Improving Glove of Storing

[ShriekingDrake]

I've got a player who wants to make a Glove of Storing that holds ten object rather than just one. I'm considering it at the moment. But, I suspect I'm doing something wrong, as I it appears to get rather expensive, well above WBL. Could someone help me think through this notion of a ten-item Glove of Storing? Many thanks.

[Curmudgeon]

I suspect you're doing it right. A Glove of Storing is priced by the actual worth of holding one object that's storable and retrievable as free actions. An improved item that's 10 times as good should be at least 10 times as expensive, and that's the way the item creation rules work. Specifically, non-common additional magical properties added onto a base item are at 150% of the base price. So you'd end up with a total cost of (1 + (9 x 1.5)) x the base price, or 14.5 x the cost of a single Glove of Storing. That's 145,000 gp for a 10 times better Glove.

[Slipperychicken]

Ghostwalk's Gloves of the Master Strategist is a Glove of Storing plus 1/day Truestrike for a total of 3,600gp, so go figure.


What's he trying to do? I bet there's a cheaper way of accomplishing it.

[ericgrau]

If you limit the uses per day then you can get it down to 2,000 gp per use per day. Since the item is based off of shrink item I might allow unlimited retrievals per day but a limited number of storages per day, and a capacity equal to the number of storages per day. For example a 10/day item might be 20,000 gp. He might hold 10 items in it, retrieve any 4, store 4 again, retrieve 6, and store 6 again. They might be 6 different items or the same item 6 times or etc. From there he may retrieve all 10 items but he couldn't store any more until the next day.

While sometimes additional abilities might cost 50% more, additional uses of the same ability count as "similar abilities" and thus have no additional cost beyond the normal cost.

[Curmudgeon]

Ghostwalk's Gloves of the Master Strategist is a Glove of Storing plus 1/day Truestrike for a total of 3,600gp, so go figure.
Well, since Ghostwalk is a pre-3.5 supplement, you should go figure based on the 3.0 base price of 2,000 gp for a Glove of Storing. The 3.5 rules authors decided this item was much more valuable and repriced it at 10,000 gp.

[Slipperychicken]

Well, since Ghostwalk is a pre-3.5 supplement, you should go figure based on the 3.0 base price of 2,000 gp for a Glove of Storing. The 3.5 rules authors decided this item was much more valuable and repriced it at 10,000 gp.

That price discrepancy was bugging me for a while, but makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, Curmudgeon.

[ShriekingDrake]

I guess my math wasn't all that off then, as I came to 145K myself. Yeah, for 145K you can get items that are far more valuable, it seems to me. I do like the suggestions about reducing costs. I wonder if he'd go for limits on the number of times per day that one could store an object. That has a nice ring to it.

[KillianHawkeye]

Well, since Ghostwalk is a pre-3.5 supplement, you should go figure based on the 3.0 base price of 2,000 gp for a Glove of Storing. The 3.5 rules authors decided this item was much more valuable and repriced it at 10,000 gp.

However, as it's commonly known, the 3.5 update for Ghostwalk did nothing to update the price.

[Curmudgeon]

However, as it's commonly known, the 3.5 update for Ghostwalk did nothing to update the price.
They didn't need to, since they put this directive at the front of the booklet:
Minor or obvious changes that a reasonable person could determine without effort, or which have no effect on the game mechanics of the book, have been omitted unless entire sections are being replaced. Because the item the Glove of the Master Strategist is based on was repriced, that's an "obvious change that a reasonable person could determine without effort", and it "has no effect on the game mechanics of the book".

Sheesh.

[Mystify]

I think the premise that having 10x as many items is 10x as powerful is off. If it could hold an infinite number of items, it would not have infinite value. There are definitely diminishing returns in the value based on each subsequent item you can store, and that should be considered when pricing it. I'd invoke the "multiple similar effects" clause at lease, and have the second item cost 75%, and the subsequent items cost 50%. That gives a cot of 57,500, which is definitely more sensible, at least. Yes, it does violate the "doesn't take up space on your body" line, but I think its reasonable to ignore that in this case.

[KillianHawkeye]

However, as it's commonly known, the 3.5 update for Ghostwalk did nothing to update the price.
They didn't need to, since they put this directive at the front of the booklet:

Minor or obvious changes that a reasonable person could determine without effort, or which have no effect on the game mechanics of the book, have been omitted unless entire sections are being replaced.
Because the item the Glove of the Master Strategist is based on was repriced, that's an "obvious change that a reasonable person could determine without effort", and it "has no effect on the game mechanics of the book".

Sheesh.

Quoting only part of the text doesn't make you right. The full text is:

Minor or obvious changes that a reasonable person could determine without effort, or which have no effect on the game mechanics of the book, have been omitted unless entire sections are being replaced. Such changes include the following.
The number of 5-foot squares corresponding to a creature's speed,
A separate attack entry for any monster that has only one attack form, or whose full attack is identical to its normal attack,
Changing "Face/Reach" to "Space/Reach" in cases where the corresponding numbers remain the same,
Changing a spell's casting time from "1 action" to "1 standard action,"
Changing a magic item's "Market Price" to "Price," and so forth. Changes such as these are left in the reader's hands. All other pertinent adjustments, however, are given here.

Please note the part I bolded.

By the phrasing of this list, with the "such changes include" and the "and so forth," I conclude that the only changes the reader is supposed to make themselves are obvious changes in terminology between 3.0 and 3.5, and that anything more involved should be found within the list of specific changes. I certainly consider comparing the price of a magic item to the changes made to the price of an item it is based on from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOK to be neither "obvious" nor "reasonably without effort."

[ShriekingDrake]

I think the premise that having 10x as many items is 10x as powerful is off. If it could hold an infinite number of items, it would not have infinite value. There are definitely diminishing returns in the value based on each subsequent item you can store, and that should be considered when pricing it. I'd invoke the "multiple similar effects" clause at lease, and have the second item cost 75%, and the subsequent items cost 50%. That gives a cot of 57,500, which is definitely more sensible, at least. Yes, it does violate the "doesn't take up space on your body" line, but I think its reasonable to ignore that in this case.

I like this line of thinking as well. Think about how much a Handy Haversack can hold. I realize there are significant benefits to the Glove of Storing, but it just doesn't seem that overpowered to me. Even if I assumed that he could carry 20 items and instantly bring them to hand or make them disappear, that isn't game changing--although it is flavorful. I want something that makes sense, especially for this player/character, but if it gets out of hand, I'll have to address it either in game or out of game.

[Curmudgeon]

By the phrasing of this list, with the "such changes include" and the "and so forth," I conclude that the only changes the reader is supposed to make themselves are obvious changes in terminology between 3.0 and 3.5, and that anything more involved should be found within the list of specific changes. I certainly consider comparing the price of a magic item to the changes made to the price of an item it is based on from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BOOK to be neither "obvious" nor "reasonably without effort."
A list of examples isn't a limiting specification. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the actual conversion rules; you're making a supposition. Also, is there a PARTIALLY different book that you could shout about? :smalltongue:

The Glove of the Master Strategist explicitly refers to the Glove of Storing, so looking that up is a necessary part of the GotMS writeup (both in 3.0 and 3.5 versions); thus noting a price difference from the two bases is reasonably without further effort. D&D supplements referencing the core rulebooks is an entirely ordinary and obvious occurrence in the game.

[sonofzeal]

A list of examples isn't a limiting specification. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the actual conversion rules; you're making a supposition. Also, is there a PARTIALLY different book that you could shout about? :smalltongue:

The Glove of the Master Strategist explicitly refers to the Glove of Storing, so looking that up is a necessary part of the GotMS writeup (both in 3.0 and 3.5 versions); thus noting a price difference from the two bases is reasonably without further effort. D&D supplements referencing the core rulebooks is an entirely ordinary and obvious occurrence in the game.
However, merely noting this discrepancy does not, in fact, resolve it. The proper price of Glove of the Master Strategist is not immediately obvious, and thus it falls outside the clause you quoted:


Minor or obvious changes that a reasonable person could determine without effort

[KillianHawkeye]

A list of examples isn't a limiting specification.

Curmudgeon, I've seen you shoot down the Aptitude Weapon + Lightning Maces combo using the exact same logic I am using now.

However, I think that ShriekingDrake has got his answer now and further discussion of this matter is getting pointless.

[hamiltond465]

magic item compendium pg 147

WAND BRACELET
Price (Item Level): 12,000 gp (13th)
Body Slot: Arms
Caster Level: 6th
Aura: Moderate; (DC 18)
transmutation
Activation: See text
Weight: —
This golden chain bracelet has a number
of small metal objects hanging from it like
charms.
A wand bracelet can store up to four items,
which appear as charms along the bracelet.
You can grab one of the charms from the
bracelet as a swift (manipulation) action,
causing it to appear in your hand.
If you have an item in hand, you can
use a move (manipulation) action to store
the item in the bracelet or to switch a
held item for a stored item by touching
the item to the charm representing the
stored item. Storing an item causes it to
shrink down and appear as a charm hanging
from the bracelet. Any item stored
can weigh no more than 3 pounds and
must be able to be held in one hand, such
as a wand or a light weapon. Only the
wearer of the bracelet is able to retrieve
or store items.

It's similar to what he wants, if under some extreme restrictions.
I can't contribute much to the new item creation talk tho, never done any of that myself.

I think you can use it with gloves of storing too, right? arms slot =/= hands slot?

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon, I've seen you shoot down the Aptitude Weapon + Lightning Maces combo using the exact same logic I am using now.
I believe you're not paying sufficient attention to the details if you think that's the case. There's no directive to use those 5 examples in the Ghostwalk Update for D&D V.3.5 as a pattern; they're unrelated. The aptitude property, on the other hand, provides a list of feats with similar properties, and directs the applicability to those feats "or the like". Aptitude has a rule which says to follow a pattern. The Ghostwalk update doesn't have a rule to that effect, and yet you're acting as if there were such a rule anyway.

The difference is in the RAW.

[Darrin]

Because the item the Glove of the Master Strategist is based on was repriced, that's an "obvious change that a reasonable person could determine without effort", and it "has no effect on the game mechanics of the book".


Based on WotC's errata policites, it's fairly well established that WotC used official errata to change price discrepancies between 3.0 and 3.5. The Ghostwalk errata did indeed include such updates: Ghost Disrupting property was changed from +2 bonus to +3600 GP, Bone Sword was changed from 18310 GP to 8310 GP, etc. Since the official errata to Glove of the Master Strategist did not include a change in price, then it's somewhat trivial to conclude that WotC really did intend to keep the cost at 3600 GP. In any case, that's it's price by RAW. Since there's no rules discrepancy or compliance issue, there's no need to "update" the price: it already has an official 3.5 price.

If having a cheaper alternative to paying 10000 GP for a Glove of Storing is really throwing a wrench into your campaign economy, then fine, go in with the "Rule Zero Chainsaw", but I'd be more inclined to just be honest about it, and try to avoid hiding behind an "obvious change that a reasonable person could determine without effort" that appears/disappears to suit my convenience.

[hydraa]

Similar item {shrink the belt and wear as a bracelet

BELT OF HIDDEN POUCHES (MIC) gives you 30 slots that holds .5 cu ft each or 5 lbs up to 6 inches in any dimension for 5,000 GP move action

GLOVE OF STORING (DMG) 20 lbs hand sized object (8 in max dimension?). Free action to store or retrieve for 10,000 GP