In theory, you can put pretty much every enchantment on any type of item, as long as it makes sense.
If I remember correctly, such an item would have the same price as a +4 Dex belt plus a +2 Str belt added together.
If you apply the additional rule that any extra enchantment on the same item costs 1.5 times as much, 22,000 gp would indeed be correct.
Not quite. The second (least expensive) enchantment gets marked up 50%, as per the rules in the CRB under Magic Item Creation.
You will notice that a +2 STR belt costs 4,000 and a +2 DEX belt costs 4,000, but put them together in one belt and it does not cost 8,000 because the second one is marked up 50% from 4,000 to 6,000 for a total of 10,000gp.
You would do the same enchanting your belt. +4 DEX costs 16,000 and +2 STR costs 4,000 marked up to 6,000 so final cost is 16+6 = 22,000gp, as the OP thought it would be. If you got to 22,000 the same way I did, then you aren't quite as terrible at pricing out magic items as you thought.
Ah, well, this time all roads did lead to Rome. :)
I get 22,000 as well. 16,000 for the base effect of +4 Dex, 1.5x4,000 for the secondary effect.
Of course, this would be a custom magic item, so the answer is "ask your game master." But it seems a straightforward enough item to make and/or price.
Random Point, why does everyone assume the cost is based on the least expensive effect*1/2 and not the most or the first effect applied?
Because costs are generally based on the most cost-effective way to build the item. For the same reason we assume that wands of cure moderate wounds are crafted by clerics, not druids, when we price them out.
Random Point, why does everyone assume the cost is based on the least expensive effect*1/2 and not the most or the first effect applied?
Because it says so in the rulebook.
For multiple different abilities, you multiply lower item cost by 1.5.
Since no one has pointed it out, I just wanted to say that this would not be legal for Pathfinder Society play.
I generally allow it in home games myself - makes plain sense.
The table with all of the formulas specifically says to increase the lower-priced cost by 50%. However, the example given in the book does the opposite.
Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5
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.
The same problem existed in 3.5 as well. The example given does not match the table.
I'd still like a definitive clear answer on body slot rules.
In 3E, you could get str, dex, and con in belt, gloves, and amulet slot, respectively. All at the normal cost. Now PF has all physicals tied to the belt slot, which if it means you have to pay at minimum +50% on any physical stat boosts past the first is a huge nerf for martials, who always need 2 if not 3 physicals. Casters, meanwhile never really need 2 mentals and seldom need more than 2 physicals.
I'm sick of getting back and forth answers on it. Were the martials nerfed yet again or not?
The table with all of the formulas specifically says to increase the lower-priced cost by 50%. However, the example given in the book does the opposite.
Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5If 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.The same problem existed in 3.5 as well. The example given does not match the table.
The "list price" of the item is the lowest possible price for the item, hence the lowest cost one is the one that gets the multiplier.
Which would you rather buy, a 22,000 gp belt or an identical belt that costs 28,000? And if you're commissioning an item from scratch (or buying it off-the-rack at Spel*Mart) it was built as cheaply as possible to minimize time and maximize saleability.
But if you have an existing item that you need to update -- if, for example, you need to upgrade an existing +2 Str belt by adding a +4 Dex enhancement -- the GM is within her rights to proclaim that the new enchantment is the one that gets the 50% markup, even if it's the more expensive one.
I'd still like a definitive clear answer on body slot rules.
In 3E, you could get str, dex, and con in belt, gloves, and amulet slot, respectively. All at the normal cost. Now PF has all physicals tied to the belt slot, which if it means you have to pay at minimum +50% on any physical stat boosts past the first is a huge nerf for martials, who always need 2 if not 3 physicals. Casters, meanwhile never really need 2 mentals and seldom need more than 2 physicals.
I'm sick of getting back and forth answers on it. Were the martials nerfed yet again or not?
There are no body slot affinities in Pathfinder. You could have Goggles of Strength +2, and it would cost exactly the same as a Belt of Strength +2. Its just that by default, all physical stat-boosting items are belts.
Has a designer ever said that? It seems wildly unclear just looking at the prd.
Has a designer ever said that? It seems wildly unclear just looking at the prd.
It doesn't need to be said. Its not in the rules. The only reason it worked like that in 3.5 is because the rules specifically said so.
I've had several PF DMs -- *not PFS* -- tell me belt is the only slot for physical boosts and if I want to put dex +2 elsewhere, for example, I need to pay more.
So I do in fact think it needs to be said. Because those DMs were convinced that was the RAW, and weren't just doing it to screw me over, so a designer point blank saying you can get them at normal price in any slot would be very helpful.
EDIT: And now that I think about it... I don't recall a single PF DM I've yet had that thought what you say is "RAW." All the ones that allowed physical stats in other slots did so as a "houserule," they thought they were altering the rules by doing so.
|
Ok, I must be blind because I can find no spot where it says "Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5"
Instead I see it saying:
"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."
but I understand what people are saying. Though I could see a GM within his rights to say that it is ALWAYS the cost of the most expensive enchantment that it multiplied.
Ok, I must be blind because I can find no spot where it says "Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5"
Instead I see it saying:
"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."but I understand what people are saying. Though I could see a GM within his rights to say that it is ALWAYS the cost of the most expensive enchantment that it multiplied.
Its on the table called "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Value" found here. Near the bottom of the table, under the heading "Special". The table is also found on page 550 of the core rulebook.
Ok, I must be blind because I can find no spot where it says "Multiple different abilities Multiply lower item cost by 1.5"
It also says "Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of the lowest possible level can make it for. Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item."
So while it's not explicit that the cheapest enchantment is the one that is multiplied, there does seem to be a general principle that the lowest value is the one listed in the book.
Of course, this causes all sorts of issues with the side casters like paladin, ranger, and summoner, which often get spells at lower "caster" levels than clerics and wizards, respectively. Lesser Restoration is a good example; as a first level spell it's 750gp for the wand, or 4000gp for the second level cleric or druid spell. Frankly, I'd love to be able to browbeat my game master into letting me have LR at a first level wand price, but so far, my entreaties have fallen on deaf ears.
I've had several PF DMs -- *not PFS* -- tell me belt is the only slot for physical boosts and if I want to put dex +2 elsewhere, for example, I need to pay more.
So I do in fact think it needs to be said. Because those DMs were convinced that was the RAW, and weren't just doing it to screw me over, so a designer point blank saying you can get them at normal price in any slot would be very helpful.
EDIT: And now that I think about it... I don't recall a single PF DM I've yet had that thought what you say is "RAW." All the ones that allowed physical stats in other slots did so as a "houserule," they thought they were altering the rules by doing so.
Well, RAW technically doesn't include custom items at all....
Frankly, I'd love to be able to browbeat my game master into letting me have LR at a first level wand price, but so far, my entreaties have fallen on deaf ears.I would say if you could find a paladin NPC with the create wands feat, you could certainly have him craft you a wand of Lesser Restoration and it would only cost him 375g in materials. Otherwise it is assumed that all magical items are crafted by characters at the lowest possible character level and whatever the corresponding caster level is.
Your problem is that your DM controls what NPCs you'll run into and he almost certainly will not let you meet such a paladin as I described.
"Table: Wands gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level of such spells depends on the caster crafting the wand."
You absolutely should be able to purchase a paladin crafted Lesser Restoration wand for 750gp. If you go to a small town or larger, you should get a 75% chance of successfully finding one for sale.
"Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community."
"Table: Available Magic Items
Community Size Base Value Minor Medium Major
Thorp 50 gp 1d4 item — —
Hamlet 200 gp 1d6 item — —
Village 500 gp 2d4 item 1d4item—
Small town 1,000 gp 3d4 item 1d6item—"
Frankly, I'd love to be able to browbeat my game master into letting me have LR at a first level wand price, but so far, my entreaties have fallen on deaf ears.I would say if you could find a paladin NPC with the create wands feat, you could certainly have him craft you a wand of Lesser Restoration and it would only cost him 375g in materials. Otherwise it is assumed that all magical items are crafted by characters at the lowest possible character level and whatever the corresponding caster level is.
Your problem is that your DM controls what NPCs you'll run into and he almost certainly will not let you meet such a paladin as I described.
"Table: Wands gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level of such spells depends on the caster crafting the wand."
You absolutely should be able to purchase a paladin crafted Lesser Restoration wand for 750gp. If you go to a small town or larger, you should get a 75% chance of successfully finding one for sale.
"Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community."
"Table: Available Magic Items
Community Size Base Value Minor Medium Major
Thorp 50 gp 1d4 item — —
Hamlet 200 gp 1d6 item — —
Village 500 gp 2d4 item 1d4item—
Small town 1,000 gp 3d4 item 1d6item—"
Interestingly enough, the same wand crafted by a Cleric could not be found in such a town despite the Cleric created wands are far more common.
Does your GM allow wands of any Paladin only spells? If so, he has already shown paladins in his game have craft wand.
Also, I disagree that cleric crafted wands are "far more common". As far as I know, neither paladin nor cleric classes get craft wand as a bonus feat or bonuses to wand crafting for any reason. Therefore they are equally as likely to exist.
Are you 100% certain this is not PFS legal? Because this was going to be for a ranged inquisitor I play in PFS that already has an adaptive composite longbow +1. I was about to buy him a +2 BoIP. Later on I was going to upgrade it to a +4 BoIP (which I know is legal) and then eventually I was going to add +2 Str to it.Since no one has pointed it out, I just wanted to say that this would not be legal for Pathfinder Society play.
I generally allow it in home games myself - makes plain sense.
As far as I am aware, PFS doesn't allow any custom magic items. So unless it appears in a Pathfinder book somewhere, it doesn't exist.
If a paladin/ranger/etc crafted a wand of a spell that also existed as a higher-level cleric/etc spell, shouldn't that paladin try to maximize profit by selling the wand at a price closer to that of the cleric wand?
"So, I've created this wand of lesser restoration. Hmm, what should I charge for it? 750 sounds good.. hey, wait a minute, I remember seeing one of these for sale at 4,500 the other day".
Actually, thinking about it further, I think that cleric-crafted wands of lesser restoration should be a rarity. Why would any cleric spend more than 2,000 gp creating such a wand, when they would never be able to sell it because the local paladin sells them at 750 gp :)
I've had several PF DMs -- *not PFS* -- tell me belt is the only slot for physical boosts and if I want to put dex +2 elsewhere, for example, I need to pay more.
So I do in fact think it needs to be said. Because those DMs were convinced that was the RAW, and weren't just doing it to screw me over, so a designer point blank saying you can get them at normal price in any slot would be very helpful.
EDIT: And now that I think about it... I don't recall a single PF DM I've yet had that thought what you say is "RAW." All the ones that allowed physical stats in other slots did so as a "houserule," they thought they were altering the rules by doing so.
Custom items are always up to the DM - any custom items can be seen as kind of a houserule in itself, though there are guidelines for creating them (just like for monsters).
Regardless, while there aren't any rules on it (there's very little rules on item creation at all; mostly guidelines), most DM's prefer if custom items are as close as possible to core items and will generally encourage those who want to design custom items to keep the bonuses in the same slots they are in core.
So it's not so much law as it is a norm.
Does your GM allow wands of any Paladin only spells? If so, he has already shown paladins in his game have craft wand.
Also, I disagree that cleric crafted wands are "far more common". As far as I know, neither paladin nor cleric classes get craft wand as a bonus feat or bonuses to wand crafting for any reason. Therefore they are equally as likely to exist.
Clerics can craft wands at lv 5, Paladins not until lv 8.
Since Lv5 Clerics are far more common than lv 8 Paladins, it stands to reason Cleric wands are also more common.
Does your GM allow wands of any Paladin only spells? If so, he has already shown paladins in his game have craft wand.
Also, I disagree that cleric crafted wands are "far more common". As far as I know, neither paladin nor cleric classes get craft wand as a bonus feat or bonuses to wand crafting for any reason. Therefore they are equally as likely to exist.
Clerics can craft wands at lv 5, Paladins not until lv 8.
Since Lv5 Clerics are far more common than lv 8 Paladins, it stands to reason Cleric wands are also more common.
It takes a cleric 3 days to make the wand of lesser restoration, but the paladin only 1 day. As long as there are at least 1/3rd as many 8th level paladins as there are 5th level clerics, they should be equally available.
It takes a cleric 3 days to make the wand of lesser restoration, but the paladin only 1 day. As long as there are at least 1/3rd as many 8th level paladins as there are 5th level clerics, they should be equally available.Does your GM allow wands of any Paladin only spells? If so, he has already shown paladins in his game have craft wand.
Also, I disagree that cleric crafted wands are "far more common". As far as I know, neither paladin nor cleric classes get craft wand as a bonus feat or bonuses to wand crafting for any reason. Therefore they are equally as likely to exist.
Clerics can craft wands at lv 5, Paladins not until lv 8.
Since Lv5 Clerics are far more common than lv 8 Paladins, it stands to reason Cleric wands are also more common.
Provided both crafters crank out wands 24/7, yes. However, if they only make 1 wand or less per week (which would still easily afford them extravagant lifestyles), then the Paladin crafters have no advantage.
They've basically said that all wand pricing, costs and construction are based on the spells from the primary casting lists.
So a Paladin making a wand of lesser restoration makes it exactly like a cleric's wand, he doesn't get freebies just because it's a lower level spell. All such wands are exactly the same.
Wasn't it covered in their big book of magic recently? I can remember the multiple shout outs on it.
==Aelryinth
They've basically said that all wand pricing, costs and construction are based on the spells from the primary casting lists.
So a Paladin making a wand of lesser restoration makes it exactly like a cleric's wand, he doesn't get freebies just because it's a lower level spell. All such wands are exactly the same.
Wasn't it covered in their big book of magic recently? I can remember the multiple shout outs on it.
==Aelryinth
Who has? Where?
From the Magic Item Wands section in the PRD:
"A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower. A wand has 50 charges when created—each charge allows the use of the wand's spell one time. A wand that runs out of charges is just a stick. The price of a wand is equal to the level of the spell × the creator's caster level × 750 gp. If the wand has a material component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create once for each charge (50 × material component cost). Table: Wands gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level of such spells depends on the caster crafting the wand."
Are you saying it is possible to buy a Wand of Challenge Evil crafted by a Paladin for 750gp, but you cannot buy a Wand of Lesser Restoration crafted by the same Paladin for 750gp?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if Challenge Evil is a paladin only spell, sure, price it like it is.
But if it's a spell on a primary caster list, it's priced at the lowest primary caster level (i.e. cure spells at cleric level vs druid).
What was the big magic item book they just put out? The ruling was in there. I remember people talking about it, I just don't own it.
This is a good rule, btw. It stops all sorts of 'rob the spell list' imperatives that 3.5 had, and enforces the idea that everyone makes certian magic items the same way.
==Aelryinth
a paladin is the lowest available caster level and spell level. so a wand of lesser restoration is 750 GP to purchase or 375 to craft. except in PFS or with a similarly houseruled campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelryinth : I believe it is in PFS that you must use the "base class" wand cost (i.e. the cleric cost for Lesser restoration wand instead of the Paladin one).
To be fair, I would say that pretty no Paladin will actually take craft wands, and so it will actually never be available. But if a Paladin PC take it, I would allow it by the standard rules.
The stat boosters in the core book are HEAVILY favored towards casters, who only need their one mental stat high as fast as possible. It punishes noncasters, who will basically always want 2 if not all 3 physical stats boosted, but thanks to the belt have to pay 1.5x the cost on the 2nd stat and aren't allowed to "stagger" the upgrades (ie, at a given level have +4 str, but only +2 con) at all to make them affordable earlier. Instead you have to save up, wait another level or 2, and buy it all en masse. That you could do so in 3E is what makes it especially heinous and insulting. Only allowing the core PF stat boosters is a straight up nerf to noncasters.
But, we wouldn't want to "unbalance" things by letting them do what they could in 3E, would we? The major complaint of 3E was that fighters and monks were overpowered, after all.
The stat boosters in the core book are HEAVILY favored towards casters, who only need their one mental stat high as fast as possible. It punishes noncasters, who will basically always want 2 if not all 3 physical stats boosted, but thanks to the belt have to pay 1.5x the cost on the 2nd stat and aren't allowed to "stagger" the upgrades (ie, at a given level have +4 str, but only +2 con) at all to make them affordable earlier. Instead you have to save up, wait another level or 2, and buy it all en masse. That you could do so in 3E is what makes it especially heinous and insulting. Only allowing the core PF stat boosters is a straight up nerf to noncasters.
Well... A nerf compared to 3.x maybe - disallowing custom items are hardly a nerf compared to the default assumptions.
That said, I agree with what the balance consequences are.
Probably because paizo will never give an actual rules answer on the issue.
Well, I was just being snarky. I can't tell if you are sincerely asking that or being snarky yourself, but if the latter... well played, sir.
The stat boosters in the core book are HEAVILY favored towards casters, who only need their one mental stat high as fast as possible. It punishes noncasters, who will basically always want 2 if not all 3 physical stats boosted, but thanks to the belt have to pay 1.5x the cost on the 2nd stat and aren't allowed to "stagger" the upgrades (ie, at a given level have +4 str, but only +2 con) at all to make them affordable earlier. Instead you have to save up, wait another level or 2, and buy it all en masse. That you could do so in 3E is what makes it especially heinous and insulting. Only allowing the core PF stat boosters is a straight up nerf to noncasters.
But, we wouldn't want to "unbalance" things by letting them do what they could in 3E, would we? The major complaint of 3E was that fighters and monks were overpowered, after all.
The pricing of stat boosters exactly follows the formula: most expensive item +1.5 cost +1.5 cost. As there are rules in the book for adding second and third magic abilites, I see no reason why an upgrade of a belt strength +4 to a belt of strength +4, dexterity +2 should not be possible by the rules, because a ring of evasion and deflection clearly is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turgan: You may want to note that the custom item creation guidelines are meant for the DM, just like the monster creation guidelines are. Just like a player can't assume to get to make up a 12HD outsider of her own to call with planar binding, a player can't assume to get to make up an item of her own