Well, other at RoA have (ab)used that rule so there is precedence. But it's BCM's game you play in, no? I'll defer the final judgement to him.

Then I await his ruling with baited breath :P

Oh, must I? :(

Unfortunately, the magic item creation rules are screwy and contradictory, and the designers usually don't follow them. Which is why I'd really rather players didn't bother with custom items. :(

The DMG says on the matter says that multiple different abilities should double the higher price:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magi...eatingMagicItems.htm
That's completely different from the MIC says, which is half the lower price.

Okay, the anklet is 1400 gp and the boots are 600 gp. So we have three options:
* DMG: foot-slots of translocation and jumping: (1400×2) + 600 = 3400 gp
* MIC: anklet of translocation and stomping: 1400 + (600×1.5) = 2300 gp
* MIC: boots of stomping and translocation: 1400 + 600 + (1400×0.5) = 2700 gp

Please check my math.

Well, let's see...  The MIC rules actually don't seem contradictory to me, they come out to the same result whether you add translocation to Boots of Stomping, or add stomp-power to the Anklet of Translocation.

Here's the language:

"In most cases, if the item is one that occupies a body slot, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item is 1-1/2 times the value of the added power (or the value of the added power plus 1/2 the value of the existing item, if the added power normally costs more than the existing item). For example, if a character adds the power to confer featherfall to her ring of jumping, the cost of adding this ability is 3,300 gp, the same as for creating a ring of feather falling x 1-1/2. On the other hand, if she were adding the power of a ring of force shield to that ring of jumping, the cost of adding the ability would be 9,750 gp (8,500 gp for the ring of force shield plus half of 2,500 gp, the price of a ring of jumping)."

So:  If you add translocation to the Boots of Stomping, then the added power costs more than the existing item.  In that case, take the cost of the boots (600), and the cost of adding the translocation is the value of the added power (1400 for translocation), plus 1/2 the value of the existing item (1/2 of 600 is 300).  Total 600 + 1400 + 300 = 2300.

If you add stomping to the Anklet of Translocation, then use the simpler formula - 1-1/2 times the value of the added power.  In this case, take the cost of the anklet (1400), and the cost of adding stomping is 1-1/2 times the value of the added power (1-1/2 times 600 is 900).  Total 1400 + 900 = 2300.

The DMG language is very confusing, because it is not well-edited, but I think it comes out to the same result as well.  Here is the language:

Multiple Similar Abilities
For items with multiple similar abilities that don’t take up space on a character’s body use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities
Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that do take up a space on a character’s body each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

The key here is to realize that "Multiple Similar Abilities" is talking only about non-body-slot items, and "Multiple Different Abilities" is talking partly about body-slot items and partly about non-body-slot items.  Let's look at that language again, with color-coding to show where the DMG stops talking about non-slotted items and starts talking about slotted items:

Multiple Similar Abilities
For items with multiple similar abilities that don’t take up space on a character’s body use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other abilities.

Multiple Different Abilities
Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that do take up a space on a character’s body each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

So, the DMG does not distinguish between similar or dissimilar abilities when it comes to slotted items, it just adds a 50% surcharge to any additional power regardless of whether it is similar or not.  Though apparently odd, this is in fact consistent with the MIC, which treats adding similar abilities (featherfall/jump) the same as dissimilar abilities (force shield/jump).

As for which ability gets added first, the DMG does not specify, but it seems reasonable to order the abilities so that the surcharge applies to the least expensive abilities - just as the MIC explicitly does.

So, we take the anklet of translocation as the base item (1400), and then add the stomping with "a 50% increase in price", i.e. for 900, yielding a total of 2300.


In summary, there does not appear to be a conflict among the different sources, and Zar'Da should be able to get his Footwear of Stomping and Translocation for a price of 2300.

Okay, I mixed up the math on the boots of stomping and translocation.

Ah. Now I know why there's a difference. Table 7–33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values in the DMG says "Multiple different abilities: Multiply higher item cost by 2". The errata changed this to "Multiply lower item cost by 1.5".

Every time I've screwed around trying to make or deconstruct a magic item, I've looked at that DMG table and gotten thoroughly confused or broken. Now I know why. :(

The text under Adding New Abilities also gives the more general statement: "If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5." That's closer, but again doesn't specify the higher or lower costed item.

Now I understand, I will allow Zar'Da to have the merged items at the higher cost. I won't allow this often, as I don't want to see powerful my-every-favourite-power-and-bonus custom items everywhere.

Of course, they must be boots. Anklets of stomping make no damn sense. :p

Ok, so how much do I owe?

300 gp, it looks like.

In reply to DM BadCatMan (msg # 953):

Will do boss!

May I just flicker from prone to the top of the pillar then? Since apparently there is no safe way to recover from prone normally.

Flicker's casting time is only ever immediate. By that function, if cast on my turn, it's swift. It's never and has never been standard. My Shadow Skin mystery is the same way.

You should be able to Flicker from prone. You can use the Anklet to go from prone to standing and it's kind of the same thing.

So apparently I didn't understand another one of my mysteries.
Flicker is stupid powerful. I can precast it, and for a number of rounds equal to my caster level, I can teleport once each round. That's infinitely better than what I thought it was.

On that note, I have done quite a few things wrong, since the casting time is actually standard. I went over shadow skin, and it is worded differently. It says very specifically that it's cast as an immediate action, where as flicker states that as an immediate action, I can teleport, but it's not referring to the casting time, since the spell has a duration.

Ermahgerd. Flercker.

Are you able to take a 5ft step when prone? I can't find any rules about being prone anywhere, other than it's a move action to stand up again.

Someone needs to just rewrite all the books in an organized fashion.

You can't take a 5' step while prone. It's kind of the point of tripping.

So.. Um. I can cast a spell, while prone, right?

Yes, of course. Though you do provoke an AoO unless casting it defensively.

What about quickened, since a quickened spell does not provoke an AoO according to page 141 of the PH.

Correct, a quickened mystery wouldn't provoke.

Would the immediate action teleport impede a full round action? You're usually allowed a free action even if you do a full round action, so I'm wondering if this is one of those cases.

anyone?

Normally, no. Though in your case, should you have to take the action while casting one could argue your concentration is broken. Fair enough?

Well, you don't need to take a concentration check when struck before you cast the spell, and this is technically what's happening. Also, he can still hit me from on the ground, right? I don't think I'm out of range.
I've made enough mistakes in the last little bit that I just want to get everything clear.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:39, Sun 17 Feb 2013.

You may take one swift action even in a round where you make a full round action, is that what you were looking for?

Yes and no.
Free actions don't typically interfere with full rounds, and immediate actions are similar to free actions, but I was wondering specifically about immediate and swift actions, as opposed to free actions in this situation.

Furthermore, It's at DM discretion, and you can make me take a concentration check or just not allow me.

Although Zar'Da can reach you, Levis, he cannot take attacks of opportunity against you if you cast from the top of the pillar.  Per DM Solo's ruling, you have cover from Zar'Da while you are on top of the pillar, and according to the SRD "You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you".
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

So I think you can safely try a full-round casting (that's full-round, like your maximized mysteries; not a 1-round casting time).

In reply to Garath Darkstar (msg # 969):

Wait a minute. I thought we were still back where she was one the ground. I am so confused.

@Zar'Da:  I think the recap goes as follows -

She was on the ground, and you took a swing at her.  She tried to flicker so as to avoid your blow, but failed - you rolled high on the percentiles and managed to hit her.  So she flickered to the top of the pillar after absorbing your hit, rather than being able to avoid your hit.

Now she is on top of the pillar, and she just cast a Dusk Arrow at you for non-lethal damage.  Your turn.

Levis, DM Solo, does that sound right?