Contextually, Bob's correct
If the campaign is a series of tombs of horrors, then that ring of cure light wounds is an item beyond price. If the party can't leave the dungeon to resupply and can't get down to one encounter per day (i.e. the so-called 15-minute workday) via spells1, that ring of cure light wounds is a literal lifesaver.
In other words, if the campaign is already on hard mode, the ring switches it not to easy mode, certainly, but to average mode. That's a legitimate concern for the DM. The DM's already decided the campaign's supposed to be difficult and the ring makes the campaign substantially less difficult. As the ring violates a central campaign tenet, the ring just shouldn't be available… or only available as a result of a heinous Gygaxian Faustian bargain.
For the game as it was likely envisioned, Erin's correct
The Dungeon Master's Guide would likely pick Erin's suggestion. If worry-free, constant healing is desired, everybody should pony up for rings of regeneration (DMG 232) (90,000 gp; 0 lbs.). Sure, each ring of regeneration costs as much as 120 wands of cure light wounds [conj] (PH 215–16) (1st-level spell at caster level 1) (15 gp/charge), but, y'know, the Dungeon Master's Guide says to "[u]se good sense when assigning prices, using the items in this book as examples" (282), and the ring of regeneration presents the example of the price of worry-free, constant healing, so that is the price of worry-free healing. In fact, an original magic item like a use-activated ring of cure light wounds—like a continuous item of true strike [div] (PH 296)—is such an anathema, I'm willing to bet were the year 2000 Dungeon Master's Guide a DM that it would laugh at the player who suggested a ring of cure light wounds and maybe have the next wandering monster attack him first just for asking.
For many games as they are now, Alice or Dave is correct
Many current players feel that constantly reacquiring wands of cure light wounds to have their characters freshen up between encounters is, at worst, a mere inconvenience, like tracking how many arrows remain in a quiver. In the same way that being short on arrows creates tension at low levels, managing healing resources at low levels creates tension. Many players, though, feel that by the time a character's reached a reasonably high level—say, 9 or so—that the character should have more important things to worry about than how many arrows he has left, and he shouldn't worry that he's burning party resources because he fell down a 200-ft.-deep pit. A Ftr9's Wealth by Level (Dungeon Master's Guide (203) 135) says that a wand of cure light wounds—that is, an entire wand, fully charged—is only about 2% of the gear he's toting. Seriously, after splitting four ways the take from a lone level-appropriate encounter, a Ftr9 can buy a whole new fresh wand of cure light wounds and still have gp left over.
If a DM has players like Alice and Dave, a ring of cure light wounds makes the game more fun because it cuts down on tracking charges from wands of cure light wounds, and the DM should probably allow it—either at low levels at Alice's price or higher levels at Dave's price—unless the DM's vision of the game differs substantially from that of the players' vision.
A brief history of the ring of regeneration
As the sole item that grants continuous healing in core Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, the ring of regeneration is terrible and using it as an example of what continuous healing should cost is terrible. I'll explain.
Building as they were in 2000 from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition, the ring of regeneration included in the Dungeon Master's Guide for Dungeons and Dragons, Third Edition probably looked fine to the original core rules' authors. The changes made to the ring of regeneration were a much needed nerf to improvement over Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition's ring of regeneration, which, for the record,
restores 1 point of damage each turn [10 minutes] and eventually replaces lost limbs and organs. It will bring its wearer back from death…. Only total destruction of all living tissue by fire, acid, or similar means will prevent regeneration. Of course, the ring must be worn, and its removal stops the regeneration process.2 (Encyclopedia Magica, Vol. 3 993)
Such an item was highly coveted in both Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (where it functioned similarly) and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition, and for good reason. One's character could lose limbs and organs. ("Why, hello there, sword of sharpness!") Dying was really painful instead of the speed bump that it typically is in Dungeons & Dragons, Third Edition. And healing was, itself, extremely valuable, the province of classes that often weren't much fun to play and rarely advanced beyond level 6 through actual play.3
So when the time came to include the highly-sought-after ring of regeneration in Dungeons and Dragons, Third Edition, the price was set very high because legacy yet the ring's actual functionality plummeted. Creatures no longer lost limbs except under extremely rare circumstances. Creatures now healed their levels or HD in hp per 8 hours rest instead of just 1 point per day of rest. And gone was the jazz about the ring bringing the wearer back from the dead. The only improvement Dungeons and Dragons, Third Edition made to the ring was proportionate healing (that is, Third Edition's heals a creature's level in hp)… and then Third Edition multiplied the ring's healing increment by 6.
Anyway, the current ring of regeneration seriously sucks as useful measure by which to gauge unlimited healing.
1 By, after the first encounter, hiding in, for example, the space created by the 2nd-level Sor/Wiz spell rope trick [trans] (Player's Handbook 273), the 5th-level initiate of Gruumsh (CR 24) spell pocket cave [conj] (Champions of Ruin 33), or the 7th-level Sor/Wiz spell Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion [conj] (PH 256).
2 Okay, a similar means to fire is heat. Sure. I get that. That's a thing. But what's a similar means to acid except, like, better acid? I hope whoever wrote that spent his $0.10 from those words wisely.
3 I find the experience level chart for the cleric or priest, respectively, in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons or Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, 2nd Edition—when compared to classes' experience level charts—hilarious.
With base price being defined as how much the item is priced in the store, and not the discounted cost for crafting the item.
Correct.
Items you can buy from the store usually have a CL listed.
For example, the Ring of Invisibility has a CL 3rd, so a player would need to take a DC 8 spellcaster check to successfully craft the item.
No, oddly enough. The crafter of the item sets its caster level, from a minimum of whatever it takes to cast the requisite spells (or other requirement listed for the item), to a maximum of the crafter’s own caster level. Since caster level typically costs money, increases DCs, and so on, most crafters use the lowest caster level possible for the item.
The caster level listed with items is the “typical” caster level for that item, where “typical” is more-or-less just something the authors made up. For most items, it is the minimum (e.g. that ring of invisibility, requiring as it does the 2nd-level invisibility spell, which has a minimum caster level of 3rd), but there are exceptions (e.g. sovereign glue, which has an absurd listed CL of 20th, despite only really requiring 3rd for make whole).
From what I can gather, the cost to craft a magical item with multiple abilities costs the full price for the most expensive bonus, then 1.5 times the price of each additional bonus.
Correct.
It is worth noting that D&D 3.5, upon which Pathfinder is based, added a rule in Magic Item Compendium that certain, basic sorts of bonuses do not incur this premium. For instance, making your ring of invisibility also include a deflection bonus to AC (à la ring of protection) would not cost extra (just the cost of ring of invisibility plus the cost of ring of protection), because deflection bonuses to AC were one of the “generic” bonuses you could have on rings. Other examples included enhancement bonuses to ability scores, resistance bonuses to saving throws, etc.
This change allowed for characters to get their critical math fixes, while still allowing them to get “fun” and interesting items. It led to a much smoother game that penalized characters less for being responsible and buying the critical, but boring, +number items.
I will admit that Paizo not only has not ported this rule, but adamantly opposes it with its recommendations. Paizo considers it important that characters pay extra for combining such items. I will state flat-out that they are quite simply wrong. This attitude massively, and unnecessarily, shafts the classes that were already weakest. I cannot more strongly recommend that you ignore them on this issue.
Lets say I want to craft a Ring of Invisibility and also enchant it with Magic Aura so that it registers as a non-magical ring.
Your example is done correctly.
- Does adding the Magic Aura effect to the Ring of Invisibility increase the final Caster Level of the ring, and thus the DC spellcaster check? If so, by how much? Just 1 since I used Caster Level 1 to add the effect, making the ring a CL 4th with a DC 9 spellcaster check?
Caster level requirements are minimums, so use the highest minimum as the overall minimum of the item. In this case, magic aura requires CL 1st and invisibility requires CL 3rd, so the ring requires CL 3rd. You could craft with a higher CL (requiring a higher DC), which would make the ring more resistant to dispel magic et al.
When you upgrade a magical item or add additional abilities to an existing magical item, do you take a DC spellcaster check at the end of the crafting time? The rules do not state this outright and I've not been able to find an answer.
- If you do, do you use the CL of the new ability for the check? With the example for adding Invisibility to a ring of protection, would the DC of the spellcaster check be that of the CL of the ring of Invisibility (3rd), or something else?
The DC would be based on the item’s CL, whatever it is. At a minimum for this ring, 3rd.
Does the CL of the item increase when upgrading an item? Bracers of Armor has a CL 7th regardless of the strength of the enchantment bonus. Would upgrading the bonus from +1 to +3, or +1 to +5, still use a DC 12 spellcaster check?
If you were correct about bracers of armor requiring CL 7th regardless of enhancement bonus, you would be correct. I believe there may be some examples where this would be the case.
However, the bracers of armor do not require CL 7th. Rather, they require that
creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers, plus any requirements of the armor special abilities
Best Answer
You are using the table wrong.
The table assumes you have a magic item in mind and are trying to determine the cost. It is a not a table that you should be grabbing lines from to combine to form magic items.
That said, the entries:
do not normally interact with (and if they do, they do not do a good job estimating actual price):
The first set are intended to price out single use or limited use items that eventually cease to exist or become inert like potions, scrolls, and wands.
The second set are there help determine costs for magic items that continue to exist forever until destroyed such as staffs and wondrous items.
Remember, the table is only there to estimate the cost of a magic item. It is not completely accurate and you should usually consult similar magic items for their price.