# Ring of Intensified Shocking Grasp

### Rules Questions

 1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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

If it is command word activated, then you can use it unlimited times.

Charges are ONLY used when you want to limit the number of times you can use the item. You don't want it limited, so don't use charges.

To clarify, the existence of the charges per day line is really just to give an option for very limited use items at a discount. If you wanted to make your same item but could only use it 2 times per day, you would divide the price by (5/2) so your item would be much cheaper, but also limited.

Note that "At Will" still means "as a standard action".

It's a Command Word item, so your calculation for 36.000 is fine. A few more steps:

Does this item make sense as a ring? Sure.
Similar magic items? A wand could be had for 15.000. A magus could buy 9 pearls of power for Intensified Shocking Grasp for 36.000. Seems to be in the ballpark.

The problem is that the formula doesn't really work.
Look at the example of Hand of the Mage: How did it get that cost?
Cantrips are considered half the value of a 1st level spell, so the forumla should be (0.5[spell] x 2[CL] x 1800[Command Word] = 1800g).
...
Except it doesn't cost 1800g. It costs 900g and is crafted for 450g.

But there's nothing noted in the magic item crafting rules to allow for that drop in price.

Neo2151 wrote:

The problem is that the formula doesn't really work.

Look at the example of Hand of the Mage: How did it get that cost?
Cantrips are considered half the value of a 1st level spell, so the forumla should be (0.5[spell] x 2[CL] x 1800[Command Word] = 1800g).
...
Except it doesn't cost 1800g. It costs 900g and is crafted for 450g.

But there's nothing noted in the magic item crafting rules to allow for that drop in price.

Could just be a typo, and they meant a caster level of 1. Though if so, it is a mistake that dates back to 3.5 D&D at least.

Neo2151 wrote:

The problem is that the formula doesn't really work.

Look at the example of Hand of the Mage: How did it get that cost?
Cantrips are considered half the value of a 1st level spell, so the forumla should be (0.5[spell] x 2[CL] x 1800[Command Word] = 1800g).
...
Except it doesn't cost 1800g. It costs 900g and is crafted for 450g.

But there's nothing noted in the magic item crafting rules to allow for that drop in price.

erhemmm...

Quote:
"The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items, and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from the "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" lines of Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."

They compared and decided that 900 gold is the appropriate price for that item.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

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"

You failed Item creation 101 class.

The chart is the last resort when you can't find a similar item, you have no idea what the power of the item you are creating, etc.

This item is powerful. Very powerful.

It would definitely not be as powerful as an at will Animal Trance.

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.

I'd be more comfortable with a wand that you could recharge with arcane pool points.
Or some other form of arcane energy.
An item like that is too over done.

Now" that being said there are ways around that item feeling overdone. Let's see...

Make it have 50 charges like a wand, but have it able to be recharged. Not daily mind you, but you have to invest time to recharge it similar to a staff of the magi artifact but that's overpowered for a wand.
You get my drift

AT WILL no charges or limitations? No fly zone at my table.

Limits so you can't just ring zap your way through encounters? That's doable.

I garuntee you I'd have an ethereal goblin steal that s!@* off your finger and hide it on the negative energy plane so deep you'd have to hire an undead anti paladin to retrieve it.

Yeah, I hate be a spoil sport but I agree I probably wouldn't let this type of item fly at my table.

Any unlimited use or unlimited duration item usually has to be given a high level of scrutiny.

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.

And to that end, assuming you are a magus, I just simply wouldn't allow it. It's too good of an item to actually allow.

5 times per day? Sure. No problem, no unlimited use though.

You'd be better off buying pearls of power and "recalling" your own slots of prepared intensified shocking grasp.

That's allowable, now if you use magical lineage trait shocking grasp, then you can intensify the spell for free... Thus reducing the level of pearl required to cast.. Hell with that I'd allow you to make a pearl necklace with as many pearls as you can afford.

In fact I'm using a similar tactic for an anti paladin I'm using. I made a rosary out of a string of prayer beads and pearls of power(4th) and tied my unholy symbol to it. Then I wrapped the concoction around the hilt of my sword so when I present my unholy symbol all I gotta do is brandish my weapon. It's pretty cool actually. My gym allowed six pearls.

I'd talk to your gym about the necklace, at my table I'd rule that if you can afford the pearls... You can string me together to take up your neck slot. It's pretty genius item slot economy.

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Magus couldn't use it with Spellstrike anyways. Spellstrike requires that the magus cast the spell.

I also wouldn't be inclined to allow it as an item.

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Well even if the OP is a magus he can't use Spell Combat or Spellstrike with this ring. Those only work with your own cast spells, and with some magic items - if you take the appropriate arcana - and there is no arcana to make them work with rings.

James Risner is correct that the first step is to compare to existing items - the "cost table" is an absolutely last resort. You want an item that does 10d6 electricity damage as a touch attack standard action. I think the posters above who compared it to a wand of intensified shocking grasp were on the right track - a CL10 wand would run 15k. What I'm actually not sure of is why the wand won't meet your needs. The ring won't be spell trigger, so it needs to be more expensive for that. It doesn't take up a hand, but does take up a ring slot, which are usually pretty valuable.

Generally unlimited use items cost about the same as 100 charges - I actually doubt you'd get 100 effective combat uses out of this item, and I'm unsure what good spamming it out of combat would be. For example, I wouldn't let you "joy buzzer" people to death as activating the item in the middle of a handshake would require a grapple check or something. I'll bump the price for "unforeseen issues."

Changing form a held item to a ring is actually a bit of a downgrade, as you still have to have a hand free - if you are holding something the charge dissipates. So that seems like a wash.

so 15k*2 for unlimited use, *1.5 for expectation of trickery, gets you 45k for the ring. In my games you could eliminate/reduce the expectation of trickery surcharge by explaining me your exact intentions for the rings use. If you really only plan to use it in combat that's different than if the ring is somehow going to become a "solution" to every out-of-combat problem the party has.

The item is fine. It's so expensive it won't be available until higher levels, and even then I'd expect it to show up as an item in game at around 13th-14th level. Something so specific would likely have a big backstory.

Also don't forget that while he CAN spellstrike with it, I don't believe using a magic item to cast a spell counts for Spellstrike (I could be wrong on this) because he isn't actually casting the spell: he's activating a magic item. You could cast it, hold the charge, and spellstrike with it later.

It's a useful tool, but not overpowered, especially at that price.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gaining a standard action touch attack for 10d6 electricity damage isn't really that big a deal when you're 10th level. If you're a melee guy, you'll do a lot more damage with a full attack. If you're a caster, you probably don't want to be getting into melee.

I'm not seeing the problem here; for the same 36K gp, you'd be way better off, in either case, with a +6 stat belt or headband.

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At 10th level, it would be about half the character wealth by level. Probably more reasonable to expect it at 12th level. On the other hand, at that level they could afford both the stat item and the ring.

Every group tends to judge these sort of things a little differently. One good test that I often used was saying "Alright, I'll design an intelligent opponent who has one." If the characters start rapidly back-peddling just because they would have to fight someone using the item, it is probably overpowered.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it come with a Cushion of Whoopee? Or a Boutonnière of Create Water?

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
koluminar wrote:
I'm assuming magus so you can spell combat with it.

That isn't what the OP wants, because he couldn't use it in combat. Spell Combat isn't "use a standard action" but rather "cast a spell" and using a Command Word item isn't casting a spell.

Davor wrote:

The item is fine. It's so expensive it won't be available until higher levels, and even then I'd expect it to show up as an item in game at around 13th-14th level. Something so specific would likely have a big backstory.

Also don't forget that while he CAN spellstrike with it, I don't believe using a magic item to cast a spell counts for Spellstrike (I could be wrong on this) because he isn't actually casting the spell: he's activating a magic item. You could cast it, hold the charge, and spellstrike with it later.

It doesn't matter whether you hold the charge for a while or not, you can't use Spellstrike with this item. To use Spellstrike you have to cast the spell yourself. This is even true when using a Staff or Wand with the Wand Wielder Arcana; you can use Spell Combat to activate a Wand or Staff, but still can't use Spellstrike to deliver a touch spell from a Wand or Staff.

Thanks for the feedback. Very helpful, and I can't say I disagree with anything really.

I don't think it is overpowered for a 10th+ level character. Especially when our rogue seems to totally wipe everything we encounter with a combination of Greater Invisibility, strange feats (or whatever) that give him d8 back stab damage rather than d6, and with 2-weapon combo, he is doing truly ludicrous amounts of damage, putting all the fighters to utter shame.

Pathfinder is a f'ing broken system IMO, and I only play it for laughs in between other systems and running my own Chivalry & Sorcery games.

But thanks for the feedback anyhow.

Cheers

 7 people marked this as a favorite.
our rogue seems to totally wipe everything we encounter... Pathfinder is a f'ing broken system

...my life is now complete...

How is your rogue getting greater invisibility?

He certainly can't cast it himself, and the abilities that a rogue can get only give regular invisibility.

The rogue has to be getting help from someone to have greater invisibility regularly. If he has a magic item that gives greater invisibility constantly or at will you and your GM and the player should be aware that such an item just shouldn't be available. If another player is casting it for him in combat...well that's good tactics.

Just wait until around level 10 where many monster have blindsight or tremor sense or the odd glitterdust ruins the invisible rogues day. And if your GM isn't using these tactics where available...well complain. Intelligent creatures certainly shouldn't just allow a rogue to nonchalantly sneak attack them all because of greater invisibility.

@At Avoron, and in relation to rogues breaking the game in general, in my experience this usually involves people not following or missing some important rules or a GM that is too generous.

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.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

You do understand that its not the rogue that's broken right?

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

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

The point of the rules is to allow GMs to design custom items for their home games, and for them to be able to estimate the approximate value of those items for WBL purposes. They were really never intended for players to use for their own PC's items.

A 10th level TWF rogue sneak attacking for d8s can get in 4 attacks for an average of 90 points of damage a round from sneak attacks if they all hit. That's a relatively decent martial output at level 10. But to do that he has to stand still, so it's likely the giants would be able to pinpoint his position. I dunno, what you're describing seems possible, but it also seems unlikely that he would have the defensive capabilities to survive all the stone giants' attacks by himself, without getting pretty lucky.

I have a friend who is very good at playing rogues, and while he might pull such a thing off, he'd be sweating the entire time.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
You do understand that its not the rogue that's broken right?

Seriously. The only real problem would be a GM not taking steps to frequently (though not always) counter a Greater Invisible Rogue. Shouldn't be all that difficult. Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell.

Even if the rogue moves after each single attack, the giants can ready an action to target the square from which an attack was launched and try to pound him before he moves.

Plus, if the giants keep moving then the rogue will have to move before his attack, which makes him vulnerable once his turn is finished.

It's an effective tactic, but not unbeatable by any means.

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.

You don't have an overpowered rogue problem, you have a GM with a poor grasp of tactical fights and who is unable to come up with a counter to such a simple tactic or one who is unwilling to do counter the rogue for some reason.

Rogues are usually one of the weakest characters that can be played, but if a GM just allows a rogue to full attack with sneak attacks every round on targets who don't move and don't make an effort to reasonable attack their enemy. That's the GM's fault not the character.

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A thread on finding invisible people will give a ton of advice on how even the dumbest monster can fight back against an invisible foe. Its not like he could solo it, rounds per level is not long and he had team buffs.

I would use a ring of invisibility as the base cost. Now as a GM you might know most higher level enemies in your game will have resistance or immunity and modify the cost. But seeing as sneak attack, other players, and shenanigans are likely i would increase it.

A ring or 2 of forcefangs might be more fun for the character, preload one during down time.

The funny thing is, if the sorcerer in this group were to cast greater invisibility on one of those "utterly shamed" fighters, that invisible fighter could go into the room and wipe out a group of giants just as fast as the rogue. Maybe faster. And if the giants can't figure out a tactic to beat a low-AC, weak-HP invisible rogue, they're definitely going going to beat that fighter either.

"Honestly" (it seems that "honestly" has become the word of the day), the problem is not the rogue's damage. I'm glad to hear that there is one rogue in this system who's feeling good about his combat ability. He might be the only one. The problem is the Greater Invisibility and a GM who doesn't know the system well enough to handle it.

That GM should come to these forums and search for threads about overcoming invisibility.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Honestly, WTF is the point of the magic item creations rules if so many are so against them?

Who is against them? Not a single poster in this thread has been against them. Every single item in every book published used the item creation rules. I don't see the problem, unless you wanted to jump to the "last resort" instead of following the rules/guidelines.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, for a loose definition of 'using the rules'. The ring of invisibility isn't priced as per the guidelines.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Well, for a loose definition of 'using the rules'. The ring of invisibility isn't priced as per the guidelines.

Sigh.

Actually, it is explicitly using the rules and is a quintessentially important example.

It doesn't follow the charts, it charges significantly more money (8,000 gp more) because it followed the "similar and power level" rules before jumping to the "oh my we have no idea what it is worth. Maybe this much? maybe?"

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Honestly, WTF is the point of the magic item creations rules if so many are so against them?
Who is against them? Not a single poster in this thread has been against them. Every single item in every book published used the item creation rules. I don't see the problem, unless you wanted to jump to the "last resort" instead of following the rules/guidelines.

That is...wov. So...wov. So, so unbelievably wrong. There are lots and lots of legacy numbers, guesstimates and anally extruded numbers.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

A level 10 party with good tactics will wipe the floor with any number of stupid melee brutes.

I would have no problem allowing that ring in my game. For 36000gp, doing 10d6 damage as a touch attack is not at all overpowered. I wouldn't allow it to be activated as part of Spell Combat (if that's what you have in mind). (Although that might be more because of my opinions towards magi rather than anything else).

Looking at the opportunity cost, you can pick up a +4 weapon for 32000gp, which in the right hands would do more than 35 average damage per round.

In all practicality, it'd be unlikely for the ring to be used more that 10 times a day. Probably closer to 4.

 RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
That is...wov. So...wov. So, so unbelievably wrong. There are lots and lots of legacy numbers, guesstimates and anally extruded numbers.

Actually legacy numbers and guesstimates are indeed how you are supposed to price items. Items that actually follow the table should be the rare exception. Item costing is much more an art than a science.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

ryric wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
That is...wov. So...wov. So, so unbelievably wrong. There are lots and lots of legacy numbers, guesstimates and anally extruded numbers.
Actually legacy numbers and guesstimates are indeed how you are supposed to price items. Items that actually follow the table should be the rare exception. Item costing is much more an art than a science.

Which is mind boggling to me when I see people saying essentially "it doesn't follow the chart so it isn't using the rules".

It is explicitly using the rules, and if you blindly follow the chart then you are not following the rules.

I can only suggest that if "pick a number out of the air" constitutes a "rule" to you, then our definition of "rule" differs rather dramatically.

Claxon wrote:

Though if you were a magus you could use spell strike.

No, no you couldn't.

SRD wrote:

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.

Activating a magic item does not qualify as the magus casting a spell.

Kullen wrote:
I can only suggest that if "pick a number out of the air" constitutes a "rule" to you, then our definition of "rule" differs rather dramatically.

Is it so hard to understand?

New items need to be priced by comparing them to existing ones who's price is the point on which you have to orientate the price for the new item. Adjusted for the absolute power of the item.

This is the rule how to price magic items.

Only if you have no idea on how to guess-timate the adequate price of a new item, when you cant do that the tables with the formulas shall give you a guiding point where to start this process. And of couse still adjust for the absolute power of the item.

Never is it "out of thin air". It is always based on comparing it to existing magic items. It always needs a judgement call from the GM.

James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Well, for a loose definition of 'using the rules'. The ring of invisibility isn't priced as per the guidelines.

Sigh.

Actually, it is explicitly using the rules and is a quintessentially important example.

It doesn't follow the charts, it charges significantly more money (8,000 gp more) because it followed the "similar and power level" rules before jumping to the "oh my we have no idea what it is worth. Maybe this much? maybe?"

You should really quote the rules when you are trying to make a point that an item is following the rules.

For example, it sounds like you are trying to invoke:

Quote:
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item.

Which, of course, says nothing about 'power level' just that you should compare to a similar item.

So, which item is the ring of invisibility compared to to obtain its pricing?

That's not how it worked. The guidelines were followed, a price of 10800 was obtained (not 12k, it's command word activated remember), and the devs said: "Eh, that seems too cheap let's bump it to 20k". Now, of course GM judgment calls are part of 'the rules' in a loose sense, but you can hardly call arbitrary exceptions to the pricing guidelines 'following the rules'.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a safe assumption that the original developers who created magic item prices way back even in older editions just pulled numbers out of thin air...

...but then they balanced those numbers. Ideas like "If I have 20,000gp, would I rather buy a ring of invisibility or a vorpal sword?" Duh, yeah, vorpal of course. So then they raised the price of vorpal until they got it balanced. Etc.

Eventually, with a lot of thought and some trial and error, prices were figured out and (more or less) balanced. Mostly by comparing apples to oranges (in other words, not necessarily comparing a ring of invisibility to some other item of invisibility, but rather, to other items of roughly comparable power/utility).

These prices have mostly stood the test of time until and including the printing of the Pathfinder CRB, with a few adjustments over the years.

Now that those prices are established, the rules say to compare NEW custom items to the ESTABLISHED items that are already fairly priced.

The rules never say that the the existing items were priced this way, only that we're supposed to price new items this way going forward.

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

So, which item is the ring of invisibility compared to to obtain its pricing?

a price of 10800 was obtained (not 12k, it's command word activated remember)

Actually:

Quote:
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.

It is priced as use-activate, because it has to be used to become invisible.

DM_Blake wrote:
Now that those prices are established, the rules say to compare NEW custom items to the ESTABLISHED items that are already fairly priced.

+1

There was an extremely long thread about the RoI where it was declared by the developers that the ring was command-word activated NOT use activated. Every 3 minutes, you need to use the command word again to reapply the invisibility condition.

I'm extremely aware of this because I ranted about how stupid that was.

Therefore, the correct 'guideline' pricing is 10800, not 12k. Maybe you forgot this post. Or this post that you +1'd right after.

That said, you still didn't answer my question. What 'similar' item was the RoI compared to to come up with the 20k price?

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
There was an extremely long thread about the RoI where it was declared by the developers that the ring was command-word activated

No, not exactly. That thread, one I'm aware of, was mostly about whether or not the Caster Level meant that you could stay invis all day or you had to refresh every 3 minutes due to the CL 3.

James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
There was an extremely long thread about the RoI where it was declared by the developers that the ring was command-word activated

No, not exactly. That thread, one I'm aware of, was mostly about whether or not the Caster Level meant that you could stay invis all day or you had to refresh every 3 minutes due to the CL 3.

You obviously didn't read the links I posted then, including you yourself confirming the 10800 price, and then in a different thread, +1'ing a post that does the same.

But here's Mark Seifter's post from the thread you're referring to:

Quote:
Not one of the four of us thought it was continuous or even possibly continuous, but it's true that I personally wasn't sure it defaulted to command word over use-activated until some people in the thread pointed out that it's in the rules for rings.

Now, do I pull out the post where you specifically say that the Bracer's of Falcon's Aim do not follow the pricing rules? ;)

 Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:

Fair.

But did you read the link I post? With a comment on how it was priced in 1990?

-------

How about this, can we (you and I) agree that a lot of people have different opinions on what the chart price of the Ring of Invisibility should have been?

Can we also agree that it doesn't follow either price?

Now can everyone including us agree that the way the rules tell you to price things is to price by similar items? Not by the chart. If you can't find a similar item, you can start with the chart. But you may not end up at the price as a final price?

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

Furthermore, I find it more than a bit convenient that the 20k cost across the D&D editions just happened to 'follow the rules' of the revamped Pathfinder magic item creation system. It seems to me more of a case that Pathfinder kept the 20k price, and then just post-hoc justified the higher price relative to their SL*CL*1800 guidelines.

And finally, how does one 'judge the power' of the RoI in such a way that even results in a 20k price?

I'm afraid with no similar item to compare, no rule of thumb regarding the adjustment based on some unspecified 'power level' of the item, and the suspicious coincidence that 20k happened to be what the RoI cost in the previous D&D edition, saying that the RoI was created 'based on Pathfinder guidelines' seems unsupportable.

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

It isn't.

Read my post, 6 posts above yours.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

You weren't the person who made the initial claim that it was. ;)

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.

What's more powerful, a ring of invisibility or a vest of stable mutation? They are priced exactly the same, so presumably they should be of relatively equal power.

Are they? Not only don't I have any idea if they are, I have no idea as to how you would even attempt to figure it out.

Or something that is less class specific, like a ring of inner fortitude priced at 18k.

About as powerful as the RoI? Slightly less? Again, no clue.

 1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>