anywhere from the price of slotless to normal price. And If you're GM is okay with it then it's allowed, though the book recommends keeping certain bonus or effects to specific slots.
There is no specific rule for re-slotting items. It is generally frowned upon because certain things were assigned to certain slots to make sure certain options weren't available.
Personally, I would tell you to pay double the cost and make it a slotless item. That is the best offer I would make you, as that is the only thing within the rules that comes close to what you want to do.
|
As a GM, I personally don't allow taking 10 or taking 20 for crafting unless there's literally no chance of critical failure. You know, like making a DC20 to make item when you have +16 spellcraft.
And if crafting in the field while traveling, I don't allow taking 10 since you're distracted.
That said, +50% to +100% to the cost sounds fair.
Slot feet; Price 49,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
When scrutinized closely, parts of these light gray boots appear to fade in and out of existence.
Any character wearing this footwear may teleport three times per day, exactly as if she had cast the teleport spell.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, teleport; Cost 24,500 gp.
Slot head; Price 73,500 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
A character wearing this helm may teleport three times per day, instantly transporting himself and objects he might be carrying on his person to a designated destination, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, teleport; Cost 36,750 gp.
As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.
This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.
As a GM, I personally don't allow taking 10 or taking 20 for crafting unless there's literally no chance of critical failure. You know, like making a DC20 to make item when you have +16 spellcraft.
And if crafting in the field while traveling, I don't allow taking 10 since you're distracted.
That said, +50% to +100% to the cost sounds fair.
To be clear, all of that is a house rule. Or at best a very awkward/loose interpretation of "distracted". Which should be made clear since this is a Rules Question forum.
Making an item slotless has a price modifier. If you want to keep your Ring of Regeneration in your pocket and still regenerate, then call it a Rock of Regeneration and pay more for it. There are rules for that.
Making an item into a different slot, even going from a wondrous item to a ring, is not making it slotless and is not really addressed by the rules, so there is no price increase for doing it. There is a warning not to, as has already been said, but that's as far as the rules go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no price increase, just an added prerequisite: The GM's permission.
You instead make it a tattoo or shadow piercing for +50-100% and then 'wear' it in the same slot.
|
|
As a GM, I personally don't allow taking 10 or taking 20 for crafting unless there's literally no chance of critical failure. You know, like making a DC20 to make item when you have +16 spellcraft.
And if crafting in the field while traveling, I don't allow taking 10 since you're distracted.
That said, +50% to +100% to the cost sounds fair.
To be clear, all of that is a house rule. Or at best a very awkward/loose interpretation of "distracted". Which should be made clear since this is a Rules Question forum.
Darn tootin it's a house rule. One I started using after having someone who massively abused the crafting rules on a regular basis. In my opinion, taking ten or taking 20 shouldn't be allowed with crafting. There should be the chance of messing up. And if you're pushing the limits of what you can make, there should be the chance you make cursed items. And I'm absolutely convinced that crafting while on the road should be harder then crafting when you're safe in your workshop with no outside distractions.
Someone who has +21 ranks in spellcraft but isn't level 16 and doesn't have the spells needed should not be able to make a +6 headband of mental superiority (DC 41) with zero chance of failure simply because they somehow managed to get a +21 in spellcraft. Nor should they be automatically able to make one if they have the spells needed, thus DC is 31 when their spellcraft is +11. Not when you're adventuring.
You want to make a business selling +6 headbands of mental superiority and similar high caster level magic items? Go ahead and set up shop. Take 20 all you want. But your character will be turned into a shopkeeper NPC who runs their store.
Note that I have nothing against crafting. I've got a wondrous items crafter who is a wandering trader/adventurer. Makes and sells bracers of armor, headbands of (pick a mental stat), and belts of (pick a physical stat) to other adventurers. Tends to make them while traveling due to having always lived in the wilderness.
But IMO the chance to make cursed items when you're pushing your limits is a balancing factor. One which the "take 10" and "take 20" mechanics completely destroy. And without it you get ridiculousness things like someone making caster level 18 items at level 3 with zero chance to fail.
But IMO the chance to make cursed items when you're pushing your limits is a balancing factor. One which the "take 10" and "take 20" mechanics completely destroy. And without it you get ridiculousness things like someone making caster level 18 items at level 3 with zero chance to fail.
Since there is a penalty for failure (making a cursed item or wasted materials), you can't Take 20 when making a magic item (or mundane crafting) anyway.
Taking 10 has nothing to do with la chance of failing. It's very possible to take 10 and fail.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.
This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.
It wasn't OGL so it couldn't be brought into PFRPG IIRC.
It wasn't OGL so it couldn't be brought into PFRPG IIRC.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.
This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.
Nope. Body slot affinities are in the SRD. Paizo made a deliberate decision to remove them, but just didn't take the time to go through and correct the item prices that were affected.
Nope. Body slot affinities are in the SRD. Paizo made a deliberate decision to remove them, but just didn't take the time to go through and correct the item prices that were affected.It wasn't OGL so it couldn't be brought into PFRPG IIRC.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.
This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.
Or didn't choose to include them (page count even) and left it as is due to backwards compatiblility as the rules are freely available. Omissions aren't always deliberate as has been brought to light numerous times since PFRPG. So unless you are telling us you know for a fact they were intentionally removed and have the quotes to back it up, I'm just going to go with that being your opinion.
Or didn't choose to include them (page count even) and left it as is due to backwards compatiblility as the rules are freely available. Omissions aren't always deliberate as has been brought to light numerous times since PFRPG. So unless you are telling us you know for a fact they were intentionally removed and have the quotes to back it up, I'm just going to go with that being your opinion.
Body slots were mentioned in 3 places in 3.5. The section I linked to previously, and the pricing chart (twice on the chart - once for the cost increase and again as a note at the bottom telling you to see the text). Seeing as how all of those locations are missing in Pathfinder, that means it was either a deliberate omission, or that by coincidence the only 3 locations talking about body slot affinities just happened to be left out. And seeing as how there is no FAQ or errata that adds them back in, the only logical choice seems to be that they were deliberately removed.
It is just as logical that they were cut for space as the pricing is the same as it was.
My argument isn't that they material wasn't removed or republished, it is that that means the pricing is supposed to be different. It wouldn't be the first time something wasn't spelled out explicitly or copied pasted from previous version, but still intended.