This would use the rules and guidelines for creating custom magic items, with the only difference being that the wizard doesn't need to have the Craft Wondrous Item feat.
I strongly recommend reading through that content thoroughly as well as the Ultimate Campaign guidelines for pricing new items. The most important guideline is that the tables and formulae are a last resort--if at all possible, use an existing magic item with a similar effect as the basis for determining the price of a new custom item.
That is probably a bit steep for such an item. There are chest slot items and Ioun Stones that grant +2 to Dexterity for no more than 8000 GP -- and the chest slot items do other things as well. I think we would be looking at 2x the cost of a Belt of Incredible Dexterity for a slotless item and 1.5x the cost for an item moved to a different slot.
Belt of Incredible Dexterity but uses a different slot, very expensive usually 4x or so the normal cost so around 64,000
A slotless item usually costs twice the slotted cost. It'd be strange to charge four times the cost for an alternate slot item. David knott 242's take is a popular one and I've never really run into problems with it.
|
Generally, considering the Ultimate Campaign guidelines, it is something like "if you want to move a magic item ability to an unappropriate slot it should cost more". What is an unappropriated slot is open to debate. The amulet slot has a lot of useful items (primarily it is used for natural armor, but there is other stuff), so even if it is not generally keyed to stat enhancing powers it is not particularly wrong to use it.
At worst I would ask the crafter the same extra cost as adding an additional ability to an already existing item in an appropriate slot, i.e. +50% of the normal cost, but probably would lower that to +25% as the crafter is still using up a slot.
It's not using up a new or different slot. It's just adding another enchantment to the existing bonded object in the exact same way that you add enchantments to a bonded object. Cat's Grace is the spell used for the Dex belt, so it's a common magic used for enchantments... why would it cost more?
Especially since other, non-belt items, also can provide the same type of benefits without using the spell Cat's Grace, or an item slot, and cost less than the proposed price increase.
It's a nonissue that it's an amulet. It might matter if you were trying to craft a custom Amulet of Dexterity... but you aren't. It's a Wizard's bonded object, which is its own thing.
Its own thing, bonded to the Wizard. Yes, you can add Cat's Grace to your bonded amulet at the normal crafting costs of adding any other 2nd level spell with min/level duration to your bonded object.
For crafting cost of adding it... it's a 2nd level spell, so CL 3, and the DC goes up by, what, 5 if you don't have the spell? Whatever that costs in your crafting time as someone with a bonded object. You don't need the feat, so the DC just goes up for not having the correct spell, right?
In agreement with VoodistMonk, here. I don't see why it would cost more at all. A bonus to dexterity isn't "inappropriate" for an amulet; if I can make a necklace that causes my hands and feet to burst into flame when I punch and kick people, I should be able to make one that makes me more agile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because its overpowered, if you could put stat bonus things on any slot you could quickly become an insane smurf. if that's your thing and the DM is fine then go for it.
edit: why did my picture become a smurf? is it because i said smurf? that's weird lol
No you can't... with the bonus being the same type no matter which slot it is on, and the general maximum seems to be a +6... getting a +6 to all your stats is already a thing, so not overpowered at all.
|
|
It's not using up a new or different slot. It's just adding another enchantment to the existing bonded object in the exact same way that you add enchantments to a bonded object. Cat's Grace is the spell used for the Dex belt, so it's a common magic used for enchantments... why would it cost more?
Especially since other, non-belt items, also can provide the same type of benefits without using the spell Cat's Grace, or an item slot, and cost less than the proposed price increase.
It's a nonissue that it's an amulet. It might matter if you were trying to craft a custom Amulet of Dexterity... but you aren't. It's a Wizard's bonded object, which is its own thing.
Its own thing, bonded to the Wizard. Yes, you can add Cat's Grace to your bonded amulet at the normal crafting costs of adding any other 2nd level spell with min/level duration to your bonded object.
For crafting cost of adding it... it's a 2nd level spell, so CL 3, and the DC goes up by, what, 5 if you don't have the spell? Whatever that costs in your crafting time as someone with a bonded object. You don't need the feat, so the DC just goes up for not having the correct spell, right?
A search in AON with the keyword dexterity and the object Magic Items gives 0 necklaces that raise dexterity.
So we can see with almost certainly that no Paizo product has an Amulet that raises dexterity. To me, that seems more than sufficient to say that the amulet slot is inappropriate for an item that raises dexterity, and the above-mentioned guidelines in Ultimate Campaign suggest to disallow or disincentive the use of inappropriate slots. An increase in price seems a decent compromise instead of saying "you can't enchant an amulet with a dexterity enhancing ability".BTW, he is trying to create a custom amulet of dexterity, being a bonded object allow to do that without the feat and reduce the cost but doesn't change the basic rules about enchanting.
In agreement with VoodistMonk, here. I don't see why it would cost more at all. A bonus to dexterity isn't "inappropriate" for an amulet; if I can make a necklace that causes my hands and feet to burst into flame when I punch and kick people, I should be able to make one that makes me more agile.
If you can find an amulet that raises the wearer dexterity we can compare the prices, as suggested by the guidelines. Until you can show that, it is an inappropriate slot.
|
|
because its overpowered, if you could put stat bonus things on any slot you could quickly become an insane smurf. if that's your thing and the DM is fine then go for it.
edit: why did my picture become a smurf? is it because i said smurf? that's weird lol
Yes, when you write "smurf" the forum smurfied you.
|
|
No you can't... with the bonus being the same type no matter which slot it is on, and the general maximum seems to be a +6... getting a +6 to all your stats is already a thing, so not overpowered at all.
Not All Item Slots Have Equal Value: This is true, even though it isn’t expressed monetarily in the rules. Some item slots are very common and are shared by many useful items (boots, belts, rings, and amulets in particular), while some slots are used by only a few items (such as body, chest, and eyes). Allowing a character to alter or craft an item for one of these underused slots is allowing the character to bypass built-in choices between popular items.
Even using a "commonly used" slot for something different is similar to that if no printed item uses it. Different classes and playstyles have different uses for a different slots. For a wizard that has decided he will never be in melee and that he will rely on mirror image, blur, invisibility and so on to avoid attacks, while not caring for his non touch AC "sacrificing" a bonus to natural armor to get an increase in dexterity (that gives a bonus to initiative, AC and his ranged touch attacks) can be worthwhile and can allow him to get belts that give different bonuses. There is a reason if Paizo has never published an amulet that gives an enhancement to dexterity.
No you can't... with the bonus being the same type no matter which slot it is on, and the general maximum seems to be a +6... getting a +6 to all your stats is already a thing, so not overpowered at all.Not All Item Slots Have Equal Value: This is true, even though it isn’t expressed monetarily in the rules. Some item slots are very common and are shared by many useful items (boots, belts, rings, and amulets in particular), while some slots are used by only a few items (such as body, chest, and eyes). Allowing a character to alter or craft an item for one of these underused slots is allowing the character to bypass built-in choices between popular items.Even using a "commonly used" slot for something different is similar to that if no printed item uses it. Different classes and playstyles have different uses for a different slots. For a wizard that has decided he will never be in melee and that he will rely on mirror image, blur, invisibility and so on to avoid attacks, while not caring for his non touch AC "sacrificing" a bonus to natural armor to get an increase in dexterity (that gives a bonus to initiative, AC and his ranged touch attacks) can be worthwhile and can allow him to get belts that give different bonuses. There is a reason if Paizo has never published an amulet that gives an enhancement to dexterity.
yes this, which is why i named such a high price, imo it should cost ALOT if you want to break the normal item bonus conventions.
smurf
It's a nonissue that it's an amulet. It might matter if you were trying to craft a custom Amulet of Dexterity... but you aren't. It's a Wizard's bonded object, which is its own thing.
Bonded objects allow the bonded creature to enhance the object as a magic item as though they had the appropriate item creation feats. There's no indication that they are also intended to get around any other restrictions on magic item creation.
That said, deciding how much a magic item costs is completely a GM/designer call, so if they want to make a bonded amulet more permissive than an amulet crafted normally, they're empowered to do so. It might even be reasonable to discount the item on occasion due to it being restricted to working only for that character (but only if that restriction is meaningful).
So if the Wizard moves the bonus to Dexterity from the belt to the amulet... what happens? Why is it overpowered?
You still have to pay the crafting cost or pay someone else.
It's still the same kind of bonus that cannot be abused by stacking multiple slots keyed to the same ability score.
Might save some money if you want to stack a bunch of stuff on your belt, but overall I still believe that it's a nonissue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I originally left this thread alone, because I could see it was just going to be a bunch of circular bickering. But now there's Smurfs, so I'm back in!
Without calling it overpowered, the design principle is that certain sets of abilities are usually assigned to certain slots in order to force players to make meaningful choices between said abilities. A character could get a belt of mighty constitution or a belt of incredible dexterity, but if that character wants the effects of both, they generally have to pay a premium. Moving one of the two bonuses to another slot circumvents that decision. A character doing so is thus more powerful than a character who does not, as they have more options when it comes to allocating their slots. Is that overpowered? That's a subjective decision.
Edit: In any case, Wulcrath, hopefully this discussion has illuminated the trickiness of pricing custom items even given the guidelines in the various rulebooks. At the end of the day, it's up to the designer or GM to make that call.
|
|
To put it bluntly, a GM can veto the crafting of any non-standard item (i.e. any item that isn't printed in some sourcebook) without the need for any discussion.
If he thinks it is necessary and good for the game (but in the standard campaign where the timeline is short it is rarely the case) he could ask the crafter to find/research/buy the formula needed to enchant an item with a specific set of powers.
It can be interesting to do that in a campaign with plenty of downtimes and the possibility to make money outside of adventuring so that the expense for research are covered without using the WBL allowance of the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can find an amulet that raises the wearer dexterity we can compare the prices, as suggested by the guidelines. Until you can show that, it is an inappropriate slot.
That strikes me as insultingly dismissive, but I will assume such was not your intent for the sake of civil discourse.
In response, I will point out that your definition of "inappropriate" is your opinion--as you said yourself: "To me, that seems more than sufficient..."--and you have no hard evidence to support it. It's not bad logic, but it is absolutely in no way definitive.I still just can't see how it's worth more; if the GM allows the wizard to do this, they're obviously okay with the idea, which means it can be replicated, which means other characters can benefit from any potential advantage provided, which means no one has an unfair edge over anyone else.
Sometimes, the lack of creative ideas or support for such in a hobby that started, at least largely in part, as a creative endeavor is extremely disheartening.
If you wanted a talisman that increased your movement speed or made you harder to bullrush or combined the effects of a horn of fog and a lyre of building, I'd say you have a case for "inappropriate". But for something as general as a boost to a physical ability score on something as general as the neck slot? I mean, a necklace can make you grow scales all over your body, or be a string of bombs you break off and throw at people, but something that increases your agility and coordination is too much?
It's 100% GM territory, so run it how you wish, obviously, but...jeeze. Don't be afraid to bend and twist your game a little. It's tougher than you think. And even if it does break, it's a game. Tell your players you messed up and put it back together again.
The situation you're describing is not the one the OP has outlined; there is a world of difference between a player is trying to gain an advantage through exploiting loopholes and a player who may be gaining an advantage through a choice they want to make for more innocent reasons.
Any player who tries to "win" a ttrpg needs to be stopped, regardless of whether or not their attempt is successful or not.
This wizard doesn't want a +6 to all physical stats for 108,000gp instead of 144,000gp. They want to enchant their bonded amulet to increase their Dexterity.
If that grants an advantage down the line when everyone's got a useful item in every slot and they're starting to pay the +50% additional ability premium (which is...what level, realistically? And how long is this campaign running for?), the GM can offer a little tweak here or there to set the scales aright. Assuming there actually is actually some kind of issue going on. Which I don't think is a given.
If a game falls apart from this one issue: that a wizard may have gotten a +4 to an ability score for 8,000gp less, then the game wasn't run very well to start.
If this is Step 1 of the wizard's attempt to ruin the campaign, that is another issue entirely. They should be stopped or asked to leave the table.
I only joined this thread to see what Smurf Vhok would become next. Let down at the end.
I smurf’in forgot
Not making it clear that you are making an exception could easily lead others to start asking about making similar stat boosting items in other slots. What starts off innocent doesn't mean it will remain innocent. Give yourself an out to disallow more of the same later, because it could become a problem.
What is innocent is fine. What isn't is not. I'll deal with them each in kind.
I don't think a GM needs to "give themselves an out". It's their game. They can be as inconsistent as they want.I would rather roll with someone who's willing to try new things and has to take them back later due to unforseen consequences than someone who adheres rigidly to all the rules "just in case:
Not making it clear that you are making an exception could easily lead others to start asking about making similar stat boosting items in other slots. What starts off innocent doesn't mean it will remain innocent. Give yourself an out to disallow more of the same later, because it could become a problem.What is innocent is fine. What isn't is not. I'll deal with them each in kind.
I don't think a GM needs to "give themselves an out". It's their game. They can be as inconsistent as they want.
I would rather roll with someone who's willing to try new things and has to take them back later due to unforseen consequences than someone who adheres rigidly to all the rules "just in case:
Nothing I hate more than an inconsistent dm.
Smurf
Nothing I hate more than an inconsistent dm.
There's nothing you hate more? That feels...strong. But okay.
There have been a few times where I've had to go "whoa, guys. I did not think this through. I need to fix this. That cool?" And I have to say, 99 out of 100 times, I received nothing but support and understanding. And the other time, I was like "well...it's my game, so. Too bad" and then I didn't run another game for those schmucks.
Sometimes it's a custom magic item or a class feature that's doing something weird, sometimes it's a new monster that is just tearing through the party a little too efficiently.
I'm not afraid to break my game and glue it back together. Haven't needed to do that in a while, but it's still a right I reserve.
I just don't see what the big deal is.