Strill wrote: leo1925 wrote: Keep in mind that spontaneous casters are worse than prepared casters at using metamagic rods, if you allow the two or more rods in the same item you are giving them more power and versatility. Is that a problem? Everyone I've talked to has said that spontaneous casters are significantly weaker than prepared casters as-is. If it's a problem or not is your opinion (or rather your DM's) but the issue is that this is another aspect that would be affected if such an item was to be created and has to be taken into account.
James Risner wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Not only ability to be stolen or sundered, but inability to be distributed around the party for more optimal usage. Different table, different RAW.
YOu must play at a table that allow a Pearl of Power to be shared between people and everyone get 1/day use of it.
I run tables (GM) and play at tables that do not allow that to work. The PoP has a 1/day use. Who ever uses it today, burns it for everyone else.
Dude, you're kinda weird. Why do you assume some sort of bizarre permissive play when the standard explanation is sufficient?
If I want to lend someone my ioun stone of spell storing to use in a combat, it's a hell of a lot more inconvenient if that's also the stone that boosts my AC and int, for example.
It's a real tactical disadvantage.
Now, let's compare that to the disadvantage of ring slots. Right now, my 11th level character has 0 rings. My 3th level character has 0 rings. My 4th level character has 1 ring, obtained just in the last adventure. None of the other characters in any of my parties have any more than 1 ring.
So, in our present campaign, nobody has so far ever been disadvantaged by rings taking up a slot. Sure, eventually they might be, but as far as a % of the campaign, that's a big old 0.
Does that mean that rings should be considered slotless in our campaign? I don't think so. (The second half of this post was mostly in response to kestral.
The part of the post in response to me... doesn't actually answer my question. Perhaps I should explain why I'm asking.
Once occurrence of something being a disadvantage is, functionally, meaningless. There are occurrences through history of which it would be a disadvantage to have a great deal of money. But if you compare the number of times and places it is such a disadvantage to the number of times and places it is an advantage, I don't think anyone would argue that one is disadvantaged to have a great deal of money-- you just really hope you're not in France at the time of the Revolution.
Your point on rings makes a similar point about contextless statistics (albeit, if we're being frank, very poorly and I'm not convinced you're not trying to say something very different). Anyone with a working mind is going to tell you that your current situation is, going by the sum total of games played, an outlier, and that ring slots are valuable. And because that campaign is such an outlier, basing a decision on it would be patently foolish. We want to base rational decision-making on the norm, rather than the abnormal.
So, what I'm trying to do is gauge whether or not you have a point. This concept you're speaking of is not something I've ever experienced. The only times I've considered passing an item off to somebody else were the times when I bought the item knowing there were good odds I was going to do just that (stuff like buying some situationally-useful low-end alchemical items, knowing that if I never got around to using them, the party Grenadier could make use of them at levels where I'd stop bothering long before).
Hence: telling me "it's a disadvantage, trust me" tells me... basically nothing. What I want to know is "it's a disadvantage that I see in situations X and Y, and under my GM's (or GMs') playstyle X and Y occur with Z frequency".
That would tell us all if your point is worth considering or if it's enough of a niche scenario to disregard it in the interests of devising an overall pricing model; in the latter instance it would be more logical for your GMs to modify the pricing model than for us to consider it from creation.
Scythia wrote: You're buying the wrong bundles. Correction: I'm selling the right ones. Most of my online sales are bundles and I make more per bundle than I would make off the individual items. I can do this because I can charge more for a bundle than the separate items. I don't make the rules. So I'm sure some people sell bundles for less, but if you think about it. Bundles cost more to bundle (labor) and the same to buy (distributor don't do bundles), so anyone selling them for less is leaving money on the table. ;-)
_Ozy_ wrote: If I want to lend someone my ioun stone of spell storing to use in a combat, it's a hell of a lot more inconvenient if that's also the stone that boosts my AC and int, for example. Since this happens infrequently, I deem it far less an issue as the benefit of the combination.
Seriously, are you saying "hey don't follow the rule because I don't like that rule"? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
I don't care what you like, you are free to do anything you wish at your table. But the rule is 1.5x cost for combinations. It is reasonable to not charge the increase if the item is slotless and doesn't require being held.
James Risner wrote: Seriously, are you saying "hey don't follow the rule because I don't like that rule"? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying. He's said nothing at all to suggest that. Please stop putting words in peoples' mouths.
James Risner wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: If I want to lend someone my ioun stone of spell storing to use in a combat, it's a hell of a lot more inconvenient if that's also the stone that boosts my AC and int, for example. Since this happens infrequently, I deem it far less an issue as the benefit of the combination.
Seriously, are you saying "hey don't follow the rule because I don't like that rule"? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
I don't care what you like, you are free to do anything you wish at your table. But the rule is 1.5x cost for combinations. It is reasonable to not charge the increase if the item is slotless and doesn't require being held. No, I'm saying that in all of my most recent games, ring slots were a lot less limiting than combining slotless items would have been.
Actually, 1.5x increase is fine as long as you don't also tag on the the 2x slotless to make it a total of 3x. There is no way that a combined slotless item is actually better than slotless items.
Strill wrote: The rules specifically say that that only applies to body-slot items. Ioun stones are not body slot items, and already have a 2x multiplier built into their price. PRD wrote: Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities. I was mistaken. The second ability is at 75% base cost, not 50%.
_Ozy_ wrote: Actually, 1.5x increase is fine as long as you don't also tag on the the 2x slotless to make it a total of 3x. There is no way that a combined slotless item is actually better than slotless items. When you consider things like Rods that require you to hold them, you can't combine them without taking their existing price and adding 1.5x to the additional ability.
_Ozy_ wrote: James Risner wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: If I want to lend someone my ioun stone of spell storing to use in a combat, it's a hell of a lot more inconvenient if that's also the stone that boosts my AC and int, for example. Since this happens infrequently, I deem it far less an issue as the benefit of the combination.
Seriously, are you saying "hey don't follow the rule because I don't like that rule"? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
I don't care what you like, you are free to do anything you wish at your table. But the rule is 1.5x cost for combinations. It is reasonable to not charge the increase if the item is slotless and doesn't require being held. No, I'm saying that in all of my most recent games, ring slots were a lot less limiting than combining slotless items would have been.
Actually, 1.5x increase is fine as long as you don't also tag on the the 2x slotless to make it a total of 3x. There is no way that a combined slotless item is actually better than slotless items. Very possible: I have an Ioun Stone. I have another Ioun Stone. I combine two Ioun Stones. I put both Ioun Stones in a Wayfinder and get both effects. Where's the disadvantage?
I have a Rod of Quicken. I have a Rod of Maximize. I combine the two. I do not have the Quick Draw feat. I want to cast both a Quickened Spell and a Maximized Spell, so I do so. Where's the disadvantage?
We can talk about the concept of loaning out the Rod of Quicken but not the Rod of Maximize, but given that nothing has been presented to render it anything but an outlier case, such can be safely disregarded until there's some kind of evidence that it's a real, consistent, material disadvantage instead of one that can be easily ignored in most campaigns.
I don't consider rods to be slotless items unless you can hold an infinite number in your hand, or if they work without actually holding in a hand 'slot'.
As to the ioun stone/wayfinder argument, I'm not really familiar with that combination, but are you sure that a single wayfinder would enhance multiple abilities on a single ioun stone?
_Ozy_ wrote: I don't consider rods to be slotless items. Have you read the context of this discussion? The original thought was combining rods and staves.
kestral287 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I don't consider rods to be slotless items. Have you read the context of this discussion? The original thought was combining rods and staves. Then why did you mention ioun stones?
_Ozy_ wrote: kestral287 wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I don't consider rods to be slotless items. Have you read the context of this discussion? The original thought was combining rods and staves. Then why did you mention ioun stones? Three reasons:
A case is inherently stronger with more than one valid example.
Mentioning them displays internal consistency within my argument, as they had come up before.
Ioun Stones are an example of a true-slotless item that does actually gain inherent advantage from being combined. Contrast Pearls of Power, which are a true-slotless item with no net gain from being combined. Incidentally, Pearls and Ioun Stones were the other items brought up by the original poster
To quote an earlier post of mine:
Quote: Staves and wands I would upcharge if their total number of charges doubled, otherwise I would not (probably a reduction in cost if they were still stuck at 10/50 charges, 1:1 cost if they increased somewhat, 1:1.5 if they doubled). This may differ for staves with additional abilities like the Staff of the Master.
Rods I would upcharge for if combined with another item held in hand.
Ioun Stones would require a discussion with the player about Wayfinders. The new stone would either not fit in the Wayfinder or have only one of its stone abilities active (1:1 cost), or there would be an upcharge.
Pearls of Power and similar items that do not need to be held, or at least not in combat, I would allow to be combined freely. In the interests of truly displaying consistency I later elaborated that by a strict-RAW argument the 75% cost for combining Pearls of Power might apply, but given that Pearls are generally considered to be undercosted and the disadvantage of a combined Pearl is negligible (it should never be out in combat, so the danger of it being sundered or stolen is relatively low--and one could freely pass it around the party to have everybody refresh a spell slot or two).
kestral287 wrote: Very possible: I have an Ioun Stone. I have another Ioun Stone. I combine two Ioun Stones. I put both Ioun Stones in a Wayfinder and get both effects. Where's the disadvantage?
I have a Rod of Quicken. I have a Rod of Maximize. I combine the two. I do not have the Quick Draw feat. I want to cast both a Quickened Spell and a Maximized Spell, so I do so. Where's the disadvantage?
So my impression from this thread is that paizo can't keep their terminology and mechanics straight. They have a perfectly good slot system, and rather than just adding a "wayfinder" slot or a "held" slot, they try to weasel their way around it with different terminology, and it ends up resulting in these stupid exceptions and contradictions that take five pages to explain.
My conclusion: They can all be combined at no additional cost, but it can only function as one of its component items at a time, it takes a move action to switch between the component functions, and you can't use functions from two different component items in the same turn.
The conclusion you should be getting is "talk to your GM, politely and rationally, like the rules clearly tell you to any time you ever want to consider doing anything with magic item creation".
Now, as a GM, yeah, if you want to add in those restrictions (or really just the move-action-switch, feel free to use more than one in the same turn), I'd let you combine at base price rather than 1.5x.
The conclusion I got from this is that I really want to combine a Rod of Absorption with a sword, but first need to figure out how to balance a 'rechargable' RoA. And once I figure out the latter, the GM is (probably) down for it (I asked about a Rod of Maximize, Absorption popped into my head later). But I'll be paying the extra 50% and not complaining at all.
Strill wrote: James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Not only ability to be stolen or sundered, but inability to be distributed around the party for more optimal usage.
Different table, different RAW.
YOu must play at a table that allow a Pearl of Power to be shared between people and everyone get 1/day use of it.
I run tables (GM) and play at tables that do not allow that to work. The PoP has a 1/day use. Who ever uses it today, burns it for everyone else.
You're completely misunderstanding him. If a pearl of power is separate, I can give it to the Ranger so he can cast entangle twice. If the pearl of power is embedded in my staff, I can't do that without giving up my staff, and forcing the ranger to haul it around. I've incurred a tactical disadvantage because of the combination.
I wouldn't consider that a realistic example. "It's a tactical disadvantage if I deliberately create my equipment in a way that doesn't suit the tactics I want to use."
I submit that if loaning out a Pearl of Power is a standard tactic for you, then you wouldn't buy/create a staff with a Pearl imbedded in it in the first place.
alternatively, if you are of a level to create items like staves, then you can probably afford another 1,000 gp to 4,000 gp to buy a second pearl for loaning out for ranger spells (and why isn't the ranger chipping in? Don't adventure with cheapskates!).
James Risner wrote: Scythia wrote: You're buying the wrong bundles. Correction: I'm selling the right ones. Most of my online sales are bundles and I make more per bundle than I would make off the individual items. I can do this because I can charge more for a bundle than the separate items. I don't make the rules. So I'm sure some people sell bundles for less, but if you think about it. Bundles cost more to bundle (labor) and the same to buy (distributor don't do bundles), so anyone selling them for less is leaving money on the table. ;-)
I seem to recall a saying about something you'll never go broke by overestimating among consumers.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
