The formulas in the games book make clear logical sense to me, but they don’t add up with existing items in the game, and that’s what (imo) makes or breaks a magic item within the entire context of the games overall balance. If they all used the same formula, they would all be appropriately priced when compared with one another. But they’re not; some are apparently priced based on the “sweet spot” for selling them. In the real world, that’s a sure fire way to go out of business; why should it be any different in an RPG game that is designed to “mimic” reality? EVERYTHING has a fixed cost to create it, in any universe, and that fixed cost establishes its relative cost when compared to other items in that universe.
From a purely simulationist perspective, this is wrong because of the abstract nature of magic item construction and the costs. No one knows what "actually" goes into forging a ring, because that's unspecified. In earlier editions of the game, if you wanted to make a magic item, the Dungeon Master was explicitly encouraged to send you on a series of fetch quests to get the components -- dragon's blood, harpy's tears, eye of a giant newt -- which you then put together in a complex ritual to get what you wanted. That has been abstracted away so now it just costs materials worth so-many gold pieces, which is more convenient for the players.
However, it also hides a multitude of potential problems. If there's a particular item that costs more than the formula says, a GM can handwave that away by suggesting there's a particularly rare ingredient you need for that item. Sure, there's a fixed cost to making the Ring of Awesome, and it happens to be higher than the cost of the Ring of Adequate, because the Ring of Awesome needs titan's toenails and the Ring of Adequate doesn't.
Of course, the real reason for this is because this is a game, not a simulation. But don't assume that just because two things are similar, they are identical. A simple real-world example: Jello with fruit slices. For some reason, you can't make jello with pineapple the way you would make jello with orange slices. Once you understand why that's the case, you'll understand why a Ring of Pineapple might cost more than a Ring of Orange....
|
Lead blades is a first level ranger spell requiring a 4th level ranger.
(Assuming you guys are right and the base formula gives unlimited use)(4 X 1 X 1800gp) = 7200gp
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
What matter is caster level, not character level.
ok, maybe "mimic" is too strong of a word for what a roll playing game is...perhaps "bring to life" is the better word? that phrase is used a lot in the core rule book, page 8 and page 410 to mention two locations. but if we are not trying, in a game way, to simulate real stuff "stuff" why do we even have things like skill checks? if I want to jump a pit, why cant I just say I jumped the pit...even if that pit is 100 feet across?
Your premise is wrong. This game isn't designed, has never been designed, to "mimic reality" in any real sense, neither in physics, nor in economics. It's designed to be an enabler for Action Adventure and roleplaying stories, all other considerations are a distant second at best. Above all it's designed to be a GAME. If you're looking for heuristic simulations of a real economy or ecology, you're seriously barking up some wrong trees.
To provide for the possibility of failure, of course. Games where you never succeed are boring, but so are games where you never fail. The point of the die roll is to provide an element of randomness and unpredictability, which creates tension when characters fail to accomplish their goals directly and heightens suspense via the possibility of complete failure.
The numbers are there to provide a method of scaling capacities. The things that were difficult THEN are easy NOW and the things that were impossible THEN are merely difficult NOW. Magic items provide some method of increasing this capacity -- a first level character with a +5 weapon probably has close to four times the expected combat capacity as measured in damage per round as a character with normal starting equipment.
The gold piece values simply measure the approximate worth in terms of capacity increase on a somewhat ad hoc scale developed over the past thirty years to provide a fun experience in the opinions of the game designers (influenced of course by their interactions with the community -- when everyone complains about how a particular 2nd edition exploit is "broken," even if that wasn't errata'ed away, it would influence the design of 3rd ed.) A +5 weapon is awesomely powerful and should be accordingly expensive.
... which is why True Strike at will, an effective +20 to hit, is overpowered as an at-will magic item. Indeed, Personal range spells in general are often overpowered precisely because the range is a significant limitation. That +20 to hit can turn a wizard (momentarily) into a fighter. It would turn a fighter into a god, but the fighter generally can't use that spell because the wizard can't cast it on someone else.
But from a narrative perspective, allowing that kind of bonus on a regular basis would make the game less fun. Misses would be a thing of the past.
your right, all those variable you mentioned will change the cost to construct a concrete slab, and rather than delve into all the boring details of those tiny details...why not clean the formula up into some key things...like "type of magic item"...ie. ring, wands, potions, etc, all have base costs. no you want a ring based on a spell with a 24 hour duration or based on s spell with a 1mi/lelel duration...then the variable is adjusted. or based on a continues use or trigger. etc. etc.
If you do that, you're oversimplifying. The difference between Personal and Touch spells, for example, is substantial -- a wizard can cast Touch spells on his companions, so everyone can get them, but can only cast Personal spells on himself. To see this in action, imagine a hypothetical Personal-range Lesser Restoration spell that cures exactly as many points as a LR, but can only be cast at Personal range. Would any cleric take it in preference to vanilla LR? However, if it cured twice as much, then the increased power MIGHT make it a viable competitor.
my point is, those variable can be quantified using numbers and categories that are broad reaching and over arching in order keep the matter simple and fun. no one wants to count all the nails that one needs to build a tree house, they just want to build the tree house so they just guess...I need 300 nails...but they still quantify what they need, its just streamlined into one factor.
Yes, but they streamline incorrectly.
the existing chart already does this, its just not being used...as made obvious by the fact that not all item values calc up correctly when using the chart. SO...why even have the dang chart? why not just guess?
Because the chart provides guidance to help the GM make an intelligent guess that will support a fun game. And the chart is explicitly only to be used if there's no better information available (such as a similar item). If you want a constant +4 armor bonus, that costs roughly as Bracers of Armor, not as a continuous effect level 1 spell, even though there's a level 1 spell that gives you a +4 armor bonus.
|
|
So nice of you to presume so with nothing to validate your stance.
At will abilities mean you can use them with no verbal or somatic component. You can do it AT WILL.
Wrong. You can use at many times in a day as you wish, but the activation method of the ability varies.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A constant spell-like ability or one that can be used at will has no use limit; unless otherwise stated, a creature can only use a constant spell-like ability on itself. Reactivating a constant spell-like ability is a swift action. Using all other spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Just to add another example of "at will" that isn't a move action but a standard action:
(D) Dismissible: If the duration line ends with “(D),” you can dismiss the spell at will. You must be within range of the spell's effect and must speak words of dismissal, which are usually a modified form of the spell's verbal component. If the spell has no verbal component, you can dismiss the effect with a gesture. Dismissing a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
You assume something on the basis of the paladin ability, you have something more?
The game also lists many abilities usable at will that require no action to activate. His argument is that at will abilities still require a standard action. The books say otherwise.
My argument is that the basic assumption, as Majuba as proved to you, is that activating a "at will" ability require a standard action, when it require a different kind of action it is specified, like in the paladin ability.
Your post instead stated an "at will" ability require no action to perform it or, on the basis of the paladin ability, that it require a move action.Further citation, magic item chapter:
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
|
|
So, I think a main reason why I don’t see this the same as other is because I see that there are two approaches for creating magic items; one approach is from the perspective of the DM and the other approach is from the perspective of a PC/NPC.
The DM is looking at the creation of magic items from the outside of the game; as a god capable of creating anything.
The PC/NPC is looking at the creation of magic items from inside the game; a being restricted by the laws of the game.
On one hand, they both have to follow game rules, and yet at the same time, the DM potentially has the power to do what they wish; regardless of the games rules. And in my opinion, it’s when a DM steps outside of the games rules to create what they want to that creates things that don’t work well in the game.
I’ll try to explain:
Let’s say we want to create a magic ring.
The first thing that both the PC/NPC and the DM look at is the item type…a ring.
The rules of the game…and I quote…define a ring as….RINGS
Rings bestow magical powers upon their wearers. Only a rare few have charges—most magic rings are permanent and potent magic items. Anyone can use a ring.A character can only effectively wear two magic rings. A third magic ring doesn’t work if the wearer is already wearing two magic rings.
Physical Description: Rings have no appreciable weight. Although exceptions exist that are crafted from glass or bone, the vast majority of rings are forged from metal—usually precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum. A ring has AC 13, 2 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 25.
Activation: A ring’s ability is usually activated by a spoken command word (a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity) or its effects work continually. Some rings have unusual activations, as mentioned in the ring’s specific description.
Special Qualities: Roll d%. A result of 01 indicates the ring is intelligent, 02–31 indicates that something (a design, inscription, or the like) provides a clue to...
Rule 0
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
|
|
so...what your saying is...not all spells of the same level are equal? I see your point and at the same time...I don't see your point. if a spell is listed as a 3rd level...its a 3rd level spell. period. if its stronger or weaker then other third level spells...then its not a 3rd level spell and should be adjusted up or down in levels until it fits into that "sweet spot" for how it plays...but then...its still equal to other spells of that level. so spell level is the equalizing factor of some spells...regardless of "perceived" value of those spells. and yet, with all the variables and potential uses and outcomes of each spell, how do we really know if one spell is an equal spell when compared to another spell? fact is, we don't know and never will be able to know because there are just too many variables...SO....a simple game mechanic is to assign a spell level to them. simple. clean. clear. too many variables (imo) to start comparing if a 5th level spell equals other 5th level spells...unless you sub categorize them and have spells that are level 5.5 or 5.4 or 5.3 or 5.9. KISS...a spell of level x is equivalent in "power" to other spells in the same level.
Not all spell are equal, some 1st level spell power is 0.75, some is 1.5, both still within the 1 range.
But, when you put them into a item that change.Let's return to lead blades. In the hand of a ranger it has a level of power. If you put it in the hand of a pouncing barbarian that power change. Part of the spell balancing is done around who can cast it or what cost it will have to get it if your class will not give the spell to you.
look the potions: you can't make potions of spells whit a target of your or personal range. Why? Because those spells are balanced around the limitation of giving them only to specific spellcasting classes.
You give them to completely different classes and the balance change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your right, all those variable you mentioned will change the cost to construct a concrete slab, and rather than delve into all the boring details of those tiny details...why not clean the formula up into some key things...like "type of magic item"...ie. ring, wands, potions, etc, all have base costs. no you want a ring based on a spell with a 24 hour duration or based on s spell with a 1mi/lelel duration...then the variable is adjusted. or based on a continues use or trigger. or based on a 5th level spell cast by a 9 the level PC, etc. etc. the specifications are giving in the prerquisites; potion, simple tiem, level 3 spell, low level, level 5 caster, mid level, duration, 24 hour, simpler than duration of 1 min/level fo caster., etc, etc.
my point is, those variable can be quantified using numbers and categories that are broad reaching and over arching in order to keep the matter simple and fun. no one wants to count all the nails that one needs to build a tree house, they just want to build the tree house so they just guess...I need 300 nails...but they still quantify what they need, its just streamlined into one factor. the existing chart already does this, its just not being used...as made obvious by the fact that not all item values calc up correctly when using the chart. SO...why even have the dang chart? why not just guess in the first place?
It all depend on the level of granularity you want. If you want that level of precision, you don't play D&D/Pathfinder, you play Traveller and use Fire, Fusion and Steel to build your stuff, from flintlock rifles to contragraw tanks with fusion guns.
While I love Traveller background, calculating the muzzle velocity of a projectile and how many joules it deliver on target to generate the weapon stats is a bit above what I am willing to do to play.GURPS is another game with that kind of definition. with the magic supplement you craft a magic item from the ground up, paying advantages, disadvantages, perks and so on.
The end result is way more precise in price and power than what we can produce in Pathfinder. On the other hand it cost way more time to create an item characteristics and almost every magic item is something unique.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems is that equal level spells don't have the same power.
Spells with a target of "you" or a range of "personal" generally are more powerful than spells of the same level that you can cast on another person.
Spell limited to a specific class list can be more powerful than spells that are open to all the classes.so...what your saying is...not all spells of the same level are equal? I see your point and at the same time...I don't see your point. if a spell is listed as a 3rd level...its a 3rd level spell. period. if its stronger or weaker then other third level spells...then its not a 3rd level spell and should be adjusted up or down in levels until it fits into that "sweet spot" for how it plays...but then...its still equal to other spells of that level. so spell level is the equalizing factor of some spells...
I think this is the key insight you're missing. "Spell level is the equalizing factor....." No. Spell level is AN equalizing factor, but not the only one. Range, casting time, duration, class availability, components (and component costs) are all equalizing factors as well.
Making a magic item tends to neutralize these factors. Only a paladin can cast a paladin-only spell, so only a paladin can be the subject of a paladin-only spell of Personal range. Anyone, though, can drink a potion, wear a belt, or light a candle. A spell that doubled your caster level would be useful to a paladin, but probably overpowering in the hands of a sorcerer. Availability is a key equalizing factor in this hypothetical spell.
@Majuba
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself.
Command words are standard actions, yes. Don't confuse "assume" a command word and "it is" a command word.
So nice of you to presume so with nothing to validate your stance.
At will abilities mean you can use them with no verbal or somatic component. You can do it AT WILL.
Wrong. You can use at many times in a day as you wish, but the activation method of the ability varies.
"At will" can mean use activate or command word activated. Either way it is a standard action unless otherwise stated. Only spells have "components".
A spell may or may not be equal to another spell as a spell, but putting it into a magic item which allows you to change the duration and who can use the spell changes the power of the spell so not all spells of an equal level are equal. That means you(the GM) will have to ad-hoc the price. With that aside spells are not created with the idea of magic items in mind. When you create the magic item you have to consider the usability of the spell to determine the price, assuming the item even directly mimics a spell.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm not trying to be difficult ... abstract thing when its based off of prerequisites that are fixed numbers
See that is the confusion. Cost (and by extension Market Price) are not based off fixed numbers. The price is an abstract thing based on power and other similar items. If you can find no similar item and no other item of similar power level, then you can jump to the chart and use the fixed numbers.
WILLING to pay for an item not the actual construction cost of it.
the construction cost should be simple to figure out
Yes, simple. Market Price is twice construction cost.
30 years of evolution and the question of if a spell with a duration of instant can or can not be made into a magic item isn't crystal clear?
The reason it isn't clear is in the 30 years we learned that all spells are not equal. So without a chart of cost per spell, the answer is more art than science.
At will abilities mean you can use them with no verbal or somatic component. You can do it AT WILL.
"At will" is one of those phrases that we all know the meaning, but is not clearly written in PF. It was defined in 3.5, but the only reference I know in PF is this in the B1 on page 304:
"one that can be used at will has no use limit"At will means "an unlimited number of times a day" and nothing more. It doesn't specify the way it can be used or the effect of a use. So it has nothing to do with V or S components.
The game also lists many abilities usable at will that require no action to activate. His argument is that at will abilities still require a standard action. The books say otherwise.
Su, Sp, and Ex all require Standard actions unless otherwise specified. Please cite what you mean by "not standard by default."
Some from the CRB:@Cevah
There's nothing to cite. It's drawn directly from the table. Including the listed example of the cape of the mountebank.
What are some of the other items that are command word unlimited times per day?
- Boots of Levitation
- Glove of Storing
- Helm of Underwater Action
- Rope of Climbing
- Rope of Entanglement
- Stone of Alarm
- Wings of Flying
- Ring of Blinking
- Ring of Animal Friendship
- Ring of Friend Shield
- Ring of Telekinesis
- Ring of X-Ray Vision
The pricing is based on full caster spell lists if it exists on a full casters list.Not true:
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.
Early entry casters set market price. Regular entry casters spend more to make items for the same sale price.
I will agree that while both Summoners and Wizards get the spell at 7th level, it can be argued for one caster's cost rather than another, but since the Summoner can do it for less, why would you pay a Wizard? No one I play with would use the more expensive version.
The caster level of a 3rd level spell for a summoner is 7 not 9 which would have the price at 7560gp.
(3X7X1800) / (5/1)
The CL of the Cape of the Mountebank is 9, not 7. You don't use the minimum possible, but the CL of the item.
The rules state that if you can achieve an item cheaper using another class you still use the listed price. Otherwise some classes can break markets to make money. Summoner pays half the 7560 then sells for half the 10800 and profits. This is not RAI or RAW.
Actually, the rules DO say use the lowest. See above quote from p549. Spell casters have been breaking markets from first edition. Blood Money and False Focus have been common ways to do so in PF.
A cape of the mountebank is not a continuous item with limited charges. You're not continually under the effects of dimension door with limited uses. You have limited uses that are instantaneous.
Nor did I say it was. I said the price fits the "limited charge continuous" model and not the "on command" pricing model.
True strike on command is still not overpowered. It requires a standard action to activate it. The action economy is very bad and not conducive to using it all the time. You'll use it if you need a certain swing to hit much like casting the spell as a wizard. It's only a one swing +20 bonus. This is also why it's not comparable to a +20 enhancement bonus. It's comparable to a command use first level spell.
Considering that it is specifically called out in Ultimate Campaign[?] as being way overpowered, I will side with it being overpowered. Even with the every other round usage.
I was wrong with the wording in the CRB but I'm sure I saw an official response to this in another thread I've been in on magic item crafting years ago saying classes like summoner can't make items cheaper.
Got a link? Also, Paladins, Rangers, and Bards get some stuff early. That is CRB, so it is RAW.
when you say "found the sweet spot" I presume you mean found the ideal price that players (PCs) are WILLING to pay for an item not the actual construction cost of it.
Some define "Sweet" as 50% think it costs too little and 50% think it costs too much. The definition I go with is "Is it a difficult choice for a PC to spend money on X vs. Y" where both are reasonable choices for the PC. If "X" is a no-brainer that everyone uses, then it is under priced. If "X" is never used, then it is over priced.
the construction cost should be simple to figure out since most, if not all magic items, are based off of spell levels and caster levels and types of items. If a spell exists, it has already been incorporated into he game at a certain level of difficulty. so, again, if you want a simple item (a potion) made from a simple low level spell, created by a low level caster it will be calculated to a simple low cost that is comparable to other simple low level potions. And, if you want a very difficult to create magic item (say a wondrous item) made from a high level spell, cast by a high level spell caster, the cost by default, is a high cost item....regardless of the price you might want to pay for it. when you compare the cost of those two things, simple low level potions, to difficult high level wondrous items, the costs will be proportionality comparable...balanced off of mechanics instead of play whim...i.e. "what I want to pay for it".
Would that were true. Problem is that most wondrous items do not mimic a spell. Most are similar to a spell, but have some change. Some have almost no spell that matches. For example, a Ring of Evasion gives Evasion, yet no spell does. As to whim, if no-one will buy, the market causes the price to drop. If everyone will buy, then the market will cause the price to rise. Ring of invisibility should be 2*3*2000*2=24000, but it is only 20000. This is a price adjustment based on desirability vs. other stuff in that price range.
wow, 30 years of evolution and the question of if a spell with a duration of instant can or can not be made into a magic item isn't crystal clear?
30 years, yes. Formulas did not occur until 3.0 came out. My take? Instant spells cannot be made continuous. It can be made on command.
BTW, before you get surprised while playing: A ring of invisibility cast invisibility, as the spell, 3 minutes duration,then you need to cast it again. It is not a constant item, it is a item with a unlimited number of daily uses.
Not sure how you get this. The ring does NOT cast the spell.
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
I don't see a time limit here.
Lead blades is a first level ranger spell requiring a 4th level ranger. (Assuming you guys are right and the base formula gives unlimited use)
(4 X 1 X 1800gp) = 7200gp
Actually, a 4th level Ranger has a caster level of 1, not 4, so the cost is:
1 * 1 * 1800gp = 1800gp.The game also lists many abilities usable at will that require no action to activate. His argument is that at will abilities still require a standard action. The books say otherwise.
Actually, it sais:
The four ways to activate magic items are described below.
Spell Completion: ...
Spell Trigger: ...
Command Word: ...
Use Activated: ...
"At Will" is not an activation method. Since it is not continuous, some form of activation is required. The default is Command Word with a standard action.
/cevah
Actually builder chris, I don't think the price of any commercially marketed object in the real world is based on how much it costs to make it. Instead they figure out the sweet spot of what people will pay for it and if that is less than the total cost of production, distribution, retail and marketing then the object is never produced and put on the market.
Wall of wordsAh yes, here we go.Cheapy has better search fu than me.
SKR on why new classes that gain access to spells earlier don't change anything. Stops new classes with early access from setting market prices. That was all I argued. Nothing about any material in the CRB that the game started with.
SKR said "Energy resistance costs what it should cost based on how powerful the ability is, not at what level some weird new class or race gets it." The weird new class is Ranger. He is reffering to pricing based on effect and not spell level. Just like an item of continuous Mage Armor spell should be priced on AC and not as a spell. This is a suggestion, and not a FAQ or Erata. Given how many early entry spells are in the CRB, why is there not a rule for how to select the caster? It may be RAI according to SKR, but it is not RAW. In the Rules forum, RAW wins.
Using CL 9 still doesn't help your argument on this price. This would also destroy the argument for the hand of the Mage and thought medallion. Probably many of the other items listed in the CRB as well.
It is RAW:
The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level).
Yes, many items in the books do not follow the formulas. That makes them hard (or impossible) to reverse engineer the calculations. That is why the formulas are the *last* step, not the first.
Cape of the Mountebank is listed directly in the Command Word formula as the example. Why use the other formula instead of trying to reverse engineer the one listed to figure out how the designers made this? Just cause you can make it work with another formula doesn't make it right.
I am saying that the formula's example clearly does not use the formula.
Got a quote for the true strike item being way too overpowered? Round one you use your true strike item. Round one for BBEG he turns you into a sheep. Asserting the price should be around 400,000gp is ludicrous. That's the cost for a +14 sword full time if it could exist. Not one swing a round after burning your standard action the round before. If making this item was overpowered a wand of true strike would be as well. A wand of true strike costs 750gp.
Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.
PF is not 3.5, but is close. I don't know where the PF quote is, but I have seen in.
If you took the time to read the posts you'd have noticed someone had already pointed out that it's caster level and not character level for ranger spells. Thanks for beating it over my head though.
Sorry. I noticed after I posted.
"The game lists many ABILITIES usable at will". Thanks again tips.
Use activated items can even be a free action to use. Free actions take no time at all.
True, but unless it is called out as Use Activated, it defaults to Command Word. The cape sais "Once per day on command". Looks like it is Command Word activated.
/cevah
EDIT: Changed text re: SKR quote
Seeing that we are already discussing magic item creation..
Are "Muleback Cords of Heavyload" Possible?
If yes, price would be?
2000 (HL) + 1500 (MBC+50%) = 3500
Am i right?
For a whopping..
(+8 Str)x3 for encumbrance purposes
Yep.
Muleback cords determine capacity at +8, and Heavyload uses Ant Haul, which triples capacity.
/cevah
|
|
Thanks for the interesting talk. its been fun. hope no one is too pissed off at me; was not my intention to be difficult.
However, I still don't understand how after 30 years of game evolution that this is not a simpler cleaner more refined set of rules. seems to me that too much of magic item creation is left up to "personal discretion" rather than a concrete and integral mechanic of the game.
peace
I think this spell from Inner sea magic is a perfect example of how the power of a spell depend on who has access to it:
Bladed Dash
School transmutation; Level bard 2, magus 2
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
EFFECT
Range personal
Target you Duration instantaneous
DESCRIPTION
Both Quantium and Jalmeray claim that this spell was born in their arcane universities. Regardless of the spell’s origin, it quickly spread throughout the Inner Sea and beyond as spellcasting sword-fighters learned of its existence.
When you cast this spell, you immediately move up to 30 feet in a straight line any direction, momentarily leaving a multi-hued cascade of images behind you. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You may make a single melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against any one creature you are adjacent to at any point along this 30 feet. You gain a circumstance bonus on your attack roll equal to your Intelligence or Charisma modifier, whichever is higher. You must end the bonus movement granted by this spell in an unoccupied square. If no such space is available along the trajectory, the spell fails. Despite the name, the spell works with any melee weapon.
The spell is available as 2nd level spell to Bards and Maguses. those class have the same spell progression, so they both get it as a 2nd level spell at level 4,
So far the spell power is identical, right?But now the classes abilities enter in the equation.
The bard has no special powers regarding how he cast spells, so he will use the spell exactly how it is in the description.
It is a decent spell to close against an enemy while avoiding attacks of opportunity, obstacles and difficult terrain while getting a good to hit bonus or a good way to flee from melee while still getting a parting shot.
Nothing overpowering, but decidedly good.
Now the Magus get it. The Magus has spell combat, so he can cast a spell and still get all his attacks with a melee weapon.
That change completely the power of the spell. Instead of using a spell to move 30' while getting an attack, a magus can get a full attack +1 extra attack while moving 30', without provoking an AoO.
Same spell, same spell level, same character level, the power of the spell varies wildly.
Magic items do the same thing, they allow you to get spells that aren't meant to be used by your class, so the effective power of the spell varies greatly depending on who has access to it. When creating a magic item you must take into account the simple fact that the end user will be the guy that can get the most out of it, not the intended recipient of the spell or effect.
That is why you will never see (hopefully) a non scroll item based on Divine favor. That +1 to +5 luck bonus to attacks and damage has one effect in the hands of a 3/4 BAB class, a completely different effect in the hand of a full BAB class or those of a Zen archer.
|
|
BTW, before you get surprised while playing: A ring of invisibility cast invisibility, as the spell, 3 minutes duration,then you need to cast it again. It is not a constant item, it is a item with a unlimited number of daily uses.
Not sure how you get this. The ring does NOT cast the spell.
Ring of Invisibility wrote:By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.I don't see a time limit here.
It i exactly in the piece you cited, you activate the ring, you get invisibility as if the ring had cast the spell.
The ring CL is 3, invisibility has a duration of 1 minute/level, so you get 3 minutes of invisibility before having to reactivate it.That make the ring very different from previous versions that had a constant effect.
|
|
Wall of wordsAh yes, here we go.Cheapy has better search fu than me.
SKR on why new classes that gain access to spells earlier don't change anything. Stops new classes with early access from setting market prices. That was all I argued. Nothing about any material in the CRB that the game started with.
SKR in the liked post is speaking of a armor ability, not about crafting a item that cast a spell or work as a constant version of a spell.
Armor and weapons have a completely different set of costs to create, costs that don't change depending on who is making the item.
When SKR replies to someone you should look the post to which he is replying, not only SKR post, as he often don't cite the post to which he is replying.
I like this blog, but I'd really love a more detailed blog on magic item creation. Maybe some of the arguments could be settled so they don't show up all the time.
- Is Caster Level requirements on Magical arms & armor bypassable by a +5 to DC, and if so, then is it one +5 DC for a level 3 character to make +5 vorpal weapon? Or multiples?
- Can the existing prices of magical items be reduced when a new class comes out with an existing spell (for example, Energy resistance on Armor is 18,000gp, but some people insist that now that the spell can be cast by lower level casters, it should be reduced to 4,500gp by raw).
I'm sure there's more, but those would be the two big ones from my point of view.
Then choose what's best for the item. The DC difference is probably +0 or only +1, and that's not significant in the long run.It can make a big difference on pricing. There are those that are arguing that Energy Resistance on Armor should be 4,500 not 18,000 because now there are classes that can cast it at a lower level.
What is or isn't bypassable with a +5 to your crafting Spellcraft check is something we are going to address in an eventual blog and FAQ.
Energy resistance costs what it should cost based on how powerful the ability is, not at what level some weird new class or race gets it.
- * -
SKR said "Energy resistance costs what it should cost based on how powerful the ability is, not at what level some weird new class or race gets it." The weird new class is Ranger. He is reffering to pricing based on effect and not spell level. Just like an item of continuous Mage Armor spell should be priced on AC and not as a spell. This is a suggestion, and not a FAQ or Erata. Given how many early entry spells are in the CRB, why is there not a rule for how to select the caster? It may be RAI according to SKR, but it is not RAW. In the Rules forum, RAW wins.
SKR is speaking of Energy resistance as an armor ability. Armor abilities have fixed prices, so what he say is RAW.
And BTW, "The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide." is RAW, so the printed price take precedence upon the formula for determining a item price.For energy resistance we already have the rings as printed items, so we should start from those, not from the cost of creating a constant item with a first level ranger spell.
- * -
Got a quote for the true strike item being way too overpowered? Round one you use your true strike item. Round one for BBEG he turns you into a sheep. Asserting the price should be around 400,000gp is ludicrous. That's the cost for a +14 sword full time if it could exist. Not one swing a round after burning your standard action the round before. If making this item was overpowered a wand of true strike would be as well. A wand of true strike costs 750gp.
Example: Rob's cleric wants to create a heavy mace with a continuous true strike ability, granting its wielder a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls. The formula for a continuous spell effect is spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp, for a total of 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica, the GM, points out that a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon costs 50,000 gp, and the +20 bonus from true strike is much better than the +5 bonus from standard weapon enhancement, and suggests a price of 200,000 gp for the mace. Rob agrees that using the formula in this way is unreasonable and decides to craft a +1 heavy mace using the standard weapon pricing rules instead.
Rob is way too reasonable in those examples to be a true player ;-)
The wand is very different from a wondrous item or a ring.
If True strike isn't in your spell list you need to sue UMD to activate it.
Drawing the wand is a move action that can be combined with a movement, but it can't be drawn as a free action with quickdraw. Then you have to put it away or drop it if you want to use the hand.
People saying that True strike isn't so powerful if you use a standard action to activate it are only partially right. At some levels and for some classes a +20 to hit on one attack isn't so valuable if it cost you a standard action, but for other classes it can be worth it and the spell has a second feature that is very useful: it negate miss chances for concealment. So it negate blur, invisibility, darkness and so on (for some of those it work only if you can determine in which square is the target).
Owner - La Guarida Game Center
|
Seeing that we are already discussing magic item creation..
Are "Muleback Cords of Heavyload" Possible?
If yes, price would be?
2000 (HL) + 1500 (MBC+50%) = 3500
Am i right?
For a whopping..
(+8 Str)x3 for encumbrance purposesYep.
Muleback cords determine capacity at +8, and Heavyload uses Ant Haul, which triples capacity.
/cevah
Thanks for the quick answer Cevah
|
|
Thanks for the quick answer CevahSeeing that we are already discussing magic item creation..
Are "Muleback Cords of Heavyload" Possible?
If yes, price would be?
2000 (HL) + 1500 (MBC+50%) = 3500
Am i right?
For a whopping..
(+8 Str)x3 for encumbrance purposesYep.
Muleback cords determine capacity at +8, and Heavyload uses Ant Haul, which triples capacity.
/cevah
While Muleback Cords give bull strength as the spell needed to make the item, the effect of Muleback Cords and that of Aunt haul are identical.
Adding a +8 to strength for the purposes of carrying capacity triples your carrying capacity, and tripling your charring capacity has exactly the same effect as adding a +8 to your strength for the purposes of carrying capacity.I, as a GM would say that they are the same effect and don't stack but overlap, i.e. one triple your original carrying capacity, the other add 8 to your original strength for the purposes of carrying capacity, so you get only the benefit of one of the effects.
It all depend on your GM.
BTW, before you get surprised while playing: A ring of invisibility cast invisibility, as the spell, 3 minutes duration,then you need to cast it again. It is not a constant item, it is a item with a unlimited number of daily uses.
Not sure how you get this. The ring does NOT cast the spell.
Ring of Invisibility wrote:By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.I don't see a time limit here.It i exactly in the piece you cited, you activate the ring, you get invisibility as if the ring had cast the spell.
The ring CL is 3, invisibility has a duration of 1 minute/level, so you get 3 minutes of invisibility before having to reactivate it.
That make the ring very different from previous versions that had a constant effect.
Items that cast the spell when activated state that they cast the spell.
A ring of animal friendship always bears some sort of animal-like design in its craftsmanship. On command, this ring affects an animal as if the wearer had cast charm animal.
Ring of Invisibility does not have this text. Therefore it does NOT cast the spell, and thus does NOT have the spell's duration. You get the benefit of Invisibility. To define what invisibility is, it refers to the spell. This is needed for things like breaking invisibility; stealth mods; perception effects; and so on.
While Muleback Cords give bull strength as the spell needed to make the item, the effect of Muleback Cords and that of Aunt haul are identical.Thanks for the quick answer CevahSeeing that we are already discussing magic item creation..
Are "Muleback Cords of Heavyload" Possible?
If yes, price would be?
2000 (HL) + 1500 (MBC+50%) = 3500
Am i right?
For a whopping..
(+8 Str)x3 for encumbrance purposesYep.
Muleback cords determine capacity at +8, and Heavyload uses Ant Haul, which triples capacity.
/cevah
The effects are NOT identical. One changes how capacity is calculated, the other changes your capacity directly.
Adding a +8 to strength for the purposes of carrying capacity triples your carrying capacity, and tripling your charring capacity has exactly the same effect as adding a +8 to your strength for the purposes of carrying capacity.
Check the actual progression:
Str 10 100# X3 is 300# +8 is [Str 18] 300# sameStr 11 115# X3 is 345# +8 is [Str 19] 350# Muleback wins
Str 12 130# X3 is 390# +8 is [Str 20] 400# Muleback wins
Str 13 140# X3 is 420# +8 is [Str 21] 460# Muleback wins
Str 14 175# X3 is 525# +8 is [Str 22] 520# Heavyload wins
This cycle repeats.
I, as a GM would say that they are the same effect and don't stack but overlap, i.e. one triple your original carrying capacity, the other add 8 to your original strength for the purposes of carrying capacity, so you get only the benefit of one of the effects.
It all depend on your GM.
Houserule, not RAW.
/cevah
|
|
BTW, before you get surprised while playing: A ring of invisibility cast invisibility, as the spell, 3 minutes duration,then you need to cast it again. It is not a constant item, it is a item with a unlimited number of daily uses.
Not sure how you get this. The ring does NOT cast the spell.
Ring of Invisibility wrote:By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.I don't see a time limit here.It i exactly in the piece you cited, you activate the ring, you get invisibility as if the ring had cast the spell.
The ring CL is 3, invisibility has a duration of 1 minute/level, so you get 3 minutes of invisibility before having to reactivate it.
That make the ring very different from previous versions that had a constant effect.
Items that cast the spell when activated state that they cast the spell.
A ring of animal friendship always bears some sort of animal-like design in its craftsmanship. On command, this ring affects an animal as if the wearer had cast charm animal.Ring of Invisibility does not have this text. Therefore it does NOT cast the spell, and thus does NOT have the spell's duration. You get the benefit of Invisibility. To define what invisibility is, it refers to the spell. This is needed for things like breaking invisibility; stealth mods; perception effects; and so on.
So, by your logic, a Ring of Grit Mastery has an unlimited duration once activated?
Once per day, as a standard action, the wearer of the ring can spend 2 grit points stored within the ring to activate a bullet shield as the spell.
or it cast the spell as its caster level?
Ring of the Sea Strider "Furthermore, once per day as a swift action, as long as the wearer is in contact with liquid, he can use dimension door as the spell, but its starting and ending points must be connected by a contagious mass of liquid."
If it is not casting the spell, how you determine the range of the dimension door?
Spiritualist Rings: "The wearer can use speak with dead, as the spell, three times per day. It takes 10 minutes to use this ability.
The wearer can use spectral hand, as the spell, three times per day."
again, as the spell. If we follow your logic, once activated ti sta on forever.
"as the spell" is shorthand for "as he had cast the spell", with all the spell parameters.
|
|
Howie said it way better than me:
"The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable)." (from magic item description of caster level)"By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell. (from description of ring of invisibility)
A standard ring of invisibility is CL3. The effect is to benefit from invisibility, as the spell. The spell has duration of 1 minute / Caster Level. Therefore, the duration of a ring of invisibility is 3 minutes.
It can be reactivated as needed, meaning that a user can reactivate repeatedly within the 3 minute duration, making it effectively ongoing until such time as it isn't reactivating. The user would become visible 3 minutes after last activation. Given that command items are activated by a word, it can't be reactivated if the user cannot speak, and the command activation is audible.
|
|
The argument was that an unlimited use item that grants true strike is overpowered. It is not.The counter that SKRs response is only relative to energy resistance is pointless. Use common sense. Insert any spell where a new class gets it early and his response will be the same. Paizo staff aren't very forthcoming with enough words to settle all debates and expect people to use their brains a little. He has already said that paizo will not write new content that invalidates anything from the CRB. Prices of items in the CRB will not change as new material comes out.
Read the posts with a bit more attention.
The counter isn't that SKR post is relative only to energy resistance, the counter is that SKR post is about an armor ability and armor (and weapon) abilities have a different system to generate their prices.
Ultimate campaign stuffNo one is arguing having true strike as a continuous effect. By the rules you cannot make a spell with a duration of instantaneous into a continuous effect or else I play a character with fire resistance and walk around with a continuous fireball on me burning everything within a 30 foot radius every round. This is moot.
The argument was that an unlimited use item that grants true strike is overpowered. It is not.
The overpowered item is not a continuous item, but a use activated item. Imagine if every time you made an attack, you got +20 and no miss chance. That is overpowered for 2000gp.
/cevah
No miss chance? No where does the spell ignore concealment, cover, or flat miss chance like blur or displacement puts on you.
So, by your logic, a Ring of Grit Mastery has an unlimited duration once activated?
Once per day, as a standard action, the wearer of the ring can spend 2 grit points stored within the ring to activate a bullet shield as the spell.or it cast the spell as its caster level?
Ring of the Sea Strider "Furthermore, once per day as a swift action, as long as the wearer is in contact with liquid, he can use dimension door as the spell, but its starting and ending points must be connected by a contagious mass of liquid."
If it is not casting the spell, how you determine the range of the dimension door?Spiritualist Rings: "The wearer can use speak with dead, as the spell, three times per day. It takes 10 minutes to use this ability.
The wearer can use spectral hand, as the spell, three times per day."
again, as the spell. If we follow your logic, once activated ti sta on forever."as the spell" is shorthand for "as he had cast the spell", with all the spell parameters.
Once per day, as a standard action, the wearer of the ring can spend 2 grit points stored within the ring to activate a bullet shield as the spell.
Furthermore, once per day as a swift action, as long as the wearer is in contact with liquid, he can use dimension door as the spell, but its starting and ending points must be connected by a contagious mass of liquid.
The wearer can use speak with dead, as the spell, three times per day.
The wearer can use spectral hand, as the spell, three times per day.
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
I see a difference between "activate"/"can use" and "can benefit from". The latter is NOT an activation. The Ring of Invisibility, when activated then grants you a benefit. It is not activating (casting) a spell. The CL of the item is used when you deal with things like dispelling CL checks and such.
For the RotSS, range is determined by the CL of the item, as that value is used for the spell casting done by the item.
I do agree that the wording could be better, but I just don't see it as a cast spell. You do. I also note that none of the items you mention are from the CRB. It may be that the RoI has been around since 1st ed, which I played. I don't see it changing that significantly. If it gets FAQed, we can agree, but until then, I guess we will each play it the way we understand it.
/cevah
No miss chance? No where does the spell ignore concealment, cover, or flat miss chance like blur or displacement puts on you.
I didn't quote the text, so I overstated. The text is:
Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
So yes, you do avoid some forms of miss chance.
/cevah