Slotless Items

[Sudden Deinonychus]

I suspect that this was answered years ago, but I only started using this forum a week ago, so forgive me.

Slotless items. My call as DM for crafting a slotless item has been that the item must not be able to reasonably fill an actual body slot. For example, I don't allow rings to be crafted as "slotless," or boots, cloaks, etc.

Am I wrong in this, right in this, or does it come under "DM decides/House rules"?

[Pizza Lord]

In general, you are correct that you shouldn't let players craft items (ie. Wondrous items) that clearly would replace a ring, staff, rod, or wand. Otherwise that would seriously cheapen the need for those crafting feats (and Craft Wondrous Item is way easier to get than Forge Ring, for example).

Keeping that guideline in mind, you can usually go for a 150% cost increase for an item using an unusual slot (like a helm of teleportation instead of boots of teleportation) or 200% in the case of a slotless item, like an ioun stone that mimics a slotted item (and note that even those have specific uses, like having to circle the head and being targetable or snatchable).

[Lucy_Valentine]

If it fits into an existing item slot, like a ring, then it should be an item of that type. Slotless items are specifically "Items not worn or carried in one of the [named] slots"

[Dave Justus]

I don't think there is any rule against it. Mechanically a ring that didn't take up a ring slot isn't any difference than a pin or whatever. If the player preferred that look, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Now something like boots that didn't take up the boot slot would be problematic, because whether or not a pair of boots uses the magic slot for them, you can generally only wear one pair of boots. But I wouldn't have an issue with an 'ankle chain' or something like that that was worn around the feat, or a necklace that didn't take up the amulet slot and could be warn along with a regular amulet.

Of course all custom magic items are always GM call, and you can certainly decide what you want to allow based on what feels right to you.

[Claxon]

Custom magic items are pretty much always at GM discretion.

Personally, when I GM I pretty much don't allow any custom magic items and don't allow for crafting at half price (although I do allow for crafting without any feats required).

I will allow players to combine items that would normally take the same slot, by increasing the price of the less expensive item by 50%, that's about as custom as I allow.

Magic items, crafting, and customizing them is one of the areas where it is easiest to break the game.

[Sudden Deinonychus]

Okay, cool. I'm pretty much tracking with everything here. Thanks all for your responses. I just wanted to make sure if I maintained these limits I wouldn't be hosing the players, while also ensure they wouldn't start breaking the system. Thanks again.

[OmniMage]

Since this question is on a similar vein as the main topic, I'll ask.

Can you make slotless rings? I'm thinking as you gain levels, some magic rings get relatively cheap in comparison to what you may get. If you have a ring of wizardry 4 and ring of regeneration, what do you do with ring of sustenance or ring of swimming? I'm thinking that one solution is to make the cheaper rings slotless so you can continue to wear and use them.

[jbadams]

The design of the system is intended to limit the player to two rings so that they have to choose between those items. Want that ring of regeneration? You'll probably need to remove the ring of sustenance. Allowing players to override that limit (by combining items, making items slotless, removing the two ring limit, etc.) risks altering the balance of the game and should be carefully considered.

That being said, for a home game, it's not uncommon to allow custom crafting on a case-by-case basis, with a slotless version of the item costing 150%, or allowing the player to "combine" items with an associated cost increase.

Keep in mind as Claxon says above, allowing custom crafting is one of the easiest ways to break the game's balance.

[Heather 540]

I don't know about slotless rings, but my GM allowed me to get a Legband of Sustenance for my animal companion.

[OmniMage]

I'm under the impression that the slotless version of the ring would have its costs be doubled. Combining 2 magic item would cause the cost of the cheaper power to be raised by 50%. (despite the difference in costs, there are reasons to make slotless rings anyways).

[Dragonchess Player]

Note that is possible, completely RAW, for a character to have four active rings: it just requires a hand of glory, and a ten-ring sword. A character with a meridian belt can wear four rings and decide which two are active at any given time (swift action to change).

[Meirril]

The rules for creating magic items (as in new, custom items) includes doubling the cost for slotless items, and being able to combine 2 items in a single slot by adding 50% to the cheaper item's cost. These rules are a guideline, and they need to be heavily considered before allowing players to make their own items. When a GM introduces a custom item it is a one-off. When a player does it...lots of things could happen to the detriment of the game.

One thing I've done in games I've run is rule that creating a custom item requires research, and uses the rules for spell research. This means the item isn't instantly done so you get room to think about the item the player wants before you tell him how much it will be and what it is capable of. That can also allow the two of you to have a back and forth conversation on the item so you can both be satisfied. Also putting in a gold cost for research that can potentially be more expensive than the actual item (especially if the player wants single use items) stops them from trying to create a bunch of cheap items that duplicate spells they can't cast.

One thing I don't like is trying to duplicate items that require different crafting feats. I had a player that wanted to produce Elixirs of low level spells. Wonderous is already a huge category, it doesn't need to duplicate Potions. Likewise, Rings is a narrow category, you don't need to make wonderous items to duplicate existing rings. Personally I'm better with making completely new and unique items rather than making more convenient versions of existing items. That just strikes me as taking some of the wonder out of magic items.

[Kayerloth]

jbadams wrote:

Keep in mind as Claxon says above, allowing custom crafting is one of the easiest ways to break the game's balance.

This many times over. /sarcasm "Hello 'Item of Use Magic Device +30'" Never mind worse nightmares for the balance of the campaign.

As for the question posed by Omnimage what I would do is highly encourage reforging/crafting to merge the 'lesser' rings with the more potent ones to create a new ring.

[Xorran]

Personally, I allow pretty much any custom items in my games. I dont really feel that there is much "game breaking" things players can do with it. Also, players spent feats and skill points in order to make magic items, to me, it would diminish those feats if I added restrictions to players out of "fear of breaking my game." Not to mention, often times I just go with, well, if a PC can come up with the idea, so can my NPC's, which really helps balance things out, also giving PC's the ability to take item crafting feats, or leadership, basically the two types of feats I see a lot of GM's not allowing in their games, gets players really excited about the game, creates a really good experience for players, and it gives tons of fun and versatality in the game. Not to mention, with craft tatoo, pretty much anything can be made slotless anyway, and I've never had anyone break my game with that.

At what point do you start going through all the slotless magic items already in the game and saying "well, a slotted version of this exists, so in my game the slotless version doesn't." For example, do you get rid of all ioun stones, carpets of flying, staves, wands, potions. Really, nothing PC's are going to do is going to "break" your game as long as you can think on your feet, or adequately prepare for their magic items.

[Claxon]

The classic example of breaking the game with magic items is an item that somehow allows unlimited swift action casting of true strike.

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

[Dave Justus]

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

[Xenocrat]

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

A +1 isn't a big deal, and even if you create it at a higher CL you still have action economy/hand issues for lots of uses.

[Dave Justus]

Xenocrat wrote:

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

A +1 isn't a big deal, and even if you create it at a higher CL you still have action economy/hand issues for lots of uses.

What are you talking about? True strike gives a +20 regardless of caster level.

[Xenocrat]

Oops, I was thinking it was like Moment of Prescience.

[blahpers]

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

Good question! Inquiring minds want to know, Claxon. : )

[blahpers]

It should also be noted that the way slots work in Pathfinder is not even close to optimal and that sometimes allowing cross-slot or slotless versions of items isn't all that bad. There's a reason you pretty much only see one kind of cloak and a handful of belt or headband items being used by PCs despite the dozens and dozens of more interesting possibilities, and that reason is 3.5's terrible design choices. Just use caution--make sure that players aren't trying to get more out of an item than they should be able to.

[Diego Rossi]

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

Generally, the action economy of using a wand for a guy that is built around incapacitating the opponent with one strike is bad.

Beside that he probably will have few skill points and low charisma, so consistently getting that DC 20 Use magic device skill check isn't so easy. Probably he would lack the skill points and/or the feats and/or the traits to be able to make the check every time he tries it before getting to very high levels.

That can be different for paladins and some specific build, but the investment cost isn't small.

[Meirril]

Xorran wrote:

Personally, I allow pretty much any custom items in my games. I dont really feel that there is much "game breaking" things players can do with it.

Oh? Healing Wrap: Casts cure light wounds (1d8+1) on the wearer at the beginning of the wearer's turn. (1st level spell x CL 1 x 2000gp (continuous) = 2,000gp)

Placebo Protector: This helmet casts Placebo Effect on the wearer at the beginning of their turn. (2nd level x CL 3 x 2000gp = 12,000gp to effectively cure 1 condition a turn. head slot)

Greater Pearl of Power: As Pearl of Power, but has 5 uses per day. (bonus squared x 1000gp x {5/5} = same price as a normal Pearl of Power, following the established guidelines).

No, the magic item creation rules can be fantastically abused. Especially if you start using the intelligent magic item stuff. Like a sword that casts Heal at will.

[Kayerloth]

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

unlimited swift action casting of true strike.

... is a whole different kettle of fish from a charged wand using standard actions to cast True Strike.

[Dragonchess Player]

Meirril wrote:

Xorran wrote:

Personally, I allow pretty much any custom items in my games. I dont really feel that there is much "game breaking" things players can do with it.

Oh? Healing Wrap: Casts cure light wounds (1d8+1) on the wearer at the beginning of the wearer's turn. (1st level spell x CL 1 x 2000gp (continuous) = 2,000gp)

Not valid. Cure light wounds has a duration of instantaneous and can't be made into a continuous magic item effect.

Meirril wrote:

Placebo Protector: This helmet casts Placebo Effect on the wearer at the beginning of their turn. (2nd level x CL 3 x 2000gp = 12,000gp to effectively cure 1 condition a turn. head slot)

Again, not valid. An "automatically cast this spell on the wearer every round" item is an artifact, not a standard magic item. Placebo effect has a 1 min/level duration, so you could probably make it similar to a ring of invisibility (activates when worn, but needs to removed and replaced to start the effect duration again).

Meirril wrote:

Greater Pearl of Power: As Pearl of Power, but has 5 uses per day. (bonus squared x 1000gp x {5/5} = same price as a normal Pearl of Power, following the established guidelines).

Nope. The formula for a pearl of power already factors in that it is a single use per day. You can't ignore the text right at the beginning of the Magic Item Gold Pieces Value section: "The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide." Basically, if you create a "new" magic item that does the same thing an existing magic item does at a lower market price (such as a continuous mage armor item), then that item is "broken" and should not be allowed.

Meirril wrote:

No, the magic item creation rules can be fantastically abused.

Especially if you ignore stated guidelines and rules when doing so.

Meirril wrote:

Especially if you start using the intelligent magic item stuff. Like a sword that casts Heal at will.

Eh... At +132,000 gp to the item's market price, there are better ways to get frequent healing. Not to mention the following: "A dedicated power operates only when an intelligent item is in pursuit of its special purpose. This determination is always made by the item. It should always be easy and straightforward to see how the ends justify the means. Unlike its other powers, an intelligent item can refuse to use its dedicated powers even if the owner is dominant (see Items Against Characters)."

[Diego Rossi]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Meirril wrote:

Xorran wrote:

Personally, I allow pretty much any custom items in my games. I dont really feel that there is much "game breaking" things players can do with it.

Oh? Healing Wrap: Casts cure light wounds (1d8+1) on the wearer at the beginning of the wearer's turn. (1st level spell x CL 1 x 2000gp (continuous) = 2,000gp)

Not valid. Cure light wounds has a duration of instantaneous and can't be made into a continuous magic item effect.

Meirril wrote:

Placebo Protector: This helmet casts Placebo Effect on the wearer at the beginning of their turn. (2nd level x CL 3 x 2000gp = 12,000gp to effectively cure 1 condition a turn. head slot)

Again, not valid. An "automatically cast this spell on the wearer every round" item is an artifact, not a standard magic item. Placebo effect has a 1 min/level duration, so you could probably make it similar to a ring of invisibility (activates when worn, but needs to removed and replaced to start the effect duration again).

You only need to make them "use activated" and make the activation a common action.

Boots of healing that cast Cure Light Wound when you move your feet, with a maximum of 1 spell/round. 2,000 gp

Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp

Rule text compliant? Yes. Balanced? No. Similar item? Boots of the Earth, 5,000 gp. and it has an extra function +4 to CMD to resist bull rush, reposition, and trip combat maneuver attempts.

[_Ozy_]

How is an item that cures 1 hp. per round with the limitation that you can't move at all equivalent to an item that cures 1d8+1 without that limitation?

One way to cure 90% of the problems with custom items that supposedly 'break' the game is just to disallow unlimited uses of spell effects that have instantaneous durations. If they want more than 5 uses per day, they just have to pay the cost proportionally.

[Meirril]

What I was doing was pointing out that it is easy to just apply the formula and make items that are far outside of the scope of what existing items would allow. The Magic Item Creation rules are guidelines, that need careful judication to bring a custom item into line with existing items so they become balanced.

Any item that allows for unlimited amounts of free healing in a short amount of time needs to carefully considered. That can basically invalidate entire characters that a normal party expects to be there.

Likewise Placebo Effect is a great spell that is very well balanced for a player to cast. But when you put any kind of condition removal on an item, it needs to be carefully looked at and priced accordingly.

And if you allow players to design an intelligent item, its special purpose could be "to defend <this character>". Or at the very least, the intended character's race and class for a defensive item (like one that can cast cure or heal spells), or "kill everything but the wielder" for an offensive item. And you would naturally design an item with a low Ego, especially since there is no benefit for raising the item's stats. Intelligent items really should be left for GMs to introduce, not to players to create.

[Xorran]

The biggest problem I see on this thread, is people "breaking" the game by not following one simple rule, and that is to find an equivalent item, and base the cost on that. Anyone that would tell me, heal 1 hp per round, or cast Cure Light Wounds when I walk, I would just say, "Okay, so you want regeneration on a slotless item, that'll be 180 thousand gp, problem solved. Oh you want continuous True Strike, that'll be 2,000 x 20 x20 x2 = 1.6 million gp, sounds about right to me. The problem people see with "breaking the game" seems to be a narrow field of vision when people look at item creation. There ARE rules to cover these thoughts and ideas of breaking the game, I guess if you ignore a bunch of rules and guidelines you can break the game, but for the most part, as long as you follow the rules, you're fine. I dont know when I last handed out 1 million gp to a single character so they could make a "continual strike" slotless magic item. But honestly, if you're handing out that type of treasure, I think players breaking your game is probably the least of your problems.

[Kayerloth]

I totally agree, problems though can still arise when the item doesn't reasonably (or even unreasonably) match an existing item. Ultimately it comes down to the GM oversight, looking for potential issues and giving the player fair warning that if the item becomes deemed to powerful that changes will be made.

[OmniMage]

Meirril wrote:

One thing I've done in games I've run is rule that creating a custom item requires research, and uses the rules for spell research. This means the item isn't instantly done so you get room to think about the item the player wants before you tell him how much it will be and what it is capable of. That can also allow the two of you to have a back and forth conversation on the item so you can both be satisfied. Also putting in a gold cost for research that can potentially be more expensive than the actual item (especially if the player wants single use items) stops them from trying to create a bunch of cheap items that duplicate spells they can't cast.

Could you be more specific about these guidelines. The rules for spell research gives time and costs based upon spell level, but there is nothing for magic items.

Meirril wrote:

One thing I don't like is trying to duplicate items that require different crafting feats. I had a player that wanted to produce Elixirs of low level spells. Wonderous is already a huge category, it doesn't need to duplicate Potions. Likewise, Rings is a narrow category, you don't need to make wonderous items to duplicate existing rings. Personally I'm better with making completely new and unique items rather than making more convenient versions of existing items. That just strikes me as taking some of the wonder out of magic items.

I think there are too many item creation feats. In DND 3.5, most classes couldn't pick them all; only wizard a could and thats because they got bonus feats. I have a custom list where its reduced to consumables, arms and armor, staves and rods, and wondrous items.

[Meirril]

OmniMage wrote:

Meirril wrote:

One thing I've done in games I've run is rule that creating a custom item requires research, and uses the rules for spell research. This means the item isn't instantly done so you get room to think about the item the player wants before you tell him how much it will be and what it is capable of. That can also allow the two of you to have a back and forth conversation on the item so you can both be satisfied. Also putting in a gold cost for research that can potentially be more expensive than the actual item (especially if the player wants single use items) stops them from trying to create a bunch of cheap items that duplicate spells they can't cast.

Could you be more specific about these guidelines. The rules for spell research gives time and costs based upon spell level, but there is nothing for magic items.

Just figure out what the caster level would be for the proposed item, then figure out what the highest level spell a wizard of that level could cast is. So for example a CL 10 item would be the same as researching a 5th level spell.

[Claxon]

Dave Justus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Heck, even if the item requires a standard action to activate, a guaranteed +20 bonus on command (as often as every other round) can be hugely unbalancing when combined with the right build. Sometimes it just take a single hit to be able to debuff an opponent enough to make the fight trivial.

How do you deal with the existence of wands of true strike if this would destroy your game?

It wouldn't destroy my game, but my group doesn't try to abuse things like this.

But yes, some enemy combats (see boss fights) can be completely ruined destroyed by being able to land a single hit which starts a cascading combo effect.

Not that it doesn't take a lot of work to get to that point, but when you basically negate any chance of failure...yes it can be imbalancing.

So I guess in answer to the question, it's dealt with by players not overly taking advantage of things.... AKA the "Gentleman's Agreement".

[Cevah]

The magic price rules say find similar item and base off that.
The ioun stones duplicate the headbands at double the cost. The formulas say slotless is doubles the cost. Therefore a slotless item (of any kind) would be double cost.

See the bottom of this page

/cevah