# EOMr Magic items pricing questions



## torem13 (Mar 3, 2005)

I was going over to pricing for charged items and comparing them to some of the objects in the book. Either I'm missing something or there are some wrong pricing. Here are the five items I found
Amulet of Greater Healing. Once per day this amulet of living wood can cast greater healing (Heal Life 10/Gen 0) as the sample spell presented in Chapter Three. Market value – 20,000gp.​This is a unlimited use charge item so the pricing formula is:
5 time/day:  Sig Spell MP*Sig Spell MP* 2000 Divide by 2 if spell completion.
3 times/day Divide by 2
2 times/day Divide by 3
1 time/day Divide by 5
Unlimited Multiply by 10.

The item is a 1/day and is not spell completion. Therefor the procing should be 
10*10*200/5 = 40,000
Cloak of Flame. This black cloak, etched with semireal flames, is enchanted with Abjure Ice 2/Gen 1, providing Ice resistance 10 (9,000 gp). It also has the ability to cast the spell flaming barrier (Create Fire 4/Gen 4) once per day (12,800gp). Market value – 21,800 gp.​The 9,000gp part is good. The flaming barrier should be 8*8*2000/5 = 25,600gp.
Inquisitor’s Mask. This mask, carved in the shape of a bear skull, can cast dispelling gaze (Dispel Magic 5/Gen 1) five times per day, with access to 31 spell lists chosen by the creator for purposes of dispelling (25,387 gp). The mask also is enchanted with Infuse Water 1/Gen 1 (4,000 gp), to grant +2 Wisdom. Market value – 29,387 gp).​This is the same mask in the example for charged items. In the example it was a spell completion, which isn't mentioned here and also this states it uses the spell dispelling gaze which is a Dispel Magic 4 not 5. I'm assuming the 5 and the failure to mention spell completion is an errata item. 
Portable Font of Healing. This liquor flask is enchanted to be able to cast any Heal Life spell of 3 MP or less on the person who drinks from it, and it can be refilled an unlimited number of times, never running out of magic (though it does run out of ale unless refilled). Market value – 90,000 gp.​This is an unlimited times per day charged item using a spell list. The formula for spell lists is
5 time/day:  Spell list MP*Spell list MP * 10,000 Divide by 2 if spell completion.
3 times/day Divide by 2
2 times/day Divide by 3
1 time/day Divide by 5
Unlimited Multiply by 10.

So the price should be 3*3*10,000*10= 900,000gp
Shifting Cloak. This cloak, enchanted with Infuse Fire 5/Gen 1 (36,000 gp) to provide +6 Charisma, also has unlimited activations of Illusion Shadow 1/Gen 0, that can make the wearer look like someone else at will (2,000 gp). Market value – 38,000 gp.​The wonderous is cost is fine (36,000), but the unlimited Illusion shadow should be
1*1*2000*10= 20,000 bringing the final cost to 56,000gp.

Are these just errata or am I missing something in the pricing formulas?

Thanks

Torem13


----------



## torem13 (May 12, 2005)

Thougth I would bump this up and see if I could get some feedback. 

Also, I have a few questions about the difference between a renewable, unlimited use charged item and a wonderous item. 

I want to make a ring of invisiblity. If I go wonderous the cost would be 16,000 ( illusion shadow 3/gen 1) ^2 *1000. However, there doesn't seem to ba a way to turn it off except by removal (like to One Ring from LOTR). 

A way have a on/off function would be a unlimited use charged item costing 180,000. (Illusion shadow 3/gen 0)^2 X 2000 X 10 for unlimited per day. This means that I would have to renew the spell every 1 minute. For a longer time, the cost goes up to 320,00 for 10 minutes, 720,000 for 1 hour and 2,420,000 for all day. 

Transforming items have the same problem. Perhaps there could be a extra cost like you have to add a short (1 MP) or medium contingency (2 MP) to a wonderous to allow use activated items like a cloak of the manta ray. Adding 1 MP would bring the ring of invisiblity up to costing 25,000 which is comparable to the core cost of 20,000. 

Any thoughs?

Also, If I cast move fire 1/gen 0, then move air 4/gen 0 would I fly at +10 to my base speed? or would it have to cast in the same spell to ghet that effect?


----------



## Verequus (May 12, 2005)

I'm also interested of hearing RW's comment, if you are right with your calculations (and if you followed the rules, then you are right). Regarding the on and off switch I would propose following rules addition in General Enhancements:

"*Switch (1 MP):* If you use this enhancement, then you can turn the effects of the spell on and off as a free action. The time while the spell is turned off counts still for the duration of the spell. You can take this enhancement several times, if you don't want to affect all effects at once. In this case, every effect has to be assigned to a certain switch."

Comments on formulation and naming are also welcome.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 12, 2005)

I did not specifically mention it, but I think that falls under this entry:



			
				Chapter Four: Magic Items said:
			
		

> *Special Wondrous Items:*  For spell effects that allow slightly different specific results (such as Illusions and Transform spells), the wondrous item must have a clear basic effect, but the wearer can change the specific effect as a full-round action.  Thus, a wondrous item with Transform Humanoid 0/Gen 1 might grant the basic effect “transform into any humanoid form of CR 1 or less,” but the wearer could choose the specifics of the form, whether it be a male half-Orc or a female troglodyte, as a full-round action.




So turning it off would be a full round action by willing it to not conceal you.

The reason the charged item would be so expensive is because it would let you _cast_ invisibility an unlimited number of times, which means you could make the whole party invisible.


----------



## Verequus (May 12, 2005)

Is this turning on and off possible for normal spells, too? Instead a simple dismissing of spell, which would require a recasting.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 12, 2005)

I'd only allow free 'on and off' switching for magic items.  For spells, a 1 MP cost sounds fair.  I can't really think of an example that would be broken.


----------



## Verequus (May 12, 2005)

Are you then including this bit in the compilation in one form or another?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 13, 2005)

Sure.  Don't see why not.


----------

