# Cost of enchanting weapons with +1, spells, Intelligence, etc.



## ScottB (Apr 13, 2005)

I want to enchant a weapon with some interesting and diverse affects.  How would I total something like this:

+1 (+2,000 gp)
Spell Storing (counts as +1 bonus) (+6,000 gp)
Intelligent Item – 1 lesser power - cure moderate wounds (2d8+3) on wielder 3/day (+7,500 gp)
Shield of Faith – continuous affect – (lvl 1 spell * lvl 1 caster * 2,000gp * 2[1min/lvl] = +4,000 gp)
Silence – 1/day – (lvl 2 spell * lvl 3 caster * 1,800gp * (1/5)[1/day] = +2,160 gp)

The DMG says I take a penalty for different affects, but only when on items which take up a body slot, and there isn’t a body slot listed for ‘held in hands’.  At the same time, none of the weapon enchantments I can see in the book take into account the x2 penalty for not having a slot.  Do I just pay the sum (21,660 gp), or am I missing something?

Thanks, guys.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Apr 13, 2005)

ScottB said:
			
		

> Shield of Faith – continuous affect – (lvl 1 spell * lvl 1 caster * 2,000gp * 2[1min/lvl] = +4,000 gp)
> Silence – 1/day – (lvl 2 spell * lvl 3 caster * 1,800gp * (1/5)[1/day] = +2,160 gp)




First off, the Continuous Shield of Faith is a no-go. True, you're following the guidelines for pricing, but a permanent +2 deflection bonus to AC costs 8,000 if it takes up a slot. (If you could just get an item of Shield of Faith for half the cost, why would anyone ever get a Ring of Protection +2?) The silence is fine as far as I can see it- except for the whole slot-thing.

For weapons, the way I see it, unless you're paying for extra effects to be considered slotless, you can't add things onto them that aren't already statted out (for example, you can make it +1, or intelligent, but no adding on spell abilities or +2 Charisma or anything unless you're paying for a slotless item of it, since there aren't any hard rules for doing so). If it doesn't take up a slot (that is, it's an extra effect on your sword), then it might as well be slotless, since, well, it doesn't take up a slot, right? So the Silence 1/day would be 4,320 gp added on, and the Shield of Faith (going by the Deflection bonus costs) would be 16,000 gp.


----------



## ScottB (Apr 14, 2005)

I don't know why this was moved to house rules... I want to know the straight core rules for enchanting something like this.  You bring up good points, and thinks for responding to my post, but can you point me to DMG page numbers?  I can work out a house interpretation with my DM if I cannot find true rules for this.

Thanks again


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 14, 2005)

To further UltimaGabe's points, you should probably also not allow any caster who doesn't have Forge Ring to create items with Deflection Bonuses to AC, just like you can't put Armour special abilities onto your Bracers of Armour Wondrous Item without having the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat first.


----------



## dcollins (Apr 14, 2005)

ScottB said:
			
		

> I don't know why this was moved to house rules... I want to know the straight core rules for enchanting something like this.




New magic items are inherently house rules (see DMG, "Variant: New Magic Items"). The pricing formulas in the DMG are guidelines, not actual rules. You'll find in the explanation of that section that subjective DM adjudications are always required.


----------



## ScottB (Apr 14, 2005)

Really?  That's interesting - I've never noticed 

Welp, if I'm in optional rule terratory, I'll just defer to my DM.  Thanks for the help, everybody.


----------



## poilbrun (Apr 14, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> To further UltimaGabe's points, you should probably also not allow any caster who doesn't have Forge Ring to create items with Deflection Bonuses to AC, just like you can't put Armour special abilities onto your Bracers of Armour Wondrous Item without having the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat first.



Forge Ring for deflection is a good idea, but house rule, right (I gather that much from your _should probably not allow_)?

Where does the _Craft Magic Arms & Armors_pre-req on armor special abilities for barcers come from? I remember reading a sidebar on that, but I don't remember where, or that it mentionned the pre-req.

Thanks.


----------



## ARandomGod (Apr 14, 2005)

ScottB said:
			
		

> I don't know why this was moved to house rules... I want to know the straight core rules for enchanting something like this.  You bring up good points, and thinks for responding to my post, but can you point me to DMG page numbers?  I can work out a house interpretation with my DM if I cannot find true rules for this.
> 
> Thanks again




Core rules for enchanting used to be in rules, but apparently a lot of (whiners) didn't feel that there WERE any core rules, and it's almost certain that a lot of people have elevated the Rules to some sort of divine status, such that the fact that the core rules are listed as guidelines is seen as making it less cannon. ... In spite of the very real fact that ALL the rules are guidelines, and this type of rule is indeed there, it just has cautions in it stating that you have to use *more* discretion than with normal rules. Now, since these dogmatic types see the Rules as infallible and from On High, the fact that they might have to use some individual discretion makes them embarrassed and uncomfortable to the point that they shove the whole thing into house rules, and demand that other people do likewise, pretending that there are no rules in the core books for doing these type of things.

Now, that being said, one of the cautions in those rules is against someone making a shield of faith item priced as you have there... as UltimaGabe said, you have to use the overriding section regarding deflection bonuses. Additionally, if you look at effects such as 'shadowed' on armor, you'll see that it uses the +50% additional cost rule, and I'm pretty sure that you should settle for that, as the alternative is to (as suggested above) use the +100% rule of slotless. Of course, this is not completely slotless, as you have to have it in your 'weapon slot', and there are precedents in the armor section for doing so.

Edit: And yes, this is definitely an area where you have to ask your GM.


----------



## ARandomGod (Apr 14, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> To further UltimaGabe's points, you should probably also not allow any caster who doesn't have Forge Ring to create items with Deflection Bonuses to AC, just like you can't put Armour special abilities onto your Bracers of Armour Wondrous Item without having the Craft Magic Arms and Armour feat first.




Personally I don't see why that would be a requirement. There's nothing innately ring-like to deflection bonuses. However I can see that there is something innately arms and armor like in + armor bonuses or +1 weapon bonuses.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 14, 2005)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> Personally I don't see why that would be a requirement. There's nothing innately ring-like to deflection bonuses. However I can see that there is something innately arms and armor like in + armor bonuses or +1 weapon bonuses.



 If you allow the ring abilities to be emulated with other feats (notably CWI), you destroy any remaining value of Forge Ring.  If you want an armour bonus and you don't have Forge Ring, there are a lot to choose from (enhancement to Natural Armour, enhancement to Armour, Armour bonus, Shield bonus, etc)


----------



## ARandomGod (Apr 14, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If you allow the ring abilities to be emulated with other feats (notably CWI), you destroy any remaining value of Forge Ring.  If you want an armour bonus and you don't have Forge Ring, there are a lot to choose from (enhancement to Natural Armour, enhancement to Armour, Armour bonus, Shield bonus, etc)




I admit that I don't really see much of an issue with that.

There's still the remaining value of having two body slots that can only be filled with rings... the ring slots.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 14, 2005)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> I admit that I don't really see much of an issue with that.
> 
> There's still the remaining value of having two body slots that can only be filled with rings... the ring slots.



 And there's a whole lot more than cannot be filled with rings...and Forge Ring is a level 12 feat (plus the Deflection bonus is a more powerful type of bonus, since it applies to touch attacks too, so it makes sense that it would take the more-powerful feat to get it, which is how the DMG does it at least).


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Apr 15, 2005)

The reason I that I attributed to rings being special is that they don't have any affinity, which I've interpreted to mean that any type of magic can be dropped into it for the same cost.

Though I just did a quick seach of magic items, and the only no ring mention of deflection bonus I can find is a _rod of flailing_, and that only provides it for 10 minutes 1/day.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 15, 2005)

MatthewJHanson said:
			
		

> The reason I that I attributed to rings being special is that they don't have any affinity, which I've interpreted to mean that any type of magic can be dropped into it for the same cost.
> 
> Though I just did a quick seach of magic items, and the only no ring mention of deflection bonus I can find is a _rod of flailing_, and that only provides it for 10 minutes 1/day.



 Its true that they have an affinity for all things, but then, so does the robe slot for Wondrous Items.  

What you could do is allow ring abilities to be placed in Wondrous Items (and weapons) but only if the caster has Forge Ring first.  Otherwise, you make the feat a lot weaker (why bother with it if you already have the best ring abilities for the cheaper price, just make the rings your weakest abilities and commission 'em from someone else) and you might have the party pool up gold to make Boots of Evasion very quickly or something like that.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Apr 15, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Its true that they have an affinity for all things, but then, so does the robe slot for Wondrous Items.




Right... robes... I forgot about robes. Well I've been convinced that Forge Ring isn't worth it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 15, 2005)

MatthewJHanson said:
			
		

> Right... robes... I forgot about robes. Well I've been convinced that Forge Ring isn't worth it.



 Heh, it definitely isn't worth it if you just give out all its powers to CWI, and even if you don't its still pretty weak.  But if you refuse to give Ring-only powers to the PC-crafter, and the party wants a Ring of Evasion / Ring of Wizardry, they're going to be at least feeling the wizard's choice not to take the feat when they have to trek around looking for a 12th-level caster who did and pay him to make their ring.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 20, 2005)

It's not really that so much as they feel entirely comfortable shoving a set interpretation of the core rules down a DM's throat no matter what.  They feel less comfortable forcing the DM to agree to the magic item creation rules. 

I will agree with ARG that this is a somewhat artificial limitation, as creating items is no less broken than, for example, some fellow in another thread exploiting the rules to create a situation in which he could cast a 5th level spell to gain three wishes at no cost, and insisting that the Core rules support it and hence any DM who didn't allow it must be hostile and unfit to DM.



			
				ARandomGod said:
			
		

> Core rules for enchanting used to be in rules, but apparently a lot of (whiners) didn't feel that there WERE any core rules, and it's almost certain that a lot of people have elevated the Rules to some sort of divine status, such that the fact that the core rules are listed as guidelines is seen as making it less cannon. ... In spite of the very real fact that ALL the rules are guidelines, and this type of rule is indeed there, it just has cautions in it stating that you have to use *more* discretion than with normal rules. Now, since these dogmatic types see the Rules as infallible and from On High, the fact that they might have to use some individual discretion makes them embarrassed and uncomfortable to the point that they shove the whole thing into house rules, and demand that other people do likewise, pretending that there are no rules in the core books for doing these type of things.
> 
> Now, that being said, one of the cautions in those rules is against someone making a shield of faith item priced as you have there... as UltimaGabe said, you have to use the overriding section regarding deflection bonuses. Additionally, if you look at effects such as 'shadowed' on armor, you'll see that it uses the +50% additional cost rule, and I'm pretty sure that you should settle for that, as the alternative is to (as suggested above) use the +100% rule of slotless. Of course, this is not completely slotless, as you have to have it in your 'weapon slot', and there are precedents in the armor section for doing so.
> 
> Edit: And yes, this is definitely an area where you have to ask your GM.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Apr 20, 2005)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> Core rules for enchanting used to be in rules, but apparently a lot of (whiners) didn't feel that there WERE any core rules, and it's almost certain that a lot of people have elevated the Rules to some sort of divine status, such that the fact that the core rules are listed as guidelines is seen as making it less cannon. ... In spite of the very real fact that ALL the rules are guidelines, and this type of rule is indeed there, it just has cautions in it stating that you have to use *more* discretion than with normal rules. Now, since these dogmatic types see the Rules as infallible and from On High, the fact that they might have to use some individual discretion makes them embarrassed and uncomfortable to the point that they shove the whole thing into house rules, and demand that other people do likewise, pretending that there are no rules in the core books for doing these type of things.




If I wasn't already married, and wasn't pretty darn sure you were a dude, I'd ask you to marry me just for saying that.     As it is, you are my new personal ninja.  You have said what I've said many a time, but far more eloquently.  You rock.


----------

