|
Hi I'm a little confused about pricing for this ring I see it as being 4k but my GM says that rings are "Premium Priced" not sure what that means. What I'm attempting to do in get the equivalent of a belt of Giant Strength (+2) in a ring to open up my belt slot for a Scabbard of Vigor. Thanks for your help in advance.
Remember that item crafting guidelines can be approved or declined by your GM.
One of the reasons for not allowing a ring of Giant Strength is that, design-wise, developers put most of the physical stat-boost items as belts so it you had to make hard decisions about other belt-slot items.
You may want to look at the pale blue rhomboid ioun stone. It would give you +2 to Strength as a slotless item, for 8000 gp.
Actually, isn't there an extra cost multiplier, over and above anything else when:
A) you take a normally specific slotted effect and apply it to a different slot, or,
B) you take a slotted effect and make it unslotted.
This extra cost would be in addition to the extra costs of adding additional effects to an existing item.
Generally, yes, if there's an stat bonus usually associated with one slot, in this case a belt, it costs 50% more to move it to another slot or 100% more to make it slotless.
In keeping with this, I'd personally allow a ring of giant strength +2, but it would cost 6000 GP.
The 50% premium is a 3.5 rule that was not carried over into PF to my knowledge. At a quick search I am unable to turn it up. While it may be a reasonable houserule (which all custom item costs are actually) that is what it is. Ult Campaign has some expanded discussion of moving things between slots and why it is generally a bad idea.
Right, Pathfinder cut this down to a warning to GMs to be very careful about allowing slot-specific effects to be applied to other slots, or to going slotless. Good enough for reasonable groups and players, ^-^ and irrelevant, as most things are, to unreasonable ones.
EDIT ADD
Hmm, Nefreets noting the Ioun Stone prices shows that, whether or not the text for out-of-slot/slotless surcharges is still there, they ARE still using the formula in their pricing.
Right, Pathfinder cut this down to a warning to GMs to be very careful about allowing slot-specific effects to be applied to other slots, or to going slotless. Good enough for reasonable groups and players, ^-^ and irrelevant, as most things are, to unreasonable ones.
EDIT ADD
Hmm, Nefreets noting the Ioun Stone prices shows that, whether or not the text for out-of-slot/slotless surcharges is still there, they ARE still using the formula in their pricing.
Slotless surcharge still applies in the pricing guidelines for GMs. Out-of-slot does not.
The end result of the "don't allow moving implied slot-specific effects to other sots" philosophy is that a large proportion of slotted magic items are never used because they take up the same slot. Crafters can get around this by making multiple-effect items for a bit of gold, but if the party simply finds a particular item they're likely to go "man, that's neat, too bad it would cost me my cloak slot".
Right, Pathfinder cut this down to a warning to GMs to be very careful about allowing slot-specific effects to be applied to other slots, or to going slotless. Good enough for reasonable groups and players, ^-^ and irrelevant, as most things are, to unreasonable ones.
EDIT ADD
Hmm, Nefreets noting the Ioun Stone prices shows that, whether or not the text for out-of-slot/slotless surcharges is still there, they ARE still using the formula in their pricing.Slotless surcharge still applies in the pricing guidelines for GMs. Out-of-slot does not.
The end result of the "don't allow moving implied slot-specific effects to other sots" philosophy is that a large proportion of slotted magic items are never used because they take up the same slot. Crafters can get around this by making multiple-effect items for a bit of gold, but if the party simply finds a particular item they're likely to go "man, that's neat, too bad it would cost me my cloak slot".
Completely agree, if health and attitude allow, if actually do GM again, I will likely toss the whole Item Economy, and put most of the Advancements being inherent, like a stat advance every level, with some limit on how fast you can advance an individual stat. I think I would have a separate, slower pool for the defensive bonus advancements. The Big Six are dull. I also want fewer, but more interesting and powerful toys. I also would mostly limit purchasables to consumables/expendables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first, and final rule for the price of a custom magic item is whatever your GM thinks it should be.
If a GM wants to allow a str +2 ring, then they certainly can, and if they think it should be premium priced, then they certainly can to.
There are guidelines to help GMs be reasonable in coming up with prices for custom magic items, but that it really what they are. As others have said, there are not any guidelines for 'moving' a slot, only that it is discouraged but if your GM wants to allow it, they can also charge more for it.
|
the +ability scores unless they are on an ion stone are locked into belt and headband slots
There are at least a couple of specific exceptions to this (Rod of Splendor boosts Charisma, Snakeskin Tunic boosts your Dexterity), but they are few and far between.
Likewise, the Ioun Stone options are awkward:
- Pale Blue Rhomboid Ioun Stone is limited to +2 only.
- Crimson Sphere Ioun Stones show how a stacking bonus would work, but they are really, really expensive (pricing seems to be double the 36,000 cost of a +6 belt/headband, divided into 3 separate stones, which makes getting a +2 or +4 bonus really uneconomical).
- You could just get a single +4 or +6 stone, but that brings you back to the 'custom item that needs to be approved by your GM.'
Finally, OP, the Scabbard of Vigor does not take up the Belt slot: It's actually a slotless item.
EDIT: Ninja'd by the Stormwarden on my last point...
Hi I'm a little confused about pricing for this ring I see it as being 4k but my GM says that rings are "Premium Priced" not sure what that means. What I'm attempting to do in get the equivalent of a belt of Giant Strength (+2) in a ring to open up my belt slot for a Scabbard of Vigor. Thanks for your help in advance.
Just a note, unless this is for PFS you can combine magic items (CRB p553 Adding New Abilities) by increasing the price of the second item by 50%.
So, while you don't need to do this for your current issue (Scabbard of Vigor is slotless) you could do it for something like Muleback Cords and a Cloak of Resistance if you needed to.
Curiously, the Advanced Player's Guide states that the Scabbard of Vigor takes up the Belt Slot, while Ultimate Equipment states that it is Slotless. It looks like the Scabbard of Stanching and Sheath of Bladestealth have the same issue.
i don't mind reslotting an existing item, such as bracers of strength or boots of dexterity. or even eyeglasses of intellect, instead of sacrificing extra gold to have both powers, you are sacrificing one of your precious slots to save gold.
The main issue with that is that magic item slots are not equally valuable. Some slots tend to have distinctly more potent and useful effects than others. It's not much of a sacrifice if you fill in a slot you'd rarely (or never) put something in to begin with, and that can lead to characters getting stronger than intended.
i prefer the idea of playing with inherent bonuses. so i often use the kirthfinder mojo system with the exception that it is a property of the character rather than a property of the item, and you can only buy permanent passive properties with mojo.
but i allow consumable items and magic ammunition without consuming mojo, as well as charges per day items. in fact. most of the magic items i include feel more special because your vital combat stats are covered by mojo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but for the flat +2 its limited to headband and belt slots except for the piazo published items which are the exceptions or if the gm wants to break those rules
Show me where it says that... Those are just the example items. There is no "rule" stating that those are the only slots for ability boosting items.
As an aside,
In 3.5, the 50% increase in cost for using a slot without affinity made a lot of sense.
Conveniently, this was the same increase you would pay for stacking a second effect on an item.
In our home game, my character still uses the body slot affinity rules.
This way you are disincentivized from creating "boots of darkvision" or a "headband of jumping". But if you are willing to pay extra you can still make them. In reality, I rarely make an item like this because stacking effects makes more sense and nets the same additional cost.
So to answer the OP's question. I would advise that a ring of +2 strength should cost 6,000.
Bonus squares, times 1000, times 1.5 (for using the wrong slot)
(2)^2 X 1000 X 1.5 = 6,000
but for the flat +2 its limited to headband and belt slots except for the piazo published items which are the exceptions or if the gm wants to break those rulesShow me where it says that... Those are just the example items. There is no "rule" stating that those are the only slots for ability boosting items.
Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the Core Rulebook are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. In particular, the magic belts and circlets that give enhancement bonuses to ability scores are in this category—characters who want to enhance multiple physical or mental ability scores must pay extra for combination items like a belt of physical might or headband of mental prowess.
pulled from the paizo site and the page mentions the core book so im thinking the rule is from the core book
It's from Ultimate Campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but for the flat +2 its limited to headband and belt slots except for the piazo published items which are the exceptions or if the gm wants to break those rulesShow me where it says that... Those are just the example items. There is no "rule" stating that those are the only slots for ability boosting items.
Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the Core Rulebook are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. In particular, the magic belts and circlets that give enhancement bonuses to ability scores are in this category—characters who want to enhance multiple physical or mental ability scores must pay extra for combination items like a belt of physical might or headband of mental prowess.
pulled from the paizo site and the page mentions the core book so im thinking the rule is from the core book
so by raw you can have gloves of spring and stride or pants of natural armor but you cant have bracers of intellect or a cape of strength
Those paragraphs are from Ultimate Campaign, not the CRB. But which source it was does not make a difference. The quoted texts mentions that the items in the CRB (the example items) were deliberately assigned to specific slots. This was to force a choice.
In fact the book goes onto say
If there is a trend of all Core Rulebook items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.
Disclaimer: Maybe I'm trying to be a bit pedantic, because I disagree with this change from 3.5 The rule does not say you can't. It just says the example items where put in that one slot deliberately. And a GM should be hesitant to allow an item to be crafted for a different slot.
There was nothing in the CRB item creation rules actually limiting which slot should be used (when crafting).Bottom line is that Ultimate Campaign did not say that the RAW was that you can't, but rather that the RAI was that you should not. It's not a rule, it's just advice. By going against their design, you may inadvertently increase the power of your PCs.
There is also nothing in the CRB which prevent a +1 belt of strength, or a +3 belt of con, or a +37 headband of intellect (besides a ludicrous cost). There is even a nice formula to determine the cost. Paizo has said though that it was their intent to limit these items to even bonuses. They just did not include such a rule in the CRB.
** spoiler omitted **...
Ultimate Campaign was not the first source to state this, the Conversion Guide also discussed this briefly. This has been a core element of Pathfinder since the move from 3.5.
If it was such a core element, why was it downgraded to a not-even-guideline-just-a-kinda-warning outside the CRB rather than kept as a codified rule?
Off to craft some +4 goggles of constitution!
Disclaimer: Maybe I'm trying to be a bit pedantic, because I disagree with this change from 3.5 The rule does not say you can't. It just says the example items where put in that one slot deliberately. And a GM should be hesitant to allow an item to be crafted for a different slot.
There was nothing in the CRB item creation rules actually limiting which slot should be used (when crafting).Bottom line is that Ultimate Campaign did not say that the RAW was that you can't, but rather that the RAI was that you should not. It's not a rule, it's just advice. By going against their design, you may inadvertently increase the power of your PCs.
You're not being pedantic, unless you count RAW as pedantic. I fully agree, btw, and I don't even think RAI is "NO!," rather, it is exactly as stated in UC, "be hesitant." That puts the responsibility squarely on the GM, along with the realization that you may introduce an unbalancing effect to the game.
I'd increase the item's caster level, since rings are not able to be crafted until higher levels (maybe CL 12 since Forge Ring lags being Craft Wondrous Item by 4 levels). I would also consider increasing the price by 50% as a matter of balance, maybe. If the ring was later upgraded (such as also making it a ring of freedom of movement, for example) I would apply the earlier up charge towards the up charge for shared item slots. So a ring of giant strength +2 might cost 6,000gp, while a ring of giant strength +2 and freedom of movement would cost 46,000gp.
Should and shall are two different words with different meanings. They use should for the same reasons as cited above.
I'd allow it, but I'd probably do something like Ravingdork's suggestion. I realize you are sacrificing another slot that may be important, but as noted above, not all slots are created equal. The characters I manage as GM certainly don't fill all of their slots, not because I don't want to, but because there might not be something I find useful in those slots, or I simply can't find an item (I loosely enforce economy rules in the campaigns I run).