Ring of Intensified Shocking Grasp


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

_Ozy_ wrote:
That said, there actually aren't any guidelines on how to compare apples and oranges with respect to 'power levels', and I don't frankly see how there could be.

You missed my point entirely.

Way back in the past, some developers already compared apples to oranges and came up with hundreds of prices for hundreds of items. They considered it balanced so they wrote a book (lots of books by now) with said prices.

That's done.

Now you don't do it, I don't do it, nobody does it. The rules absolutely don't say to do it. No more apples to oranges.

Now, after all those books, we have a huge list of items. When we want to make a new custom item, we compare apples to APPLES - find a similar item and then set a similar price. The original developers couldn't do this because there WERE no similar items (at first), so they did it the hard way. But now we have hundreds, maybe thousands of items, so NOW you and I and everyone else can scour the books for a similar item to set similar pricing.

That's why there NEVER was any "apples to apples" similar comparison for a Ring of Invisibility (the original developer who priced it did it the hard way, "apples to oranges"). As far as I can tell, there still isn't.

But that was never the point.

It wasn't priced that way.

However, now if a player wants to make a Nose Ring of Invisibility, we can simply say "hey, let's price that exactly like the existing Ring of Invisibility, just like the rulebook says we should". The only time we need to go to the chart, or even should go to the chart, is when we cannot find anything similar to whatever NEW custom item we're trying to price.

Insisting on a chart price for an old item is an invalid insistence - they were not all priced like that, and the developers have said so on numerous occasions.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Shorter DM_Blake: Book items, not being custom items, are not priced like custom items.

(My apologies if I misunderstand your point)

In a way the pricing for book items was "pulled out of thin air." Much in the same way that fighters have a d10 HD, full BAB means 1:1 level, and dwarves get +2 Con were all "pulled out of thin air" at one point. Go back far enough and every rule in the game was just made up by somebody.

But now we have the precedent of book items, so new custom items can be priced by comparison, as the rules indicate for pricing custom items. But trying to use the custom item rules to reverse engineer book items leads to frustration because the book items weren't priced that way.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
I've been asking you for the longest time: what 'similar item' is the RoI priced to?

The Ring of Invisibility is the similar item.

I'm not sure if you don't understand me or you are just being pedantic. But the rules are essentially set up to say that items like these are what you should consider to be the correct prices. They go on to say that the chart is not a predictor of the final price, similar items are.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
I've been asking you for the longest time: what 'similar item' is the RoI priced to?

The Ring of Invisibility is the similar item.

I'm not sure if you don't understand me or you are just being pedantic. But the rules are essentially set up to say that items like these are what you should consider to be the correct prices. They go on to say that the chart is not a predictor of the final price, similar items are.

*blink*

Er, what?

Did you seriously say that the price of the RoI was determined by comparing it to the price of a similar item, that being the RoI?

No, I most certainly don't understand you. I reacted against your post saying that all book items were generated based on the guidelines (notwithstanding an earlier post of yours claiming the opposite regarding the Bracers of Falcon's Aim) and asked what rules were used to generate the price of the RoI. You pointed to the rule regarding 'similar items' which makes absolutely no sense for the RoI since there is no 'similar item'.

So far, I don't see any rules that you've provided to support such a claim. The price of the RoI was determined based on some person's arbitrary assessment of the proper price based on some personal opinion regarding 'power'. That's about as far away from 'using the guidelines' as you can get other than just rolling randomly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Shorter DM_Blake: Book items, not being custom items, are not priced like custom items.

(My apologies if I misunderstand your point)

In a way the pricing for book items was "pulled out of thin air." Much in the same way that fighters have a d10 HD, full BAB means 1:1 level, and dwarves get +2 Con were all "pulled out of thin air" at one point. Go back far enough and every rule in the game was just made up by somebody.

But now we have the precedent of book items, so new custom items can be priced by comparison, as the rules indicate for pricing custom items. But trying to use the custom item rules to reverse engineer book items leads to frustration because the book items weren't priced that way.

Exactly, which is why someone saying:

Quote:
Every single item in every book published used the item creation rules.

is rather astounding, as is the extended back and forth apparently caused by my rather tepid statement of disbelief.


DM_Blake wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
That said, there actually aren't any guidelines on how to compare apples and oranges with respect to 'power levels', and I don't frankly see how there could be.

You missed my point entirely.

Way back in the past, some developers already compared apples to oranges and came up with hundreds of prices for hundreds of items. They considered it balanced so they wrote a book (lots of books by now) with said prices.

That's done.

Now you don't do it, I don't do it, nobody does it. The rules absolutely don't say to do it. No more apples to oranges.

As an absolute statement, I don't agree. While there may be 'similar' apples for 80, 90 or even 95% of custom items out there, you can see plenty of new dissimilar items come out with each new Pathfinder publication to demonstrate that there's still a lot of oranges to be compared.

Sure, if you stick to book items, this isn't even an issue, but for any group with craft feats and a whiff of creativity, it's not too hard to imagine a few oranges popping up now and again.

The GM can either forbid oranges, or try to figure out this type of comparison on his own. Maybe it's too diverse and complicated to actually put such apple-to-oranges comparisons down in guideline format, but I don't agree that no such need actually exists.


_Ozy_ wrote:


So far, I don't see any rules that you've provided to support such a claim. The price of the RoI was determined based on some person's arbitrary assessment of the proper price based on some personal opinion regarding 'power'. That's about as far away from 'using the guidelines' as you can get other than just rolling randomly.

That person(s) being Gary Gygax and Co., who also arbitrarily decided everything else, including character classes, races, dice used, leveling system, etc.


_Ozy_ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
That said, there actually aren't any guidelines on how to compare apples and oranges with respect to 'power levels', and I don't frankly see how there could be.

You missed my point entirely.

Way back in the past, some developers already compared apples to oranges and came up with hundreds of prices for hundreds of items. They considered it balanced so they wrote a book (lots of books by now) with said prices.

That's done.

Now you don't do it, I don't do it, nobody does it. The rules absolutely don't say to do it. No more apples to oranges.

As an absolute statement, I don't agree. While there may be 'similar' apples for 80, 90 or even 95% of custom items out there, you can see plenty of new dissimilar items come out with each new Pathfinder publication to demonstrate that there's still a lot of oranges to be compared.

That's right.

But the book doesn't say to compare those "oranges" to existing "apples". It says to look for a similar "orange" and, if you can't find one, then use the chart.

Nobody ever said to "forbid oranges".


It even calls the price from the chart approximate. I don't understand how one can complain about item pricing being 'made up' and not following the rules when the rules are literally 'here are some guidelines but you're going to have to make some stuff up.'


Ian Bell wrote:
It even calls the price from the chart approximate. I don't understand how one can complain about item pricing being 'made up' and not following the rules when the rules are literally 'here are some guidelines but you're going to have to make some stuff up.'

It's not complaining, it's being accurate. When someone claims: all book items are priced according to the rules, it's quite a stretch when you include the rule that you can make up whatever price you want as a GM.

Nobody is claiming, at least in this thread, that the RoI isn't priced properly, what is being claimed is that it is not priced following the Pathfinder crafting guidelines which include a chart and comparison to similar items.

It doesn't follow the chart.

It wasn't priced by comparing to a similar item.

Therefore it was not priced according to the Pathfinder crafting guidelines. It was made up.

That's really all there is to it. Guys, this isn't some deep, philosophical debate, this back and forth was entirely from James making the rather astonishing claim and my somewhat disbelieving response.


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I would give a counter example, a published item that does follow the table in pricing (CL x Spell level x etc) and is very clearly underpriced.

Bracers of Falcon's Aim: Price 4k. That is CL 1, Level 1, x 2000 x 2 (continuous effect on min/lvl, footnote 2).

It grants +3 to perception, +1 hit and keen on all bows. This is better than lesser bracers of archery, which cost 5k.


I don't see published items that break the item creation rules as a problem. The item creation rules are the general rules, published item prices are the specific rules. Specific override general but you follow general unless you get a specific.

You can't cast a standard action spell and attack in the same turn as per RAW (general rule). Magus can because of a class feature (specific rule). There is no reason why this can't be applied to published items vs item creation rules.


Guru-Meditation wrote:
Is it so hard to understand?

Disagree =/= fail to understand. Again, my quibble is with elevating "look at other stuff as sort of a list of loose guidelines that may or may not apply, then pick a number" to the status of a "rule."

That's not what I'd consider a set of rules. It's barely a rule of thumb.

In traffic, the rule is to stop at a red light. Not "compare what the other people are doing and then decide if it's OK to ignore the light, or maybe follow it, or maybe modify it." There are then additional rules to determine if it's OK to turn right on red, after having stopped; these may vary by state or even by light, but not by the driver's opinion.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Did you seriously say that the price of the RoI was determined by comparing it to the price of a similar item, that being the RoI?

I didn't and if your response is not "of course you are right" then you simply don't understand the item creation rules.

j b 200 wrote:

a published item that does follow the table in pricing (CL x Spell level x etc) and is very clearly underpriced.

Bracers of Falcon's Aim

This is already very well established that the price on this item is wrong. They don't plan on fixing it, but they did ban it in PFS because it was priced using the chart by a developer who didn't read or didn't understand the rules of item creation. Or one like _Ozy_ who simply doesn't like them and choose to interpret them very clearly incorrectly.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Did you seriously say that the price of the RoI was determined by comparing it to the price of a similar item, that being the RoI?

I didn't and if your response is not "of course you are right" then you simply don't understand the item creation rules.

You haven't quoted any rules that actually were used to set the price of the RoI, so why would I say that you are right?

Furthermore, for like the 3rd or 4th time, you yourself have said that the Bracers of Falcon's Aim do not actually follow the Pathfinder rules for pricing, directly contradicting your rather broad and confusing initial statement.

So how could you be right when you yourself say that you are wrong?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
So how could you be right when you yourself say that you are wrong?

Truly, are you being difficult or are you really not understanding? If you tell me honestly you are trying to understand then I'll try again to explain.


Please do, because this:

Quote:
Every single item in every book published used the item creation rules.

seems to be directly contradicted by your statements on more than one occasion that the Bracers of Falcon's aim do not follow the rules.

Furthermore, more specifically with the RoI, there are 2 rules for pricing magic items:

1) price the item based on a similar item if it exists

if not, then

2) use the chart

The RoI follows neither of these rules. Its price was set by the devs via an unexplained process that appears nowhere in the actual rules other than the "Rule 0" the GM is allowed to do anything he feels appropriate.

So far, you actually have not actually explained how the RoI was priced according to the listed rules.


I'll go one step further. Outside of the items that actually do follow the chart (usually straight skill enhancements, AC, and the like) I would bet dollars to donuts that anybody who didn't already have the pricelist in front of them wouldn't have a clue as how to how much they should cost.

Examples:

Ring oF Sustenance
Ring of Force Shield
Ring of Craft Magic
Ring of X-ray Vision
Ring of Freedom of Movement (e.g. waaay under the chart guideline)
etc...

This is fundamentally why I was astonished at your claim regarding the book items.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Please do

I'm going for succinct here. Ask me to elaborate on anything.

Pricing is an art, not a science:
CRB p549:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.

The bold makes it clear that if you used the chart, you are not done. You must, as a rule, determine if that starting point price is too little, too much, or just right.

The author of the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, either didn't read this line, didn't understand it's implications, didn't understand that 4,000 gp is a absurd price, or simply didn't care.


Look for other items first:
Core p549:
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.

Again this suggest that looking at a similar item, doesn't complete the task. You are still required, as a rule, to adjust the price if it is too little, too much, or leave it alone if it is just right.


How is the Ring of Invisibility priced?:
How did they arrive at the 20,000 gp value? Either by Command Word (10,800 gp) or by Use-Activated (12,000 gp)?

Depends on who you ask. Modern developers see it as a command-word item (10,800 -> 20,000) increased. Older developers like authors of 3.0 and 3.5 have written that it is 12,000 gp. I personally think it was 10,800 and command word. But some of the ancient threads considered the item to be like Bilbo's one ring. A command word item requires you speak out loud a word. The one ring, just required you manipulate the ring, which sounds a whole lot like use-activated. The duration of the effect will depend on the CL in either case. The only difference is the 1,800 gp vs 2,000 gp base multiplier and the requirement of speaking the command word vs silent manipulation.


What is the similar item to the Ring of Invisibility?:
The price of the ring considers the power and utility of invisibility and increases the price. If you make a similar item that provides a lot of invisibility, you need to look to the ring. You wouldn't look to the chart.

Why can't they codify these into simple rules?:
Because the whole concept of item prices is not simple and can not be codified. The charts were reverse engineered from prices. We had prices before we had charts.

1st edition D&D DMG page 118 has a total of 188 words to describe how to create items in the "Non-Standard Magic Items" paragraph. A summary of the points:

  • Use your "imagination and inventiveness".
  • "Take care".
  • Do not "unbalance the game".
  • Do not make "one character too strong"
  • Prefer items that are "one use", with "limited usages", or have "variable effects".
  • Unless you "know" and trust their GM, make any item created by another GM "disappear".
  • If you do allow an item from another GM require it "in writing" from the other GM.
  • Do not allow a player to "bulldoze" into allowing an item you do not wish to allow.

    The parts in "" are direct quotes, and I've paraphrased the filler.

  • Did this help? I'm genuinely asking.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    First there was emptyness.

    And Gary Gygax saw that this was insufficient.

    Thus he said: "Let there be prices!"

    And lo and behold! There were prices!

    In The Creators wisdom the Ring of Invisibility was set at 20.000 GP. And it was good.

    Then he spoke: "The prices I have given you in my wisdom shall be the cornerpoints at which all that follows shall be measured! And I will give you some guidelines to help the lesser creators to price their new creations."

    Then all the Nerds basked in the Glory that is D&D and the ART of item pricing was born.

    P.S.
    ART, ART, ART.

    Not MATH, ART!

    P.P.S.
    Art!


    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

    There are a multitude of threads showing items that "by the chart" are very cheep, but when you actually look at what the DO, they should be much more expensive. See At-will True Strike (CL 1, SL 1, 2000gp), at-will shield (same), constant Protection from Evil (same). Etc.

    They actually expand this issue in Ultimate Campaign

    Ultimate Campaign:Pricing New Items wrote:

    ..only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item.

    ...
    Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.


    timmypaddins wrote:

    So I want to have a "Ring of Intensified Shocking Grasp" made for me, that can be used AT WILL.

    Looking at "Table 15-29: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Value" in the Core book on page 550, it is not wholly clear how to construct an AT WILL item, at least the term AT WILL is never used as far as I can tell.

    I THINK construction would be:

    Command Word: Spell Level 2 x Caster Level 10 x 1,800gp = 36,000gp

    Reading the rest of the table, I think that such an item would have 5 charges per day. I think this because under the "Special" section of the table is says:

    Charges per day - Divide by (5 divided by charges by day)

    So with 5 charges (5 / 5 = 1), the cost would be multiplied by 1. Fewer charges would reduce the price, more charges would increase the price.

    OR, does making the item a Command Word item mean it has unlimited charges in the first place? This would seem wrong given the very existence of the Charges per day line.

    In which case, how does one make an item such as Hand of the Mage which allows the use of Mage Hand AT WILL?

    Does one use the "Use-activated or continuous" price line?

    Cheers

    Padraig

    I'm confused.

    You say at will then command word. You can't have it both ways.
    If you at will: then you have to pay the more expensive option: Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp.

    If want Command word: Spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp. This is a standard action.

    It would be cheaper to just use charges/day.


    Starbuck_II wrote:


    I'm confused.
    You say at will then command word. You can't have it both ways.

    Sure you can. "At will" simply means no limitation on uses per day, but does not specify activation method. The choices for activation method are, basically, spell completion, spell trigger, command word, and use-activated.


    Quote:


    I'm confused.
    You say at will then command word. You can't have it both ways.
    If you at will: then you have to pay the more expensive option: Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp.

    If want Command word: Spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp. This is a standard action.

    It would be cheaper to just use charges/day.

    "At Will" and "Command Word" aren't mutually exclusive. At Will just means it is usable an unlimited number of times per day. Command Word is just an activation type. You can have a command word-activated item usable at will.

    At Will items still (usually) require a standard action to activate.


    Just a note. If you use the chart for utility spell pricing, it helps martials a lot in the versatility department.


    James Risner wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:
    Please do

    I'm going for succinct here. Ask me to elaborate on anything.

    ** spoiler omitted **
    ** spoiler omitted **
    ** spoiler omitted **...

    Given your response, a much more succinct answer would have been "When I said that all items in the books were priced using the crafting rules, I was mistaken".

    I'm well aware that pricing of items is an 'art', and furthermore many if not most of the items in the books are priced based on some developers opinion as to the relative value and power of the bestowed benefit rather than any written rules or guidelines.

    As you note, these are not actually guidelines or rules than can be applied generally.

    For wands, two people will price wands exactly the same way. How? There are specific rules and guidelines.

    For many if not most of the rings, amulets, and wondrous items in the book, my guess the spread in calculated cost would vary by at least a factor of two, and perhaps up to a factor of 4 for some items because another word for 'art' is subjective opinion. This is the very opposite of 'created using the crafting rules'.

    If you go way back to my entry into the discussion, you'll see the reaction I had to your claims on this subject. Given your most recent response, I'm pretty sure we're now both on the same page.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    _Ozy_ wrote:

    succinct answer would have been "When I said that all items in the books were priced using the crafting rules, I was mistaken".

    Given your most recent response, I'm pretty sure we're now both on the same page.

    Well, I wasn't mistaken. But I'm happy you think we are on the same page. I'm not entirely certain how we can be on the same page but seem to be on polar opposite pages when describing this concept.

    But in general, advice to consult the charts to make new magic items lead new players/GM down the wrong path that is opposite of what the rules say.


    James Risner wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:

    succinct answer would have been "When I said that all items in the books were priced using the crafting rules, I was mistaken".

    Given your most recent response, I'm pretty sure we're now both on the same page.

    Well, I wasn't mistaken. But I'm happy you think we are on the same page. I'm not entirely certain how we can be on the same page but seem to be on polar opposite pages when describing this concept.

    But in general, advice to consult the charts to make new magic items lead new players/GM down the wrong path that is opposite of what the rules say.

    Well, I'll be succinct then and you can ask me to elaborate on anything if there still is confusion.

    You were mistaken because you claimed quite specifically that every single item in every single published book used the set of crafting guidelines for pricing.

    This is flat out incorrect. Not only are there obvious pricing errors, but many if not most of the items such as rings, wondrous items, amulets, and other items with somewhat non-standard effects were priced using subjective judgment of Pathfinder developers using criteria which is not and can not be written down anywhere. This is the exact opposite of a 'set of guidelines'.

    In fact, you just acknowledged this very fact only a few posts ago.

    Guidelines are a set of steps or processes used so different people come up with approximately the same answer. No such guidelines exist for a large number of items in the published material.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Magic Creation Rules

    continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2

    The 2 behind the gp is a multiplier

    Spell is in rounds its X4
    Spell is in min/level its X2
    Spell is in 10 min/level its X1.5

    Shocking Grasp is INSTANTANEOUS

    Instantaneous is not covered, but we may think it like this...

    Spell is in one full round X8
    Spell is in one standard action X16
    Spell is instantaneous X32

    So, the Ring he wants it would cost...

    Spell level(2nd) X Caster level(10th) X 2,000gp X Instantaneous(32) = 1,280,000gp

    As I see it...

    Edit.. Forgot the Intensive Meta Magic


    Dr Styx wrote:
    As I see it...

    Interesting, but that's going to belong over in the House Rules forum. Big time.


    DM_Blake wrote:
    Dr Styx wrote:
    As I see it...
    Interesting, but that's going to belong over in the House Rules forum. Big time.

    :-)

    He asked how we would price it...
    Could have gone with the number of charges per day rout...

    1 charge per round
    10 rounds per minute
    14400 min per day

    So...

    Spell level(2nd) X Caster level(10th) X 1800gp X Charges (144,000/5) = 103,680,000gp

    :-)

    Yes, I see how ridiculous this is.


    If we are pricing for an on hit shocking grasp then that's basically a weapon a weapon with 10d6 worth elemental/other damage modifiers on it So a weapon with 10 shocking enchantments. That'd make it +11 though, so a +0 10d6 Shocking weapon??? 200kgp?

    If not and it's command word then isn't it the LevelXClx1800gp costs?

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    koluminar wrote:

    I would never allow such an item at my table. I hate to be a poo poo, stick in my shoe. But an at will intensified shocking grasp? At full charge that's 10d6 with unlimited charges. I'm assuming magus so you can spell combat with it. That's ridiculous.

    He can't. You can use spell combat only with spells that you cast from those you have memorized.

    For that price range a magus could buy a Ring of Wizardry (II) (40,000 gp) and get up to 6 extra second level spells.
    At the level at which you can afford this kind of items most magus have improved spell recall and can refill a 2nd level slot for 1 Arcana point.

    Claxon wrote:


    It is important to note that activating the ring would require a standard action, so you couldn't full attack or take a full round action like spell combat. Though if you were a magus you could use spell strike.

    Same limit as above. You can use spell strike only with spells that you cast from those you have memorized.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    timmypaddins wrote:

    The rogue does get help from our Sorcerer with the Greater Invisibility, and you might describe it as good tactics, or you might tell it for what it is, stupid and over-powered.

    Honestly, in our last game, he wandered into a room with 4 stone giants and cut them to shreds. The fact that the three fighting characters were there was wholly a side issue. If they hadn't been there, it would have just taken the rogue a bit longer to finish them off.

    Sadly Pathfinder seems to be just another exercise in who can rape the system the most to get the most maxed out character. I don't blame anyone for doing it, but it does make for boring sessions.

    Honestly, our rogue should just take leadership, hire himself a healer (on the off chance he does get hit), and keep the party sorcerer for a copious amount of Greater Invisibility spells, and he would complete the adventure on his own.....

    I'm all for limiting players when I GM, but I also like to allow the players to understand the framework they are working under, and therefore any "Core" rules should be changed extremely reluctantly.

    Honestly, WTF is the point of the magic item creations rules if so many are so against them?

    As for the Command triggered items, unlimited use is dumb, and I think combined with the line under Special gives a great way to limit them, i.e.: all Command Items have 5 uses per day as a base, and you use the equation under Special to limit or increase the charges.

    Ho hum.

    Padster

    Do you know how many opponents at that level have constant true seeing or see invisibility?

    Sooner or later that rogue will get in a world or hurt if he rely on a single trick.

    Claxon wrote:

    What he's describing is possible, and very likely to occur with a GM who doesn't know what they're doing.

    All the giants need to do is keep together and move more than 10ft a round. It keeps the rogue from full attacking. Then they ready an action to attack if they or an adjacent ally are attacked.

    Remember that attacking breaks stealth. He's invisible, but not stealthy anymore. It's only a DC 20 to pinpoint his location. Rogue gets one attack, and receives probably 3 attacks which have a 50% miss chance.

    And the one that is attacked automatically pinpoint the square from which the attack come (unless the rogue is using a ranged or reach weapon)

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    _Ozy_ wrote:
    You were mistaken because you claimed quite specifically that every single item in every single published book used the set of crafting guidelines for pricing.

    Every single item is created with the crafting rules, period.

    The chart isn't all the crafting rules.

    I'm very aggressively opposite anyone pointing someone to the chart, as that generally leads to a price that is both incorrect and not following the crafting rules.

    So you can keep saying I'm incorrect and I'll keep saying I'm correct, yet according to you we have the same position. Either we can schedule a time to do 1,000 back and forth posts or we can agree to carry on?


    James Risner wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:
    You were mistaken because you claimed quite specifically that every single item in every single published book used the set of crafting guidelines for pricing.

    Every single item is created with the crafting rules, period.

    The chart isn't all the crafting rules.

    I'm very aggressively opposite anyone pointing someone to the chart, as that generally leads to a price that is both incorrect and not following the crafting rules.

    So you can keep saying I'm incorrect and I'll keep saying I'm correct, yet according to you we have the same position. Either we can schedule a time to do 1,000 back and forth posts or we can agree to carry on?

    All you have to do to break this unproductive cycle is lay out these 'crafting guidelines' that were used to create one of those listed items.

    If your response is: "Pathfinder developers used subjective judgment to set the price", then you don't actually know what guidelines are.

    For example, one of the standard crafting guidelines is that item bonuses are priced using geometric progression. +2 costs 4x more than +1, +3 costs 9x more, etc (bonus ^ 2).

    Take a look at the ring of inner fortitude. Not only is the initial price undetermined by any set of published Pathfinder crafting guidelines, the more powerful versions violate this geometric progression guideline.

    The medium version has twice the bonus as the lowest version, and yet costs only a bit more than double (x2.3). The highest version has 3 times the bonus, and yet costs (x3.7) which leads to a pricing formula like ((4/3)*bonus - (1/3). Where can we find this formula in the crafting rules?

    If YOU were going to use the crafting guidelines for this set of items, what prices would you have come up with? And can you please show your work so I can understand these specific guidelines you are referring to.


    Dr Styx wrote:

    Magic Creation Rules

    continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp2

    The 2 behind the gp is a multiplier

    Spell is in rounds its X4
    Spell is in min/level its X2
    Spell is in 10 min/level its X1.5

    Shocking Grasp is INSTANTANEOUS

    Instantaneous is not covered, but we may think it like this...

    Spell is in one full round X8
    Spell is in one standard action X16
    Spell is instantaneous X32

    So, the Ring he wants it would cost...

    Spell level(2nd) X Caster level(10th) X 2,000gp X Instantaneous(32) = 1,280,000gp

    As I see it...

    Edit.. Forgot the Intensive Meta Magic

    Last I checked, he didn't ask for every time he attacks, he receives an Intensified Shocking Grasp to his attack, so that pricing is absolutely incorrect.

    Also, if an effect is Instantaneous, then I highly doubt it can be made Continuous, which is why it's not included (you can't make something that's finished as soon as it manifests last forever). Such effects would have to be Use-Activated, which means the Spell Duration subject matter is irrelevant.

    Look, if you don't like the item, then just say "I don't like it because it's overpowered." There's no need to throw out a bunch of BS numbers that have no backing in the rules because of your personal opinion on the subject matter.


    I'm seriously surprised at how everyone basically glossed over the fact that Custom Items are nothing but GM FIAT.

    In PFS, there are no Custom Items. There are only the standard book items that you purchase.

    Even if you wanted to combine items, that falls into GM FIAT, because there are no such items that are standard that have the elements of two items combined into one, and the matter of combining them, per RAW, is a headache and a half, since you may end up paying more for an item if you combine it one way instead of combining it another way.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

    Last I checked, he didn't ask for every time he attacks, he receives an Intensified Shocking Grasp to his attack, so that pricing is absolutely incorrect.

    Also, if an effect is Instantaneous, then I highly doubt it can be made Continuous, which is why it's not included (you can't make something that's finished as soon as it manifests last forever). Such effects would have to be Use-Activated, which means the Spell Duration subject matter is irrelevant.

    Look, if you don't like the item, then just say "I don't like it because it's overpowered." There's no need to throw out a bunch of BS numbers that have no backing in the rules because of your personal opinion on the subject matter.

    It's even worse if it's command word activated, which burns a standard action and ruins action economy. People seem to overestimate the value of a really powerful effect that, because of activation, cuts your number of attacks in half at low level, and much more at higher levels.

    Command word activated 'True Strike' at level 15? Er, no thank you.


    Maybe it went something like this:

    In the beginning, the very beginning, there was no chart of magic item prices. There were no rules for crafting magic items and no guidelines for pricing them. Nothing. There were no magic items in the first draft of the rulebook. None of it had been written yet.

    Then some developer decided "Hey, this rulebook really needs some magic items in here. But where should I start?"

    So first he created a Ring of Protection. Then he decided there should be 5 varieties. Finally, he decided the price should be 2,000gp x bonus ^2. And then he wrote that into a pricing chart (which now has only one line).

    Yeah, verily, the first magic item price was arbitrary because there was no chart yet and there were no items it could be compared to.

    Then he created a Cloak of Resistance and decided there should be 5 variations of this, too. Then he compared this cloak to the ring he had already created and decided it was less useful so should be about half the price, 1,000gp x bonus ^2. And then he wrote that into a pricing chart (which now has two lines).

    Then he created a Ring of Invisibility. He then compared this ring to his other ring and the cloak. He decided the Ring of Invisibility was worth about the price of a +3 Ring of Protection (or a bit more) and was worth somewhere between the price of a +4 and a +5 Cloak of Resistance, probably basing this valuation on a simple question: "What price seems reasonable enough that I would buy the Ring of Invisibility instead of a Ring of Protection +X or a Cloak of Resistance +Y?". So he set the price at 20,000 gp.

    Then he created a Belt of Invisibility. He then compared this belt to his Ring of Invisibility and decided it should be priced exactly the same.

    That's when he wrote the guideline that prices should be compared to other similar items.

    (later the Belt of Invisibility was cut from the rulebook for space considerations).

    That's how EVERY item in the rulebook was created.

    And now we have a guideline that says we should FIRST try to compare prices, and we have a chart we can use if we cannot find a comparison. In other words, it's easier for us now than it was for that first developer.


    I don't disagree that it likely went how you describe, but this step in the process:

    Quote:
    probably basing this valuation on a simple question: "What price seems reasonable enough that I would buy the Ring of Invisibility instead of a Ring of Protection +X or a Cloak of Resistance +Y?". So he set the price at 20,000 gp.

    Is not mentioned in the rules or codified into any of the listed guidelines. In fact, it is a subjective evaluation that CAN'T be codified into a guideline since it differs, sometimes wildly, from person to person. While this step likely happened, it is not part of the 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines'.

    The guidelines regarding comparison is to 'similar items', not relative power levels, or relative subjective value. The examples given are quite specific:

    item of mage armor vs. bracers

    weapon of true strike vs. weapon enhancement bonuses

    And, now that we have that baseline, published books are coming out with items that STILL don't have any pricing guidelines associated with them and don't in any way follow the guidelines that have been published.

    Why is a vest of stable mutation more expensive than a ring of minor fortitude? Here are two similar items that actually can be compared. And yet the much less useful and effective item is priced more expensive. If you can come up with the crafting guidelines that account for both of their prices, I would be frankly astonished.

    But once again, lest you think I'm complaining about the system or the prices, I am not. I am merely pushing back against this bizarre idea that there is a set of codified guidelines that can be used to reproduce the price of items in published materials.

    This is obviously not true.


    _Ozy_ wrote:

    I don't disagree that it likely went how you describe, but this step in the process:

    Quote:
    probably basing this valuation on a simple question: "What price seems reasonable enough that I would buy the Ring of Invisibility instead of a Ring of Protection +X or a Cloak of Resistance +Y?". So he set the price at 20,000 gp.
    Is not mentioned in the rules or codified into any of the listed guidelines. In fact, it is a subjective evaluation that CAN'T be codified into a guideline since it differs, sometimes wildly, from person to person. While this step likely happened, it is not part of the 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines'.

    You're right, it's not in the guideline. That's exactly why I said our job now (pricing a new custom item) is easier than the original developer's job (pricing rulebook items) because we have lots of things to compare with, and a complete chart to use if we can't find a comparison.

    Thankfully, that original developer made all those subjective evaluations for us, saving us the trouble, and you're right, he never wrote THAT into the guideline - it was his job, not ours.


    DM_Blake wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:

    I don't disagree that it likely went how you describe, but this step in the process:

    Quote:
    probably basing this valuation on a simple question: "What price seems reasonable enough that I would buy the Ring of Invisibility instead of a Ring of Protection +X or a Cloak of Resistance +Y?". So he set the price at 20,000 gp.
    Is not mentioned in the rules or codified into any of the listed guidelines. In fact, it is a subjective evaluation that CAN'T be codified into a guideline since it differs, sometimes wildly, from person to person. While this step likely happened, it is not part of the 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines'.

    You're right, it's not in the guideline. That's exactly why I said our job now (pricing a new custom item) is easier than the original developer's job (pricing rulebook items) because we have lots of things to compare with, and a complete chart to use if we can't find a comparison.

    Thankfully, that original developer made all those subjective evaluations for us, saving us the trouble, and you're right, he never wrote THAT into the guideline - it was his job, not ours.

    So, do you think the vest of stable mutation is overpriced, or is the ring of inner fortitude underpriced? How would you make that judgment? If I wanted to create a similar item, which item should I use for comparison?


    _Ozy_ wrote:
    DM_Blake wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:

    I don't disagree that it likely went how you describe, but this step in the process:

    Quote:
    probably basing this valuation on a simple question: "What price seems reasonable enough that I would buy the Ring of Invisibility instead of a Ring of Protection +X or a Cloak of Resistance +Y?". So he set the price at 20,000 gp.
    Is not mentioned in the rules or codified into any of the listed guidelines. In fact, it is a subjective evaluation that CAN'T be codified into a guideline since it differs, sometimes wildly, from person to person. While this step likely happened, it is not part of the 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines'.

    You're right, it's not in the guideline. That's exactly why I said our job now (pricing a new custom item) is easier than the original developer's job (pricing rulebook items) because we have lots of things to compare with, and a complete chart to use if we can't find a comparison.

    Thankfully, that original developer made all those subjective evaluations for us, saving us the trouble, and you're right, he never wrote THAT into the guideline - it was his job, not ours.

    So, do you think the vest of stable mutation is overpriced, or is the ring of inner fortitude underpriced? How would you make that judgment? If I wanted to create a similar item, which item should I use for comparison?

    I never said the developers were always right. Errors exist. Ask for errata.

    As for comparison pricing, that's up to the GM. It's a guideline. Use it like one. Unless you're expecting the core rulebook to list every possible spell and then tell you which item to use for comparison pricing? I imagine you don't expect that, so make a GM call and move on.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    _Ozy_ wrote:
    If YOU were going to use the crafting guidelines for this set of items, what prices would you have come up with? And can you please show your work so I can understand these specific guidelines you are referring to.

    The first thing I would do is follow the guidelines, which wouldn't involve me using the chart first.

    I'd look at the power of the proposed item, and I'd look for similar items. The closest item would likely be Ring of Evasion. Reducing to 0 on the vast majority of ability damage 70% percent is way better than reducing all damage to 0 on a successful save from an area effect.

    Would you actually look at the chart? For the effect or for the progression?

    (Full Disclosure, I had a character in Rise of the Runelords who owned the Greater one for 66,000 gp and it was the best gold I spent in the life of the character.)

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Kullen wrote:
    Guru-Meditation wrote:
    Is it so hard to understand?

    Disagree =/= fail to understand. Again, my quibble is with elevating "look at other stuff as sort of a list of loose guidelines that may or may not apply, then pick a number" to the status of a "rule."

    That's not what I'd consider a set of rules. It's barely a rule of thumb.

    In traffic, the rule is to stop at a red light. Not "compare what the other people are doing and then decide if it's OK to ignore the light, or maybe follow it, or maybe modify it." There are then additional rules to determine if it's OK to turn right on red, after having stopped; these may vary by state or even by light, but not by the driver's opinion.

    Rigth turn on red

    So "stop at a red light" isn't an absolute rule in all the countries and it is possible to ignore that in specific conditions.


    Diego Rossi wrote:
    So "stop at a red light" isn't an absolute rule in all the countries...

    And by the same token, no one expects the rules in Pathfinder to match the one in Runequest, either.

    "Different countries have different rules" =/= "loose subjective guidelines are totally rules!"


    James Risner wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:
    If YOU were going to use the crafting guidelines for this set of items, what prices would you have come up with? And can you please show your work so I can understand these specific guidelines you are referring to.

    The first thing I would do is follow the guidelines, which wouldn't involve me using the chart first.

    I'd look at the power of the proposed item, and I'd look for similar items. The closest item would likely be Ring of Evasion. Reducing to 0 on the vast majority of ability damage 70% percent is way better than reducing all damage to 0 on a successful save from an area effect.

    Would you actually look at the chart? For the effect or for the progression?

    (Full Disclosure, I had a character in Rise of the Runelords who owned the Greater one for 66,000 gp and it was the best gold I spent in the life of the character.)

    The only way I can justify the progression not following the standard geometric bonus is factoring in some frequency of beneficial effect.

    That is, the amount of stat damage or penalty you end up taking may follow some sort of inverse distribution. The odds of:

    taking 1 point of damage: 50%
    taking 2 points of damage: 25%
    taking 3 points of damage: 12%
    taking 4 points of damage: 6%
    and so on...

    So, a major ring is only actually better than a minor ring 25% of the time, which somehow modifies the typical x4 factor down to x2.3. Note, these numbers are just for illustrative purposes, not an actual statistical analysis.

    As to how they came up with the 18k for the minor ring, I have absolutely no clue. Maybe 6 stats * (1.5 multiple effect factor * 4k (+2 stat bonus) / 2 (you don't actually get a stat bonus) = 18k

    Who knows how the developers actually did it, it's certainly not codified into any rules that I can find, and I'm not sure how one would base it off the Ring of Evasion since avoiding HP damage and stat damage are pretty different effects. Note, the guidelines don't really say 'power' anywhere, they say 'similar' and their examples are items that have 'similar effects', not items that have 'similar power'.

    The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

    _Ozy_ wrote:
    As to how they came up with the 18k for the minor ring, I have absolutely no clue. Maybe 6 stats * (1.5 multiple effect factor * 4k (+2 stat bonus) / 2 (you don't actually get a stat bonus) = 18k

    Is there a particular reason you think they used any formula?

    That is really what I don't understand.

    I don't think they used a formula for these three items. I think they assigned relative prices based on the power of the item, and I see the item creation rules saying to do it that way. Despite no mention of "power" in the rules.


    James Risner wrote:
    _Ozy_ wrote:
    As to how they came up with the 18k for the minor ring, I have absolutely no clue. Maybe 6 stats * (1.5 multiple effect factor * 4k (+2 stat bonus) / 2 (you don't actually get a stat bonus) = 18k

    Is there a particular reason you think they used any formula?

    That is really what I don't understand.

    I don't think they used a formula for these three items. I think they assigned relative prices based on the power of the item, and I see the item creation rules saying to do it that way. Despite no mention of "power" in the rules.

    The item creation rules don't say anything of the sort. As you say, the word 'power' is never mentioned, and all of the comparison examples they provide are for 'similar' items providing the exact same bonuses or abilities. Quite simply, you are reading 'power' into the guidelines when it isn't actually there. That's merely an assumption you are making.

    The reason why I think they may have used some sort of formula is because they already have formulas for crafting magic items. Tacking on modifying multipliers and dividers to established formulas seems a lot easier than pulling a number out of hat based on some ill-defined, subjective, and situational determination of 'power'.

    51 to 100 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ring of Intensified Shocking Grasp All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.