The reason I mentioned the speed weapon cost is that it is an indicator that this is the correct path.
All the other points of this discussion aside... this is flawed reasoning. The cost is neither an indicator for or against how the speed property should work by RAW, RAI, FAQ, errata, or otherwise.
Is speed enchant overpriced? I believe so, regardless of whether it should or should not allow the use of multiple weapons. There are a dozen or more items in the magic items section that I believe are also overpriced. That doesn't make them function differently, that just means that I think they are overpriced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was once told that the point of a debate is not to convince your opponent, but to convince the audience.
Coming into this thread with no opinion or prior understanding of the topic, and reading ONLY what was referenced and presented by both sides... Ashiel has out-argued all of you. :D
I am firmly convinced that the original creators (Cook et. all) intended for the speed effect to function just as she's said. Her arguments about the exact wording of RAW and the game balance effects make sense.
I also think that RAW, as they currently stand, say otherwise. The later developers have reset the meaning of the text to an alternate explanation, and that's the way things currently stand. This does not make the ruling a good one, and it certainly doesn't improve game balance or deepen a player's enjoyment of the game. The only reason this change is valid is because The Developers Said So. In my mind, the Developers have the power to change a rule even when their ruling is clearly wrong and goes against the intention of the original creators because they are The Developers and have been granted that authority. I'd apply the same logic if they said that from henceforth Paladins could only be Chaotic Good, and that the innate magical power of Sorcerers suddenly interfered with their use of any magic item. The Developers call the shots- they can ruin their own game however they see fit.
That said, I'd immediately houserule it to Ashiel's interpretation, because that is clearly how it was originally intended and is an interpretation that enhances the game instead of breaking it.
Take that for the (very little) that it's worth.
How you say it is everything in the written word. It's how we understand something.
I'm pretty much done with arguing this topic too. I completely agree with your interpretation, and have said my peace as such.
The quoted statement here reminds me of some old jokes (not necessarily funny ones) about how easy it can be to misinterpret something.
Take the phrase: "What's that on the road ahead?"
Pause too long it sounds like: "What's that on the road, a head?"
Take the phrase: "What is this thing called love"?
A misplaced comma: "What is this thing called, Love"?
Of course theres always the movie with Michael Myers as a flight attended trainer: "You put the wrong em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-AB-le"
In other words, yes, how you say it has everything to do with how it's interpreted in the written word, and the way speed/haste is written agrees with your interpretation, IMO.
|
Well, to play the devil's advocate here, the line in Speed that says it does not stack with similar effects only mentions Haste as an explicit example.It is already a rule that you can't put the same enchantment on the same weapon twice.
There is no need to add the 'doesn't stack' line if the intention is that you can't put Speed on the same weapon twice.
The intention must be that the wielder can't benefit from Speed more than once per round.
LOL!
I appreciate a sense of humour. : )
As if anyone would seriously argue that Speed is not similar to Speed!
|
I can buy that. Thanks for the clarification.This is completely wrong. The Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't say that the weapon properties can only be used with unarmed strikes, it says that weapon properties added to an Amulet of Mighty Fists must be ones that can be used with an unarmed strike.
"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."
This is there to clarify that you can't have a Distance Amulet of Mighty Fists for example. The properties added have to be compatible with an unarmed strike, but are not limited to one. Nothing in the entry contradicts the statement that the Amulet applies its bonuses to natural attacks.
So once again, a bear with a +1 Speed Amulet of Mighty Fists has a +1 Speed Bite, and two +1 Speed Claws, but only gets one extra attack.
No worries.
|
|
Well said Shinigaze. When you have two possible interpretations of a rule, and one interpretation has the backing of the creative and development staff, and supporting FAQs, and the other interpretation is backed by hopeful wishes and a pair of references to examples from an older edition well known for being rife with inconsistencies (far and away beyond anything Paizo can be fairly accused of), it should be clear what RAW and RAI both actually are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I believe that this is the first time I have ever typed 'LOL'. I'm not sure how I feel about that, yet. : /
The longer you spend on the forums, the more the internet creeps into your brain and starts rewiring things. The time to be really concerned is when you actually respond to a living person in face to face conversation by actually saying LOL. I told a co-worker the other day that I was going to be "AFK for a bio, but I'll BRB", and briefly considered drowning myself in the water cooler.
If we disregard developer input when trying to determine RAW then we open the game up to even more unbalancing than is already present. For example, SKR has already said in the FAQ that an AoMF with speed doesn't grant an extra attack to every natural weapon on say a Marilith. The main reasoning behind this ruling was that he felt that a weapon enchancement that DOUBLES your DPR for only 45k is way too cheap and overpowered. But, if we disregard his rulings then obviously the RAW of the AoMF states that the enhancements apply to every natural attack and if we take your version of the RAW of the Speed enchantment then we get a Marilith that can one shot most party members with a full attack. This even extends to PCs though as unless i'm mistaken Eidolons can wear an AoMF and a natural attack fighter tiefling could get 6 attacks before reaching BAB 6.
Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored might as well keep the argument going. I agree with the developers argument that an AoMF only grants one extra attack and not one for each attack. It is consistent with my earlier argument that the weapon is isolated from the wielder. With an AoMF, this isnt the case. The amulet imbues the user with it's abilites, the wielder IS the weapon. Therefore they would get only 1 extra attack from speed and zero from a haste effect (this is contrary to what I said earlier but I hadn't really given the AoMF much thought at the time).
Now if the Marilith manages to get treasure way beyond its encounter level, it could possibly have 6 +1 speed swords which would indeed be brutal. But then again you'd have to bump its CR from a 17 to at least a 21-22, to make up for the treasure difference. And even then this Marilith's treasure values is all tied up in swords, which seem quite silly to me. I could certainly see a normal Marilith with 1 speed sword as that would only be roughly half its treasure value. But 2 is stretching it.
|
|
Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored might as well keep the argument going. I agree with the developers argument that an AoMF only grants one extra attack and not one for each attack. It is consistent with my earlier argument that the weapon is isolated from the wielder. With an AoMF, this isnt the case. The amulet imbues the user with it's abilites, the wielder IS the weapon. Therefore they would get only 1 extra attack from speed and zero from a haste effect (this is contrary to what I said earlier but I hadn't really given the AoMF much thought at the time).
***
An Amulet of Mighty Fists grants its enhancement bonus to the wielder's unarmed strikes and natural weapons. You don't have a +1 Speed Grizzly Bear, you have a Grizzly Bear with a +1 Speed Bite, and two +1 Speed Claws. Otherwise the Amulet just doesn't work. Are you saying that if an elf wears an Amulet of Mighty Fists I can grab him by the ankles and make an extra attack with him?
An Amulet of Mighty Fists grants its enhancement bonus to the wielder's unarmed strikes and natural weapons. You don't have a +1 Speed Grizzly Bear, you have a Grizzly Bear with a +1 Speed Bite, and two +1 Speed Claws. Otherwise the Amulet just doesn't work. Are you saying that if an elf wears an Amulet of Mighty Fists I can grab him by the ankles and make an extra attack with him?Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored might as well keep the argument going. I agree with the developers argument that an AoMF only grants one extra attack and not one for each attack. It is consistent with my earlier argument that the weapon is isolated from the wielder. With an AoMF, this isnt the case. The amulet imbues the user with it's abilites, the wielder IS the weapon. Therefore they would get only 1 extra attack from speed and zero from a haste effect (this is contrary to what I said earlier but I hadn't really given the AoMF much thought at the time).
***
Best... visual... ever! Can you use elves as improvised weapons?
I disagree with your interpretation though. Lets say the AoMF has speed and flaming and is +1. Now because the amulet treats the wielder as "the weapon" any natural attack it makes recieve that +1 and flaming property. However, the speed property only allows for you to make one extra attack with a full attack action. Not one per natural attack. YOU are the weapon so YOU get one extra attack.
I would say it is reasonable to explain it as the creature gets the properties. Say my Druids Lion Companion appears as if it is on Fire while in combat.
I would say it is reasonable to explain it as the creature gets the properties. Say my Druids Lion Companion appears as if it is on Fire while in combat.
That ability is awesome! wouldnt work with a speed elf though since its a single attack action only.
Just add in another Homebrewed Rage Power that coincides to allow a Full-Attack at a Penalty.
|
Her arguments about the exact wording of RAW and the game balance effects make sense.
First, Ashiel is a dude.
Second, this thread already happened almost a year ago.
Third, I'll FAQ it, because that will be the only way we'll get a definitive ruling, but it was FAQed here and deemed "no ruling was needed."
Possibly because JJ gave an explicit answer, as noted on the first page.
Ashiel has also said it was obvious partial wands are part of WBL calculations, that +1 enhancement bonuses for Ability score items were intended, as well as the infinate wish machine.
So, I might suggest a grain of salt or reading the post history before jumping on his bandwagon.
YMMV.
Personally, I can see it going either way, and don't think it makes a huge difference given the cost.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
|
|
A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
Thank you. It it appreciated when you weigh in, even in the threads where you tell me I'm wrong about taking 10 :)
|
|
A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
Sanity!
I like SKR!
|
|
A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
Sanity!
I like SKR!
He's a pretty cool dude. And he's been with this game long enough to know what he's talking about, even if every once in a blue moon or so the staff get together and decide to go a different direction than his initial clarifications. Considering there's been an official FAQ on this, I'd like to say it's case closed. Of course, that FAQ was posted back on page 1, but maybe having the guy who wrote it come in and provide further verification will help...
|
|
Wooooooo! Although I question the effectivness of this post on convincing Ashiel as he already completely disregarded multiple quotes from SKR and James Jacobs saying "my interpretation is the correct one". But thank you nonetheless!A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
Don't gloat. It is unbecoming. Hopefully Ashiel will come in here and resign the argument with dignity.
You should accept it graciously. Don't be that guy.
A speed weapon in your left hand, a speed weapon in your right hand, a speed amulet of mighty fists, and a haste spell cast on you are all "similar effects," and therefore they do not stack with each other: no matter how you try to set up this combo, you only get one extra attack per round, total.
In other news, a ring of fire resistance on your left hand, a ring of fire resistance on your right hand, a resist energy spell cast on you, and your natural tiefling fire resistance 5 are all "similar effects" and therefore do not stack with each other, even though they're from different sources...
Thanks for chiming in Sean.
So to carry on with your fire resitance example. My +1 shortsword in my left hand would not stack with my +5 shortsword in my right hand as they are both enhancement bonuses to attack. Thier from different sources so I should take the greater +5 for both weapons right :) (of course i'm not serious asking that question, just pointing out the differences between weapons and rings)
Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
|
|
Let me try to make clear what the difference is between an enhancement bonus on an item and a spell effect.
If I have an invisible ring, I can't double the invisibility. It is invisible. That is the spell effect, that is what it does.
The Speed Property provides the effects of haste, in other words it warps time to the point you can get an extra attack.
Having two doesn't warp time to be faster any more than having double invisibilty makes you extra invisible.
Or, you know, some will stubbornly refuse to accept the ruling of a developer of the rule set they are discussing...
I can be quite stubborn when I see inconsistencies :) Ruled one way, speed is worth the cost.. Ruled another, speed is never worth the cost over other options.
|
|
Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
Errata are only issued when new printings of the book are released. You are literally asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clarify a single magic item that 95% of the customer base already understood, because if you squeeze your eyes real tight and tilt your head to the side, you can interpret it differently.
Let me try to make clear what the difference is between an enhancement bonus on an item and a spell effect.
If I have an invisible ring, I can't double the invisibility. It is invisible. That is the spell effect, that is what it does.
The Speed Property provides the effects of haste, in other words it warps time to the point you can get an extra attack.
Having two doesn't warp time to be faster any more than having double invisibilty makes you extra invisible.
If the speed property is warping time to make me swing faster allowing an extra attack, why am I only allowed to do it with that one weapon? why couldn't I take that extra attack with a different weapon.
In other words, your example doesn't make sense in this scenario.
|
|
Or, you know, some will stubbornly refuse to accept the ruling of a developer of the rule set they are discussing...I can be quite stubborn when I see inconsistencies :) Ruled one way, speed is worth the cost.. Ruled another, speed is never worth the cost over other options.
It is very much worth the cost, for a single weapon. It is all day haste, unlike spell activation/per day items like boots.
Boots of speed work for 10 rounds a day. A speed weapon works all the time.
It just doesn't make sense to have two of them for a TWF build.
Errata are only issued when new printings of the book are released. You are literally asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clarify a single magic item that 95% of the customer base already understood, because if you squeeze your eyes real tight and tilt your head to the side, you can interpret it differently.Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
Agreed. But it could be great for whenever the next errata comes out. It doesn't have to be for this one and only thing.
Wait, isnt there a thread somwhere where they are asking for fixes to magic items?
|
|
Let me try to make clear what the difference is between an enhancement bonus on an item and a spell effect.
If I have an invisible ring, I can't double the invisibility. It is invisible. That is the spell effect, that is what it does.
The Speed Property provides the effects of haste, in other words it warps time to the point you can get an extra attack.
Having two doesn't warp time to be faster any more than having double invisibilty makes you extra invisible.
If the speed property is warping time to make me swing faster allowing an extra attack, why am I only allowed to do it with that one weapon? why couldn't I take that extra attack with a different weapon.
In other words, your example doesn't make sense in this scenario.
Because if you are TWF and haste is cast on you, you don't get attacks with each weapon, you get one more attack.
Haste allows you to move fast enough to get one more attack. Period. Full Stop.
If an item functions like haste, that means it allows you to move fast enough to get one extra attack. Period, full stop.
If an item makes you invisibile, that means it allows you to be invisible.
If you have two items that make you invisible, it wouldn't make you extra invisible.
|
|
Errata are only issued when new printings of the book are released. You are literally asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clarify a single magic item that 95% of the customer base already understood, because if you squeeze your eyes real tight and tilt your head to the side, you can interpret it differently.Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
Be nice. Kicking when down isn't cool. He is being respectful.
Or, you know, some will stubbornly refuse to accept the ruling of a developer of the rule set they are discussing...I can be quite stubborn when I see inconsistencies :) Ruled one way, speed is worth the cost.. Ruled another, speed is never worth the cost over other options.It is very much worth the cost, for a single weapon. It is all day haste, unlike spell activation/per day items like boots.
Boots of speed work for 10 rounds a day. A speed weapon works all the time.
It just doesn't make sense to have two of them for a TWF build.
It's not all day haste. It's all day "extra attack". For that one weapon only.
If it were all day haste (where your ally's are hasted as well and you get the bonus AC and attack and movement) it would be a bargain. As it stands, it's overpriced.
|
|
Be nice. Kicking when down isn't cool. He is being respectful.Errata are only issued when new printings of the book are released. You are literally asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clarify a single magic item that 95% of the customer base already understood, because if you squeeze your eyes real tight and tilt your head to the side, you can interpret it differently.Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be as harsh as it came out. I was just trying to point out the reality of what he was asking, and its ramifications, and the reason it probably won't be happening any time soon.
|
|
It's not all day haste. It's all day "extra attack". For that one weapon only.If it were all day haste (where your ally's are hasted as well and you get the bonus AC and attack and movement) it would be a bargain. As it stands, it's overpriced.
If it were all day extra attacks and unrelated to haste, there would be no restriction on it stacking with haste, because they would be different effect. But they aren't different effects, in the same way resistances aren't different effects.
Speed as a weapon property is adding the spell effect of haste effect to the weapon. A haste effect only gives one attack, regardless of how many times you cast it. So no matter how many speed weapons you have, all it gives you is one more attack.
For some classes, one more attack is a hell of a lot.
Let me try to make clear what the difference is between an enhancement bonus on an item and a spell effect.
If I have an invisible ring, I can't double the invisibility. It is invisible. That is the spell effect, that is what it does.
The Speed Property provides the effects of haste, in other words it warps time to the point you can get an extra attack.
Having two doesn't warp time to be faster any more than having double invisibilty makes you extra invisible.
If the speed property is warping time to make me swing faster allowing an extra attack, why am I only allowed to do it with that one weapon? why couldn't I take that extra attack with a different weapon.
In other words, your example doesn't make sense in this scenario.
Because if you are TWF and haste is cast on you, you don't get attacks with each weapon, you get one more attack.
Haste allows you to move fast enough to get one more attack. Period. Full Stop.
If an item functions like haste, that means it allows you to move fast enough to get one extra attack. Period, full stop.
If an item makes you invisibile, that means it allows you to be invisible.
If you have two items that make you invisible, it wouldn't make you extra invisible.
I wasnt very clear. what I was trying to get across is your example made the speed property seem like haste which allows one extra attack with any weapon you choose. Whereas that is not the case.. speed allows it only for that one weapon.
So, in my analogy to your analogy, if speed property acts like haste and slows down time allowing you to make an extra attack. Why am I limited to only that weapon? if time is slow, 1 of ANY of my attacks should be able to use that extra attack. (in the analogy you made)
I was once told that the point of a debate is not to convince your opponent, but to convince the audience.
Coming into this thread with no opinion or prior understanding of the topic, and reading ONLY what was referenced and presented by both sides... Ashiel has out-argued all of you. :D
I am firmly convinced that the original creators (Cook et. all) intended for the speed effect to function just as she's said. Her arguments about the exact wording of RAW and the game balance effects make sense.
I also think that RAW, as they currently stand, say otherwise. The later developers have reset the meaning of the text to an alternate explanation, and that's the way things currently stand. This does not make the ruling a good one, and it certainly doesn't improve game balance or deepen a player's enjoyment of the game. The only reason this change is valid is because The Developers Said So. In my mind, the Developers have the power to change a rule even when their ruling is clearly wrong and goes against the intention of the original creators because they are The Developers and have been granted that authority. I'd apply the same logic if they said that from henceforth Paladins could only be Chaotic Good, and that the innate magical power of Sorcerers suddenly interfered with their use of any magic item. The Developers call the shots- they can ruin their own game however they see fit.
That said, I'd immediately houserule it to Ashiel's interpretation, because that is clearly how it was originally intended and is an interpretation that enhances the game instead of breaking it.
Take that for the (very little) that it's worth.
I completely agree with Mystically's statement. I think Ashiel's interpretation makes the most sense and provides the best game ruling. It has convinced me to use her ruling on the subject in my own games. Though RAW may strictly be different because of the points that Mystically brought up I prefer Ashiel's reading.
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be as harsh as it came out. I was just trying to point out the reality of what he was asking, and its ramifications, and the reason it probably won't be happening any time soon.Be nice. Kicking when down isn't cool. He is being respectful.Errata are only issued when new printings of the book are released. You are literally asking them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to clarify a single magic item that 95% of the customer base already understood, because if you squeeze your eyes real tight and tilt your head to the side, you can interpret it differently.Those of us arguing against your ruling are full aware of your ruling, we just find that what is written doesn't jive with your intent. Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
What we would like, is for an errata fixing the wording and possibly the cost value of the speed property to fall more in line with similar abilities.
Again we all appreciate your input, even though we don't always have to agree :)
It didn't seem harsh to me. It was a legitimate question. No harm no foul.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to carry on with your fire resitance example. My +1 shortsword in my left hand would not stack with my +5 shortsword in my right hand as they are both enhancement bonuses to attack. Thier from different sources so I should take the greater +5 for both weapons right :) (of course i'm not serious asking that question, just pointing out the differences between weapons and rings)
The difference is that there is no rule that says "you are only limited to X enhancement bonuses to your attacks per round." There is a rule that says "extra attacks [per round]from similar effects are not cumulative," and a rule that says "energy resistance doesn't stack."
Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.
A magic item that let you cast haste 5/day at caster level 5 (i.e., 5 rounds) would cost 3x5x1800/5x5 = 27,000 gp for 25 rounds of haste per day.
Speed is a +3 property, which at minimum costs 30,000 gp (on a +1 weapon). That's basically the same cost as the 5/day haste item. For that cost, you get unlimited rounds of "haste" per day and you don't have to spend an action to "cast" the ability. True, it only affects you (instead of multiple people) and you don't get the movement and defensive benefits of haste, but because of the way plus-based item costs work, it's going to either be a +2 or a +3 property, and it's way too good for a +2 property.
People complain about the "15 minute adventuring day," then ignore magic items like haste that become more cost-effective the longer you keep adventuring during the day. Hmm...
It's not all day haste. It's all day "extra attack". For that one weapon only.If it were all day haste (where your ally's are hasted as well and you get the bonus AC and attack and movement) it would be a bargain. As it stands, it's overpriced.
If it were all day extra attacks and unrelated to haste, there would be no restriction on it stacking with haste, because they would be different effect. But they aren't different effects, in the same way resistances aren't different effects.
Speed as a weapon property is adding the spell effect of haste effect to the weapon. A haste effect only gives one attack, regardless of how many times you cast it. So no matter how many speed weapons you have, all it gives you is one more attack.
For some classes, one more attack is a hell of a lot.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is haste does more than speed. I was making the comparison to point out the cost discrepency's of the property. That was all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasnt very clear. what I was trying to get across is your example made the speed property seem like haste which allows one extra attack with any weapon you choose. Whereas that is not the case.. speed allows it only for that one weapon.So, in my analogy to your analogy, if speed property acts like haste and slows down time allowing you to make an extra attack. Why am I limited to only that weapon? if time is slow, 1 of ANY of my attacks should be able to use that extra attack. (in the analogy you made)
Because that is how haste works. If haste worked the way you describe it, when you are TWF with haste you would get an attack with all of your weapons.
But you don't. You get one extra attack and increased movement.
The weapon allows you to attack as if you were hasted, which means you get one extra attack.
And that is it. Because that is all the spell does, regardless of how many attacks you can make normally, haste lets you make one more attack.
How many weapons you have it on is as relevent as how many times some one cast it on you. It still only works once per round to give you an extra attack, when you make a full attack.
Additionally when using your ruling, the cost value of the "speed" property seems disproportionalty high when compared to similar items that do more and do it better.A magic item that let you cast haste 5/day at caster level 5 (i.e., 5 rounds) would cost 3x5x1800/5x5 = 27,000 gp for 25 rounds of haste per day.
Speed is a +3 property, which at minimum costs 30,000 gp (on a +1 weapon). That's basically the same cost as the 5/day haste item. For that cost, you get unlimited rounds of "haste" per day and you don't have to spend an action to "cast" the ability. True, it only affects you (instead of multiple people) and you don't get the movement and defensive benefits of haste, but because of the way plus-based item costs work, it's going to either be a +2 or a +3 property, and it's way too good for a +2 property.
What would the cost of a Haste item be if it didn't effectively give you an extra feat (dodge) / an extra untyped bonus to attack / and a bonus 30feet of movent?
If speed did all that as well, I could see it being worth the property. As it stands, it's overpriced. I could make a CL10 wand of haste for 22,500 and have 500 rounds of haste at my disposal at 10 rounds a pop, and have it effect the ENTIRE group with ALL the benifits of haste and still save myself 10,000 gold that I can use to enhance my sword with a more useful ability.
Because that is how haste works. If haste worked the way you describe it, when you are TWF with haste you would get an attack with all of your weapons.
But you don't. You get one extra attack and increased movement.
The weapon allows you to attack as if you were hasted, which means you get one extra attack.
And that is it. Because that is all the spell does, regardless of how many attacks you can make normally, haste lets you make one more attack.
How many weapons you have it on is as relevent as how many times some one cast it on you. It still only works once per round to give you an extra attack, when you make a full attack.
I'm still not making myself clear. What I'm saying, is the way you are describing it makes it seem as if: (If I have a speed weapon. I can make an extra attack. I have decided to take that extra attack with my non-speed weapon) Now we both realise that is not true, so what I'm saying is I don't like the analogy of "time slowing down" because it doesnt fit the way things are.
A better analogy would be with haste, your whole body is sped up allowing ONE extra attack with whichever weapon you choose. Whereas with a speed weapon, it would be more appropriate to say, "your arm is sped up to the point where you can make one extra attack with that weapon but not any others"
|
|
What would the cost of a Haste item be if it didn't effectively give you an extra feat (dodge) / an extra untyped bonus to attack / and a bonus 30feet of movent?
If speed did all that as well, I could see it being worth the property. As it stands, it's overpriced. I could make a CL10 wand of haste for 22,500 and have 500 rounds of haste at my disposal at 10 rounds a pop, and have it effect the ENTIRE group with ALL the benifits of haste and still save myself 10,000 gold that I can use to enhance my sword with a more useful ability.
Right, but your Haste from a wand can be dispelled, and you have to make the UMD check to use it in the first place, as well as burning the action to utilize. Speed is on all the time and can't be dispelled. And as Shinigaze pointed out in the post above, and SKR before that, it's actually not overpriced at all.
One thing I see consistently argued is that boots of speed cost significantly less than Speed so that makes Speed bad, but lets take a look at what boots of speed would cost if it was following the same rules as speed.
5(Caster Level)*3(Spell Level)*2000(continuous use)*4(measured in rounds)*2(Slotless)= 240,000gp
You are getting an enhancement bonus to an item that if you were to try and replicate with the item creation rules would cost you almost ten times as much. You lose all of the other associated benefits from haste like movement and AC and then you pay roughly 13% of what it should cost. Does that seem overpriced to you?
As mentioned several times. Haste does more than just give YOU one extra attack.. It gives YOU and your ALLIES an extra attack, a bonus to hit, a bonus to ac, and a bonus to movement.
IF speed did ALL that I would agree with you, but it doesn't