I just checked the PRD because I so clearly remembered gauntlets of strength exisiting. But its true. The standard enhancers are all belts.
In any case, I always thought that as long as the slot place has something to do with what you want to enhance you pay normal price.
For example:
Gloves or Bracers of Strength
Gloves or Ring of Dexterity
Hands and Arms are usually associated with Strength and Dexterity, so I see no reason why an item slot there should not be enchanted as such.
I just checked the PRD because I so clearly remembered gauntlets of strength exisiting. But its true. The standard enhancers are all belts.
3.5 had gauntlets and belts for strength, gloves for dexterity, and amulets for constitution. PF turned all of them into belts (and all the mental ability enhancers into headbands, when they were previously headband for intelligence, cloak for charisma, and periapt/amulet for wisdom).
So, while in 3.5 you could wear separate +2 items to enhance all your ability scores at the same time (except constitution/wisdom), in PF you need either custom versions or the multiple-ability belts/headbands to do the same.
However, PF removed slot affinities, which means (RAW) you can make a cloak of agility, or an amulet of wisdom, or whatever without needing to pay extra.
(Adding a second effect to an item, though, that's still got the cost bonus)
Tilnar, while Ultimate Campaign has not reintroduced slot affinities it has basically stated that items which trend to a specific slot (ie: physical enhancement boosters being strength) should be left in that slot.
If there is a trend of all Core Rulebook items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.
- Gauss
Tilnar, while Ultimate Campaign has not reintroduced slot affinities it has basically stated that items which trend to a specific slot (ie: physical enhancement boosters being strength) should be left in that slot.
If there is a trend of all Core Rulebook items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.- Gauss
Screw that stupid and arbitrary yet unnecessarily restrictive design goal.
If my Wizard wants Eyeglasses of Intellect (taking the eye instead of headband slot) or if my bard wants a kimono of charisma (taking the body slot.) i should be allowed to use such an item
if my ranger wants gauntlets of strength (Hand Slot), bracers of dexterity (Arm Slot) and a tunic of constitution (Chest). she should be entitled to wear them.
in fact, limiting the slot affinities both screws anyone who doesn't use the big 6, ruins the concept of unique descriptions, and unneccessarily nerfs multiple attribute dependent martial characters compared to casters.
Wow. Yet another megaton kick in the groin to the martial classes, especially ones that need all three physical stats like the monk.
It's as infuriating and unforgivable as it is...totally expected, at this point. (>_<) :(
If my wizard wants to call my home-made 12HD outsider with _all_ the special abilities, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO.
If you note: It doesn't limit it. It says the GM should be hesitant to approve it. Due to cost-savings. Its basically a heads-up for newer GMs so that a crafty min-maxer doesn't just slip it past them.
It's a strike against classes that have MAD.
I distinctly remember one of the devs saying that they considered the consolidation of stat boosters to belt and headband to be an official improvement over 3E, because it saved slots.
They were naturally ignoring the fact that it increased COSTS. They wanted people to be able to put unique stuff on other slots. That's all well and good, but if you can't afford it, it's meaningless.
For wizards, if they have Int and Con, they are basically good to go...Dex is a luxury they can indulge later.
But a melee needs Str, Dex, Con...all 3 physical stats, with the result they are going to pay +33% more then if those stats were spread over 3 items/slots.
I much prefer the MIC solution...basic stat buffer, Nat Armor, Resistance items do NOT cost +50% more to put on items. Solved the slot and cash problem together, instead of trading one penalty for another.
==Aelryinth
If my wizard wants to call my home-made 12HD outsider with _all_ the special abilities, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO.
the items i mentioned are nowhere near as questionable as a 12HD outsider with all the special abilities.
most of them are based off existing 3.5 items or items from modules or adventure paths for PF, 3.5 3.0 or d20 period.
i see no such precedent for a home-made 12HD outsider with all the special abilities.
and in most campaigns i have experienced, the planar binding and planar ally lines are banned anyway, because they are a cheap loophole around the leadership ban that stacks with the feat.
now, if you wanted to bind a 0HD outsider with 12 class levels, i could see a case for that.
A "crafty min-maxer" DOESN'T PLAY A MAD CLASS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This hurts noncasters to a much much greater degree than it does casters, widening the imbalance, and completely reverts what was perfectly legal and allowed in core freaking 3E.
Personally, I like that I can get a CON bonus and a nat. armour bonus without begging the GM for custom items.
There aren't as many cool gloves, but Gloves of Dueling are nice.
Oh, and Sorcerers can wear Cloaks of Resistance now.
Personally, I like that I can get a CON bonus and a nat. armour bonus without begging the GM for custom items.
There aren't as many cool gloves, but Gloves of Dueling are nice.Oh, and Sorcerers can wear Cloaks of Resistance now.
3.5 there was also the vest of resistance, which was also core. allowing sorcerers to get a resistance bonus
but the CON bonus and Natural Armor bonus conflicting each other sucked
as Did the WIS/CON or STR/DEX bonus conflicting one another
but i think that instead of premade items, they should have been properties with a series of suggested slots to choose from. with option of unusual slots requiring DM approval.
Well, the vest of resistance wasn't core. It was in C.Arcane and later MIC. But 3E *did* have explicit allowance to stick more bonuses on the same item or putting it in the "wrong slot", both at 1.5x cost. Which gave some (costly) flexibility. You certainly didn't need to "beg" for "custom" items, that's complete hyperbole.
And then MIC came along and fixed the item situation completely, letting you always stack the "big 6" enhancements on an existing magic item for normal cost instead of 1.5, and allowing multiple potential "appropriate slots" for a given bonus like +Strength.
Well, the vest of resistance wasn't core. It was in C.Arcane and later MIC. But 3E *did* have explicit allowance to stick more bonuses on the same item or putting it in the "wrong slot", both at 1.5x cost. Which gave some (costly) flexibility. You certainly didn't need to "beg" for "custom" items, that's complete hyperbole.
And then MIC came along and fixed the item situation completely, letting you always stack the "big 6" enhancements on an existing magic item for normal cost instead of 1.5, and allowing multiple potential "appropriate slots" for a given bonus like +Strength.
even better than i remember.
You certainly didn't need to "beg" for "custom" items, that's complete hyperbole.
Custom items weren't any less solely GM discretion then than they are now.
Besides, if custom items aren't a problem your arguments are invalid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Yet another megaton kick in the groin to the martial classes, especially ones that need all three physical stats like the monk.
It's a strike against classes that have MAD.
Wow. Yet another repetition of "Oh woe is me, Paizo slaps melee classes in the face again, Paizo hates melee, shucks".
Isn't that getting a little old by now? Aren't you ready for some new material?
Especially when, in this case, you're dead wrong.
It's as infuriating and unforgivable as it is...totally expected, at this point. (>_<) :(
Yes, I can see how Paizo, making decisions for Paizo's game, is "unforgivable" for the way they make Paizo's game.
Seriously, it's not like they burned down your house or ate your babies or something.
Personally, I like that I can get a CON bonus and a nat. armour bonus without begging the GM for custom items.
There aren't as many cool gloves, but Gloves of Dueling are nice.Oh, and Sorcerers can wear Cloaks of Resistance now.
This is the real point. Right here.
Yeah, so what if it costs a bit extra? The freedom to reclaim those two extra slots and use them for different items is absolutely worth the cost.
What? Melee has to pay more than Casters for the same benefit? No, Melee gets more benefit because they improve more ability scores - just the fact that thy seem like they have to, doesn't mean it's not STILL A BENEFIT to have those higher scores.
Besides, every AP I've ever seen has about 2-3 TIMES more melee gear than caster gear in their treasure awards. That means that, occasionally, Melee characters find something they can use while Casters get stuck with junk they have to sell at half price to buy what they really want. I bet it balances out more or less even in the end, but the Melee guys still have better ability scores.
So no, this isn't the end of the world, Melee classes are not hated by the company that lovingly publishes, cares for, and nurtures the very game that you're all playing, and forum tantrums are just silly. Always.
If my wizard wants to call my home-made 12HD outsider with _all_ the special abilities, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO.the items i mentioned are nowhere near as questionable as a 12HD outsider with all the special abilities.
most of them are based off existing 3.5 items or items from modules or adventure paths for PF, 3.5 3.0 or d20 period.
i see no such precedent for a home-made 12HD outsider with all the special abilities.
That an item existed in another game doesn't mean jack, honestly. Just like you can't assume to be allowed to call 3.5 splatbook outsiders with planar binding.
That planar binding and/or leadership may be banned by a houserule is another thing completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Custom items are at a gm's discretion and that is a good thing. Our GM allows customized items as long as they follow the rules in the book. And if he does not allow one specific item, he will have his reasons.
He usually does not allow us to change slots for specific items
@Gauss: Is your quote from Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Campaign?
Turgan, my bad, I meant Ultimate Campaign. Ive typed Ultimate Combat so much that now I have to put a 'fork' in the typing process. :D
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having those slots open for toys means nothing if you don't have the money to actually put something there. Gaunts of dex and belts of str saves you 2k, occupies a slot you probably aren't going to have filled (gloves) AND leaves you 2k to buy 2 CLW wands.
And AP's having tons of useless melee stuff means nothing. It's just cash. Do you really think getting collections of +1 weapons at level 8 means ANYTHING to the melees in the party?
It's just money.
Whereas something that isn't denominated in +'s, like, oh, lesser metamagic rods, are useful even at level 20.
That's the reason you see +modifier stuff...which naturally includes armor and weapons that casters don't worry about. It's because the stuff is useless and only good for gold value.
==Aelryinth