in-game bartering or vending (where a character may not even get half book value for an item depending on game circumstances) - hooray for role-playing in a role-playing game.
(See, I come from an AD&D background - there was none of this "lets play mix-and-match with existing items,", what you found was what you got. And I heartily object to the "crafting costs only gold" idea and the "magic mart" idea, so take my heavily-biased opinions as you will! :D )
(See, I come from an AD&D background - there was none of this "lets play mix-and-match with existing items,", what you found was what you got. And I heartily object to the "crafting costs only gold" idea and the "magic mart" idea, so take my heavily-biased opinions as you will! :D )
And yet, I remember quite clearly in the later 70's and early 80's rules for item creation and how it seemed everyissue of Dragon had new items so there was a never-ending flow of Magic.
I find some of my friends look back on our early days through rose colored glasses. ;-)