Ring of Intensified Shocking Grasp


Rules Questions

151 to 186 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Byakko wrote:
What you guys are saying isn't incompatible. You can both win.

+1

What a reasonable thing to say.

I've said essentially the same as you just said there, but he isn't willing to say that. I entirely don't understand how he can agree with me yet not agree simultaneously.


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

There is generally no problem with the use of the rules to create standard out of the book items. These have been tested and designed by the professionals for game balance at an appropriate price point which puts them at an appropriate level.

The problem comes with CUSTOM magic item creation which is a veritable minefield in which campaign balance goes dancing. With the relatively low requirements for item crafting it is extremely easy to break the system, especially for those with system mastery including corner ways of reading raw text. The problem gets even worse when you combine the functionality of multiple magic items into one. The GM will certainly be forced to make arbitrary bans on player creativity because of this and that's where most of the butt-hurt comes from.


So, because of a tiny number of very specific examples, you assume that "similar" must always be that specific?

Human DNA is similar to ape DNA. The word "similar" has very broad context and a few examples do not change that context; they are just a few of the myriad possibilities. In the case of those examples, a very similar item was available. Lucky them. Actually, they picked specific items that had very similar examples to make a clear point - which doesn't mean that other cases where the similarity is less exact are invalid.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a series of back and forth posts and the responses to them. Folks, arguing for the sake of arguing in this thread is completely unnecessary.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
timmypaddins wrote:
Honestly, WTF is the point of the magic item creations rules if so many are so against them?

There is generally no problem with the use of the rules to create standard out of the book items. These have been tested and designed by the professionals for game balance at an appropriate price point which puts them at an appropriate level.

The problem comes with CUSTOM magic item creation which is a veritable minefield in which campaign balance goes dancing. With the relatively low requirements for item crafting it is extremely easy to break the system, especially for those with system mastery including corner ways of reading raw text. The problem gets even worse when you combine the functionality of multiple magic items into one. The GM will certainly be forced to make arbitrary bans on player creativity because of this and that's where most of the butt-hurt comes from.

This is complete truth.

Example: At higher levels, the best way to get AC is a DISMAL Ring. A Ring with +1 BOnuses to AC of Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale and Luck. By the rules, this gets you +5 to AC for 17,500 gp...a fraction of the cost of a +5 Prot ring, but effectively identical.

We could make it a DISMAL PC Ring by adding Competence and Profane bonuses, and now we're at 25,000ish gp for +7 to AC.

If we merely increase these bonuses to +2, a +2 DISMAL PC ring is only 97,000 gp for +14 to AC, all of it Touch.

And that's following the price rules for non-standard bonuses and +50% stacking. Things can get out of hand FAST with just following the formulas.

==Aelryinth


DM_Blake wrote:

So, because of a tiny number of very specific examples, you assume that "similar" must always be that specific?

Human DNA is similar to ape DNA. The word "similar" has very broad context and a few examples do not change that context; they are just a few of the myriad possibilities. In the case of those examples, a very similar item was available. Lucky them. Actually, they picked specific items that had very similar examples to make a clear point - which doesn't mean that other cases where the similarity is less exact are invalid.

Yes, I do. Because there is no other way to read it. If you broaden the context, then it actually loses all relevance. Are all rings considered 'similar' because they use the same slot? Are all items that use the same spell in their creation 'similar'? Without any guidance, other than the examples provided, you can't actually tell me what 'similar' means other than the context provided by those examples.

What's more 'similar' to a Ring of Inner Fortitude, a Ring of Evasion or a Ring of Invisibility? It's priced more closely to a Ring of Invisibility, does that mean it's 'more similar' in some metric?

What metric would that be?

Again, we have no actual way of determining this because the rules are silent. The only guidance we get, from the text itself as well as the examples, is 'similar abilities'.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, I do. Because there is no other way to read it.

That is the root problem. There are lots of ways to read things. In fact, the entire list of all the FAQ are a result of multiple ways to read things.

If you wish to say there is only one way to read something then you are the only person wrong. If the other guy is saying I think it says this but maybe it says what you think and your GM will pick. Then they are correct.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, I do. Because there is no other way to read it.

That is the root problem. There are lots of ways to read things. In fact, the entire list of all the FAQ are a result of multiple ways to read things.

If you wish to say there is only one way to read something then you are the only person wrong. If the other guy is saying I think it says this but maybe it says what you think and your GM will pick. Then they are correct.

Dude, please don't quote out of context. The following sentences expanded on that point. If you broaden the word 'similar' then it loses any relevant meaning because there is no actual guidance, other than similar abilities, as to what it means. Again, here's the text:

Quote:
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items

Note the word in bold. It's not 'power', it's not 'usefulness', it's not 'desirability'. So, what makes you think that you should use any of those when trying to select a 'similar' object to compare?

Couple that with the provided examples, and it seems pretty clear what the rules say.

There are always multiple ways to read the rules, and yet your way seems to be loaded with tons of assumptions and a dearth of textual support.


Came looking for ways to cast shocking grasp....
Ended up with a Shallowsoul esk MIC thread.

I am dissapoint.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a series of back and forth posts and the responses to them. Folks, arguing for the sake of arguing in this thread is completely unnecessary.

Hah, you gutted the thread. The previous page (101-150) should have 50 posts but it only has 9. You deleted 41 posts. Thanks!

(I mean that. Probably all 41 of those detracted heavily from the thread, including mine where I tried to stop the detraction)


Don't get this thread blown out of control again.

Your pedantic insistence that "compare to similar items" MUST mean "compare to an item that uses the same base spell in the same identical way" is wrong. It doesn't mean that at all. It's enough to find another item that uses a "similar" spell to perform a "similar" function for a "similar" reason. Even if the spell is different, the reason to use the item might be "similar" enough.

For example, an item that gives me a few points of AC has a "similar" purpose to an item that gives me displacement - they both perform the basic function of making me harder to hit in combat, so I can compare those as "similar" items because they share "similar" purpose - especially if I can estimate that they both provide a "similar" amount of attack avoidance.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
If you broaden the word 'similar'

If you don't make it as broad as any normal person, then you get in these situations.

Every time an item is created, a developer (or GM) looked for similar items. You need to broaden it as much as required to get to an item that is "similar".


_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yes, I do. Because there is no other way to read it.

That is the root problem. There are lots of ways to read things. In fact, the entire list of all the FAQ are a result of multiple ways to read things.

If you wish to say there is only one way to read something then you are the only person wrong. If the other guy is saying I think it says this but maybe it says what you think and your GM will pick. Then they are correct.

Dude, please don't quote out of context. The following sentences expanded on that point. If you broaden the word 'similar' then it loses any relevant meaning because there is no actual guidance, other than similar abilities, as to what it means. Again, here's the text:

Quote:
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items

Note the word in bold. It's not 'power', it's not 'usefulness', it's not 'desirability'. So, what makes you think that you should use any of those when trying to select a 'similar' object to compare?

Couple that with the provided examples, and it seems pretty clear what the rules say.

There are always multiple ways to read the rules, and yet your way seems to be loaded with tons of assumptions and a dearth of textual support.

I made a step by step use of the guidelines on the previous page. I think it does everything you asked for. You might have missed it on account of it being at the end of the page. Does this not satisfy your requirements?


I did miss it, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I have a question, where did you get the numbers for this:

Quote:
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.

As far as I know, none of those assumptions exist in the rules, nor do they provide a way to modify prices of magic items based on these assumptions. I'm also surprised you didn't include the Periapt of Proof against poison, which for 27k provides complete poison immunity.

Personally, I think it's a fine and dandy way to modify item cost, in fact if you look back on the post I made regarding the cost progression of the Ring if Inner Fortitude, I did something similar based on how often you might expect the higher level rings to be 'useful' compared to the lower level.

But none of what I did, or what you did, is contained in the crafting guidelines. Or, to put it another way, it's one thing to 'back-calculate' and justify the pricing on the Ring of Inner Fortitude, it's another to follow a set of published steps to come up with the price for in the first place.

Give the Ring of Inner Fortitude, unpriced and unknown, to a handful of GMs on these boards and your calculated prices are going to be all over the place. In fact, we already see that for custom items all of the time, factors of 2, 3 or more difference in price. In fact, the ranges you provide in the above example are themselves a factor of 3 from low to high, so I'm not really sure if that should give anyone confidence that they are on the right track.

In short, I have no doubt that people can come up with their own internal methods and justifications for magic item pricing.

Calling that 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines' is misguided.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
Calling that 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines' is misguided.

We all get that you think that is misguided. We just don't share your views.

Can we just stop hashing this out, and let anyone wanting to go back to the OP's original question talk about the original item?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an ancient role player, I have this bit of lore to add....

Back in 1st edition, the prices were guesses pulled from thin air.
Then the play test happened.

This let the designers see what everyone bought right away and what no one ever bought. They had the wisdom to realize something everyone bought as soon as possible was therefore too cheap, and likewise if no one ever bought it, it was to expensive. And so the numbers were adjusted.

The 1st edition ring of invisibility made you disappear until you attacked, even if it was several days later.

Fast forward to 2nd edition.
Some bright sole decided their needed to be better magic crafting rules, and so created some. These were more mechanic than price oriented, as creating magic items was still quest like.

The 2nd edition ring was nerfed, and now only allowed 24 hours before assuming you made an attack, even to slapping at a fly that landed on your arm.

Fast forward to 3rd edition.
Another bright sole decided to simplify magic item creation, and created the rules we now have [approximately]. Then they reverse engineered a number of items and adjusted some prices. But not all.

The 3rd edition of the Ring gained a CL. Those who played earlier editions, used 24 hours, and the CL was just a dispell check number. Those new with 3rd used CL as though you cast the spell and thus caused the invisibility to last only CL minutes.

Fast forward to Pathfinder.
More rules were added to the magic item crafting, notably ones that said you could not use loopholes. I.e. Constant Shield was to be priced as +4 Armor and not Constant 1st level spell.

The developers confirmed/decided that the CL minutes duration was cannon. And that it was command word activated vs. put it on your finger activated in 1st-2nd edition.

/cevah

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

+1 Cevah

Pretty good history, and in general matches my memory of that history I lived also.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I did miss it, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I have a question, where did you get the numbers for this:

Quote:
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.

As far as I know, none of those assumptions exist in the rules, nor do they provide a way to modify prices of magic items based on these assumptions. I'm also surprised you didn't include the Periapt of Proof against poison, which for 27k provides complete poison immunity.

Personally, I think it's a fine and dandy way to modify item cost, in fact if you look back on the post I made regarding the cost progression of the Ring if Inner Fortitude, I did something similar based on how often you might expect the higher level rings to be 'useful' compared to the lower level.

But none of what I did, or what you did, is contained in the crafting guidelines. Or, to put it another way, it's one thing to 'back-calculate' and justify the pricing on the Ring of Inner Fortitude, it's another to follow a set of published steps to come up with the price for in the first place.

Give the Ring of Inner Fortitude, unpriced and unknown, to a handful of GMs on these boards and your calculated prices are going to be all over the place. In fact, we already see that for custom items all of the time, factors of 2, 3 or more difference in price. In fact, the ranges you provide in the above example are themselves a factor of 3 from low to high, so I'm not really sure if that should give anyone confidence that they are on the right track.

In short, I have no doubt that people can come up with their own internal methods and justifications for magic item pricing.

Calling that 'Pathfinder crafting guidelines' is misguided.

4 encounters per day is a consequence of the CR system. If 1 encounter at CR = APL is supposed to take 25% of your resources, then 4 encounters aught to consume 100%. Its hard to value limited use abilities vs limitless because that valuation naturally depends on the type of campaign. I used my intuition of what sort of campaigns I run to come up with ability damage happening 1/day.

I missed the Periapt of Proof Against Poison. Though it matches the ring of inner fortitude. If we value poison at 1/2 of regular ability damage, and we assume that negating 6 points of ability damage is equal to immunity then the ring of inner fortitude works out to 54k which is close to 60k :)

I agree that pathfinder does not really have a "magic item creation formula" but you can't say there are no guidelines. They are just very loose.


So have we not landed on a magic item that allows one to cast this spell as if it were on their (prepared or known) spell list even if it's X times per day?


Ya, that item is called a wand :) Or a Pearl of power.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Knight Magenta wrote:
Ya, that item is called a wand :) Or a Pearl of power.

+1

Primarily because it needs to be an expended resource (wand) or cost a lot (PoP).


Knight Magenta wrote:
Ya, that item is called a wand :) Or a Pearl of power.

Or a ring of spell knowledge if you're an arcane caster and don't have it on your list.

As far as a Wondrous Item that 'casts a spell' as an ability 3x a day:

Vampiric Gloves

are pretty much bang on the chart price:

1800 * 3 (SL) * 5 (CL) * 3/5 (3x day) - vampiric touch

+

1800 * 0.5 (SL) * 5 (CL) * 3/5 (3x day) - bleed

= 18900 vs 18000 list price

As you can see, the gloves are priced a tad underneath chart price.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

As far as a Wondrous Item that 'casts a spell' as an ability 3x a day:

= 18900 vs 18000 list price
As you can see, the gloves are priced a tad underneath chart price.

Which is a perfect example of "not all spells can be in a Spell-in-a-Can item."

It also demonstrates the "if you have to go to the chart, you are not done and may need to raise or lower the price."


Quote:

As far as a Wondrous Item that 'casts a spell' as an ability 3x a day:

Vampiric Gloves

are pretty much bang on the chart price

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Pretty much isn't exactly.

The rules were used.

The creator changed the price.


James Risner wrote:

Pretty much isn't exactly.

The rules were used.

The creator changed the price.

*facepalm* Now I know you just want to argue when you're nitpicking about a 5% difference.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
*facepalm* Now I know you just want to argue when you're nitpicking about a 5% difference.

I'm trying to get you to understand, that the formula isn't the end all be all. That the price is often modified after the chart if the developer/GM used the chart.

If you are to the point of accepting that instead of trying to evade that point, then we are good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those gloves are not letting you cast the spell using your feats and caster level though. Also, making them caster level 5 is pretty troll :p You pay for the extra level but don't get any benefit at all.

Honestly, a staff is probably the closes to what the OP wants.

8 * 2 * 400 = 6400gp for a staff of intensified shocking grasp. I could see doubling that to make is slotless or part of a weapon so on the order of 12800gp for 10 casting of intensified shocking grasp per 10 days.


Staff cost is 6,400 gp, price is 12,800 gp.

Staves are already slotless.

Check the price of staves with weapon properties, and you will see it is most often weapon price + staff price with no +50%. However, many staves do not strictly follow the numbers, and some have errors. [Like some forget to add material components, or do add focus component, or forgetting a double weapon costs twice.] I've looked into a number of staves and have the spreadsheet breakdown for a number of them.

/cevah


Staves aren't really slotless though. They take up your weapon hand. I was not sure what the price for combining the staff with a scimitar would be so I just hedged it with x2.

151 to 186 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.