Alter self at will on armor

[schreier]

In the book of vile darkness, page 111, it lists fleshshifter armor. Stats are +1 Leather armor with at will alter self for 13160. As +1 leather armor costs 1160gp, and +3 "bonus" would be 9160, and +4 would be 16160 it seems that the at-will alter self has a fixed cost of 12000.

The items listed say "The following sections detail magic items of all varieties, with only their innate malevolence to tie them together into a cohesive whole."

The fleshshifter mentions "Made from the skins of humanoids" but that seems just descriptive. Is it reasonable to make it a 12000gp enhancement? Am I missing anything? It doesn't seem evil outside of the skin, which seems like fluff,

[Jack_Simth]

It's a specific armor. Theoretically, any manipulation of it of that nature is a table ruling. It lines up with the guidelines for a use activated Wondrous Item of a 2nd level spell at caster level 3, though (2 * 3 * 2000).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The MIC gives rules for putting item abilities on other items, so just toss the fleshshifter armor ability onto a +1 mithral chain shirt, or even an actual shirt (so long as it's masterwork and takes up the same body slot). So not a houserule, but an actual rule.

[schreier]

The MIC gives rules for putting item abilities on other items, so just toss the fleshshifter armor ability onto a +1 mithral chain shirt, or even an actual shirt (so long as it's masterwork and takes up the same body slot). So not a houserule, but an actual rule.

I know that part - was just confirming how I priced it

I think that my math works based on what I did, and on Jack Simth's answer

[flappeercraft]

The MIC gives rules for putting item abilities on other items, so just toss the fleshshifter armor ability onto a +1 mithral chain shirt, or even an actual shirt (so long as it's masterwork and takes up the same body slot). So not a houserule, but an actual rule.

Huh it sounds familiar and I'm pretty sure I have heard it before but I can't find it. Might you have the citation or page number?

[schreier]

Huh it sounds familiar and I'm pretty sure I have heard it before but I can't find it. Might you have the citation or page number?

MIC pp233-4
Improving magic items

[Deophaun]

The MIC gives rules for putting item abilities on other items, so just toss the fleshshifter armor ability onto a +1 mithral chain shirt, or even an actual shirt (so long as it's masterwork and takes up the same body slot). So not a houserule, but an actual rule.
Eh, not quite. As a specific armor, fleshshifter is specifically leather armor, not a mithral chain shirt, not a non-mithral plain shirt. It still requires DM invoking Rule 0.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Eh, not quite. As a specific armor, fleshshifter is specifically leather armor, not a mithral chain shirt, not a non-mithral plain shirt. It still requires DM invoking Rule 0.You could place the ability on a headband, if you wanted to. The rules are in the MIC, as I said. Not guidelines, not houserules, but RAW rules. I mean, they're right there, starting on page 233, as schreier mentioned.

Also, @schreier, I was talking to Jack_Simth on my previous post, not you. He mentioned "table ruling," which isn't true, as the MIC has the rules for it (as you pointed out after).

Unless giving fighters full BAB is also "table ruling"? They're both there in the books, set solidly in print.

[Alent]

If Pathfinder material is table kosher, The Greater Hat of Disguise (http://aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Greater%20Hat% 20of%20Disguise) is 12,000 GP. Seeing as how those prices match, I'd allow adding the effect to any armor at that price.

[Deophaun]

You could place the ability on a headband, if you wanted to.
Your failure is in mistaking it for an ability. It's not. It's a specific armor. MIC rules do not apply (except for adding additional abilities to it).

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Your failure is in mistaking it for an ability. It's not. It's a specific armor. MIC rules do not apply (except for adding additional abilities to it).Okay, then. Where's the source on that? Because mine is in the MIC, and I don't see anything that says you can't add a special ability from a specific item onto another, different kind of item. There are plenty of "specific" items that are just a +2 shocking burst greataxe, or whatever, and if having a pre-statted item means you can't add those abilities onto other items, there are many, many special armor, shield, and weapon abilities that could never be added to any other item.

What's stopping you from adding one specific type of ioun stone's ability onto another type of ioun stone? Or one specific type of belt (monk's belt) onto another type of belt (belt of battle)? Etc? Because that's exactly what the rules in the MIC are for.

[tiercel]

Given that the OP asked for “reasonable,” I’m not sure if “it is/isn’t strictly RAW” matters in this context.

I’ve sometimes wondered what a...hm... Medium Hat of Disguise might cost; by this I mean more than a Hat of Disguise (which uses change self and is illusionary, potentially granting Will saves) but less than a Greater Hat of Disguise (which uses alter self, is not illusionary, and is often more of a combat buff than a mere disguise).

A Medium Hat of Disguise would be a physical change (like, and probably based upon, alter self), giving the same Disguise bonus but without any other statistical buff. A Medium humanoid could look like an elf or a troglodyte but not gain natural attacks, movement modes, natural armor, but also would not allow Will saves - straight Spot vs Disguise sort of thing.

The point here is that it would be a disguise item that doesn’t allow a garbage DC 11 Will save.

[Jack_Simth]

You could place the ability on a headband, if you wanted to. The rules are in the MIC, as I said. Not guidelines, not houserules, but RAW rules. I mean, they're right there, starting on page 233, as schreier mentioned.

Also, @schreier, I was talking to Jack_Simth on my previous post, not you. He mentioned "table ruling," which isn't true, as the MIC has the rules for it (as you pointed out after).
Not quite. The examples invoke the +50% rule. It's only when you're adding "common effects" that you keep the original price, and references a table for what it means by common effects - which lists Deflection to AC, armor bonus, Enhancement to natural armor, Enhancement to the six ability scores, and resistance bonuses. That's all.

The OP is not talking about upgrading the armor from a +1 enhancement bonus to a +3 enhancement bonus - which is on the common effects table. The OP is talking about reverse engineering a specific item, extracting one ability from it, and then adding it to a different item without the surcharge. Sure, the costs line up exactly as expected for the original specific armor; it appears that the dev's just used a specific set of DMG guidelines, and used fluff to justify not taking any of the surcharges for being on armor rather than a wondrous item. There's ambiguity in the mix (is it actually using command-word pricing, and already has a surcharge in the mix for being added to something else?).

I'm not calling it a "house rule" - and there's a reason for that: It's not (what's being decided falls within the realm of RAW, no problems). It is, however, a table ruling: Whoever gives it a pass is taking a specific interpretation of things when more than one distinct interpretation falls within the realm of "RAW" for a specific interaction. Your mileage will vary from DM to DM on such things, hence "table ruling".

[Deophaun]

Okay, then. Where's the source on that?
The place where it says "Specific Armors."

Because mine is in the MIC, and I don't see anything that says you can't add a special ability from a specific item onto another, different kind of item.
That would be interesting if that was the issue at hand. It's not.

You only know what the ability does. You do not know what the ability is. That includes any restrictions it has, such as only being allowed on slashing weapons (vorpal) or shields (averter). The only thing you know is that the ability can be placed on the specific item it is listed as being on. It is up to the DM to define anything else beyond that. But, once the DM has defined it, by all means, rules lawyer away. Until then, you're wrong.

[schreier]

In this case, I am treating the "power" as a +gp power as opposed to a bonus (+1, +2, etc) since the cost doesn't reverse engineer that way .... I think that makes sense and no one seems to point out any problems with that approach. There wouldn't be a +50% in that case, since armor doesn't work that way - that would be more for miscellaneous items being combined

[Jack_Simth]

In this case, I am treating the "power" as a +gp power as opposed to a bonus (+1, +2, etc) since the cost doesn't reverse engineer that way .... I think that makes sense and no one seems to point out any problems with that approach. There wouldn't be a +50% in that case, since armor doesn't work that way - that would be more for miscellaneous items being combined

The +50% is baked in to many +gp armor properties on the standard lists already. Compare the cost of 20 fire resistance on your armour vs. the equivalent ring.

Also, while the analysis may fit, it still requires guesswork and interpretation, and so is a table ruling rather than clear rules text. While the results are probably reasonable, the call needs to be made by the DM in question.