How much would it cost to make a rope that can act as a rope trick spell?

[eyebreaker7]

I posted this over in the Homebrew forums and It's just shy of 5k view but ZERO replies so I asking here now.



3.5 How much would it cost to make a real rope that acts as a rope trick?
I'm talking about making a magical rope that is permanent, of course, that you can use/activate to use as a rope trick spell. What would it cost? XP and gold? It has to last at least 9 hours but the longer the better. In first thought it didn't even have a duration but I guess that's a bit much?

[One Step Two]

According to the Creating Magic Items section of the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm), it would cost 72,000gp (36,000gp, 2,880 exp to craft yourself)

Rope trick is a 2nd level spell, with a Caster level of 9 for a 9 hour duration, a use-activated item that has no item slot/space limitations. (2x9x2000)x2

You can reduce the price to 14,400gp (7,200gp, 576exp craft cost) if it is only usable once per day, or to 28,800gp if usable 2/day. (14,400gp, 1,152 exp craft cost.)

Edit: Added crafting costs

[icefractal]

Although if you have to hold the rope to activate it, I think that'd drop the slotless - so, half that price.

Or to be unambiguous, you have to wear the rope as a belt to activate it. Not like you probably need your other magic belt while you're sleeping.

[Crazysaneman]

According to the Creating Magic Items section of the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm), it would cost 72,000gp

Rope trick is a 2nd level spell, with a Caster level of 9 for a 9 hour duration, a use-activated item that has no item slot/space limitations. (2x9x2000)x2

You can reduce the price to 14,400gp if it is only usable once per day, or to 28,800gp if usable 2/day.

If it's continuous, why would they need a caster level of 9? Wouldn't it be more appropriate, since it's a continuous magic effect, to have the minimum caster level on the spell since the active time wouldn't matter?

2nd level spell x 3rd level caster x 2000 continuous = 12000gp x2 for no slot = 24000.

[One Step Two]

Some Use activated items are continuous, but it presumes they are worn for some according to the SRD also. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#useActivated)

You could make it command word activated instead of Use-Activated for a discount. In my head I envisioned the rope as something the user would pull from their pack, throw on the ground, and it would be available to climb, thus Use-Activated. If the rope was static, then you could get away with making it continuous at CL 3, but that is a DM's call.

[Crazysaneman]

Some Use activated items are continuous, but it presumes they are worn for some according to the SRD also. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#useActivated)

You could make it command word activated instead of Use-Activated for a discount. In my head I envisioned the rope as something the user would pull from their pack, throw on the ground, and it would be available to climb, thus Use-Activated. If the rope was static, then you could get away with making it continuous at CL 3, but that is a DM's call.


Hmmm... food for thought.

[tiercel]

Comparison time (after all, the pricing guidelines are only guidelines):

Daern’s Instant Tent (based on leo’s tiny hut) costs 9000 gp.

On the one hand, rope trick is pretty much a better effect (with the caveat about how the DM feels about, enforces, extra/non-dimensional spaces inside your extradimensional spaces) than the tiny hut, but is also a lower spell level.

So 9000 gp seems at least the right ballpark, unless you think the Tent is too much weaker than its originating spell to merit its relatively low price.

[Fizban]

I posted this over in the Homebrew forums and It's just shy of 5k view but ZERO replies so I asking here now.
Well you didn't post a homebrew. I dunno how much traffic 3.x brew still gets over there, there's always a couple on the page but 5e is so clearly dominant I presume that those only interested in 3.x (such as myself) don't bother checking there anymore- but for such a simple item, which is less of an item and more of a question, I'm not surprised it has no responses there.

3.5 How much would it cost to make a real rope that acts as a rope trick?
Unobtainable, because I'm at least 75% of the way to just banning the spell outright and certainly not allowing a pocket item of it. Rope Trick is a nifty idea for a spell, but char-op considers it a 2nd level perfect safe rest spell, which is not what it's supposed to be, nor is it appropriate for a 2nd level spell, as evidenced by every single other "camp" spell.

Being compared properly to Tiny Hut, Secure Shelter, Hidden Shelter, and Magnificent Mansion, using Rope Trick the way people want should obviously be at least a 5th level spell- it's more hidden than Hidden Shelter, but since it technically has no lockable door it might not be given a level increase.

I'm talking about making a magical rope that is permanent, of course, that you can use/activate to use as a rope trick spell. What would it cost? XP and gold? It has to last at least 9 hours but the longer the better. In first thought it didn't even have a duration but I guess that's a bit much?
A 1/day item at cl 9 has a formula price of 7,200gp (2*9*2000*1/5). However, one should note that 1/day items of long duration spells are usually far cheaper than similar published items, falling into the same trap as the "continuous Mage Armor" item.

The "safe rest" items presented in the DMG are the Instant Fortress at 55,000gp (and lists Magnificent Mansion as its prerequisite)*, and the Rod of Security at 61,000gp (listing Gate as its prerequiste). The former, while made out of supposedly difficult to damage and much more difficult to fix adamantine, is in truth far, far less secure than the given spell, and the latter has a maximum 1/week activation limit. Just about every other published "rest" item will at best give a Tiny Hut effect, protecting against weather and obscuring sight from outside but not actually stopping creatures or spells. Of course, the Rod of Security and many other items also make a bunch of food appear and may have other effects, so what the actual price should be is murky at best. Arms and Equipment Guide has a Cloak of Shelter that gives 1/day Secure Shelter for 12,080gp, which seems reasonable to me.

*Edit: ah, remembered the funny bit on Instant Fortress- the price is pretty much exactly 9th level command word 1/day, yet it lists a 7th level spell as the prerequisite, while being only marginally/questionably better than a movable 4th level spell.

Of course, one can even more easily attempt to sidestep proper DM pricing with the RAW daily items that don't specify their spells, Eternal Wands and Drow House Insignia, but they won't have sufficient caster level to make a 2nd level hour/level spell last long enough.

And Stronghold Builder's Guide has a permanent Rope Trick effect, in the Wondrous Architecture section. It uses standard formula price, but since its tied to a specific location, it doesn't break the game. Amusingly, unless I've both forgotten and missed it on a re-check, they don't include a permanent Magnificent Mansion version- presumably because the whole point of the book is paying for rooms and walls, so "wondrous architecture" that completely invalidates all of that by giving you X unreachable rooms at a flat cost, would be a rather against the point.

According to the Creating Magic Items section of the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm), it would cost 72,000gp (36,000gp, 2,880 exp to craft yourself)

Rope trick is a 2nd level spell, with a Caster level of 9 for a 9 hour duration, a use-activated item that has no item slot/space limitations. (2x9x2000)x2

You can reduce the price to 14,400gp (7,200gp, 576exp craft cost) if it is only usable once per day, or to 28,800gp if usable 2/day. (14,400gp, 1,152 exp craft cost.)
A continuous item doesn't need an increased caster level, because it's continuous, but calculating a price based on a higher caster level due to the practical benefits of the item is entirely reasonable.

In this case, 3/day or 1/day at 3x caster level is enough to get the desired 9 hour effect, but a truly continuous item could go up to 24 hours, and for this particular effect that 24 hour continuum is not only useful the entire time, but becomes even more useful with the fact it never stops at all, and yet more useful as it can be moved around at-will. I would say it should have at least the x4 "spam" multiplier used for round/level spells, and assuming a cl of 9 for the presumed practical use. . . would actually get the price back up to exactly 72,000.


2nd level spell x 3rd level caster x 2000 continuous = 12000gp x2 for no slot = 24000.
A "use-activated" rope would use the unmentioned "hand" slot- the same as rods, specific weapons/shields, and many other wondrous items. Items that have to be taken out of storage and held in the hand to activate don't get the slotless price increase, because they conflict with other wielded items.


unless you think the Tent is too much weaker than its originating spell to merit its relatively low price.
The tent is actually stronger than Tiny Hut, because it provide a physical barrier where Tiny Hut does not. Creatures that want to attack you have to get through the wall of the tent first, which costs them an action, and energy spells need quite a bit of oomph to get through it as well. Which means the items is overpriced if it's guaranteed to be destroyed in combat, or underpriced for including a Wall effect when there aren't any low level Walls (3rd level Stone Shape is the closest, but won't create a barrier that large).

The price given is 3rd level cl 7 command word 1/day, with a decimal shaved off. Edit: no, that's target 7,500, the printed price is 9,000. Could have sworn I'd found a formula match for it before though, oh well.

[Segev]

You kept saying that these forums are using the spell wrong or want it to be more of a safe rest spell than it is. How do you run it such that it is correctly a second level spell, without house ruling it to do other than what it says it does? I ask because the implication seems to be that these forums are expecting it to act other than how it is written.

[Fizban]

I presume you are speaking to me-

You kept saying that these forums are using the spell wrong or want it to be more of a safe rest spell than it is.
The spell's name is Rope Trick, not Rope Sleep in Perfect Safety 5-6 Levels From Now. It's in the same book as Tiny Hut and Secure Shelter, both of which are explicitly for the purposes of resting, and are higher level, and are less powerful than an invisible pocket dimension.

I think the burden of proof is on others to show how their interpretation is not obviously wrong.

Rope Trick is supposed to let you climb up a rope and hide for a while (and/or hang a rope in midair so you can climb up somewhere). Similar effects can be found in Tree Shape and Meld into Stone, which are 2nd/3rd level spells which let the caster hide in a tree or wall or floor. Still not as well as Rope Trick, but faster since you don't have to climb a rope, and there's the arcane=better thing.

Though since I don't have any 1e/2e books, I can't actually look up what previous versions (if any) said. If the spell originally did explicitly give you the power to rest with impunity, then I would have to bow to that as the official interpretation. Which I would still drag over the coals whenever it came up for all the other problems anyway, but if there's proof there's proof (though if there were proof, I would expect it to have been well known for years).

How do you run it such that it is correctly a second level spell, without house ruling it to do other than what it says it does?
The spell says nothing about the dimensions of the apparent "interior" space, nor what it is suitable for, aside from there being a 3'x5' window centered on the rope. It may be able to "hold" up to 8 creatures, but that doesn't mean you can actually sleep in there. In fact, since it holds up to 8 creatures of *any size*, that means the space is not fixed in any way, but some unspecified amorphous amount that is effectively larger or smaller based entirely on the number of "creatures" within. If it didn't have a line that explicitly says only one creature can be on the rope, the obvious reading would be that you're all stacked on the rope- but even so, there doesn't have to be any more "room" than a ledge just big enough to stand on.

It's a quintessential "well it doesn't say I can, but it doesn't say I can't" situation. Saying that no, you can't, is not even a house rule in this situation. It's just a less perfectly permissive reading of a spell with a vague description. A reading which does not dramatically mis-align with all other presented material. It doesn't make sense for "Rope Trick" to be better than "Secure Shelter" and 2 levels lower to boot. Instead of reading things in ways that don't make sense, why not read them in ways that do?

Well we know why.

And yes, I know perfectly well this answer won't satisfy you.

I will also assume that you're using "you" to mean "someone", since asking "how do you run it. . . without house ruling" to a specific person inherently pushes a "no house ruling" mentality on a person who is under no obligation to follow that. How *I* would run it is remove the spell from the game, cut the duration to 10 min/level, make it explicitly impossible to rest in say because you "stand" on a tiny ledge and must keep on hand on the rope at all times, etc. What matters is the justification behind the reading or ruling, and in this I stand firmly on solid ground, where the Rope Trick= lol sleep in dungeons has no foundation to stand on.


I ask because the implication seems to be that these forums are expecting it to act other than how it is written.
I thought it was more an outright statement than an implication: The way the internet wants Rope Trick to work is not how it is written. It's an assumption, a presumption, a wish predicated on a vague description which doesn't disallow something, a use which is blatantly acknowledged as far more powerful than "rest" spells of higher level from the same book. It is being willfully obtuse for the specific reason of gaining something better for less than the reader knows it is supposed to cost.

Which come to think of it, isn't that the official definition of "munchkinry?"

Regardless, I have still provided multiple price point comparisons, ranging from those I would consider reasonable for the true effect, to the RAW formula price that I would never allow yet still included up front for the OP to consider.

[Kitsuneymg]

From what I recall, rope trick in 2E was a turns/level (I can’t recall if a turn is a minute or ten minutes anymore, lol) and dropped your butt on the ground at the end of the duration if you forgot to climb down. It also had a warning about bringing extra dimensional spaces into extra dimensional spaces. It did make you impossible to locate though and you could pull the rope up. It was also not a fixed size, but rather a number of creatures. But most creatures were human or halfling sized in 2E.

In 5e it lasts an hour, dumps you on the ground if you don’t climb down, works on medium creatures, but is 60’ in length.

Pathfinders version doesn’t let you pull the rope up or hide it in any way. So while you can theoretically sleep, a party that abuses that will get ambushed.

I think that the duration just got messed up in 3.0 and no one ever cared to fix it because the wotc playtesters were kinda bad at the game.

Personally, I’d go back to the 2E version. Maybe it 1 or 10 min per level and make it a “short rest” type spell. Useful for healing and condition removal/recovery, hiding for a little while, and for climbing to inaccessible places, but not a cheesy rest spell.

[Fizban]

Ah, thanks for the info!

From what I recall, rope trick in 2E was a turns/level (I can’t recall if a turn is a minute or ten minutes anymore, lol)
NWN 1's instruction book listed some spells with duration in "turns," which were 10 rounds IIRC?, so I'd guess minute is correct (amusingly, since a game hour was 10 minutes, that meant hour/level spells were also 10 minutes).

In 5e it lasts an hour, dumps you on the ground if you don’t climb down, works on medium creatures, but is 60’ in length.
So many problems can be fixed by just cutting durations to 1 minute/10 minutes/1 hour flat.

Pathfinders version doesn’t let you pull the rope up or hide it in any way. So while you can theoretically sleep, a party that abuses that will get ambushed.
Also good.

I think that the duration just got messed up in 3.0 and no one ever cared to fix it because the wotc playtesters were kinda bad at the game.
I feel that calling them "bad" at the game is a bit disingenuous considering they were making it up as they went and almost certainly more concerned with basic numbers rather than trying to break their own spells, but yeah with the 2e version I'd agree they probably just messed up the duration and never noticed. You'd think with how well-known it is there'd have been an FAQ for it but nope, not a word (I expect the FAQ entry would have been all weasily and refused to commit one way or another, as it does sometimes).

Personally, I’d go back to the 2E version. Maybe it 1 or 10 min per level and make it a “short rest” type spell. Useful for healing and condition removal/recovery, hiding for a little while, and for climbing to inaccessible places, but not a cheesy rest spell.
I think it could still eat a bump to 3rd at 10 min/level- it affects multiple creatures where the other hiding spells only do the caster, and doubles as an extra 1st/2nd level climbing spell by raising the rope. Though at that point, much like Tree Shape and Meld into Stone, it would probably drop far under most people's notice.

[tiercel]

The tent is actually stronger than Tiny Hut, because it provide a physical barrier where Tiny Hut does not. Creatures that want to attack you have to get through the wall of the tent first, which costs them an action, and energy spells need quite a bit of oomph to get through it as well. Which means the items is overpriced if it's guaranteed to be destroyed in combat, or underpriced for including a Wall effect when there aren't any low level Walls (3rd level Stone Shape is the closest, but won't create a barrier that large).

The price given is 3rd level cl 7 command word 1/day, with a decimal shaved off.

Counterpoint: depending on how you use/are allowed to use the tiny hut, the spell effect could in principle give you (“any color you desire”) camouflage, whereas the tent is, presumably, obviously a tent. More to the point, while the tent does give cover rather than concealment, it’s pretty arguably not a combat item (magically expensive canvas won’t stand up to attackers), whereas the spell gives you one-way total concealment, which is at least potentially useful in some combats (especially if you can use it as a camou hunter’s-blind).

In terms of pure non-combat utility, the spell and the tent are very similar. Of course, as you pointed out, this does little to address the disparity between tiny hut and rope trick (personally, I would think that actually enforcing the “interacting extradimensional spaces” clause would be needed to possibly address how rope trick is at all justifiable at its spell level)

[Elkad]

From what I recall, rope trick in 2E was a turns/level (I can’t recall if a turn is a minute or ten minutes anymore, lol) and dropped your butt on the ground at the end of the duration if you forgot to climb down.


Ah, thanks for the info!

NWN 1's instruction book listed some spells with duration in "turns," which were 10 rounds IIRC?, so I'd guess minute is correct (amusingly, since a game hour was 10 minutes, that meant hour/level spells were also 10 minutes).

In 1e/2e, a round was one minute, and a turn was 10 rounds (or minutes).

Back to the original topic, a cl5 level Extended Rope Trick would be 10 hours. Creation would be 3*2*X gp, instead of 2*9*X. Save a third of the cost.

[Troacctid]

Minor schemas already exist thanks to Magic of Eberron. That means that a CL 9 rope trick 1/day costs 7200 gp with spell completion activation (or 6000 gp for the CL 5 extended version). A command-activated version should theoretically cost anywhere from 20% to 100% more.

[icefractal]

It's a quintessential "well it doesn't say I can, but it doesn't say I can't" situation. Saying that no, you can't, is not even a house rule in this situation. It's just a less perfectly permissive reading of a spell with a vague description. A reading which does not dramatically mis-align with all other presented material. It doesn't make sense for "Rope Trick" to be better than "Secure Shelter" and 2 levels lower to boot. Instead of reading things in ways that don't make sense, why not read them in ways that do?
Secure Shelter doesn't explicitly say you can sleep in it either. Neither does Tiny Hut.

As for the argument from spell levels - that could equally imply that Secure Shelter is the mis-leveled one. There are a fair number of spells which are badly leveled, so while it could be the basis for a house-rule, I don't think it proves anything per-se.

[Troacctid]

Secure shelter includes furniture, a security system, and an invisible butler. It has twice the duration of rope trick and can hold more creatures. In a pinch, it can even be used as a makeshift wall of stone. So no, it's not just worse than rope trick; it has different functionality. Also, not every class that has secure shelter has rope trick.

[Psyren]

You kept saying that these forums are using the spell wrong or want it to be more of a safe rest spell than it is. How do you run it such that it is correctly a second level spell, without house ruling it to do other than what it says it does? I ask because the implication seems to be that these forums are expecting it to act other than how it is written.

Not aimed at me, but it's worth pointing out that the Pathfinder version of the spell removes the ability to pull the rope up after you. This forces you to be careful about where you cast it (e.g. probably a bad idea to just stop in the middle of a patrolled corridor to rest for the night), and even when you're inside requiring you to rotate a watch to keep an eye on the interface etc.

@OP: As for a rope trick item, check out Traveling Master's Turban or Escape Ladder for ideas. If you want to do a custom item, I'd suggest it being 1/day instead of at-will, since you generally only want to camp when you're sleeping for the night anyway.

[Segev]

I presume you are speaking to me-Yep; thanks for replying!


Rope Trick is supposed to let you climb up a rope and hide for a while (and/or hang a rope in midair so you can climb up somewhere).To use your logic later on: how do you know? That seems like just as much a presumption as the ones you're saying are unfounded. It provides an extradimensional space to have up to 8 creatures in; why do you presume its sole purpose is "to hide for a while?"


Similar effects can be found in Tree Shape and Meld into Stone, which are 2nd/3rd level spells which let the caster hide in a tree or wall or floor. Still not as well as Rope Trick, but faster since you don't have to climb a rope, and there's the arcane=better thing.Again, what makes you think those are their purposes? Both of these also render the character harder to harm even if somebody knows where they are. And nothing prevents either from being used while sleeping, to my knowledge, so potentially they could be used for getting rest as well if their durations are long enough.


The spell says nothing about the dimensions of the apparent "interior" space, nor what it is suitable for, aside from there being a 3'x5' window centered on the rope. It may be able to "hold" up to 8 creatures, but that doesn't mean you can actually sleep in there. In fact, since it holds up to 8 creatures of *any size*, that means the space is not fixed in any way, but some unspecified amorphous amount that is effectively larger or smaller based entirely on the number of "creatures" within. If it didn't have a line that explicitly says only one creature can be on the rope, the obvious reading would be that you're all stacked on the rope- but even so, there doesn't have to be any more "room" than a ledge just big enough to stand on.Since the spell explicitly does have the line that makes your "obvious reading" not apply, it seems likely that your "obvious" interpretation might be off, as well.


It's a quintessential "well it doesn't say I can, but it doesn't say I can't" situation. Saying that no, you can't, is not even a house rule in this situation. It's just a less perfectly permissive reading of a spell with a vague description. A reading which does not dramatically mis-align with all other presented material. It doesn't make sense for "Rope Trick" to be better than "Secure Shelter" and 2 levels lower to boot. Instead of reading things in ways that don't make sense, why not read them in ways that do?The trouble is that you've not presented any evidence that the readings people give it don't make sense. You've asserted it, and asserted an alternate interpretation (including an "obvious" one that you acknowledge is actually obviously not how it works due to a clause that explicitly forbids it).

Rope trick isn't better than secure shelter when 2 levels lower. Secure shelter provides greater comfort and sufficient duration for a full recovery of spells and other such resources; at level 7, rope trick still does not even provide the duration unless you Extend it. Arguably, it won't until at least level 9, since you need 8 full hours of rest which will be cut short by the end of the spell once you include time to climb into it, even at CL 8.


And yes, I know perfectly well this answer won't satisfy you.You're right, though the reason it doesn't is that you're drawing an entirely arbitrary line wherein you accuse anybody who just reads the text of the spell and accepts that it does what it says it does as trying to interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense, with a reason "you know why" (implying they're cheesy munchkins or otherwise bad, disingenuous people). You have created an interpretation for it in your mind and you're trying to assert that the spell is badly written because it can be used for a purpose you feel it shouldn't be. But you've provided no evidence other than "it doesn't explicitly say you can" to justify why it can't be used to rest. I should note that at no point does secure shelter say you can rest in it, either. Sure, it provides 8 bunks, but rope trick provides space for 8 creatures. Nothing in either mentions resting. So by your own logic, you're interpreting secure shelter "in a way that doesn't make sense" if you say it's for resting. It's "clearly" just for use as a mini-fort against attackers, since it is solid stone and has arcane lock on all the doors and windows. Why would you interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense (i.e. as a place to rest) than in a way that does (i.e. as a shelter from attackers)? We know why.


I will also assume that you're using "you" to mean "someone", since asking "how do you run it. . . without house ruling" to a specific person inherently pushes a "no house ruling" mentality on a person who is under no obligation to follow that.By that logic, again, I could argue that secure shelter should actually have battlements and last for only 10 minutes per level, and have a casting time of 1 action, because it's badly designed for its obviously intended purpose and thus needs to be house ruled.

The reason I deprecate house ruling in this is precisely because, if you have to house rule it to make the "munchkin" reading not work, you're inserting your preference of what it "should" be rather than defending a claim of what the RAI are.


What matters is the justification behind the reading or ruling, and in this I stand firmly on solid ground, where the Rope Trick= lol sleep in dungeons has no foundation to stand on.You haven't provided justification for the bolded part. You've asserted it, but you haven't justified it.

The foundation is the fact that it has space for the creatures, and no given reason why they can't rest there. "It doesn't say I can't" is actually valid reasoning when there's no indication anywhere that it shouldn't. Again, it doesn't say you can't rest in secure shelter, and it also doesn't say you can. The same is true of tiny hut, which never once mentions resting nor even mentions "bunks" or anything implying resting.

It seems to me that there is no foundation for your claim that rope trick is being mis-interpreted when people say you can rest in it.



I thought it was more an outright statement than an implication: The way the internet wants Rope Trick to work is not how it is written.You have yet to provide support for this beyond your assertion.


It's an assumption, a presumption, a wish predicated on a vague description which doesn't disallow somethingThe same can be said for secure shelter and tiny hut. At no point have you provided evidence that rope trick is not intended to be used to rest. You've provided your house rules and a statement that the "obvious way" to read it actually explicitly is forbidden by the text of the spell, which suggests again that what you think is "obvious" is not at all the intent.

You need, to prove your point, to show that rope trick would need the explicit permission in order to be usable for rest, but your own examples of "actual resting spells" have no such explicit permissions. You keep disparaging the belief it can be used as a place to rest as relying on "it doesn't say I can't," but it seems to me that your interpretation relies on "it doesn't say you can," when neither secure shelter nor tiny hut do, either.

So, no, I don't find your assertions without evidence convincing. I do think that house ruling is something to deprecate when it is necessary to demonstrate that a spell doesn't do what it says it does: if you have to change the spell's effects with house rules to prevent it from doing what people think it does, and you have no evidence save besmirching their character as "munchkins" for daring to read the spell and think it does what it says it does and that that can be used in a way you don't think it should be used, no, I am not convinced that your house rules prove your point about how the spell does or should work.

[Psyren]

My take is that rope trick should have the potential of being usable for sleeping in dungeons, but that there should be counterplay involved rather than it being guaranteed success regardless of the Big Bad's precautions, lack thereof from the PCs, or the dungeon's layout. This is why I personally think the somewhat nerfed PF version makes more sense.

Given that the 5e version completely kills the "sleep inside" functionality, I think that's a healthier middle ground.

[Fizban]

Counterpoint: depending on how you use/are allowed to use the tiny hut, the spell effect could in principle give you (“any color you desire”) camouflage, whereas the tent is, presumably, obviously a tent. More to the point, while the tent does give cover rather than concealment, it’s pretty arguably not a combat item (magically expensive canvas won’t stand up to attackers), whereas the spell gives you one-way total concealment, which is at least potentially useful in some combats (especially if you can use it as a camou hunter’s-blind).
Counter-counterpoint: no matter what color you choose, a perfectly smooth hemisphere won't blend in with anything that's not already so thick it would obscure a tent. This is what I consider the biggest drawback of the spell and why it's Secure Shelter or nothing: the cost of being shielded from the elements with Tiny Hut is a giant sign shouting "BIG MAGIC HERE," since transparent is not an option. While a tent can be drab and have branches and leaves draped over it.

Really, what would be nice is just a convenient magic tent, but it's one of those things no one seems to have deigned to publish. Multiple items that happen to turn into tents of varying sizes as a bonus freebie effect in addition to more major abilities (Cloak of Shelter, Travel Cloak) or with weirdly specific durability enhancements as if to pretend they're something else (D's Instant Tent), or part of a bundle of various effects (Survival Pouch), but that's it. I guess it's just easier to throw in the insignificant mundanity of a tent on top of something else, rather than reckoning with eliminating 10lb+ of weight and the value of instant setup of something that takes an unspecified amount of time which even slowly would cost a 1st level spell minimum. The lack is so strong it creates an incentive to just get Endure Elements and try to make the DM agree that's enough to let you rest in a thunderstorm.

For combat, a spell with one-way full concealment sounds really good (particularly against direct ranged attacks), but the large size and tendency to melee makes it more dubious (which is good since it's long and cancels out weather).

In terms of pure non-combat utility, the spell and the tent are very similar. Of course, as you pointed out, this does little to address the disparity between tiny hut and rope trick (personally, I would think that actually enforcing the “interacting extradimensional spaces” clause would be needed to possibly address how rope trick is at all justifiable at its spell level)
Only as limiting as extradimensional spaces are ubiquitous, and even then a penalty that people can simply say they've got some plan to avoid.


To use your logic later on: how do you know? That seems like just as much a presumption as the ones you're saying are unfounded. It provides an extradimensional space to have up to 8 creatures in; why do you presume its sole purpose is "to hide for a while?"

Again, what makes you think those are their purposes? Both of these also render the character harder to harm even if somebody knows where they are. And nothing prevents either from being used while sleeping, to my knowledge, so potentially they could be used for getting rest as well if their durations are long enough.
Again, the spell title, the description, the effects and levels of other spells for resting and hiding. And now also the duration of the 2e version, which was not long enough to rest in, indicating that even if they did intentionally change the duration, they wouldn't have thought about what alternate uses that duration would allow.


Rope trick isn't better than secure shelter when 2 levels lower. Secure shelter provides greater comfort and sufficient duration for a full recovery of spells and other such resources; at level 7, rope trick still does not even provide the duration unless you Extend it. Arguably, it won't until at least level 9, since you need 8 full hours of rest which will be cut short by the end of the spell once you include time to climb into it, even at CL 8.
Which is why I put 5-6 levels from now in my sarcastic title. If you had a lower level spell which scaled to deal higher damage than a high level spell, or give a higher bonus, there would be no argument that something is wrong there- or at least there shouldn't be, but there would anyway.


"you know why" (implying they're cheesy munchkins or otherwise bad, disingenuous people). You have created an interpretation for it in your mind and you're trying to assert that the spell is badly written because it can be used for a purpose you feel it shouldn't be.
When the people pushing the use openly acknowledge the problem (which they often do, or did back when it was discussed rather than taken as gospel) and then push it anyway, yes they are being cheesy disingenuous munchkins, by their own admission. I have "created an interpretation" based on a slew of evidence.


I should note that at no point does secure shelter say you can rest in it, either. Sure, it provides 8 bunks, but rope trick provides space for 8 creatures.
*Eyebrow raised emoji* Sure, 8 beds doesn't imply resting.

It's "clearly" just for use as a mini-fort against attackers, since it is solid stone and has arcane lock on all the doors and windows.
If it had a 1 action casting time it would be a hilarious combat spell.

Why would you interpret it in a way that doesn't make sense (i.e. as a place to rest) than in a way that does (i.e. as a shelter from attackers)? We know why.
Again, just because you choose to ignore the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.

By that logic, again, I could argue that secure shelter should actually have battlements and last for only 10 minutes per level, and have a casting time of 1 action, because it's badly designed for its obviously intended purpose and thus needs to be house ruled.
At which point it would classified as a Wall and become obviously overpowered when compared to all the existing Wall spells, in the same book as it. Though I would also note that you had to make two overt changes to make your example fit, while I only have to make one clarification or change to ensure Rope Trick is a rope trick. And that's without going into the implications of the combination of "secure" and "shelter" implying a long duration, which your sarcastic-obvious-reinterpretation specifically reduced, while a "trick" is a brief moment that usually lasts only until the person tricked wises up, so shortening the duration would if anything make the effect more likely to match the title.

An amusing related detail- the Champions of Valor version of the spell, Celestial Fortress, does in fact call itself a fortress, and has a nifty little picture of a bunker with battlements and spires. But the spell description clearly states it's a flat-topped fort that works exactly like Secure Shelter.

I would expect some argument about spell names not being rules text and thus not mattering at this point, but no I'm not accepting that either. The name of the spell is the shortest summary of what it's supposed to do. It's the one guaranteed window into the creator's intent, no matter how well or poorly they may have written (or someone else edited!) the text. Claiming that a spell titled "Rope Trick" is actually fully and intentionally meant to let you camp through the night, is fundamentally a shaky suggestion without looking at the text at all. If the writer truly intended that, they probably would have called the spell something else, like "Hole in the Ceiling" or "Magical Attic" or "Safe in the Sky" or "Magician's Hideaway," something with words that imply larger volume, stability, and duration. Not "Rope Trick."

The reason I deprecate house ruling in this is precisely because, if you have to house rule it to make the "munchkin" reading not work, you're inserting your preference of what it "should" be rather than defending a claim of what the RAI are.
And this benefits who, exactly?

No-context "rulings" are the enemy of a consistent game, and go against how the DMG says the game is supposed to be run. They exist because people want to exploit static rules text to maximum effect, and push a culture where that is the norm to support it. An often toxic culture where DMs are discouraged from running their own games.

When I post, I usually include all relevant context that I can think of, which supports informed decisions. And then people jump all over me for including my dirty "house rules" which are context they find inconvenient.

So I say again: do you have any actual direct support for Rope Trick being a place you're meant to sleep in? I have five other spells and formatting evidence even without reaching for magic items, that suggest it should not and the spell was originally and is meant for something else. The only thing you seem to have is that people want it to, and the spell's text if read only on its own with no context from the rest of the game, doesn't disallow it.

The foundation is the fact that it has space for the creatures, and no given reason why they can't rest there. "It doesn't say I can't" is actually valid reasoning when there's no indication anywhere that it shouldn't.
And there are multiple indications that it shouldn't. You just don't like them.

But consider also, that "space for creatures," does not mean space for resting. You can pack multiple humans into a 5' space, but they can't fight. You can pile multiple people on a twin-sized bed, but that doesn't mean they'll sleep well.

And further, camping for 9 hours requires more than just space to lay down. You need somewhere for people to use the "bathroom," usually wanting at least a little privacy. You need to take off heavy armor, at least if you're going to avoid the penalties. You need somewhere to set down your pack, which if the "rope takes up space as a creature" part is any indication, should eat another "creature" worth of space for possibly every single item that becomes separated from its owner. And of course, Wizards need room to get out their book and a light source and study uninterrupted.

None of which works if the DM simply reads "space for creatures" as sufficient minimum physical space, rather than "literally making a room of sufficient size for whatever we want to do in there."


The same is true of tiny hut, which never once mentions resting nor even mentions "bunks" or anything implying resting.
Gee, I wonder what a spell with the name "Tiny Hut" is supposed to be used for? Tiny Hut also starts with the 2 hour/level duration which ensures it lasts through the night. It protects from inclement weather which is primarily a problem outside over long periods of time, which the spell requires you to remain stationary for, so it's not a travel spell. I wonder what it could be?


You've provided your house rules and a statement that the "obvious way" to read it actually explicitly is forbidden by the text of the spell, which suggests again that what you think is "obvious" is not at all the intent.
You really, really, don't like that line do you? Well I suppose that's what I get for mis-speaking, particularly in an argument where the other side is using the "text only no-context" defense- maybe it would have been better to say it's the obvious fix to the wording? Except it's not fixing the first and main part of the spell, since it's not needed until you get to the line where they explicitly say only one creature can be on the rope, since until then there's no reason to assume they can even "dismount" at all. It's more that's it's the obvious "oh hey the spell seemed fine until we got to this line and then it spiraled out of control." Said line is also suspect, since they made a previous point about the rope holding up to 16,000lbs.

In fact, the whole second paragraph of the spell reads like it's a bunch of clarifications and rulings made over time, where the first paragraph was the original text. Without the second paragraph, there is no reason to assume that people can dismount the rope at all, which would make it obviously unsuitable for resting. This natural reading, is why I used the word "obvious."


"it doesn't say I can't," but it seems to me that your interpretation relies on "it doesn't say you can," when neither secure shelter nor tiny hut do, either.
It doesn't say you can, and also there are multiple spells that do say you can, which are higher level, and include the purpose in their titles, and have the effect consistently rather than suddenly gaining it at an arbitrary caster level with no fanfare, and don't rely on secondary paragraphs that read like a tacked on list of clarifications.

And incidentally, since that second paragraph reads like a bunch of tacked on clarifications, adding another line clarifying that say, "creatures cannot take any action when hiding inside the rope trick except to exit the rope trick," would fit in seamlessly, if one didn't know the older version of the text. If they needed so many clarifications already, why should anyone assume that they caught every possible problem and every possible use that remains is completely intentional?


So, no, I don't find your assertions without evidence convincing.
Of course you wouldn't, because you've chosen to ignore the evidence in favor of a zero-context ruling that gives the result you prefer.

Or at least it seems that it's the ruling you prefer and most likely underlying motivation- if your next response is that you don't actually care one way or another and you're just fighting me because you want to push zero-context/RAW/etc anti-"house-rule" rulings because I dared to provide more, then we're done.


I do think that house ruling is something to deprecate when it is necessary to demonstrate that a spell doesn't do what it says it does: if you have to change the spell's effects with house rules to prevent it from doing what people think it does, and you have no evidence save besmirching their character as "munchkins" for daring to read the spell and think it does what it says it does and that that can be used in a way you don't think it should be used, no, I am not convinced that your house rules prove your point about how the spell does or should work.
You still haven't provided any evidence that the spell does what it "says" it does, if what you think it "says" is that you can climb up there at camp all night. All it would take is one quote from a developer, one explicit use of it in a 1st party module or book. If your only evidence is people saying that they want it to, that's not evidence. That's justification. And I put the justification of my reading/ruling, based on comparison to multiple similar game elements and the practical effect on the game, above the justification of "char-op wants pocket-plane camping for a 2nd level slot."

Heck, there is even an interpretation I can see that would support that view more explicitly, which you simply aren't using, because you're focused on "it doesn't say I can't" and "anything not in this specific block of text is a house-rule." It would still fail to defeat the level gap in "similar" effects, but there is in fact a through-line I would accept as reasonable justification for taking a stance that the spell "says" something much larger than it should. But since you didn't provide that through-line, I can only assume your primary motivation is not that reading, but rather than you either just really really want the spell to do the thing, or are fighting on principle.



Secure shelter includes furniture, a security system, and an invisible butler. It has twice the duration of rope trick and can hold more creatures. In a pinch, it can even be used as a makeshift wall of stone. So no, it's not just worse than rope trick; it has different functionality. Also, not every class that has secure shelter has rope trick.
Most of which is unnecessary if you're invisible on a pocket plane (and I've never seen anyone consider the Unseen Servant significant, even as much as I like the spell myself). Can't say I agree that 10 minute casting time is "in a pinch' either. The spells have different functionality, but that's not enough to address the problem. If the spell is recognized as merely different rather than superior to a 4th level spell, that makes it a potentially 4th level spell- it doesn't get you a 2 level discount.

Rope Trick is a restricted Invisibility, except it's also Mass. Animate Rope doesn't make the rope climb walls, so that's another higher than 1st level effect. It's similar to Tree Shape, except it doesn't require a tree, and is again Mass. Even without a safe resting use, Rope Trick is already a spell that has multiple functions, of spells that are the same level, and applies them to more targets. It's, uh, basically broken even without the desired safe rest feature.

I would say that classes which have Rope Trick but not Secure Shelter, if anything, are yet more minor evidence that Rope Trick is not meant to be a resting spell. Otherwise classes with Rope Trick would "tech up" to Secure Shelter. But I can easily see some classes being given a magical "Rope Trick' for getting up walls and hiding and doing tricky things, who are not supposed to keep the party safe at night.


My take is that rope trick should have the potential of being usable for sleeping in dungeons, but that there should be counterplay involved rather than it being guaranteed success regardless of the Big Bad's precautions, lack thereof from the PCs, or the dungeon's layout. This is why I personally think the somewhat nerfed PF version makes more sense.

Given that the 5e version completely kills the "sleep inside" functionality, I think that's a healthier middle ground.
I have to disagree- knowing that the 2e and 5e versions (doesn't seem to be a 4e version) are both too short in duration, I think that there is no middle ground: the 3.x duration is clearly either an error, or a poorly considered mistake, so there is no middle- only what the spell was supposed to do, and people who want to use the text to justify something completely different.

There can be an honest belief and desire that the party should be able to rest safely for a lower spell level than the existing spells allow, but that's a change made to suit the desire. And when the desire seems to be mostly born of char-op forums flat-out telling people that the cost should be X, because X, and X was faulty, I see no reason to bow to it.

If you took someone completely unfamiliar with the game and showed them both spells out of context, they would not assume that Rope Trick is a spell for sleeping through the night. They would see a spell for resting, and a spell for climbing up a rope and hiding for some number of hours, and the only clue as to the desired use of Rope Trick would be the fact that you presented them those two spells together (so you would actually use two people, one for each spell, to avoid contaminating the results).

[Psyren]

Whenever you're talking about hiding for hours though, the possibility of someone asking if they can sleep (or research, craft, etc) during that time becomes reasonable to expect. If it was merely meant to be a brief bolt-hole for an awake party, 10 min./lvl would have fit much better - plenty of time to evade a searching patrol, but not long enough for spending the night.

If I as a PF GM want a more tightly-paced adventure, making it so Rope Trick can't be used for sleeping is pretty simple to do, but I'm also not necessarily going to use those tactics if the PCs are up against particularly dim opponents and have taken the necessary precautions.

[Segev]

I think, going back to the OP's question, this is a rare case where the continuous-use item is the cheapest option. It obviates the need for the duration to be increased by upping the caster level. This gives us 2 (spell level) x 3 (minimum caster level) x 2000 (use-activated/continuous item) x 2 (slotless) = 24,000 gp.

[Kitsuneymg]

I think, going back to the OP's question, this is a rare case where the continuous-use item is the cheapest option. It obviates the need for the duration to be increased by upping the caster level. This gives us 2 (spell level) x 3 (minimum caster level) x 2000 (use-activated/continuous item) x 2 (slotless) = 24,000 gp.

Would you be able to move such a rope? If it’s continuous and slotless, it seems to me to would be always attached to the extra dimensional space.

If it’s “use activated” you need to define “use”. Which is probably something like holding it and whipping one end upward. (Or something. It may not be feasible to define ‘use’ in this case.) Good luck holding it for the next 8 hours as the party sleeps.

The post on other “safe sleep” items is the best place to start on pricing it. Because the very first guide to pricing custom items is to use existing items as a comparison point, not that stupid table.

[icefractal]

An eternal wand of Rope Trick (CL 9th) is 12,960 though, and gives 18 hours/day. If you're ending up way more expensive than that, I'd question the pricing.

[Kitsuneymg]

An eternal wand of Rope Trick (CL 9th) is 12,960 though, and gives 18 hours/day. If you're ending up way more expensive than that, I'd question the pricing.


Well. You’ve got one of two options.

Either you use eternal wands table, which says 2nd level spells are caster level 3 and there is no provision for changing that.

Or you realize that an eternal wand is just a 2/day command word activated wondrous item and a 100 gp crystal thing, and scale accordingly. But if it’s a wondrous item, it’s definitely subject to the “price like similar” rules. So we’re back to looking at the far more expensive rest items.

Edit: moved end quote to proper position.

[Psyren]

If it’s “use activated” you need to define “use”.

Command word actually works better than use activated; not only do you sidestep the need to define "use", it's cheaper to boot. The item would simply cast the spell when told.

But again, I think at-will commands/uses is an unnecessary expense for something that realistically you only need to use once per day. Applying the "1 charge/day" modifier helps the cost here considerably.



The post on other “safe sleep” items is the best place to start on pricing it. Because the very first guide to pricing custom items is to use existing items as a comparison point, not that stupid table.

Agreed. I'd consider starting with Traveling Master's Turban with the caster level increased to at least 8.

[Segev]

Command word actually works better than use activated; not only do you sidestep the need to define "use", it's cheaper to boot. The item would simply cast the spell when told.

But again, I think at-will commands/uses is an unnecessary expense for something that realistically you only need to use once per day. Applying the "1 charge/day" modifier helps the cost here considerably.


True. 1/day gives you 3 (spell level for extended rope trick) x 5 (minimum caster level for a level 3 spell, gives 10 hours' duration) x 1800 (command activated) / 5 (1 use/day) = 5,400 gp.

[icefractal]

Or you realize that an eternal wand is just a 2/day command word activated wondrous item and a 100 gp crystal thing, and scale accordingly. But if it’s a wondrous item, it’s definitely subject to the “price like similar” rules. So we’re back to looking at the far more expensive rest items.I find the presence of the table unconvincing as an implied limit, given how eternal wands are described. But also you could make it Extended Rope Trick, as Segev mentions.

The thing is, I don't believe that all existing items are priced correctly. The Ring of Regeneration, for example, is simply not worth 90k, and pricing other healing items based on it would be compounding the error.

"This is too cheap because it's inappropriate for an Xth level party to have" - ok, possible argument. "This is too cheap because a published item costs more" - inconclusive.

[Psyren]

I find the presence of the table unconvincing as an implied limit, given how eternal wands are described. But also you could make it Extended Rope Trick, as Segev mentions.

The thing is, I don't believe that all existing items are priced correctly. The Ring of Regeneration, for example, is simply not worth 90k, and pricing other healing items based on it would be compounding the error.

"This is too cheap because it's inappropriate for an Xth level party to have" - ok, possible argument. "This is too cheap because a published item costs more" - inconclusive.

I agree for the most part but I would suggest looking at the PF versions of such items for the comparison too. PF isn't perfect by any means, but many of these abysmally weaker items did get buffed to more closely align with their cost, and it makes the rule of thumb work a bit better overall. For example, PF ring of regen is 1 HP per round instead of per hour (i.e. 600x faster healing), bleed immunity, and still carries the "reattach limbs/repair organs and broken bones" clause.

[Fizban]

Whenever you're talking about hiding for hours though, the possibility of someone asking if they can sleep (or research, craft, etc) during that time becomes reasonable to expect.
But since the only rest period in 3.x that matters is normally a full 8-9 hours, it's also reasonable to expect no such mention until the duration of something is clearly longer than that.

If it was merely meant to be a brief bolt-hole for an awake party, 10 min./lvl would have fit much better - plenty of time to evade a searching patrol, but not long enough for spending the night.
. . . Yeah. Which is what the 2e and 5e entries have, making it clear the duration in the 3.x PHB is the outlier compared to the intent written in previous and future versions of the spell.


Would you be able to move such a rope? If it’s continuous and slotless, it seems to me to would be always attached to the extra dimensional space.
An immovable wondrous item would be wondrous architecture (at 1/4 cost, nearly as abusable as magic traps if the DM is ignored). Since SBG already has a formula price unmovable continuous Rope Trick, we know that that writer found no reason to break with formula. And for an unmovable magic hidey hole with no furnishings (I would expect it to be quite unsettling in there actually) I can agree 3,000gp is probably fine.


Agreed. I'd consider starting with Traveling Master's Turban with the caster level increased to at least 8.
Looking it up, the Turban is a pretty nifty low cost non-aggressive item. But as it's printed with 1/day at cl 3, I don't see any reason why it would affect the consideration of a continuous item, particularly for resting purposes.

Before it can be increased in duration, you have to reverse engineer the price. Endure Elements with its 24 hour duration has a formula price of 1,000, Rope Trick cl 3 1/day is 3,000, add them together and that's the Turban. It's a formula price item using no multi-function modifiers and with a little freebie thrown on for members of a certain class. Taken as a specific item it's nifty and makes a decent lesson on how to go from bland formula to interesting item, but there's no new insight to be had.

Unless of course PF changed their initial pricing formulas- I know they changed WBL, dunno about that.

True. 1/day gives you 3 (spell level for extended rope trick) x 5 (minimum caster level for a level 3 spell, gives 10 hours' duration) x 1800 (command activated) / 5 (1 use/day) = 5,400 gp.
If we're allowed Extended Rope Trick, then the Eternal Wand problem is also beat by Drow House Insignia, which will do the job with a "RAW" item usable by anyone at 8,200. As RAW as an item that can contain a spell and "typically" contain spell X/Y/Z but don't say you can't use other spells, but then the crafting requirement says "Drow" and "appropriate spell"- gets anyway. But to be fair, a DHI of a core-legacy looney tunes spell with potential abuses seems far more in spirit of the Drow than say, cheesing the fixed cl 5 with Traveler's Mount to make a light horse go 16mph all day for under 1,000gp.

Since I've pegged the desired use as a 5th level spell equivalent, for completeness: 5th level spell 1/day at 9th comes to 22,500gp.


"This is too cheap because it's inappropriate for an Xth level party to have" - ok, possible argument. "This is too cheap because a published item costs more" - inconclusive.
And this is where one of the big problems with safe resting and other party-wide items comes in: if the party is splitting the cost (as they obviously must for a party-wide item to ever be fair), the effective price is actually 1/4 of that assigned. Depending on what the threshold is to get everyone on board and how aggressively priced the item is, this can result in items allowing regular use of much higher level spells than the party.

If a safe-rest item is say, 12,000gp, that's only 3,000gp per party member: practically a no-brainer at 10th, a bit under 25% at 6th, and only a bit more than 50% as low as 4th level. That covers the entire band of "we're low level so even when we're out of spells we've got a good chance of surviving on basic attacks," through "overextending is a risk you're supposed to learn to manage" and right into "eh we could Teleport out if we wanted to but this saves on 5th level slots."

That's a published formula price-or-so 4th level Secure Shelter item. That's a 4th level spell, factor 28. What if you only need a 2nd level spell at cl 9 (factor 18), or can purchase items based on Extend at cl 5 (factor 15). 7,200/4 is 1,800gp per person, low enough that it's almost a no-brainer for 6th level characters, still in the zone where 2nd level slots are not just valuable but nearly half your power, and they can't even cast the spell with that duration. The maximum bargain Extend-based price of 5,400, divided by 4, goes down to 1,350. Cheap enough that the biggest limiting factor isn't so much the fraction of wealth the party is willing to spend, but the fact that there's only two levels to split: 1st has no cash, 3rd can buy it, so that leaves only 2nd where you can't.

Don't feel threatened by resting? Or any other 4th level spell showing up at 4th or 5th? How about 9th level spells at ECL 10? A 9th level spell 1/day is 55,080, divide by 4 and that's 13,770, easily within the budget of a 10th level character.

(Incidentally, that's reminded me of the joke in Instant Fortress- it's a 9th level 1/day item, that requires a 7th level spell, and isn't much if at all better than spamming the 4th level spell would be).

On-demand custom items out of nowhere, formula pricing with no regard for what items simply should and shouldn't be, and aggressive use of wealth rather than a "WBL" stat, feed off each other easily. And you can't even just say "Oh, well then then PCs have to own their own items," because now you're not only forcing an even split (reasonable) but also dictating what people are allowed to spend it on (not reasonable) and refusing to let them help each other (undermining the game itself). You have to choose what items are appropriate and when they should be available based on what they do. This is why MiC decided to just go nuts making whatever they wanted dirt cheap, because they thought swift action teleport hops should be easily available so they just made up the prices. It's why Bags of Holding and Handy Haversacks, despite supposedly being based on a 5th level spell and being their own pocket planes, cost barely anything.



So, OP, if you/your DM thinks that the PCs should be able to easily afford a magic item that lets them camp safely, not just in the wilderness but in enemy territory, at a low level, or simply don't want a game that worries about that sort of thing, go ahead and make that change by selecting such a price that works for you. But remember that there are plenty more published items that already have their own prices and giving the players that much control over when they're in danger makes the party significantly more powerful.


Pricing Roundup:
72,000 at-will
14,400 1/day
24,000 at-will
9,000 at-will
7,200 1/day
72,000 at-will
8,640-14,400 1/day
12,960 2/day
5,400 1/day
22,500 1/day

I think that's about every instance of a final-ish price suggestion. The standout is 9,000 at-will, but that's only if you consider the Rope Trick close enough to D's Instant Tent, which is a visible tent.

[Psyren]

Looking it up, the Turban is a pretty nifty low cost non-aggressive item. But as it's printed with 1/day at cl 3, I don't see any reason why it would affect the consideration of a continuous item, particularly for resting purposes.

Before it can be increased in duration, you have to reverse engineer the price. Endure Elements with its 24 hour duration has a formula price of 1,000, Rope Trick cl 3 1/day is 3,000, add them together and that's the Turban. It's a formula price item using no multi-function modifiers and with a little freebie thrown on for members of a certain class. Taken as a specific item it's nifty and makes a decent lesson on how to go from bland formula to interesting item, but there's no new insight to be had.

Showing that an existing item doesn't stray too far from the formula is useful insight actually. It gives the GM confidence that a higher-CL version isn't going to be too disruptive for the more powerful party that can afford it, provided they stick to the "% of wealth spent on a single item" guidelines that are made for such situations.



. . . Yeah. Which is what the 2e and 5e entries have, making it clear the duration in the 3.x PHB is the outlier compared to the intent written in previous and future versions of the spell.

1) Except that duration isn't just in the PHB, it's in the CRB as well.
2) As this is the 3.5/PF subforum, 5e intent is ultimately irrelevant.
3) Even if 5e intent did somehow matter, 5e consciously nerfed several spells to no longer have the same utility they once did. 5e invisibility for example breaks on any spellcast, not just offensive ones. Going by the logic you're using, you might conclude that invisibility was never meant to be usable to safely heal people or summon creatures and that 3.5 is an outlier, which is clearly not the case.



So, OP, if you/your DM thinks that the PCs should be able to easily afford a magic item that lets them camp safely, not just in the wilderness but in enemy territory, at a low level, or simply don't want a game that worries about that sort of thing, go ahead and make that change by selecting such a price that works for you. But remember that there are plenty more published items that already have their own prices and giving the players that much control over when they're in danger makes the party significantly more powerful.


Your assumption here seems to be that Rope Trick makes a party immune from harm while sleeping. That isn't the case, especially in PF. Is it safer and just generally more useful than simply setting up camp, yes - but it's not god mode.

[Maat Mons]

It's worth noting that, in 3.5, you can always choose to make a higher-caster-level version of an item.

For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.
Here "other magic items" means not potions, scrolls, or wands.

Interestingly, even though the guidelines for designing new custom magic items suggest, in many cases, pricing based on caster level, the actual rules text only has caster level and cost related for potions, scrolls, and wands. The price of other items is just a fixed value, irrespective of the item's caster level. Probably because most of the writers were under the impression that writing a caster level in the descriptions of those items meant that those items would have that caster level, instead of whatever caster level the creator feels like giving it.

So you can, 100%, craft a +1 sword at caster level 20 instead of the minimum 3. And there exists no rules text for making that sword cost more than any other +1 sword, even though it has the slight benefits of being harder to dispel, and having higher saving throw bonuses if it's targeted by an effect while unattended.

You can, unquestionably, craft an Eternal Wand of Rope Trick at caster level 9. And the only pricing information for it in the rules say it costs 4,420 gp, because it's a 2nd-level spell, and eternal wands of 2nd-level spells cost 4,420 gp.

[tiercel]

Only as limiting as extradimensional spaces are ubiquitous, and even then a penalty that people can simply say they've got some plan to avoid.

In my experience, extradimensional storage is actually pretty ubiquitous: if nothing else, the party will often wind up with at least one bag of holding or suchlike as the Official Party Loot Sack (even often by time a 5th level caster could even cast Extended rope trick, and at 5th level giving up a shiny brand new 3rd level spell slot actually hurts). If a caster has the funds to metamagic-rod instead of using the feat, there’s certainly funds for a storage device, and handy haversacks are just too useful for retrieval, much less storage.

If the use of rope trick means that the party has decided to forego extradimensional storage just to have their rest, then the spell has imposed that cost. If the party comes up with some shenanigans to protect their loot *apart* from the rope trick, that’s a different kind of cost (plus the paranoia of being in a different dimension from their hard-earned loot & equipment during the night, or setting up watches and exposing the party to encounters in order to protect their stuff).

Actually enforcing the “extradimensional interaction” clause isn’t a silver bullet for rope trick being potentially problematic, but unless the campaign (A) completely ignores encumbrance, no matter what loot and/or equipment and (B) makes retrieving a item no more than a move action (haversack style) no matter what you’re lugging, I’d say it’s a good start to combating the whole “oh em gee you cast a 2nd level spell so you’re practically invulnerable overnight” interpretation.

And it uses the spell’s actual text and all.

[Fizban]

Showing that an existing item doesn't stray too far from the formula is useful insight actually. It gives the GM confidence that a higher-CL version isn't going to be too disruptive for the more powerful party that can afford it, provided they stick to the "% of wealth spent on a single item" guidelines that are made for such situations.
Unless the higher caster level causes it to pass a breakpoint into an effect that is more disruptive. Which is why spells shouldn't scale that way- but here's a spell that, if it allows you to rest, scales into a completely different effect which can be more disruptive. It is a textbook-worthy example of why even when an item is based on a formula, that doesn't mean the formula can be simply extended.

1) Except that duration isn't just in the PHB, it's in the CRB as well.
CRB what? *googles* Wait, it's Pathfinder for PHB? In what way is this relevant?

2) As this is the 3.5/PF subforum, 5e intent is ultimately irrelevant.
3) Even if 5e intent did somehow matter, 5e consciously nerfed several spells to no longer have the same utility they once did.
So you object to the 5e but have nothing to say about the 2e, which is more damning to begin with?


5e invisibility for example breaks on any spellcast, not just offensive ones. Going by the logic you're using, you might conclude that invisibility was never meant to be usable to safely heal people or summon creatures and that 3.5 is an outlier, which is clearly not the case.
Did Invisibility also break on any spellcast in 2e? Does Invisbility include zero mention of these possible uses? Are there zero examples of Invisibility being used in that way in 3.x material?

Dunno, no, and no. 3.x Invisibility specifically states the intent to allow summoning (and a mountain of harm foes bad/help allies not bad) in the spell text, and has examples of this in further material. Rope Trick has neither, which is why we must look further afield for evidence of the intent. Your attempt at showing a flaw in my logic seems to have revealed that you did not understand it.


That isn't the case, especially in PF. Is it safer and just generally more useful than simply setting up camp, yes - but it's not god mode.
And PF matters here, how? If you're disregarding information from 5e, you should also be disregarding information from PF. Not that the PF version matters when determining the intent of the original spell either, since it is literally just the same text except for one deliberate change, from a branching system that was all about being the same text with a few deliberate changes. While the 5e version may not have had any input from original writer, it's still the main DnD product, and with the spell system being significantly overhauled, what remains similar is a great signifer of intent. The 2e version was enough, but combined with the 5e it paints an extremely clear picture, whether they needed community input to realize the 3.x change was more significant than previously thought, or not. The stewards of of the text returned it to a shorter duration.


I don't know how to phrase this any more clearly.

The question is: What is the intended purpose of the Rope Trick spell?

Rope trick is a legacy spell carried forward from a previous edition. The previous version did not have enough duration to allow resting through the night, therefore the original intent of the spell did not include any expectation of that (unless there's a 1e version that lasted all night?). The 3.x version increases the duration but makes no mention of this potential new possibility. The next version published returns to a shorter duration, so it cannot be used for resting through the night. It was not possible before, it is not possible after.

WotC's own errata and the existence of 3.5 are direct admissions that yes, sometimes they get things wrong. It is ridiculous to assume that they caught every possible mistake, and that every bit of text and consequence is 100% intentional, everyone knows this.

Which is more likely: that the 3.x version which makes no mention of resting through the night and can only potentially do so several levels later, did in fact specifically and intentionally create that possibility, or that there was an uncaught error or unintended consequence?

The spell's title, the text of the spell, the formatting of the text in the spell, the function of spells of similar level, the function of spells specifically designed for overnight resting, the original version of the spell, and the next version of the spell, all point towards Rope Trick being intended as a brief hiding spot, and not an overnight sanctuary. So I ask you the same question: What evidence do you have to support your assertion?


Because you seem to be jumping on board with the accusation that I'm making this up out of nothing and just forcing my opinion onto the spell- and yet, I'm the one actually looking for more information (or asking since others provided the 2e info). It takes detective work to figure out the intent of something if it is not directly stated. I'm detecting and gathering evidence. Neither you nor Segev has provided any corroborating evidence. You accuse me of pushing my own intent into the spell, but your assertion of the intent of the spell is based on what you expect it to do upon reading one specific piece of text, with no apparent regard for what I would expect it to do- and I would virtually guarantee that this was not the first thing you thought of when you first read the spell.


The Rope Trick allows overnight resting argument has one duration entry change, vs a preponderance of evidence against. This is, to use the phrase again, a textbook example, practically a tautology. You have a spell entry that does not directly say it can do a thing, which means that the spell entry by definition cannot be enough evidence on its own that the intent was for it to do the thing. It is opposed by evidence from multiple sources that show the intent is something else.

Or to phrase it in terms of the Giant's quote- Why are you making an assumption that doesn't fit with the text? I expect you're looking at me as the one who is ignoring the text, but there's more text than just the duration and spell description of the 3.x version of Rope Trick. Is the name of the spell, the effects of all the other spells I've mentioned, and the actual previous version, all wrong? Or is the assumption that the 3.x version being hour/level means Rope Trick was intentionally promoted to a camping spell, wrong?


If you say the question is not "What is the intent?", but rather "How can you read it to not do the thing," I've already provided that (when responding to Segev), with no responses. If your assertion is not that the intent of the spell is safe resting, but merely that the intent does not matter as long as the text of this one spell technically allows it, then I've just wasted a whole bunch of time 'cause that's a RAW=God argument which only matters for RAW=God DMs.

Or is the entire question just down to what "space for creatures" means because that's what determines the RAW answer of what the spell "does," and no one actually cares what the spell is supposed to do?



Your assumption here seems to be that Rope Trick makes a party immune from harm while sleeping. That isn't the case, especially in PF.
Popular opinion of the spell would seem to disagree. The entrance is, ya know, invisible, and up to 30' in the air, and even throws in immunity to most divinations 'cause why not? Yes, that does grant immunity to harm from a huge number of potential foes, particularly of the random encounter sort that weren't actively tracking you and thus have no excuse for the DM to say they're waiting for you to wake up.

The threshold for reasonably threatening a party that is allowed to sleep in a Rope Trick is higher than that for a party employing the higher level Secure Shelter.
The foes must either See Invisible or be tracking you and already familiar with the Rope Trick spell. They must either have a method of flight and charge in, or camp out below. Even for the PF change that leaves the rope visible, the party is still protected against magic and 30' off the ground- and with more variance in terrain than a blank empty room, the rope could very well be obscured or hidden even without using further magic. Secure Shelter is a completely visible 20' square building with a door that can be smashed by any ground level foe (as well as walls) and a chimney vulnerable to launching Spread effects, and provides no protection from standard divinations.

Again, I don't really see how this is much of an argument. It wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't hugely effective. This thread wouldn't exist if it wasn't well known. The concept of a standard threat of random night encounters is a basic part of the game. The standard spell for magically generating a safe location to rest in is 4th level. Rope Trick is 2nd level and very arguably provides better defense. Being the DM and willing and able to counter the PC's abilities specifically does not make a broken thing stop being broken (and broken things don't necessarily break all games).

Heck, you want to focus on formula based items, but if anything they're the strongest evidence against camping Rope Trick being 2nd level, because it's that spell level that allows formula item creation to produce safe rest items as cheap or cheaper per person as a Bag or Haversack, which are considered expected gear by anyone that doesn't ban them outright.


Interestingly, even though the guidelines for designing new custom magic items suggest, in many cases, pricing based on caster level, the actual rules text only has caster level and cost related for potions, scrolls, and wands. The price of other items is just a fixed value, irrespective of the item's caster level. Probably because most of the writers were under the impression that writing a caster level in the descriptions of those items meant that those items would have that caster level, instead of whatever caster level the creator feels like giving it.

So you can, 100%, craft a +1 sword at caster level 20 instead of the minimum 3. And there exists no rules text for making that sword cost more than any other +1 sword, even though it has the slight benefits of being harder to dispel, and having higher saving throw bonuses if it's targeted by an effect while unattended.

You can, unquestionably, craft an Eternal Wand of Rope Trick at caster level 9. And the only pricing information for it in the rules say it costs 4,420 gp, because it's a 2nd-level spell, and eternal wands of 2nd-level spells cost 4,420 gp.
I mean, it is the same "doesn't say I can't" "kinda says I can here" logic that powers the whole resting in Rope Trick thing in the first place.

But for items like the +1 sword, the caster level doesn't matter, so a blanket line allowing the creator to set any level they want just means a minor benefit if you craft your own stuff. The trick is that you're mixing items that are individually generated based on casting a spell with X caster level, whether hard potions/wands/etc or those priced via the guideline formulas (which do include their caster level as part of the price), with another hidden assumption:

The duration/effect/etc of a spell cast from an item is not automatically at the caster level given for the item.

There is a line somewhere that says the default if not mentioned is to use that caster level, but early items usually specify, and many items have multiple effects that are clearly one spell at caster level X and another at caster level Y, with the level of the item probably being the higher despite having a low cl function- and then there are unique items that don't follow the exact rules of a single spell cast and might have an effectively higher level than the one given for the item.

Later on, particularly with the change in magic item entries pushing caster level to the forefront rather than it simply being noted as a prerequisite and expecting the writer to write an item, more and more items simply give a level and say they cast a spell (leading to some hilarious entries with grandiose Magic Item Information that are just Spell X/day). But this change in writing style does not exempt the DM from paying attention. If you combine an item that fails to explicitly list the caster level or practical effect of the activated spell in the description, with the rule that says you can set the caster level to anything you want, and then try to tell the DM that because of the default caster level rule the effect goes up for free. . .


In my experience, extradimensional storage is actually pretty ubiquitous: if nothing else, the party will often wind up with at least one bag of holding or suchlike as the Official Party Loot Sack (even often by time a 5th level caster could even cast Extended rope trick, and at 5th level giving up a shiny brand new 3rd level spell slot actually hurts). If a caster has the funds to metamagic-rod instead of using the feat, there’s certainly funds for a storage device, and handy haversacks are just too useful for retrieval, much less storage.
Fair cop, I did literally just say they're expected by anyone who doesn't ban them.


If the use of rope trick means that the party has decided to forego extradimensional storage just to have their rest, then the spell has imposed that cost. If the party comes up with some shenanigans to protect their loot *apart* from the rope trick, that’s a different kind of cost (plus the paranoia of being in a different dimension from their hard-earned loot & equipment during the night, or setting up watches and exposing the party to encounters in order to protect their stuff).
Even if it works, such indirect balancing is, well, indirect and easily lost. The spell allows the DM to enforce it, but it doesn't directly state that the potential interaction with storage items is meant as a balancing flaw, and many convenience focused DMs will simply ignore it without (or directly in spite of) such a note. In order to make such a restriction stick, you'd have to weave it much more strongly into the central conceit of the spell and every spell like it.

When I said "they've got some plan to avoid," the problem is that I can't really present the plan. Because the people who push Rope Trick as not just a safe rest spell, but push that such spells make Wizards the Tier 1 unstoppable win-machine etc, don't actually present the plan. A good spell needs to not only sew up any mechnical holes and interweave its fluff and mechanics and balancing tightly enough they can't be easily ignored, but also, finally and ideally, present itself in a way that people can't just walk up and say "lol this gunna make my Wizard even more unstoppable (because I'm ignoring anything inconvenient)".

In practical use, yeah, a DM saying storage item+Rope Trick does in fact= bad, will be putting a crimp on all sorts of Schrodenger's Tier 1 bologna. But wouldn't it be better if the spell was written so it didn't even give that impression to begin with?

That is, assuming one should even settle for the idea that a level reduced via flaw resting spell should exist. While inconvenient Rope Trick rest sounds like it forces an interesting choice, in practice I don't see most DMs actually messing with storage items they have to leave outside, so it becomes a toothless flaw. It might drive up player stress, but in practical terms it's still giving them an effect far below cost, which means more power.


Actually enforcing the “extradimensional interaction” clause isn’t a silver bullet for rope trick being potentially problematic, but unless the campaign (A) completely ignores encumbrance, no matter what loot and/or equipment and (B) makes retrieving a item no more than a move action (haversack style) no matter what you’re lugging, I’d say it’s a good start to combating the whole “oh em gee you cast a 2nd level spell so you’re practically invulnerable overnight” interpretation.
Well I mean, yeah, plenty of people freely admit they ignore encumbrance entirely, and never actually charge a full round action for backpack digging. A good spell might be balanced by other rules, but a better spell won't let you get away with pretending you didn't know, and the best spell is solid enough you can't break it without having to admit you're changing it outright.


And it uses the spell’s actual text and all.
So does reading "space for creatures" as merely space for creatures and not space for effective resting. The only reason to question/dive deep on finding the intent of the spell is because of a culture where readings with maximum permissiveness are applauded, particularly when they result in more power, but anything less than that must justify itself (usually to rigged or flat out impossible "standards").

[Psyren]

Unless the higher caster level causes it to pass a breakpoint into an effect that is more disruptive. Which is why spells shouldn't scale that way- but here's a spell that, if it allows you to rest, scales into a completely different effect which can be more disruptive. It is a textbook-worthy example of why even when an item is based on a formula, that doesn't mean the formula can be simply extended.

Every hours/level spell scales that way; Rope Trick is no exception.

Low levels (1-6) - lasts for a scene (e.g. active while we're exploring an area or interacting socially.) Needs to be recast at least once to cover an extended scene or a whole adventuring day.
Mid-levels (7-12) - covers the whole adventuring day, and can be cast again to cover the party while sleeping. Can be expected to be active overnight if cast before bed.
High levels (13+) - GM should assume this is always on unless there's a reason for the caster to not use it at all.

And that's before taking Extend Spell into account, which is available much sooner than mid-levels.
It's only "disruptive" if the GM is lazy and has to resort to banning instead of proper counterplay.



CRB what? *googles* Wait, it's Pathfinder for PHB? In what way is this relevant?

So you object to the 5e but have nothing to say about the 2e, which is more damning to begin with?

Did Invisibility also break on any spellcast in 2e? Does Invisbility include zero mention of these possible uses? Are there zero examples of Invisibility being used in that way in 3.x material?
...
And PF matters here, how? If you're disregarding information from 5e, you should also be disregarding information from PF. Not that the PF version matters when determining the intent of the original spell either, since it is literally just the same text except for one deliberate change, from a branching system that was all about being the same text with a few deliberate changes. While the 5e version may not have had any input from original writer, it's still the main DnD product, and with the spell system being significantly overhauled, what remains similar is a great signifer of intent. The 2e version was enough, but combined with the 5e it paints an extremely clear picture, whether they needed community input to realize the 3.x change was more significant than previously thought, or not. The stewards of of the text returned it to a shorter duration.

PF is relevant because (a) this is its subforum and (b) it disproves your assertion that the 3.5 version of the spell is a lone outlier. 2e and 5e have their own subforums.

As for the invisibility example, I mentioned 5e there because it is the lone outlier where Invisibility is concerned, just like you were claiming 3.5 to be the lone outlier where Rope Trick is concerned.



The question is: What is the intended purpose of the Rope Trick spell?
...
Which is more likely: that the 3.x version which makes no mention of resting through the night and can only potentially do so several levels later, did in fact specifically and intentionally create that possibility, or that there was an uncaught error or unintended consequence?

You're asking whether the designers behind an hours/level duration spell were too dumb to consider that spell might be cast overnight? That's taking a pretty dim view of WotC even by this forum's standards.

[Segev]

And, again, Fizban, your own question could be applied to EVERY spell you've said IS meant for resting. None of them mention resting. Are you suggesting that spells that don't mention they can be used for resting can be? If so, then you've supported rope trick being used for it. Because it provides space for up to 8 creatures, and does so for long enough that they can get in a rest.

[Elkad]

By the time the party can stay in it all night, I can roll dice behind the screen.


Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

I've never blown them up, or sucked them into a random spot on the astral plane, but that's cause they think I will, so they don't abuse it...


And occasionally, someone is going to spot that invisible window and set a trap for when they come out. Which does happen.