My DM recently agreed that I could make a quickened ring of true strike, he also stated that I could use my quickened rod as part of the item creation, which allows me to use the quickened spell. Now he said that the cost would be 5(spell level)x9(CL)x2000 and we are currently arguing because when using a rod, it does not increase the spell slot level of the spell, so I argued it would cost 1x9x2000.
Is there anything in the rules that shows a table for using rods as part of a magic item creation?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once you get to custom items, it really is the GM's call how they work. But, the first rule of pricing a custom item is to compare to similar items - you effectively want a ring that gives you +20 to hit and ignores concealment as a swift action. Look at the actual ability first and the table last - this should not be priced as a spell. Not having Quicken Spell the feat is mostly immaterial - even if it is a prerequisite, you could ignore it when crafting by adding +5 to the craft DC, and since this will be a fairly low-level item it really won't change much.
I'd estimate a +20 to hit on one attack each round is worth about 200,000 gp. Ignoring all concealment is also nice; maybe 10,000 gp for that - so 210,000 gp for true strike as a swift action once per round. If you give it uses per day, it would be about 42,000 per daily charge.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) You can't use a rod, so nothing RAW.
2) A true strike item is one of the abuses of the crafting rules that is strongly discouraged by the developers.
3) Even if you dismiss all the above, your GM is right, what matter is the level of the spell cast by the crafted item, not how you are able to cast that spell. The item cast a spell with a spell level of 5 and a caster level of 9, you pay for that.
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items in the Core Rulebook (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values on page 549 of the Core Rulebook), 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 the “command word” or “useactivated or continuous” lines of Table 15–29 on page 550 of Core Rulebook.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.
1) You can't use a rod, so nothing RAW.
2) A true strike item is one of the abuses of the crafting rules that is strongly discouraged by the developers.
3) Even if you dismiss all the above, your GM is right, what matter is the level of the spell cast by the crafted item, not how you are able to cast that spell. The item cast a spell with a spell level of 5 and a caster level of 9, you pay for that.
Is there a rule that says you can’t use a rod for magic item creation? Why is everyone pricing an insight bonus as an enhancement bonus? The insight is not a continuous effect like enhancement
|
|
1) You can't use a rod, so nothing RAW.
2) A true strike item is one of the abuses of the crafting rules that is strongly discouraged by the developers.
3) Even if you dismiss all the above, your GM is right, what matter is the level of the spell cast by the crafted item, not how you are able to cast that spell. The item cast a spell with a spell level of 5 and a caster level of 9, you pay for that.Is there a rule that says you can’t use a rod for magic item creation?
It is simply irrelevant. Using the rod don't change the spell level or caster level of the final spell that you put in the ring.
The ring output is a quickened true strike? You must pay the cost of putting a quickened true strike in the ring, not the cost of a true strike affected by a lesser rod of quickening.
1) You can't use a rod, so nothing RAW.
2) A true strike item is one of the abuses of the crafting rules that is strongly discouraged by the developers.
3) Even if you dismiss all the above, your GM is right, what matter is the level of the spell cast by the crafted item, not how you are able to cast that spell. The item cast a spell with a spell level of 5 and a caster level of 9, you pay for that.Is there a rule that says you can’t use a rod for magic item creation?
It is simply irrelevant. Using the rod don't change the spell level or caster level of the final spell that you put in the ring.
The ring output is a quickened true strike? You must pay the cost of putting a quickened true strike in the ring, not the cost of a true strike affected by a lesser rod of quickening.
im not arguing the cost, I asked if there was a rule that said you cannot use a rod, because you said I cannot, and you completely ignored the second half of my reply.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everyone pricing an insight bonus as an enhancement bonus? The insight is not a continuous effect like enhancement
Read the piece of Ultimate Campaign I cited above. I get that you want your game breaking item so much, but you are trying to make a pretzel of the intent of the rules to suit your goal.
A +20 to hit cost as a +20 to hit.
And an insight bonus is in addition to the enhancement bonus, so it will cost more than a simple enhancement bonus.
There is no enhancement bonus to true strike. It’s only an insight bonus to attempt an attack roll. It’s way different than an enhancement bonus
And I’m still waiting for a rule or something that says I cannot use a rod as part of item creation, again I’m not worried about the cost, but if you're telling me I cannot, then I’m asking you to show your reason why
This is all one thread buddy, all on one page, and it’s funny how you make a statement without any further evidence on a follow up question
Link me such rules, and I’ll ask once more about a ruling on not being allowed to use rods in item creation
This is all one thread buddy, all on one page, and it’s funny how you make a statement without any further evidence on a follow up question
he's referencing this thread
QUICKENED SPELL ITEM CREATION COST
which you started almost half an hour earlier then this one. So, yeah you have two posts asking the same question.
This is all one thread buddy, all on one page, and it’s funny how you make a statement without any further evidence on a follow up questionhe's referencing this thread
QUICKENED SPELL ITEM CREATION COST
which you started almost half an hour earlier then this one. So, yeah you have two posts asking the same question.
I wasn’t aware it posted twice, I’ve only been on the one that actually loaded while I was at work, i flagged the other post as I’m not sure how to close or delete a thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How were you planning for the ring to function? A ring that works three times per day would be rather costly, or else need 24 hour attunement, to avoid thw obvious exploit of crafting a bunch of them and switching throughout the day.
If you want something that continually provides a +20 bonus to hit, or gants it as a swift action at will, then any GM worth their salt will either set you straight or laugh you out of their game as that is blatantly unbalanced.
We've laid out the clear intent of the designers for you. Please don't act obtuse and demand a rule the you know doesn't exist (the intent is so obvious, there is no need for such a rule to exist).
Item creation rules state that you use the caster level and spell level to determine price, and even then, the GM must compare to existing items and make a judgement call based on what already exists. The item creation rules make no mention of metamagic rods during the crafting process, so they never ever enter into it. As Diego already stated, it is irrelevant.
Contest it all you like. Our answers will be the same.
There are dozens of pathfinder rules that make absolutely no sense to me(maybe it’s because I’ve been playing pathfinder for less than a year), if I knew the rules didn’t exist why would I post it in the forums to settle a debate between the dm and I? He could always just be like I’m the dm I said no, however it was a legit question to someone who is still relatively new to pathfinder. I was planning on using the ring as a quickened true strike spell. Mainly so I could grapple my teammates(my character constantly harrasses other PCs). I’ve also agreed with the dm that it would not ignore concealment as a concession. If there is no mention of using rods in crafting, no one can say they cannot be used, It’s like Schrödinger’s cat. My dm said I can use it to avoid the 5DC increase but it doesn’t reduce the cost as I had suggested. Which I’ve conceded to my dm as we’ve had a relatively unbiased opinion group on here.
Is there a rule that says you can’t use a rod for magic item creation?
Here's the sole occurence of the word "metamagic" in the magic item creation rules: "Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal." CRB pg. 549
It says feat, not rod, and doesn't even say that you can apply the effects of the feat.Also, the description for metamagic rods says "Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat, allowing the user to apply metamagic effects to spells (but not spell-like abilities) as they are cast." You don't actually cast the spell during magic item creation.
my character constantly harrasses other PCs
Why am I not surprised?
Link me such rules, and I’ll ask once more about a ruling on not being allowed to use rods in item creation
You have to find a rule that does allow it.
“Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise.” Is from D20PSFRD
Since it is a quickened ring, it should be a swift action.
I can also see the inverse to that “ it’s a ring of quickened (insert spell here)”
Link me such rules, and I’ll ask once more about a ruling on not being allowed to use rods in item creationYou have to find a rule that does allow it.
I’m not chaotic evil for nothing.
I think there are two questions being addressed.
One is, whether a metamagic rod could be used as a substitute for a prerequisite metamagic feat, and the answer to that is that no rule specifically allows it, so it isn't strictly RAW. However, I certainly could see a GM allowing it, especially since usually missing a prerequisite isn't something that matters anyway, since meeting the DC to create a magic item is seldom difficult, even without having all the prerequisites.
The other is, if allowed, should this effect the price (and hence creation cost) of the the item, and the answer to that is a definite no.
Bottom line is, although guidelines are given, even should a GM allow a custom magic item, they are the final determiner of the price of said magic item. That is the rule. Guidelines and suggestions exist and certainly there are many on these forums who would be happy to advise on what they would price such an item as, but there are no rules superior to the GM making the determination. This price should be based on the power and usefulness of the item, not on anything else.
An item that gave a +20 insight bonus and ignored miss chance on the next attack as a swift action is quite powerful, and I would certainly price it as higher than the 90,000 GP your GM initially quoted you.
Some classes, like alchemists, gunslingers, and kineticists, effectively have a +20 bonus to hit built into their class. It's called "touch attacks," and it's essentially why they never really miss.
You should have to pay 400,000gp just to play one of those classes! It's the only way to keep the holy balance. Lol.
:P
and yet strangely, archery builds that have to deal with a targets full AC out perform all 3 of those classes without true strike.
So, what does any of this have to do with the thread? Neither of these posts are about creating or pricing items. Because any character could use that same +20 to hit ring, including Kineticists which would directly get a huge boost to damage now that they don't need to choose between weak blasts that target touch AC or strong blasts that target normal AC.
Some classes, like alchemists, gunslingers, and kineticists, effectively have a +20 bonus to hit built into their class. It's called "touch attacks," and it's essentially why they never really miss.
You should have to pay 400,000gp just to play one of those classes! It's the only way to keep the holy balance. Lol.
:P
My GM and I agreed that we could not understand why everyone compares it to a +enhancement on a weapon, which is a constant effect, and true strike is not.
My GM and I agreed that we could not understand why everyone compares it to a +enhancement on a weapon, which is a constant effect, and true strike is not.Some classes, like alchemists, gunslingers, and kineticists, effectively have a +20 bonus to hit built into their class. It's called "touch attacks," and it's essentially why they never really miss.
You should have to pay 400,000gp just to play one of those classes! It's the only way to keep the holy balance. Lol.
:P
It's because it's one of the specific examples used in the book, and people get fixated on the comparison without understanding the difference between a constant +20 to hit, and an 'activated' +20 to hit, whether it's a standard or swift action.
Clearly, a swift action true strike isn't as powerful as a constant +20 to hit as you only get it on 1 attack per round, and have to use a swift action to do so.
Nonetheless, you should, at the very minimum, pay for the effective 'spell cost' for the item, which would be:
1800 * 5 * 9 = 81k
Now, whether 81k is too cheap for an item that uses a swift action to guarantee a single attack hits probably can only be determined through gameplay, but there aren't very many items that are more expensive than that.
As for people insisting that this is equivalent to a constant +20 to hit, just ignore them.
My GM and I agreed that we could not understand why everyone compares it to a +enhancement on a weapon, which is a constant effect, and true strike is not.
I'm not sure that anyone really has done that though.
I, at least, asked you how you intended to use it. Had I gotten a real answer, I might have been able to provide you with some pricing suggestions.
My GM and I agreed that we could not understand why everyone compares it to a +enhancement on a weapon, which is a constant effect, and true strike is not.I'm not sure that anyone really has done that though.
I, at least, asked you how you intended to use it. Had I gotten a real answer, I might have been able to provide you with some pricing suggestions.
As I stated above it’s to torment the other PCs, for example I’m always casting faerie fire on our rogue so he cannot hide, or following him when he’s trying to sneak about the kingdom(we’re in the kingmaker campaign if that’s relevant). We have a barbarian I want to wrestle as our king has suggested a battle arena for the kingdom.
My GM and I agreed that we could not understand why everyone compares it to a +enhancement on a weapon, which is a constant effect, and true strike is not.Some classes, like alchemists, gunslingers, and kineticists, effectively have a +20 bonus to hit built into their class. It's called "touch attacks," and it's essentially why they never really miss.
You should have to pay 400,000gp just to play one of those classes! It's the only way to keep the holy balance. Lol.
:P
It's because it's one of the specific examples used in the book, and people get fixated on the comparison without understanding the difference between a constant +20 to hit, and an 'activated' +20 to hit, whether it's a standard or swift action.
Clearly, a swift action true strike isn't as powerful as a constant +20 to hit as you only get it on 1 attack per round, and have to use a swift action to do so.
Nonetheless, you should, at the very minimum, pay for the effective 'spell cost' for the item, which would be:
1800 * 5 * 9 = 81k
Now, whether 81k is too cheap for an item that uses a swift action to guarantee a single attack hits probably can only be determined through gameplay, but there aren't very many items that are more expensive than that.
As for people insisting that this is equivalent to a constant +20 to hit, just ignore them.
It doesn’t guarantee a hit, I could always crit fail, which is a very common occurrence in this campaign.
Oh it’s not unlimited a day, we settled on 5 charges a day, and there’s 6 people in this campaign, but realistically only two of us hunt for loot, and we just got all this money and items from the vordekai fight, who had 1100 platinum alone
as a DM the only way I would let someone do what you're proposing is if the ring required you expending a use from the rod as part of it's activation. Otherwise you're getting something for nothing. Increasing the spell slot is the default way to make the cost of an item account for the metamagic.
IMO the rod is just letting you satisfy a feat requirement, which could be bypassed by just increasing the spellcraft check DC by 5. Also, both of your calculations are off since it should include an additional x4 multiplier because the duration of truestrike is measured in rounds.
if you want the full benefits of the rod, you could use the rules for combining items. Which means caster level only needs to be 1 instead of 9.
The market cost would be 1x1x4x(3/5)x2000+(35,000x1.5) for a ring usable 3 times per day(57,300gp). Alternatively it would be 1x1x4x2000+(35,000x1.5x(5/3)) for one usable at will(95,500gp).
The time multiplier is only for continuous/use activated items.
The time multiplier is only for continuous/use activated items.
the formulas provided by the OP were using the 2000 multiplier which is used for continuous/use items. I suppose if you wanted to make it a command word item you could, but it would defeat the purpose of making it cast a swift true strike, since command word items take a standard action to activate. So, as per the intent of the item it must be treated as a continuous/use activated item, hence the extra multiplier.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
My dm said that since I’m adding the quicken spell he’s allowing the “use” of the ring to be a swift action only 5 charges a day, I’m pretty sure if I wanted it at will instead of quickened he would probably not allow it. It’s amazing he’s even letting me make a ring of true strike
Well, since they have 'settled on 5 charges a day' it obviously is not, a continuous or use activated.
While the typical command word is a standard action, there are magic items that activate with a swift action, and they would use the command word, not continuous or use activated cost (this cost is for 'no action required items', which is why the duration makes a difference.)
There are no 'building rules' for swift activated magical items that I am aware of, but if using a base spell formula, the adjustment for quickened spell works well enough in most cases.
Well, since they have 'settled on 5 charges a day' it obviously is not, a continuous or use activated.
While the typical command word is a standard action, there are magic items that activate with a swift action, and they would use the command word, not continuous or use activated cost (this cost is for 'no action required items', which is why the duration makes a difference.)
There are no 'building rules' for swift activated magical items that I am aware of, but if using a base spell formula, the adjustment for quickened spell works well enough in most cases.
I agree, I will have to confirm with my dm if he wants to adjust the price any further, thank you everyone for your input. This has actually been a tremendous help.
I am ok with using the rod for crafting. Why? Because:
1) Others can supply all requirements other than the crafting feat
2) The quicken feat can be gotten by a 1st level character
3) You can hire a 1st level character for 3 gp/day.
Therefore, using the rod saves 3 gp/day in return for 1 use of the rod.
The reason the magic item price for a weapon of true strike was 200K and not 400K was because the +20 was on BAB and not Damage, and no concealment interaction.
The Magic Item Compendium from 3.5 had the True Strike Gauntlets for 3,500 gp. It gave a 1/day standard action activation True Strike. This let you use it in the next round. For swift activation, you need 5x spell level effect, and 9x caster level effect, for 3,500 x 5 x 9 = 157,500 gp. If your GM is allowing if to 90K, take it and be happy you saved a lot.
For your plan of abusing your party members, it is probably cheaper to change the standerd activation from command word to somatic activation. Then you just need to keep your target from seeing the activation.
As to targeting your party, this is a fast road to a disaster. In character, they have no reason to stick with a PC that does bad things to them. You will soon find you are not offered healing resources. Or you will be left to fight the monster on your own. Or even worst, your party will turn on you.
By choosing this abusive path, you break the unspoken agreement that holds a party together. You give them reason to leave you when you are in need instead of coming to your aid.
/cevah
Ignoring all concealment is also nice; maybe 10,000 gp for that - so 210,000 gp for true strike as a swift action once per round. If you give it uses per day, it would be about 42,000 per daily charge.
The Heartseeker weapon enchant is a +1 bonus, and only ignores concealment on some creatures. Clearly ignoring all concealment is better.
/cevah
I am ok with using the rod for crafting. Why? Because:
1) Others can supply all requirements other than the crafting feat
2) The quicken feat can be gotten by a 1st level character
3) You can hire a 1st level character for 3 gp/day.
Therefore, using the rod saves 3 gp/day in return for 1 use of the rod.The reason the magic item price for a weapon of true strike was 200K and not 400K was because the +20 was on BAB and not Damage, and no concealment interaction.
The Magic Item Compendium from 3.5 had the True Strike Gauntlets for 3,500 gp. It gave a 1/day standard action activation True Strike. This let you use it in the next round. For swift activation, you need 5x spell level effect, and 9x caster level effect, for 3,500 x 5 x 9 = 157,500 gp. If your GM is allowing if to 90K, take it and be happy you saved a lot.
For your plan of abusing your party members, it is probably cheaper to change the standerd activation from command word to somatic activation. Then you just need to keep your target from seeing the activation.
As to targeting your party, this is a fast road to a disaster. In character, they have no reason to stick with a PC that does bad things to them. You will soon find you are not offered healing resources. Or you will be left to fight the monster on your own. Or even worst, your party will turn on you.
By choosing this abusive path, you break the unspoken agreement that holds a party together. You give them reason to leave you when you are in need instead of coming to your aid.
/cevah
Our rogue agreed to sell us out to a demon in exchange for a couple items, he deserves ALL the torment he gets. Most of the trickery is non harmful like faerie fire, net traps, and 95% on the rogue because he offered to kill us all. I have saved all of my party members at least a few times, I mean trickery aside we’re a decent party except for the ***hole rogue lol
Our rogue agreed to sell us out to a demon in exchange for a couple items, he deserves ALL the torment he gets. Most of the trickery is non harmful like faerie fire, net traps, and 95% on the rogue because he offered to kill us all. I have saved all of my party members at least a few times, I mean trickery aside we’re a decent party except for the ***hole rogue lolFor your plan of abusing your party members, it is probably cheaper to change the standerd activation from command word to somatic activation. Then you just need to keep your target from seeing the activation.
As to targeting your party, this is a fast road to a disaster. In character, they have no reason to stick with a PC that does bad things to them. You will soon find you are not offered healing resources. Or you will be left to fight the monster on your own. Or even worst, your party will turn on you.
By choosing this abusive path, you break the unspoken agreement that holds a party together. You give them reason to leave you when you are in need instead of coming to your aid.
/cevah
Having sold you out is something to be dealt with harshly, and at a minimum, the rogue would be kicked out of the party.
Mainly so I could grapple my teammates(my character constantly harrasses other PCs).
As I stated above it’s to torment the other PCs, for example I’m always casting faerie fire on our rogue so he cannot hide, or following him when he’s trying to sneak about the kingdom(we’re in the kingmaker campaign if that’s relevant)
These statements indicate you are troubling several PCs and not just one. Harassing and torment is not the proper response for betrayal or for a cohesive party.
/cevah
We fight monsters very well, handle quests well, and time was rewound, so after a second chance the rogue did not take the deal, he’s just on seriously thin ice, and has to handle with the seriously chaotic drow.