Building a belt of physical perfection+20


Rules Questions

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dr Styx wrote:
taks wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Finally, this caster level prerequisite is just that, a prerequisite. And prerequisites can be bypassed for a +5 to the DC unless it's a spell trigger or completion item. So, even if the GM said you need to be caster level 100, you could skip that with a +5DC to the crafting roll.
No, this is a common misconceptuon. The CL listed for magical items is just a typical or recommended level and is not a requirement unless it is listed on the requirement line. The minimum caster level for the belt of physical perfection is only the minimum level required to cast the 3 spells, which is 3 (typically).

I'm not saying the CL is 100, or that it can be bypassed with +5 to DC...

But if it was CL 100, the DC to make a magic item is 5 + CL...

So a DC of 105 would be hard to do daily for the length of time to make the item.

Not sure which of our two quotes you were referring to, but the point of my comment was that there is no minimum level for wondrous items except for the minimum level to cast the spell(s). The belts and headbands all list CL 16, but you can set them as low as 3 if you want. The only reason to set it higher is to increase the level required for dispel magic (and yes, you pay for it with a higher DC).

If the CL was 100, you'd be silly to try to make it at 100 and instead drop it to your level (or one that you can actually make the DC).

In general, if the CL is not listed in the "construction requirements" section, it is not a requirement. There's a FAQ on that, though I think they should just stop putting it in when it is meaningless.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I'm well aware. I'm also pretty sure there is no cap mentioned in the rules, unlike the bonuses for weapons/armor.

That's what I'm looking for.

It's not specifically mentioned, but it is what the game is designed around.

Given that you can, with difficulty granted, boost your STR well above a +6 using other abilities, I seriously doubt that the game is 'designed around' a specific +6 limit to enhancement bonuses, anymore than it is 'designed around' a wizard with access to the wish spell.

Some things will make the game easier, some things will make the game too easy. The GM is there to serve as a gatekeeper to keep the game in bounds of what is generally agreed upon, whether that's a +6 enhancement stat limit, or a raging alchemist rocking a +24 or so.

Given that you can boost your strength in other ways is why the enhancement bonus caps at +6. They don't want you to be able to accrue too high a strength score. That other bonuses to strength exist is a point in favor of why enhancement bonuses are limited, not against it.

Except that that +6 'limit' existed long before alchemical bonuses were even a thing. So no, I don't believe that the +6 stat limits were created with the current ways to boost your strength in mind. So either the game is now broken, or boosting your STR doesn't actually break the game compared to, say, a wish spell.

Seriously, give a 20th level fighter a +20 belt of physical perfection. Is he now more powerful than a 20th level wizard?

By the logic presented, I take it you have no problems giving a spellcaster a +20 boost to their casting stat?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Eh, you could get that down to just over a year with +5 DC double rate crafting, and the someone with the cooperative crafting feat.

"Eh"?

That's over a year of you and a henchman doing nothing but working on a belt. Seven days a week. No holidays. No weekends. That's a year of getting no experience points.

Now I understand there's downtime, and maybe our original poster is in a campaign where he has a year of downtime, but I've never played in one with that much.

At the level you could afford it, that's not you and a henchman, it's your henchman and their henchman, sitting on a personal demiplane with accelerated time flow. ;)

Heh, heh. Yeah that's true, but in such a case we could just make a belt +40, or PLUS 100!!! HAH, HAH, haaaa!

Anyway, without all of that, it would take a character almost 4 and 1/2 years to make +20 belt of physical perfection.

The original poster's dungeon master has the ability to make this endeavor very frustrating. Just require that your player keep track of and justify every hour he puts in making the belt. Frequently check his bookeeping as you continue with the adventure. I guarantee the adventure will be over before he ever finishes the craft.


If you've reached a level where you're thinking you need a +20 belt, I don't see the problem in having a player make one.
If they have that much time, and that much money, the game is already beyond where most game usually end.

There is no caster level requirement, also, I'd like to point out that, while it may take 4 years to make the whole belt, if you start with a normal +6 belt, and improve it 2 points at a time, you have a viable item all the time... sure 4 years become 16 if done while adventuring, but who's counting at that point ?

And if we're talking about the good old 3.0 epic rules, while the fighter was waiting for his +20 belt, the wizard had a spell that would boost his INT by 60 or more.


Did anyone mention that the belt is +20 to all stats? >.> I actually don't know if that was the case but I mean why not?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The game isn't designed to do +6 size and +6 alchemical either.

If it was just get +1 slot less:
Morale
Sacred
Size
Alchemical
dodge
Insight
Enchantment
...
All known typed bonuses


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I'm well aware. I'm also pretty sure there is no cap mentioned in the rules, unlike the bonuses for weapons/armor.

That's what I'm looking for.

It's not specifically mentioned, but it is what the game is designed around.

Given that you can, with difficulty granted, boost your STR well above a +6 using other abilities, I seriously doubt that the game is 'designed around' a specific +6 limit to enhancement bonuses, anymore than it is 'designed around' a wizard with access to the wish spell.

Some things will make the game easier, some things will make the game too easy. The GM is there to serve as a gatekeeper to keep the game in bounds of what is generally agreed upon, whether that's a +6 enhancement stat limit, or a raging alchemist rocking a +24 or so.

Given that you can boost your strength in other ways is why the enhancement bonus caps at +6. They don't want you to be able to accrue too high a strength score. That other bonuses to strength exist is a point in favor of why enhancement bonuses are limited, not against it.

Except that that +6 'limit' existed long before alchemical bonuses were even a thing. So no, I don't believe that the +6 stat limits were created with the current ways to boost your strength in mind. So either the game is now broken, or boosting your STR doesn't actually break the game compared to, say, a wish spell.

Seriously, give a 20th level fighter a +20 belt of physical perfection. Is he now more powerful than a 20th level wizard?

By the logic presented, I take it you have no problems giving a spellcaster a +20 boost to their casting stat?

No problem in what sense? I have no problem if the GAME doesn't limit you to crafting a +6 bonus. I do have a problem with people insisting that anything above a +6 enhancement bonus is inherently broken because the game is "obviously" designed around that +6 limit. That argument seems fundamentally silly, given subsequent access to even higher bonuses for some class combinations.

Now, if I were running a game, would I want a caster with a +20 casting stat bonus? Nope. That would likely break the game much more than a fighter with a +20 strength bonus. Which just goes to show you that it's not about any general numerical limit, it's how it interacts with the game in specifics.

By the logic that others have presented, do you think a 20th level caster with a +8 enhancement bonus to their stat is going to break the game in any way distinguishable from one who has a +6 enhancement bonus to their casting stat?

Sovereign Court

This is an artefact.

Item creation for artefacts is completely different.

If you don't believe me, use the 'comparable item principle'.

This is a powerful artefact; you should go on great adventures simply to figure out how to make it, then even more to get the components.

My instinct is to make the first ingredient Kyrgus' tears.


James Risner wrote:

The game isn't designed to do +6 size and +6 alchemical either.

If it was just get +1 slot less:
Morale
Sacred
Size
Alchemical
dodge
Insight
Enchantment
...
All known typed bonuses

You better tell the alchemsists then, because they can rock a +8 alchemical and a +6 size bonus just with extracts and abilities, simultaneously. And certain builds can stack a rage bonus on top of that.

Sovereign Court

_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:

The game isn't designed to do +6 size and +6 alchemical either.

If it was just get +1 slot less:
Morale
Sacred
Size
Alchemical
dodge
Insight
Enchantment
...
All known typed bonuses

You better tell the alchemsists then, because they can rock a +8 alchemical and a +6 size bonus just with extracts and abilities, simultaneously. And certain builds can stack a rage bonus on top of that.

I mean, before my Alchemist retired from PFS at 20, he certainly had:

alchemical +8(grand mutagen),
size +8(scroll of divine vessel),
sacred +4(scroll of eaglesoul),
enhancement +8 (scroll of mighty​ strength or heart of the mammoth, or +6 belt)
I didn't actually have an inherent bonus, as I was making an elixir of life (costs 25k) every module post 16, and had to buy a true rez for myself at 14ish. Aaaand multiple scrolls of level 9 spells (mass heal, time stop, etc).
At one point I had levels of barbarian, but not post level 11, so no morale. Though it looks like the spell vengeful outrage would provide a +6 morale bonus for 11 minutes. *files that away for later...*

As far as the bonus types go, I went out of my way to only list the bonus types (enhancement, morale, size, alchemical, sacred) that I absolutely know apply. I have never seen an insight or a Dodge bonus to strength, for example.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Seriously, give a 20th level fighter a +20 belt of physical perfection. Is he now more powerful than a 20th level wizard?

No he's not more powerful than the wizard. But braking the game further isn't the response one should have to things being broken. You fix the broken ones, not add in more broken toys for others to play with.


Claxon wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Seriously, give a 20th level fighter a +20 belt of physical perfection. Is he now more powerful than a 20th level wizard?
No he's not more powerful than the wizard. But braking the game further isn't the response one should have to things being broken. You fix the broken ones, not add in more broken toys for others to play with.

But that's the point. If a game already needs to accommodate a 20th level wizard, then it already can handle a fighter with a +20 to STR, because an extra +10 to hit, +10/15 dmg won't really make that much of a difference when you have time stop, wish, and empowered delayed blast fireballs kicking around.

And again, do you really think that a +8 instead of a +6, even to a casting stat, has a noticeable impact on the game at ~20th level? It's a sliding scale, and the incremental change from +6 to +8 is pretty negligible at that point.


_Ozy_ wrote:


And again, do you really think that a +8 instead of a +6, even to a casting stat, has a noticeable impact on the game at ~20th level? It's a sliding scale, and the incremental change from +6 to +8 is pretty negligible at that point.

But that's true of any incremental change. Any +1 is pretty negligible. 6->8, 8->10, 10->12, 18->20.

But 6->20 may still be a problem, even if you can't pinpoint any one step along the way as "Before this is fine, after this is broken".


thejeff wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


And again, do you really think that a +8 instead of a +6, even to a casting stat, has a noticeable impact on the game at ~20th level? It's a sliding scale, and the incremental change from +6 to +8 is pretty negligible at that point.

But that's true of any incremental change. Any +1 is pretty negligible. 6->8, 8->10, 10->12, 18->20.

But 6->20 may still be a problem, even if you can't pinpoint any one step along the way as "Before this is fine, after this is broken".

As I said, it's a sliding scale. So, couple that with no particular rule in the books regarding limit, and I think it's safe to say that the +6 'limit' to stat enhancement bonuses just doesn't exist. There are spells that go higher, and if you really try you can stack other sources and easily blow it out of the water.

So, beyond the usual: it's up to the GM to keep his game at a level that's fun for everyone, why should anyone jump on any particular number as 1) against the rules, or 2) badwrongfun, be it +6, +8, or +20?

As in all things, it's going to be campaign dependent, though obviously the higher you go the higher the probability is that things will get out of hand. But that's true starting from +0.


_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


And again, do you really think that a +8 instead of a +6, even to a casting stat, has a noticeable impact on the game at ~20th level? It's a sliding scale, and the incremental change from +6 to +8 is pretty negligible at that point.

But that's true of any incremental change. Any +1 is pretty negligible. 6->8, 8->10, 10->12, 18->20.

But 6->20 may still be a problem, even if you can't pinpoint any one step along the way as "Before this is fine, after this is broken".

As I said, it's a sliding scale. So, couple that with no particular rule in the books regarding limit, and I think it's safe to say that the +6 'limit' to stat enhancement bonuses just doesn't exist. There are spells that go higher, and if you really try you can stack other sources and easily blow it out of the water.

So, beyond the usual: it's up to the GM to keep his game at a level that's fun for everyone, why should anyone jump on any particular number as 1) against the rules, or 2) badwrongfun, be it +6, +8, or +20?

As in all things, it's going to be campaign dependent, though obviously the higher you go the higher the probability is that things will get out of hand. But that's true starting from +0.

Also remember that because it's possible to stack bonuses to get above 20 doesn't mean it's a good idea to give out a single bonus of 20. Now you stack bonuses even higher!

But you're basically right that there's no explicit rule. OTOH, the lack of existing items puts you basically into GM decides territory anyway. Whatever you decide is essentially a house rule.


thejeff wrote:
But you're basically right that there's no explicit rule. OTOH, the lack of existing items puts you basically into GM decides territory anyway. Whatever you decide is essentially a house rule.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I don't consider DM guidance on custom magic creation a 'house rule' so much as built into the rules.

A house rule would be if the DM decided to ignore the specific limits on weapon enchantments, for example.

But again, nitpicking.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you're basically right that there's no explicit rule. OTOH, the lack of existing items puts you basically into GM decides territory anyway. Whatever you decide is essentially a house rule.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I don't consider DM guidance on custom magic creation a 'house rule' so much as built into the rules.

A house rule would be if the DM decided to ignore the specific limits on weapon enchantments, for example.

But again, nitpicking.

Yes you are indeed nitpicking.

Which results in nitpicking responses.

When if you'd accept the initial response of:
"Not allowed in rules, but gm has ultimate item creation autonomy and may deviate from design at their will and when design and guidance doesn't suit them they may rule 0."

But you prefer the message of "it doesn't say I can't do +200 is A-okay and anyone disagreeing is being a trouble maker.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But you're basically right that there's no explicit rule. OTOH, the lack of existing items puts you basically into GM decides territory anyway. Whatever you decide is essentially a house rule.

Maybe this is nitpicking, but I don't consider DM guidance on custom magic creation a 'house rule' so much as built into the rules.

A house rule would be if the DM decided to ignore the specific limits on weapon enchantments, for example.

But again, nitpicking.

Yes you are indeed nitpicking.

Which results in nitpicking responses.

When if you'd accept the initial response of:
"Not allowed in rules, but gm has ultimate item creation autonomy and may deviate from design at their will and when design and guidance doesn't suit them they may rule 0."

But you prefer the message of "it doesn't say I can't do +200 is A-okay and anyone disagreeing is being a trouble maker.

Lol, James, look at the responses. The people who are calling 'troublemaker!' are not the ones who are saying the rules don't set a specific limit.

When you say 'not allowed in rules', you're flat out wrong. The rules specifically grant GMs the right to guide custom magic item creation. This is in the rules. This is not a house rule.

A house rule is a rule that runs contrary to the rules, such as Fighters get 1d12 hps, Sorcerers can spontaneously cast as a standard action, you can craft weapons with a +20 equivalent bonus. See that last one? That's specifically not allowed in the rules. The reason this differs from a +20 stat item is that the latter is not specifically contrary to the rules.

Therefore there is an actual difference between the two cases.

If you're going to nitpick my response, then actually address the nitpick. When the rules specifically forbid A, and do not specifically forbid B, it is not accurate to say that allowing A is in the same category as allowing B, regardless of whether you think A or B has the bigger impact on the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yeah...

This is a major artifact, and as such, cannot be created by a player character and which exists solely at the GM's behest.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Just because the item creation is more art than science doesn't mean there are not a lot of wisdom in their design. Call it unwritten rules. But it does say pricing isn't function not the chart and the chart is last resort. You nit picky take on this is to skip that and chase to the chart. Effectively house ruling away all that design philosophy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is gonna be one of those use activated truestrike sword things isn't it?


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Did anyone mention that the belt is +20 to all stats? >.> I actually don't know if that was the case but I mean why not?

A Belt of Physical Perfection is one that modifies Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. So we're going by the name used.

Shadow Lodge

Looks like everyone scared off the OP.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just hope that the playe talked to his GM, watching you all try and discuss things is going to give me an aneurism. Here is what the rules are. You can make just about any item you could imagine. The GM can say no to any item you could imagine. Nobody cares what "you would do in your game" it only matters whether his GM finds it acceptable.

Shadow Lodge

Backpack wrote:
Nobody cares what "you would do in your game" it only matters whether his GM finds it acceptable.

I mean, clearly someone cares or they wouldn't be posting on the forums...


James Risner wrote:
Just because the item creation is more art than science doesn't mean there are not a lot of wisdom in their design. Call it unwritten rules. But it does say pricing isn't function not the chart and the chart is last resort. You nit picky take on this is to skip that and chase to the chart. Effectively house ruling away all that design philosophy.

All stat boost items follow the chart. Comparing it to similar items says: follow the chart. If anything, the x^2 nature of stat boosts is probably overpriced as you go up in bonus.

But once again, since you didn't address it, there is a qualitative difference between a house rule that specifically overrules a game rule, and one that doesn't. That was the essence of the nitpick, which you don't seem to get.


I would let the guy buy the item for 1.6million GP only to find out he was cheated and actually got a +6 item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Seriously, give a 20th level fighter a +20 belt of physical perfection. Is he now more powerful than a 20th level wizard?
No he's not more powerful than the wizard. But braking the game further isn't the response one should have to things being broken. You fix the broken ones, not add in more broken toys for others to play with.

But that's the point. If a game already needs to accommodate a 20th level wizard, then it already can handle a fighter with a +20 to STR, because an extra +10 to hit, +10/15 dmg won't really make that much of a difference when you have time stop, wish, and empowered delayed blast fireballs kicking around.

And again, do you really think that a +8 instead of a +6, even to a casting stat, has a noticeable impact on the game at ~20th level? It's a sliding scale, and the incremental change from +6 to +8 is pretty negligible at that point.

The game doesn't accommodate the wizard though.

If anything we should be stripping the wizards powers, not powering up the fighters.

And yes, increasing the bonus available to casting stats makes a difference, arguably more so than physical stats. As you mention, increasing strength more just means hitting harder and more often. Not truly necessary most of the time, but not a huge problem.

But if you're going to allow a +20 to strength, why wouldn't you allow a +20 to all the stats? Increasing the DC for spell casters by allowing them to enhance their mental abilities further is a terrible idea.


Don't forget that very high casting stats also mean more spells per day. o wo/


Well +20 to all stats would be about 2x the cost and 2x the time to make it. You don't have to worry too much about time at those levels, but still... it's going to take a while... and is there really that much money around?
Also yay for +7 to your spell DCs when everyone has +7 on all saves... and since we're talking about +20 belts, why not +10 cloaks of resistance?
And more spells per day? You don't run out anyway in those 15 mins adventuring days


Alderic wrote:

Well +20 to all stats would be about 2x the cost and 2x the time to make it. You don't have to worry too much about time at those levels, but still... it's going to take a while... and is there really that much money around?

Also yay for +7 to your spell DCs when everyone has +7 on all saves... and since we're talking about +20 belts, why not +10 cloaks of resistance?
And more spells per day? You don't run out anyway in those 15 mins adventuring days

Speak for yourself, I've rarely ever had those 15 min days that some feel are the norm.

Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a handful of posts and locking. The Rules Questions forum is intended to be a resource for other gamers, let's leave the snark and judgement about gaming groups whom you do not know out of the conversation.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Building a belt of physical perfection+20 All Messageboards