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

[ARandomGod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Terath Ninir]

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.