On the 2nd one - the description of the Belt of Giant strength is intentionally limiting: "The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Strength of +2, +4, or +6." It would say "+2, +4, +6 and so on" if there was an unlimited range, or in some way explain how to make a more powerful version. +6 is a cap.
On the 2nd one - the description of the Belt of Giant strength is intentionally limiting: "The belt grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Strength of +2, +4, or +6." It would say "+2, +4, +6 and so on" if there was an unlimited range, or in some way explain how to make a more powerful version. +6 is a cap.
No. There is nothing that limits you to those numbers. Those are simply the only pre-statted versions. If custom magic item creation is allowed, you can make any version you want. So +8, +20, +1, and so on.
They do explain how to make a more powerful version. It is on the table in the section of the rules detailing magic item creation.
Thanks, I've heard about epic characters being able to wield +20 weapons, but i can't find that. I'm thinking about staying no item can give more than a +10 unless they are epic, which might actually happen. I'll provably build epic feats for that
Weapons are one of the few items that do have a built in limit (+5 enhancement bonus, total of +10 maximum with special abilities). Back in 3.5 D&D, you could go higher than that with the epic rules, but Pathfinder doesn't have those.
If you allow bonuses over +6 then Manuals of <adjective attribute> will become obsolete due to their price (it's much cheaper until +14 to further enchant your belt/headband). Also, players will end up with higher primary stats due to the cheaper Enhancement increases as opposed to the expensive Inherent bonuses.
Up to you(r DM) as to whether that's a good or bad thing.
I'm getting alot of good stuff for question 2. I'm considering saying they can't go past 6 until level 20. But I'm not getting much feedback on question 1. If there is no precedent then I'll probably allow it. The way I see it, this gives the player options without making themselves super. If they choose to stack an element they run the risk of immunity canceling all their extra damage, but they could get past that particular resistance (though it could take alot). If they choose to spread their elements out they run the risk of losing their extra damage to creatures with small resistances for everything (they are fighting alot of demons in this campaign) but would only lose 1d6 damage to something that had limited resistances or immunity.
Yo can modify the Amulet as if it were a weapon. It follows that doing so would limit it to the same limits of creating a weapon.
AS for #1 it is enchanted as if it were a weapon, with the exception that the amulet doesn't need to be +1 first. So all the normal rules for enchanting a weapon should still hold true. You can't add the same special ability more than once.
We know the rules about adding special abilities to weapons. It has limitations.
The amluet says you can also add those special abilities to it. It tells you exactly how it is different (doesn't need to be +1, lower limit on the total amount of special abilities).
If it doesn't say it changes the rules, the rules aren't changed. Any other limitation still applies.