Even looking at the item creation rules, given that bonus-granting items are clearly spelled out as costing some factor x bonus squared, it would seem to me that a sword of true strike would cost 20 x 20 x some factor, plus additional cost to cover the ignoring concealment. The latter seems to be adequately covered by the seeking property, at a +1 equivalent bonus cost. For the former, the tables don't provide "insight bonus to attack," but they do have "Weapon Bonus (Enhancement)" and "AC Bonus (Other)" for a factor of 2,000 or 2,500, respectively. Since the insight would stack with enhancement, the "other" would seem more appropriate. The sword of true strike would therefore run you 2,500 gp x 20 x 20 = 1 million gp, in addition to the +1 bonus cost.
Why not use spell effect?
(1) Order of operations: bonus squared table precedes spell effect table.
(2) Overwhelming precedence from amulet of natural armor (uses bonus squared, not barkskin spell effect); headband of intellect (uses bonus squared, not fox's cunning spell effect); ring of protection (uses bonus squared, not shield of faith spell effect); etc., etc.
These would be rules, and following them, you end up with a sword of true strike that costs over 1,000,000 gp, not 2,000. In contrast, if the only "rule" is "pick something and call it the same cost," then the price is going to be a lot lower (and probably too low), or else the item will simply get banned by fiat; neither seems an ideal outcome.
Some of us would therefore like there to be workable rules, not just arbitrary comparisons. However, the "rules," in their current state, aren't there yet by a long shot.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think once I understand how you can get from 'point A' (my actual posts) to 'point B'
You asserted that the only item creation rules are the charts, and few of the items are created using the item creation rules.
Well, for a loose definition of 'using the rules'. The ring of invisibility isn't priced as per the guidelines.
The item creations rules are not just the charts. The rules articulate that item creation isn't just about plugging values into the chart formulas and coming up with a value.
So every item is created by the rules, and many (most?) of them don't follow the charts.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Well, for a loose definition of 'using the rules'. The ring of invisibility isn't priced as per the guidelines.
Workable rules would involve a chart for every spell in the game, every supernatural effect in the game, every extraordinary effect in the game, and many effects that have not been created yet.
This chart could be hundreds of pages, and would still not be fair, reasonable, balanced, or acceptable.
What we have now is a framework or rules that advise caution, and describe how a GM (not a player) can evaluate a price using the rules. To be honest, it may even be too many rules. The original first edition rules were probably better using 188 words to convey the same message with no charts and to convey additional help beyond what we have today in the Pathfinder rules on item creation.
Even looking at the item creation rules, given that bonus-granting items are clearly spelled out as costing some factor x bonus squared, it would seem to me that a sword of true strike would cost 20 x 20 x some factor, plus additional cost to cover the ignoring concealment. The latter seems to be adequately covered by the seeking property, at a +1 equivalent bonus cost. For the former, the tables don't provide "insight bonus to attack," but they do have "Weapon Bonus (Enhancement)" and "AC Bonus (Other)" for a factor of 2,000 or 2,500, respectively. Since the insight would stack with enhancement, the "other" would seem more appropriate. The sword of true strike would therefore run you 2,500 gp x 20 x 20 = 1 million gp, in addition to the +1 bonus cost.
Why not use spell effect?
(1) Order of operations: bonus squared table precedes spell effect table.
(2) Overwhelming precedence from amulet of natural armor (uses bonus squared, not barkskin spell effect); headband of intellect (uses bonus squared, not fox's cunning spell effect); ring of protection (uses bonus squared, not shield of faith spell effect); etc., etc.These would be rules, and following them, you end up with a sword of true strike that costs over 1,000,000 gp, not 2,000. In contrast, if the only "rule" is "pick something and call it the same cost," then the price is going to be a lot lower (and probably too low), or else the item will simply get banned by fiat; neither seems an ideal outcome.
Some of us would therefore like there to be workable rules, not just arbitrary comparisons. However, the "rules," in their current state, aren't there yet by a long shot.
Just a slight nitpick, but if you were wanting a "Sword of True Strike," you must have it be a +1 Weapon before adding any sort of properties to it, which means it's a minimum of 8,000 gold, if not higher.
Additionally, the benefits of a "Sword of True Strike" can be easily acquired through subjects such as Poisoner's Gloves, Sipping Jackets, and +1 Spell Storing Swords. With the Gloves or Swords, you touch-attack yourself with the items to discharge the Spell onto yourself. With a Sipping Jacket, that's a Swift Action to apply it, which makes such an item really valuable.
So by all means, a "Sword of True Strike" is certainly plausible and easy enough to manipulate in the rules. But quite frankly, if a PC is forgoing his highest Iterative, or his Swift Action, to make his next attack a +20 to the roll, I don't see it being extremely overpowered, much less out of the realm of possibility, since it's limited by either A. His spell slots, B. his WBL, or c. the number of True Strike potions he possesses.
Workable rules would involve a chart for every spell in the game, every supernatural effect in the game, every extraordinary effect in the game, and many effects that have not been created yet. This chart could be hundreds of pages, and would still not be fair, reasonable, balanced, or acceptable.
Permit me to disagree on all counts. If you prefer fiat to rules, that's a perfectly valid opinion. It does not, however, in any way mean that rules are automatically impossible or unworkable; just that you don't really want them (I guess that's the "not acceptable" part?).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, it's up to YOU to demonstrate that your supposed guidelines are supported by what's written in the rules.
Do you actually agree with me? Because I frankly can't comprehend why you are taking this stance, unless you think some of the things you said wasn't your view.
Why be so argumentative, if what you say is true, when we agree?
I strongly oppose any sort of assertion that the chart is the way to create new items. I do so because it comes up with reckless abandon nearly every day. You say you agree the charts are not the way. Yet I only know that because you say you agree with me. I honestly (no joke) can't find anything in this thread that agrees with that?
I'd also like to put this to bed, because you seem unable to accept that my stance despite "agreeing with it" and I'd rather not keep wasting bytes continuing this.
To be fair, a 1/use ever, Truestrike affect amulet (*which as a immediate action gives Truestrike once) would be fair.
Because the issue with truestrike is it is a charged touch spell in essence (as it works once than needs to be recast).
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. 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. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
it's the first paragraph of the Magical Item Creation rules. WHY should he need to post what is RIGHT THERE.
Note the 'otherwise'. In other words, if you cannot find an item to compare it to, THEN use the tables and try to figure them out that way.
--------
An item that has unlimited True Strike was actually published in 3e Sword and Fist. The Bow of True Arrows. +1 bow, spell trigger item True Strike. Priced at 4000 gp.
Note that as a spell trigger item, you had to be a spell caster, and have it on your spell list to actually use successfully. In return, every other round you could shoot one True Strike arrow.
The Magus' ability works if he very specifically takes an arcana that allows him to treat a wand as a cast spell for spell combat. Great! Nice! more power to him!
Every other person in existence has to wait until the next round to use the True Strike, and if they aren't an arcane caster with True Strike on their list, they must additionally make a UMD check to employ that wand.
Is a +20 to make sure your weapon hits on the first swing worth more then a 10d6 Magical Lineaged Shocking Grasp being used instead? I'm inclined to believe, no.
At the same time, unlimited use with no need to replace is effectively making True Strike a 'cantrip'.
An item that can be used by anyone is double the cost of a wand of same (potions vs wand). Furthermore, there are restrictions on what you can put in a potion, and we're getting around that with this True Strike item.
Lastly, what is the value of one attack that 'always hits?' On one side, on a round by round basis, compared to perishable resources like other level 1 slots that can be leveraged for big damage, not much.
What about simply all the time, every other round, after all your other magic is gone, and you're effectively comparing to, say, a cantrip?
Clearly hugely powerful.
So, limited use vs unlimited use here is obviously the breaker, with 'ease of use' coming in a close second.
As soon as we call it unlimited use, you have to start calling it the equivalent of a weapon enhancement. Just what is the value of a weapon enhancement that allows an auto hit every other round, and ignores concealment? Combinations of Vital Strike, Power attack and Expertise/Stalwart dance through my head, combined with Spell Storing weapons. You still won't miss.
Application is fairly similar to a Ring of Invisibility, as are the arguments. Clearly, invisibility from a wand has drawbacks and limits, but the Ring of Invisibility has none of those. True Strike being of unlimited use is very, very similar, except going from single use to unlimited uses is an even bigger step then from a duration of 3 minutes to 'effectively all day'.
For a price? I'd probably go in the 15k range if it was a slotted item, 30k for slotless, with the stipulation that if the item was shown to be a combo-breaker/abuser, it would be retired immediately.
Or, as noted elsewhere, how readily do you want to see such a device in the hands of your enemies?
==Aelryinth
Here is my understanding of the guidelines, such as they are. I found three other items that protect against ability damage and once that protects against poison:
The Headband of Mental resilience -> 5 temporary ability points, 64k - (16k * 1.5) = 40k
The Elysian Shield -> 1/day negate drain or damage, 52k - 9k = ~40k
The Siphoning Scorpion -> 1/day negate poison, 8k
The Stalwart Breastplate -> 1 / mythic power / round ability damage immunity, 22k - 4k - ? = <18k
Since 5 ability damage is the average of 1d10 or a little less than 2d6, we can say that the headband and shield are about equivilent. So outside of the mythic item, it costs about 40k to resist one application of ability damage. If we call the mythic item 1/2 price for requiring mythic tiers, it also prices out close to the same price.
The scorpion only protects against poison, but it costs very little. Something to keep in mind.
If we assume 4 encounters per day, and that not more than 1 of those is against an ability drainer, we would expect about 1-3 instances of ability damage/drain each day. In this way, the lesser ring is worth between 0.4 and 1.2 of the other items, the moderate ring is worth between 0.8 and 2.4 times and the greater ring is worth between 1.2 and 3.6.
So if we eyeball it a bit, the lesser ring should cost 20k, the moderate ring 40k and the greater ring 80k. Coming from the other side and comparing to the amulet I could see the lesser ring being worth 16k, since it basically makes you immune to one poison per day assuming the same ratio of encounters.
Next you would look at the desirableness of the rings compared to other items of similar price. I don't really have experience for that as I mostly play at lower levels, but I think my analysis at least gives a good starting point.