Any reason not to make a belt of in, headband of strength or socks of both?


Rules Questions

Scarab Sages

More curiosity than anything else is there any rule saying you can't make a headband that boosts physical stats or a belt to boost mental ones?

Silver Crusade

Because of silliness.

Really all there is to it. You wanna make socks of giant strength and the GM is okay with it go for it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Like Rysky says, there's not any reason you couldn't have boots of arrow-catching (whether they just give you access to the feat or whether you now have use your feet to deflect them) other than silliness or style of the campaign.

The rules do have mention (and there are precedents) for slot affinities and that placing out-of-sorts abilities in non-traditional slots costs more (about 50% more). So putting Teleport into a helmet instead of into boots works just the same, it's just more costly to do. How a GM chooses to implement such items is ultimately up to them.

Scarab Sages

Good to know thanks.


Pizza Lord wrote:
How a GM chooses to implement such items is ultimately up to them.

That's the most important part, they don't exist by default and a GM can say no, especially of you're trying to power game certain effects in traditionally weaker slots.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Well, there's the Ring of Protection, and nothing says it can't be a nipple ring of protection :D

Scarab Sages

Doompatrol wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
How a GM chooses to implement such items is ultimately up to them.
That's the most important part, they don't exist by default and a GM can say no, especially of you're trying to power game certain effects in traditionally weaker slots.

No just trying to move more of the big 6 onto shared items to free up the slots for other more interesting items.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just understand, the guidelines are very against doing these things. They can be done, but expect to pay a premium for it, it's very much a balance issue. So if your GM is going to allow it, hopefully they are at least aware of how and why things are normally the way they are.

Altering Existing Magic Items:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The standard rules don’t allow item creation feats to alter the physical nature of an item, its default size, its shape, or its magical properties. For example, there is no mechanism for using crafting feats to change a steel +1 longsword into an adamantine +1 longsword , a Large +1 chain shirt into a Medium +1 chain shirt , boots of speed into an amulet of speed, or a +1 unholy longsword into a +1 flaming shock longsword. Many GMs might decide that these kinds of transformations are impossible, beyond the scope of mortals, or not as cost-efficient as crafting a new item from scratch. Others might allow these sorts of transformations for free or a small surcharge. Keep in mind the following warnings.

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.

Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the standard rules 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.

If there is a trend of all 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.

Classes Value Some Slots More Than Others: This is a combination of the two previous warnings. Because most belts enhance physical abilities, wizards rarely have need for standard belt items. This means a wizard can change an item that’s useful to wizards into a belt and not have to worry about a future slot conflict by discovering a wizardly magic belt in a treasure hoard. Likewise, fighters have little use for most standard head items, so altering an existing fighter item to use the head slot means it has little risk of competition from found head slot items. GMs should consider carefully before allowing you to bypass these intentional, built-in item slot restrictions.

Respect Each Crafting Feat’s Niche: You might be tempted to create rings that have charges like wands, or bracers with multiple charge-based effects like staves. A GM allowing this makes Craft Wondrous Item and Forge Ring even more versatile and powerful, and devalues Craft Staff and Craft Wand because those two feats can create only charged items.

Before allowing such an item, consider whether the reverse idea would be appropriate—if someone with Craft Wand can’t make a wand of protection +1 that grants a deflection bonus like a ring of protection +1, and if someone with Craft Staff can’t make a handy haverstaff that stores items like a handy haversack, then Craft Wondrous Item and Forge Ring shouldn’t be able to poach item types from the other feats.

GMs who wish to allow some of these sorts of alterations should consider using the original item as a talismanic component for the final item.
---------------------------------------------------------------


The main reason not to make both is that they wont stack.

The main reason not to change from a belt of strength to something else is the intentional limitation of certain kinds of bonuses to certain equipment slots....but it's been well followed in published items so this one is kind of a wash. It's a balance concern.

However, if my player isn't trying to make socks of strength so they can buy a belt of constitution (and thereby avoiding the price increase for having both on the same belt) then I'm probably going to be okay.

Senko wrote:
No just trying to move more of the big 6 onto shared items to free up the slots for other more interesting items.

Yeah....that's the kind of thing the internal game balance doesn't want you to do. Or at least has to be done very carefully.

I would recommend using the above rules that mention a 50% cost increase to change the slot of the item.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to point it out, Pizza Lord is citing p. 172 of Ultimate Campaign, so a set of official guidelines.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

The main reason not to make both is that they wont stack.

The main reason not to change from a belt of strength to something else is the intentional limitation of certain kinds of bonuses to certain equipment slots....but it's been well followed in published items so this one is kind of a wash. It's a balance concern.

However, if my player isn't trying to make socks of strength so they can buy a belt of constitution (and thereby avoiding the price increase for having both on the same belt) then I'm probably going to be okay.

Senko wrote:
No just trying to move more of the big 6 onto shared items to free up the slots for other more interesting items.

Yeah....that's the kind of thing the internal game balance doesn't want you to do. Or at least has to be done very carefully.

I would recommend using the above rules that mention a 50% cost increase to change the slot of the item.

As I dislike the idea of living with a headband on my head 24/7, I asked the GM if I could enchant a pair of Ear studs of Vast Intelligence, but they use the head slot like the headband, so there isn't a game advantage, besides the simple fact that my character has an easier time washing his hair and cutting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Claxon wrote:

The main reason not to make both is that they wont stack.

The main reason not to change from a belt of strength to something else is the intentional limitation of certain kinds of bonuses to certain equipment slots....but it's been well followed in published items so this one is kind of a wash. It's a balance concern.

However, if my player isn't trying to make socks of strength so they can buy a belt of constitution (and thereby avoiding the price increase for having both on the same belt) then I'm probably going to be okay.

Senko wrote:
No just trying to move more of the big 6 onto shared items to free up the slots for other more interesting items.

Yeah....that's the kind of thing the internal game balance doesn't want you to do. Or at least has to be done very carefully.

I would recommend using the above rules that mention a 50% cost increase to change the slot of the item.

As I dislike the idea of living with a headband on my head 24/7, I asked the GM if I could enchant a pair of Ear studs of Vast Intelligence, but they use the head slot like the headband, so there isn't a game advantage, besides the simple fact that my character has an easier time washing his hair and cutting them.

I can understand that, but as a GM I generally just rule that you don't loose the benefits of equipment like that unless it's off for 24hr or you try to put on a different magic item in that slot. Because having to worry that you lose a bunch of stuff simply because you take off your items for basic personal hygiene is just silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
I can understand that, but as a GM I generally just rule that you don't loose the benefits of equipment like that unless it's off for 24hr or you try to put on a different magic item in that slot. Because having to worry that you lose a bunch of stuff simply because you take off your items for basic personal hygiene is just silly.

I agree, but that kind of logic might explain why there are no magic pants.


we do have magical undergarments and something oft kilt-ar...


Senko wrote:
More curiosity than anything else is there any rule saying you can't make a headband that boosts physical stats or a belt to boost mental ones?

yes - there actually is. It suggests a cost increase for making something in a different magic item body slot or an item in a slot that offers a different than themed bonus (I believe +50%). It is buried in Magic Item Creation or under the cautionary advisement for Magic Item Body Slots.

It's exactly why I suggested in a previous post to simply pay for Slotless, do it as an Ioun stone, then implant it. This also gets around polymorphing issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do note that the belts/headbands sharing multiple physical/mental stats was a change from 3e, where each of them was their own slot, and couldn't be combined. The difference is now you pay half of the cost again for everything after the first, which is what you should do again if someone wants to switch the slot (as I believe it mentions in a specific table somewhere else in that quoted section). It's not quite a slotless item, so the cost isn't doubled, but +50% should be a fair trade for a headband of intelligence on your ring finger or for boots.


Of course, IMO the best thing to do is use Automatic Bonus Progression which really makes this less of an issue overall. You can focus on interesting magic items rather than mechanical stat fixers that are essential required by the game.


I mean, ABP (ignoring some problems of using it purely RAW) still consumes approximately the same amount of gold as it takes to fuel the big six items, except now you can't pick and choose what you dont want, and the slots are free.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
I mean, ABP (ignoring some problems of using it purely RAW) still consumes approximately the same amount of gold as it takes to fuel the big six items, except now you can't pick and choose what you dont want, and the slots are free.

I consider all those effects to be desirable.


Claxon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
I mean, ABP (ignoring some problems of using it purely RAW) still consumes approximately the same amount of gold as it takes to fuel the big six items, except now you can't pick and choose what you dont want, and the slots are free.
I consider all those effects to be desirable.

If you're a protection domain cleric, you don't need a duplicate resistance bonus to AC, and you wouldn't spend 25k gp on a cloak of resistance; a transmutation wizard wouldn't get a belt of all 3 stats; there's plenty more very little class abilities or features that just get invalidated by ABP, let alone a wizard isn't going to buy a +5 weapon, a fighter isn't even going to invest for as little as +2 charisma, and so on that makes ABP an unnecessary nerf to certain classes/class options or varying levels of inefficient with your gold.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
If you're a protection domain cleric, you don't need a duplicate resistance bonus to AC, and you wouldn't spend 25k gp on a cloak of resistance

And the problem is..? If you only picked the domain for the mechanics, just pick a different one. If you pick it for the flavor, having the passive effect be redundant shouldn't deter you.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
a wizard isn't going to buy a +5 weapon

Oh no, the by far strongest classes in the game can't put all their money into dominating even more than they already do so! The sky is falling!

AwesomenessDog wrote:
a fighter isn't even going to invest for as little as +2 charisma

No, but that's compensated by the bonuses being worth more than the (recommended) wealth reduction. For example, at 10th level, what's granted is worth 39000gp, that's 63% of WBL. If you discount the 4k for the 'headband', you still get 56% of WBL.

Yeah, you can't optimize the equipment befitting your build. Like Claxon, I see that as a feature, not as a bug.

Diego Rossi wrote:
As I dislike the idea of living with a headband on my head 24/7
Claxon wrote:
I can understand that, but as a GM I generally just rule that you don't loose the benefits of equipment like that unless it's off for 24hr or you try to put on a different magic item in that slot. Because having to worry that you lose a bunch of stuff simply because you take off your items for basic personal hygiene is just silly.

Strictly RAW, temporary ability scores are virtually indistinguishable form permanent ones, so you don't actually lose anything (except rage rounds). There's a sort of unwitting houserule that temporary bonuses don't affect spells per day at pretty much every table, but that's not actually in the rules ever since this FAQ.


Except more of that wealth is likely still wasted, as most fighters at level 10 will have at least a +3 equivalent weapon, and certainly would not wait till level 19 to make their weapon and armor +6 equivalent or better. The wizard isn't the only class that will forgo weapons and armor, it's just the most obvious one.

ABP isn't bad in concept, it was just poorly executed, like so many other things since hybrid rules. But it is also no secret that was when Paizo had essentially given up on 1e for Starfinder and then 2e.

The "temp bonuses don't give bonus spells" rule actually is sorta in the rules, specifically from the Fox's Cunning/Owl's Wisdom/Eagle's Splendor spells being the only effects that give true temporary casting ability score bonuses, and as minute per level spells, even if you extend them at level 20 (and don't already have a headband that is better as a permanent bonus), you will still burn 15 of your 40(+) minutes just preparing your new slots, making it completely inefficient. But those spells specifically call out that they don't grant bonus spell slots, making this highly improbable method even more worthless.

Instead, the fact that if someone finds a statboosting item, it usually means the combat is over, and they are in the middle of buffs that will run out if they stop to prepare 2-6 new slots, that keeps the first 24 hours (read till next rest) of equipping the headband from really granting the spell slots, only increasing DCs and the like.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Claxon wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
I mean, ABP (ignoring some problems of using it purely RAW) still consumes approximately the same amount of gold as it takes to fuel the big six items, except now you can't pick and choose what you dont want, and the slots are free.
I consider all those effects to be desirable.
If you're a protection domain cleric, you don't need a duplicate resistance bonus to AC, and you wouldn't spend 25k gp on a cloak of resistance; a transmutation wizard wouldn't get a belt of all 3 stats; there's plenty more very little class abilities or features that just get invalidated by ABP, let alone a wizard isn't going to buy a +5 weapon, a fighter isn't even going to invest for as little as +2 charisma, and so on that makes ABP an unnecessary nerf to certain classes/class options or varying levels of inefficient with your gold.

Again, I consider those desirable effects. Less money to spend reduces top end power level while also forcing characters to be more well rounded.


Claxon wrote:


Less money to spend reduces top end power level while also forcing characters to be more well rounded.

My experience is that less gold merely encourages people to focus on their main theme at the expense of other things, so while they may be less powerful than people with more money they are also less flexible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Except more of that wealth is likely still wasted, as most fighters at level 10 will have at least a +3 equivalent weapon, and certainly would not wait till level 19 to make their weapon and armor +6 equivalent or better. The wizard isn't the only class that will forgo weapons and armor, it's just the most obvious one.
    The problem here is that you keep claiming negative effectsd, but never say why they were bad. Why is Fighter not having a +3 weapon until 14th level an issue when it applies to gish classes just as much, and casters are also behind?
    If everyone has lower-than-normal equipment, especially in regard to their main shtick, balance isn't warped. And if you think ABP lowers power level too much, just increase it by a level or two (the table deliberately goes up to 22 to allow exactly this).

Pet classes and natural attack buils have some issues, but those are easy to fix (let Summoners chose whether to apply any given bonus to the Summoner or the Eidolon, let players buy normal items at normal price for animal companions, and make an item costing 2k/8k/18k/32k/50k that can recieve weapon attunement up to a maximum of 1/2/3/4/5 and transfer it to all natural weapons). I think the only class that really does get hosed is Kineticist.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
The "temp bonuses don't give bonus spells" rule actually is sorta in the rules, specifically from the Fox's Cunning/Owl's Wisdom/Eagle's Splendor spells being the only effects that give true temporary casting ability score bonuses

Ecept they aren't. Cognatogen, Court Poet's Insightful Contemplation, Exciter Spiritualist's Rapture, and the spells Threefold Aspect and Paragon Surge come to mind as other effects. And spontaneous casters wouldn't have to worry about preparign spells in those temporary slots (and Alchemists have a one minute preparation time per extract).

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
My experience is that less gold merely encourages people to focus on their main theme at the expense of other things, so while they may be less powerful than people with more money they are also less flexible.

Is this experience with ABP? Becasue if not (which I strongly presume), it's completely meaningless to the discussion. Indeed, it's actually more the other way around, as there's only so much gold you can spend on improving your main shtick when the big 6 don't exist, and the cost-reward ratio gets bad very quickly.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Claxon wrote:


Less money to spend reduces top end power level while also forcing characters to be more well rounded.
My experience is that less gold merely encourages people to focus on their main theme at the expense of other things, so while they may be less powerful than people with more money they are also less flexible.

As Derklord said, I think that doesn't apply when using ABP because all the things you're traditionally looking to buy don't exist. Now you're searching for really obscure s~$& to amp your main stick. But because so many of the normal bonuses types are removed from items, it's significantly harder to do. Especially if your limited to hardback books and can't pull items from splat books (something I generally did when I GM'd PF1).

I also think it's hard to be less well rounded because everyone is going to get an int bonus, a wis bonus, a dex bonus, a str bonus, cha bonus, and con bonus (eventually). Between that, and a limited number of items that don't offer the bonus types removed my experience with my group is you ended up with all sorts of items that would have normally been sold because you were trying to save up for one of the big six.

Liberty's Edge

You don't immediately get slots for increasing your casting stats. You refresh all your slots only after resting or praying, whatever works for your class.

CRB wrote:

Rest: To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours

Daily Readying of Spells: Each day, sorcerers and bards must focus their minds on the task of casting their spells. A sorcerer or bard needs 8 hours of rest (just like a wizard), after which she spends 15 minutes
concentrating.

Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells.

You can fill empty slots, but get those slots only once, when you prepare or ready your spells.


Senko wrote:
More curiosity than anything else is there any rule saying you can't make a headband that boosts physical stats or a belt to boost mental ones?

It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder because some specific individual or individuals involved didn't like the rules allowing for stat-boosting items to be keyed to different slots and instead they wanted to make two dedicated slots for stat-boosting items instead of having things distributed between 3-4 slots like they were in D&D 3.5.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if none of the people involved remember who was the main driving force behind that consolidation, etc.

If you want to experiment with branching out, you could look into the magic item creation rules for D&D 3.5 via what is available through the SRD or you could even look into what people have written about the expansion on the system that was created in the Magic Item Compendium, which among other things eliminated the cost multiplier for having certain essential magic items (including ability score increasing items) combined with other magic items.

Silver Crusade

“It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder”

No they didn’t, it was like that in 3.5 as well.

3.5 Magic Item Crafting rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

“It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder”

No they didn’t, it was like that in 3.5 as well.

3.5 Magic Item Crafting rules

Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Cloak of Charisma. Periapt of Wisdom. Gloves of Dexterity. Amulet of Health. All of these items were done away with when they decided to consolidate magic items so that all physical ability scores are governed by Belt slot items and all mental ability scores are governed by Headband slot items. They separated the Headband slot from the Head slot while they were at it. (They also separated the Body slot and Armor slot, IIRC.)

Body slots had affinities which were a stated guideline, too. So between that and established precedent with other items, there was certainly room for argument for, say, a Shirt of Health instead of an Amulet of Health or a Hat of Charisma instead of a Cloak of Charisma. IIRC, affinities were also further expanded in the aforementioned Magic Item Compendium.


Coidzor wrote:
Rysky wrote:

“It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder”

No they didn’t, it was like that in 3.5 as well.

3.5 Magic Item Crafting rules

Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Cloak of Charisma, Periapt of Wisdom, Gloves of Dexterity, Amulet of Health. All of these items were done away with when they{PF} decided to consolidate magic items so that all physical ability scores are governed by Belt slot items and all mental ability scores are governed by Headband slot items. They separated the Headband slot from the Head slot while they were at it. (They also separated the Body slot and Armor slot, IIRC.)

Body slots had affinities which were a stated guideline, too. So between that and established precedent with other items, there was certainly room for argument for, say, a Shirt of Health instead of an Amulet of Health or a Hat of Charisma instead of a Cloak of Charisma. IIRC, affinities were also further expanded in the aforementioned Magic Item Compendium.

a) (as I recall, just chatting) all those are legacy DnD2 items and 3.0 just carried on with them. Not a big deal really to inherit classic items. The pricing though... LoL. The pricing of magical items is a perennial issue. You see a lot of home game style come through in DnD2 & 3 items. I don't think items from magazines were looked at closely but sure filled out pages in a supplement.

b) in the rules you quoted from 3.5 at the end is a 50% cost upgrade. So I wouldn't downplay the issue of Magic Item Body Slots(MIBS).

It's true that PF got stricter with the MIBS. In previous iterations most GMs glazed over the crafting rules and MIBS wasn't as big a deal as it is now. It's a soft way to (obviously) constrain all the magic a PC carries. With these boards communication is much easier so it's not just chatting with your local gaming friends, you get *this* along with championing a cause, grawr, trolling, and other noise. Some of it is soap-boxing RAW, this is a Rules forum.

In Home Game play I've seen MIBS often ignored, more so before than now. Still I think it's GM dependent and probably a touchstone would be how a GM prices Mage Armor 1{SplLvl}@8{CstrLvl} on cmmd 3/day & Cure Light Wounds 1@1 on cmmd 3/d in a pair of bracers that only Wizards can use. *-<8^)≡


Azothath wrote:
a) (as I recall, just chatting) all those are legacy DnD2 items and 3.0 just carried on with them. Not a big deal really to inherit classic items. The pricing though... LoL. The pricing of magical items is a perennial issue. You see a lot of home game style come through in DnD2 & 3 items. I don't think items from magazines were looked at closely but sure filled out pages in a supplement.

Sure, they were legacy items, but that's neither here nor there, since they would have been legacy items when they were making Pathfinder, but instead they chose to standardize where ability score boosting items go on the body. I only brought them up as examples because of what was said to me.

The pricing is similarly not really something that I was particularly concerned about, so I don't think I understand where you're going with this, sorry. What do you mean and why do you bring it up? Or is it just a tangent/aside?

Azothath wrote:

b) in the rules you quoted from 3.5 at the end is a 50% cost upgrade. So I wouldn't downplay the issue of Magic Item Body Slots(MIBS).

It's true that PF got stricter with the MIBS. In previous iterations most GMs glazed over the crafting rules and MIBS wasn't as big a deal as it is now. It's a soft way to (obviously) constrain all the magic a PC carries. With these boards communication is much easier so it's not just chatting with your local...

I see the inherent issues with MAD as being way more of an issue than people being able to afford more ability score boosting items, and I think the concern about balance issues if multiple ability score boosting items can be worn is largely an exercise in actively going looking to find a problem.

Scarab Sages

Interesting discussion and it occured to me I should probably say the reason I was curious about this was possibly in a game making a collar of X that raises all stats for a familiar or animal companion due to the slot issues with them I wanted to only give up to give them a decent boost. Even if its only +2 to all that helps, maybe push to +4 as there's no +3.

Silver Crusade

“Body slots had affinities which were a stated guideline, too.”

Yes, it pushed you towards specific slots and it cost more if you stepped outside that design. Not a Pathfinder Invention.


Rysky wrote:

“Body slots had affinities which were a stated guideline, too.”

Yes, it pushed you towards specific slots and it cost more if you stepped outside that design. Not a Pathfinder Invention.

If you'd just come out and plainly state what your issue is, we can address it.

Otherwise, you'll continue to be completely opaque.


Senko wrote:
Doompatrol wrote:
Pizza Lord wrote:
How a GM chooses to implement such items is ultimately up to them.
That's the most important part, they don't exist by default and a GM can say no, especially of you're trying to power game certain effects in traditionally weaker slots.
No just trying to move more of the big 6 onto shared items to free up the slots for other more interesting items.

That is still more power, even with the big 6 players are still decked out like a magical Mr T approaching level 10

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

“ If you'd just come out and plainly state what your issue is, we can address it.

Otherwise, you'll continue to be completely opaque.”

… ?

You made the claim that Pathfinder invented slot affinities, I was pointing out that that wasn’t true.


Kurald Galain wrote:
Well, there's the Ring of Protection, and nothing says it can't be a nipple ring of protection :D

As long as it occupies the ring slot there is no reason that it can't be a prince albert. Or an earring.


Rysky wrote:

“It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder”

No they didn’t, it was like that in 3.5 as well.

3.5 Magic Item Crafting rules

And much of that was taken from Ars Magica's enchanting system. Jonathan Tweet designed much of Ars Magica and wrote 3.0.


Rysky wrote:

“ If you'd just come out and plainly state what your issue is, we can address it.

Otherwise, you'll continue to be completely opaque.”

… ?

You made the claim that Pathfinder invented slot affinities, I was pointing out that that wasn’t true.

I said that Pathfinder condensed and standardized ability score increasing items to be belts for physical ability scores and headbands for mental ability scores instead of having ability score boosting items used in various slots, some of which came into conflict as in the case of Constitution and Wisdom both wanting the neck slot.

If I were arguing about Pathfinder inventing body slot affinities, I wouldn't have linked to all of the items from D&D 3.5 that do not exist because they were replaced by belts and headbands in Pathfinder in the first place.

Silver Crusade

"More curiosity than anything else is there any rule saying you can't make a headband that boosts physical stats or a belt to boost mental ones?"

"It's a convention they established when they made Pathfinder because some specific individual or individuals involved didn't like the rules allowing for stat-boosting items to be keyed to different slots"

This is what you said, the issue is the implication that Pathfinder started that, rather than refining the amount/affinities. Pathfinder didn't make the rule that you can't/shouldn't have a headband that boosts physical stats.

Scarab Sages

Interestingly I just saw Sorcha's robe (I want that garment) which gives +6 to all stats. Sure its a runelords artifact but still it does say they can exist as this is both all stats and a robe.


I mean, artifacts don't have a cost for a reason. But even if you were to try and make that, it would be outside the cost of of even a level 20 character.

15,000gp +1 CL (based on Orange Prism Ioun stone but halved for slotless to slotted item)
50,000gp +5 Deflection Bonus
25,000gp +5 Resistance Bonus
180,000gp SR 30
4*2,000gp=8,000gp four handy haversacks (realistically, this should probably cost +50% for each extra haversack for a total 14,000gp)
??? Immunity to selective Mind Affecting Effects (there is a clasp of the mind scream that does this for really cheap and more, but any other item is a minor/major artifact)
6*54,000gp remaining +6 stats *already multiplied by 1.5 for multiple abilities on one item

Given that the SR is the most expensive item, we get a total value of 180,000 + 22,500 + 75,000 + 37,500 + 21,000 (using larger haversack total) + 324,000 = 660,000gp.

It also turns out 3e had a ring of mental fortitude that made you immune to mind affecting effects, which cost 110,000gp, so if we add that to the cloak and ignore the selective aspect, we have an item that costs 825,000gp. This would be almost your entire 20th level WBL for a wizard, the remainder likely being for all the ink for all the spells you would need to learn so you aren't a sorcerer with less spells per day.

Liberty's Edge

3.x Mind Blank gave total protection against mind effects, Pathfinder version gives a +8 resistance bonus, so the ring of mental fortitude would cost more in Pathfinder, as it is an effect that isn't available with normal means.

Scarab Sages

I did say it was an artifact and while I"m drooling over the 4 handy haversacks (probably says alot about my tendency to horde things that I feel that's the best feature closely followed by the scintaliting colours feature). Speaking of which I think you missed that in your cost calculations. That aside my point was more you have all 6 stats on a robe and theoretically could remove the rest for just that effect (300kish).


if you wanted an item which is the right kind to give all states +6 it would cost 36,000 for hte first and 1.5 more for the other five so 54,000*5+36,000 = 306,000 gp.
BUT the mind and body attributes use different slots. and then you talk about a body slot item which is different from both of the above. as using a different slot is also 50% more (from the base), a robe (or any other slot item which is not belt or headband) would cost:

36,000 (base for +6) *1.5 for the main enchantment, +[36,000*(1+0.5+0.5)]x5 for the other 5.

54,000 + (72,000)x5 = 414,000 gp
for a +6 to all 6 attributes robe.


Senko wrote:
I did say it was an artifact and while I"m drooling over the 4 handy haversacks (probably says alot about my tendency to horde things that I feel that's the best feature closely followed by the scintaliting colours feature). Speaking of which I think you missed that in your cost calculations. That aside my point was more you have all 6 stats on a robe and theoretically could remove the rest for just that effect (300kish).

I didn't miss it, I just used a different calculation to account for the fact you're putting several haversacks in one.

But zza ni makes a good point, the overall item would cost 180,000 + 22,500 + 100,000 + 50,000 + 10,500 (using larger haversack total, but actually halved as I realize its normally slotless) + 220,000 + 432,000 = 1,015,000gp

Scarab Sages

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Senko wrote:
I did say it was an artifact and while I"m drooling over the 4 handy haversacks (probably says alot about my tendency to horde things that I feel that's the best feature closely followed by the scintaliting colours feature). Speaking of which I think you missed that in your cost calculations. That aside my point was more you have all 6 stats on a robe and theoretically could remove the rest for just that effect (300kish).

I didn't miss it, I just used a different calculation to account for the fact you're putting several haversacks in one.

But zza ni makes a good point, the overall item would cost 180,000 + 22,500 + 100,000 + 50,000 + 10,500 (using larger haversack total, but actually halved as I realize its normally slotless) + 220,000 + 432,000 = 1,015,000gp

Not the function I was talking about, I meant this one . . .

The Scintillating Garment functions as a robe of scintillating colors,

Everything else is an addition to that so it'd need to be at least 22k more plus the increase on multiple abilities on other things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To answer the original question, the reason certain slots are assigned to certain abilities (i.e. headband of Mental Prowess as opposed to a belt of mental prowess) is that, every since D&D added material components, the magic system has gone off the "sympathetic magic" philosophy. The same reason the headband is used for mental stuff is the same reason you need bull hair for a bull's strength spell as opposed to a chicken feather or a pinch of salt. Symbolically, gloves or boots make sense for increasing dex while a headband makes sense for increasing intelligence.
Of course, an argument could be made for several changes. A Hat of Disguise could easily be made into a Cloak of Disguise. Or Boots of Striding and Springing may be changed to a Belt of Striding and Springing, but probably not a Hate of Striding and Springing.
If a player came up with a reason for a change while making a magic item, and it didn't feel like a stretch, I'd allow a change. But, if the player had to spend more than a couple of minutes to convince me, it's too much of a stretch. Sympathetic magic should make sense to everyone.


Senko wrote:
AwesomenessDog wrote:
Senko wrote:
I did say it was an artifact and while I"m drooling over the 4 handy haversacks (probably says alot about my tendency to horde things that I feel that's the best feature closely followed by the scintaliting colours feature). Speaking of which I think you missed that in your cost calculations. That aside my point was more you have all 6 stats on a robe and theoretically could remove the rest for just that effect (300kish).

I didn't miss it, I just used a different calculation to account for the fact you're putting several haversacks in one.

But zza ni makes a good point, the overall item would cost 180,000 + 22,500 + 100,000 + 50,000 + 10,500 (using larger haversack total, but actually halved as I realize its normally slotless) + 220,000 + 432,000 = 1,015,000gp

Not the function I was talking about, I meant this one . . .

The Scintillating Garment functions as a robe of scintillating colors,

Everything else is an addition to that so it'd need to be at least 22k more plus the increase on multiple abilities on other things.

Ah, somehow I just missed that in the wall of other abilities.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Any reason not to make a belt of in, headband of strength or socks of both? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.