4 questions about true strike magic items


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have 4 questions about true strike magic items.

1. True strike does not have a duration, does that not mean that it's impossible to create a continuously effect item with true strike.

2. Could you create it using the command word effect?

3. How long does i take to speak a command word (1 standart action if i remember correctly)

4. Would the price of a true strike command word item not be 5400?
( 1 level * 3rd level caster (craft feat requires 3rd level) * 1800)

Thanks in advance

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.


Val'bryn2 wrote:

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.

400,000 actually. This is one of those items that can be abused very easily.


Val'bryn2 wrote:

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.

But a continuously True Strike ring is not possible to create, is it? It has to have an duration to make it into an continuous effect.

The price is determined by the casters level, as a caster would have to be at least 3rd level to get the feat, the price should be at least 1*3*1800. You cannot, in any way, have a 1st level caster creating wondrous items.

And as we've used the magic pricing table earlier in our campaign, i'll go with the listed pricing there.


Valantrix1 wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.

400,000 actually. This is one of those items that can be abused very easily.

I'm not that interested in the continuously true strike ability, as I don't even think it's possible in pathfinder.

- If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half. -

If a spell doesn't have a duration, you can't make it continuous, right?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

1) don't make them

2) its cheasy

3) don't make them because it's cheasy

4) see point 1.


Oak_Staff wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.

But a continuously True Strike ring is not possible to create, is it? It has to have an duration to make it into an continuous effect.

The price is determined by the casters level, as a caster would have to be at least 3rd level to get the feat, the price should be at least 1*3*1800. You cannot, in any way, have a 1st level caster creating wondrous items.

And as we've used the magic pricing table earlier in our campaign, i'll go with the listed pricing there.

Don't.

It will completely wreck your entire campaign. See Big Norse Wolf's post, above.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) don't make them

2) its cheasy

3) don't make them because it's cheasy

4) see point 1.

I dosen't matter if it's cheasy. Though you are implying that it is possible ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimate Campaign has the following example suggesting that a continuous true strike item would have a cost of around 200,000 gp.

Pricing New Items

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. 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 in the Core Rulebook, the GM should require using the price of the Core Rulebook 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 "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.

Example: Rob's cleric wants to create a heavy mace with a continuous true strike ability, granting its wielder a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls. The formula for a continuous spell effect is spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp, for a total of 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica, the GM, points out that a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon costs 50,000 gp, and the +20 bonus from true strike is much better than the +5 bonus from standard weapon enhancement, and suggests a price of 200,000 gp for the mace. Rob agrees that using the formula in this way is unreasonable and decides to craft a +1 heavy mace using the standard weapon pricing rules instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oak_Staff wrote:


I dosen't matter if it's cheasy. Though you are implying that it is possible ;)

The magic item creation rules comes with warnings that you need to watch out for exactly this sort of thing and say no to it, so the watchdog saying no to it is the system working as intneded


Just use a wand. Find a way to get the spell on your character--multiclass, be a Half Elf with Arcane Training. Or maybe UMD it? But a wand's the way to go if you want lots of True Strike, in my opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The duration is "on the next attack roll" iirc.

Most players want a forever +20 to their next attack roll.

Most DMs don't want a player with a forever +20 to their next attack roll.

Every character doesn't want an angry ogre with a forever +20 on it's next attack roll.

Remember that magic exists for all, not just the players.

So about that wand...[edit] Personal effect, I think, so potion/scroll only?


Oak_Staff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) don't make them

2) its cheasy

3) don't make them because it's cheasy

4) see point 1.

I dosen't matter if it's cheasy. Though you are implying that it is possible ;)

The rule for any custom magic item.

"Ask your GM"

The pricing guidelines are just that, guidelines. One of those guidelines; compare to the price of similar items.


DM Soanso wrote:

The duration is "on the next attack roll" iirc.

Most players want a forever +20 to their next attack roll.

Most DMs don't want a player with a forever +20 to their next attack roll.

Every character doesn't want an angry ogre with a forever +20 on it's next attack roll.

Remember that magic exists for all, not just the players.

So about that wand...[edit] Personal effect, I think, so potion/scroll only?

Ioun stone.


1. There is technically no requirement that a spell have a duration, but it makes no sense if it doesn't. What does a Continuous Fireball ring do? Does it Fireball you every round? Infinitely many times a round? With a Ring of True Strike, would it work every time? Would it work literally once?

2. Command word at-will True Strike? Yes, that's possible.

3. Command word is always a standard action unless it says otherwise.

4. Step one of making a magic item: Check similar items. This implies 1/day is worth at least 800. This and this and the bilious talisman here seem to imply that more uses requires giving it intelligence. This one is @#$% if I know, but expensive. Ditto. And finally, the easy way out. That one is priced incorrectly though, even by the cheapest possible way of generating it. If none of those seem close enough then we start at the top of the table and work our way down, stopping at weapon bonus (which is where the 400,000 comes from, it's 20^2*2,000 divided in half (for attack but no damage)). If and only if we haven't hit anything in those last two steps do we use the spell-in-a-can rules. Which... well, we did. We hit several things that work for our purposes. We should look at one of those first.

The simplest is probably the ring, pegs the price at at least 4,000. The others have far too much to unpack, and the fact that there's #@$%ing three intelligent items that give it seems to speak to maybe the ring needs to be self-aware (and if the intelligent items are any indication, kind of a jerk). The alternative is (depending on class) a Wand Key Ring (which despite the name, is slotless) and a wand. 3,750 for that and 50 uses of True Strike. So 4,000 seems fair. It's still a standard action to use it and you'll only attack every other turn. Iterative attacks will never get it. I mean, I can see some builds that would benefit more (vital striking hippo, AoO build) but "half as many attacks, but they'll all get True Strike" doesn't really sound like an improvement. A good beatstick should be hitting more than 50% of the time anyway, True Strike attacks every other round probably lowers their dpr. And since the order is buff->attack, guarantees the enemy a round in which you are not attacking.

I can see arguments that the price needs to be raised based on the 5/day=at-will that the formula assumes being a poor match for things without a duration. I think it works poorly for things with a duration though, as 5/day Shield and at-will Shield are very different (one would always be on, one would cost an action in a buff round/combat). 5/day Fireball is very different from at-will Fireball. And 5/day True Strike is very different from at-will True Strike, unless you only have 10 rounds of fighting a day (unlikely). But, eh, it's already pretty heavily abstracted (again, by the formulas, 5/day Fireball and at-will Fireball are treated the same).


The guidelines specifically tell you to use the table first, then spell level x caster level x 1800. Since weapon bonus is one the table you don't use the formula. Bonus squared x 1000 (would be 2000 if it added to damage too.)

So the correct answer is 20x20x1000 gp = 400,000gp.


Just gonna re-post this coz it seems to answer the question pretty well.

Gisher wrote:

Ultimate Campaign has the following example suggesting that a continuous true strike item would have a cost of around 200,000 gp.

Pricing New Items

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. 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 in the Core Rulebook, the GM should require using the price of the Core Rulebook 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 "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.

Example: Rob's cleric wants to create a heavy mace with a continuous true strike ability, granting its wielder a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls. The formula for a continuous spell effect is spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp, for a total of 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica, the GM, points out that a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon costs 50,000 gp, and the +20 bonus from true strike is much better than the +5 bonus from standard weapon enhancement, and suggests a price of 200,000 gp forthe mace. Rob agrees that using the formula in this way is unreasonable and decides to craft a +1 heavy mace using the standard weapon pricing rules instead.

(And just to be thorough: TRUE STRIKE)

Now let's see how that interacts with the actual questions:

Oak_Staff wrote:

I have 4 questions about true strike magic items.

1. True strike does not have a duration, does that not mean that it's impossible to create a continuously effect item with true strike.
2. Could you create it using the command word effect?
3. How long does i take to speak a command word (1 standart action if i remember correctly)
4. Would the price of a true strike command word item not be 5400?
( 1 level * 3rd level caster (craft feat requires 3rd level) * 1800)
Thanks in advance

1. Apparently it's totally possible to build this item.

2. I can't see why you couldn't build it as a command word. This would probably be a lot less unbalanced than a continuous effect. It would take 1 standard action to activate, and then would only affect 1 attack. That means you'd likely be giving up a full round attack in order to get a +20 to 1 attack the following round. Really this isn't any better than a wand, so it'd probably be a lot cheaper.

3. Command words are a Standard Action unless otherwise stated.

4. 5400 sounds fine for a command word item. Again, since it uses your standard action it's no more powerful than a wand. Since a wand of True Strike costs 750gp, you'd have to use this item 360 times before it becomes cheaper than just buying wands.

If I've missed/misinterpreted anything there, let me know.

Just to add my own thoughts to this:
The command word item idea would probably cost less if I were the GM, just because it really doesn't seem worth that much.

The continuous effect item idea is massively OP. If you craft this item expect it to cost a lot (I'd make it more like 500 000) and expect it to be stolen/sundered/whatever whenever the plot calls for it.

Starting an Arms-race against the GM doesn't work.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:


2. Command word at-will True Strike? Yes, that's possible.

3. Command word is always a standard action unless it says otherwise.

To expand on this, command word is always going to be a standard action unless you base the magic item on quickened True Strike. 5th level spell, CL 9, a reasonable-sound 81K.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Fistbeard McBeardfist wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:


2. Command word at-will True Strike? Yes, that's possible.

3. Command word is always a standard action unless it says otherwise.

To expand on this, command word is always going to be a standard action unless you base the magic item on quickened True Strike. 5th level spell, CL 9, a reasonable-sound 81K.

A quickened true strike every round is still a lot more manageable than infinite true strike. It does limit you to only your first attack and it eats up your swift action constantly (which very many martial characters have as a heavy cost). So this actually sounds fair, even in comparison to the 200k 'always on on all your attacks forever' example.


There are no rules saying "item X can't be created". No item has to act exactly like the spell that is used in its creation. You can come up with the effect, and then decide with spell applies to create the item.
The GM is there to stop items that should not be made.


1. True strike does not have a duration, does that not mean that it's impossible to create a continuously effect item with true strike.

Yes, but use-activated would work just as well. That being said there are no crafting rules, only guidelines. The GM is supposed to make sure only reasonable items are created and others have pointed out an use-activated true strike item would cost way more than the table suggests.

2. Could you create it using the command word effect?

If you GM is fine with it (and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't): sure.

3. How long does i take to speak a command word (1 standart action if i remember correctly)

Correct.

4. Would the price of a true strike command word item not be 5400?
( 1 level * 3rd level caster (craft feat requires 3rd level) * 1800)

Actually you can reduce your caster level for crafting purposes. As true strike does not scale with level you would be well-adviced to create it at caster level 1, which reduces the price to 1800.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And, as per your earlier view that you have to craft it at the minimum level you can get the feat, I would like to point out that wands are CL 1 for 1st level, 3 for 2nd, and you can't get craft wand until CL 5.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1) yes
2) yes 200,000; 400,000 or 800,000 gp
3) Yes standard
4) you jumped to chart first instead of last. Look at magic weapons for rules for "bonus to hit" first

I always wonder if these type of questions are serious?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Applying the pricing formula to self-only spells gives entirely inappropriate results


My advice is the same as DM Soanso, do you really want the GM to start equipping opponents with such things?
If you are going to be playing in some type of tournament where the last one alive wins, check the rules as often they have notes/game rules for such items as this as well as other banned/disallowed things.

MDC


The Cyclops Helm would be what I would go with. Immediate action, auto hit and threaten a crit or auto save once per day. Since head slot isn't one of the major slots, you could just buy a bunch of these and have the ability available once per combat assuming you have the gold available.

I've never tried this tactic so attempt at your own risk. It could suck the fun out of game and/or provoke GM wrath.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gallant Armor wrote:

The Cyclops Helm would be what I would go with. Immediate action, auto hit and threaten a crit or auto save once per day. Since head slot isn't one of the major slots, you could just buy a bunch of these and have the ability available once per combat assuming you have the gold available.

I've never tried this tactic so attempt at your own risk. It could suck the fun out of game and/or provoke GM wrath.

Those things are nice and cheap if you craft them yourself. I like to combine multiple cyclops helms into a single helm. That way I get multiple uses per day from a single item, and don't have to carry a lot of excess weight or switch them around all the time (which is silly, and not the least bit heroic). It costs a little more, but is more than worth it to me.


Ravingdork wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

The Cyclops Helm would be what I would go with. Immediate action, auto hit and threaten a crit or auto save once per day. Since head slot isn't one of the major slots, you could just buy a bunch of these and have the ability available once per combat assuming you have the gold available.

I've never tried this tactic so attempt at your own risk. It could suck the fun out of game and/or provoke GM wrath.

Those things are nice and cheap if you craft them yourself. I like to combine multiple cyclops helms into a single helm. That way I get multiple uses per day from a single item, and don't have to carry a lot of excess weight or switch them around all the time (which is silly, and not the least bit heroic). It costs a little more, but is more than worth it to me.

Is that legal? I didn't think it was possible to stack identical items.


Gallant Armor wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

The Cyclops Helm would be what I would go with. Immediate action, auto hit and threaten a crit or auto save once per day. Since head slot isn't one of the major slots, you could just buy a bunch of these and have the ability available once per combat assuming you have the gold available.

I've never tried this tactic so attempt at your own risk. It could suck the fun out of game and/or provoke GM wrath.

Those things are nice and cheap if you craft them yourself. I like to combine multiple cyclops helms into a single helm. That way I get multiple uses per day from a single item, and don't have to carry a lot of excess weight or switch them around all the time (which is silly, and not the least bit heroic). It costs a little more, but is more than worth it to me.
Is that legal? I didn't think it was possible to stack identical items.

Ya I'm in the same boat? Thy have rules for stacking multiple similar items but no where it says you can just stack identical identical items.

I mean it's an easy houserule, but I'm not sure it's RAW, unless I'm missing something


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The game developers themselves set a precedent of doing this very thing with the gauntlets of the weaponmaster. They are basically just a bunch of gloves of storing rolled together into one item.


Ravingdork wrote:
The game developers themselves set a precedent of doing this very thing with the gauntlets of the weaponmaster. They are basically just a bunch of gloves of storing rolled together into one item.

Gauntlets of the weaponmaster are a unique item, that is not the same as stacking multiple versions of an existing item. Additionally, gauntlets of the weaponmaster use a swift action instead of a free action and give the wearer greater heroism 3 times a day so these are not the same item. Gauntlets of the weaponmaster are closer to a scabbard of many blades then gloves of storing in their basic design.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Saethori wrote:
Fistbeard McBeardfist wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:


2. Command word at-will True Strike? Yes, that's possible.

3. Command word is always a standard action unless it says otherwise.

To expand on this, command word is always going to be a standard action unless you base the magic item on quickened True Strike. 5th level spell, CL 9, a reasonable-sound 81K.
A quickened true strike every round is still a lot more manageable than infinite true strike. It does limit you to only your first attack and it eats up your swift action constantly (which very many martial characters have as a heavy cost). So this actually sounds fair, even in comparison to the 200k 'always on on all your attacks forever' example.

If you allow such a thing, it would be whichever attack you choose - I think you can do a swift action between attacks. So unless there's a rider you want to apply at the beginning, you'd probably be best-served putting it on your last attack since it'll probably still hit with the true strike.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.

I think that is a far ruling, but not always the case RAW. I think an official ruling on this could prevent abuse/GM headaches.


James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.

So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?


He's saying you can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination) and then switch to another Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination). The "general wisdom" he mentions for 1/day items is also something I've never heard before. In fact, before the unreasonable nerf to Quick Runner's Shirts/Martials without Pounce it was common to see people suggesting you get multiple QRSs.


Gisher wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.
So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?

He's saying you can't have a closet full of cloaks of the hedgewizard.


Azten wrote:
He's saying you can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination) and then switch to another Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination). The "general wisdom" he mentions for 1/day items is also something I've never heard before. In fact, before the unreasonable nerf to Quick Runner's Shirts/Martials without Pounce it was common to see people suggesting you get multiple QRSs.

That was very unreasonable, and a little silly , hence the nerf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Changing shirts? Silly?

No wonder everyone makes fun of TRPG gamers' lack of hygiene.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Azten wrote:
He's saying you can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination) and then switch to another Cloak of the Hedge Wizard(Divination). The "general wisdom" he mentions for 1/day items is also something I've never heard before. In fact, before the unreasonable nerf to Quick Runner's Shirts/Martials without Pounce it was common to see people suggesting you get multiple QRSs.

That was very unreasonable, and a little silly , hence the nerf.

Yes. Let Longbow Fighters and Beast Totem Barbarians reign supreme the great Kingdom of Viable-Without-Jumping-Through-Hoops-To-Be-Mediocre.


James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.

That's a horrible rule, and I would caution using it.

Using this wisdom a 1/day true strike (already balanced by needing a slot (and thus action economy to be wearing it or put it on or pull it out) and a standard to use it (same as the spell) would be worthless if you couldn't take it off, in lieu of a wand.

True strike in general is only good for 'I really need to hit this attack' or if you can get it quickened. Giving up a standard is already a high price, especially considering that most melee focused characters will hit with a standard attack anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oak_Staff wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:

They stated a Continuous True Strike weapon in 3.5 edition. It cost 200,000 gp, if I recall correctly.

No sane GM would allow one for 5400, though it would actually be 1800, because you don't have to match the caster level for the feat, just to be able to cast it.

You only look at that table as a last resort. You first price it by similar items, which would be far, far, far more than you propose.

But a continuously True Strike ring is not possible to create, is it? It has to have an duration to make it into an continuous effect.

What is possible to create is ultimately defined by your DM, not the rulebook.

No sane DM would allow this.


Somebody could try to make it, and heck, even make it Intelligent so that you could have it activate whenever you want, and if it's at-will usage, it's basically a 1/round +20 to a single attack roll.

Of course, not only is that imbalanced, that's impossible, since it's a Personal spell, which only applies to the creature casting it (the item), and so the item has to make the attack, and not the wielder, since it's the item that's being affected by the spell, and not the wielder.

I mean, let's face it; even if players want to make it work, there are several ways for the GMs to have the mechanics fail upon themselves, and the players would then realize it's a fruitless endeavor to try and make something as imbalanced as that.

So yeah, as a GM, I'd allow it. But I'd explain why what they're trying to do won't work using the rules; fighting fire with fire and all that.


Ckorik wrote:


True strike in general is only good for 'I really need to hit this attack' or if you can get it quickened. Giving up a standard is already a high price, especially considering that most melee focused characters will hit with a standard attack anyway.

If the item is at will the character will use it every time they open a door.


Gisher wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.
So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?

1/day items require 24 hours of attunement before they can be used. So if you do that switch, you won't be able to use the Hedge cloak's power until you wear it for a full 24 hours after you put it back on.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Gisher wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.
So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?
1/day items require 24 hours of attunement before they can be used. So if you do that switch, you won't be able to use the Hedge cloak's power until you wear it for a full 24 hours after you put it back on.

This is not a rule.


Covent wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Gisher wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.
So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?
1/day items require 24 hours of attunement before they can be used. So if you do that switch, you won't be able to use the Hedge cloak's power until you wear it for a full 24 hours after you put it back on.
This is not a rule.

It is on my table. Paizo made it a convention for 1/use items specifically to bar shennningans such as passing them around or carrying a coat rack of cloaks and shirts. And it's pretty much the rule for PFS on items of this nature that the campaign hasn't simply banned out of existence.

It's a good convention, so I've made it universal in campaigns I run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Covent wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Gisher wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Also general wisdom on 1/day items is that it should take up the slot and you cAn not swap it out to use the 1/day.
So you are saying that I can't use a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination) to cast true strike, and then trade it for a Cloak of Resistance? Where is that rule written?
1/day items require 24 hours of attunement before they can be used. So if you do that switch, you won't be able to use the Hedge cloak's power until you wear it for a full 24 hours after you put it back on.
This is not a rule.

It is on my table. Paizo made it a convention for 1/use items specifically to bar shennningans such as passing them around or carrying a coat rack of cloaks and shirts. And it's pretty much the rule for PFS on items of this nature that the campaign hasn't simply banned out of existence.

It's a good convention, so I've made it universal in campaigns I run.

That's fine as a house rule. We are in the rules forum however and it is in no way a rule. I could be wrong but I do believe that even in PFS there is nothing preventing you from purchasing multiples of a x/day item and swapping them when they run out. Unless of course the item such as post errata Swift runners shirt has text to prevent it. Using the cloak of the hedge wizard as an example could you give me a quote or link that prevents this, please?


The "ring of continuous true strike" is the sort of GM that no GM would ever allow you to just go to the local ringcrafter and commission; it would break the game immediately.

This is the kind of effect that you might put on an item with a truly nasty curse in order to tempt the PCs into using it from time to time however...

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 4 questions about true strike magic items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.