Hello, Guest! | Sign In | My Account | Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games
 About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Paizo
Community
Store

# Gloves of Shield cost (too cheap?)

### Rules Questions

 1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

one of the players in my campaign took craft wondrous item as his last feat. he proceeded to create a set of gloves that have the shield spell applied to them, continuous use.

According to the magic item construction rules:

Quote:

Use-activated or continuous: Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp

If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

So the cost should be 1 x 1 x 2000 x 2 = 4000 gold pieces. Since he's making it himself, it is half cost, or 2000.

For me, this cost seems WAY cheap. A set of bracers of armor +4 costs 16,000 gps, and don't even get you protection against magic missiles (which shield gives you).

Am I reading this wrong? The "right" price feels to be about 20k for this item, and the fact that this is a order of magnitude price difference has me scratching my head.

thanks much.

EDIT: Unofficial paizo chat gurus pointed out the following from the rules:

Quote:

The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Value.

Does that clinch it? Just compare to bracers of armor and be done with it?

Well, first compare it to the ring of shield which is closer in effect.

Two the Shield spell creates a shield in front of the "caster" and it's is a shield bonus so it facing depend. Flanking or sneak attacks could reasonable negate the AC bonus. Bracers of armors are a blanet AC bonus like true armor.

As DM you have the right to modify the item if you feel it is to powerful. Or you could double the price. 4000 to create an item that provides a +4 "shield" isn't unreason. Plus it stops magic missle.

Brooch of shielding burns out and melts so that's an option. Leave the price but give it a damage limit.

A good way to check an item or ability is to give it to the villian. If the players curse you and threaten you then it may need to be trimmed. If they claw at each other to own it and call it their precious well...

But if the think it cool and it does brake the encounter allow on a trial basis.

They should cost at least as much as bracers +4, probably more.

The 2000 gp version would duplicate the spell 1/day.

MHO YMMV

the comparison should be made to ring of shielding. (not compared to armor bonus, shield is different, #1 because it stacks, #2 because of blocking magic missiles)
the frame of reference should be "people should still have a reason to make/use rings of shielding, so there shouldn't be a flat-out better way to achieve the same thing" (ESPECIALLY given Craft Wondrous has lower requisites than Craft Ring). rings of shielding and of protection wouldn't have much use if there were cheaper equivalents with less CL pre-reqs, would they? so I say point your player towards amulets of natural armor and cloaks of blur, etc, and leave it at that. it doesn't sound like he's trying to achieve anything new or creative, beyond creatively bypassing the rules which already exist for the effect he wants. which require relatively expensive rings. if he complains, tell him craft wondrous is STILL the most worthwhile craft feat to take :-)

mr. fishy's talk of facing doesn't pertain to the RAW, where facing hasn't existed AT ALL since 2nd Edition.

Logic still rules in Mr. Fishy's game.
The RAW is a guide line not a noose to rules lawyer your DM with.

Facing was intend as a note on the use of the spell which in text states "in front of the caster" a flanking enemy could be behind the caster as he (the caster) targets the opposite flanker. Thus avoiding the shield effect, just like be outside of a cone's spread.

Right, you need to look at the other AC increasing items and their creation costs first before looking at the spell effect items creation costs. Same with ability boosting and saving throw boosting items. Those rules will take precedence over the general spell level x caster level rules.

The gloves your PC want to create would provide a +4 shield bonus to AC. So bonus squared is 16, and then that times 2000 or 2500. And that would be WITHOUT the immunity to magic missile. For the cost of that feature, I'd look at the brooch of shielding as a guideline; that costs 1500gp and only works against so many attacks. Making it a permanent continuous effect would cost substantially more.

A use-per-day version of the shield spell would probably be a lot more efficient. There have been items like that before and usually aren't very expensive. Say command word activated at Caster level 5 so each use lasts for 5 minutes, three times per day. Under the item creation cost guidelines that would be at a 5400gp market price.

Mr. Fishy likes Fathers Dales idea.

PIE for Father Dale.

I've got two pieces of pie that says the character wants a continuous true strike weapon next.

Well first, you have to keep in mind that the formula for creating items that provide an enhancement bonus to armor is as follows.

Bonus squared × 1,000 gp.

Second, you have to keep in mind that since magic items which occupy the gloves slot typically have the quickness affinity, any item that provides a different affinity should cost 50% more. So by the RAW, the cost of your friend's gloves should be calculated as follows.

4² × 1,000 gp + 50% = 24,000 gp

Now keep in mind that's by the RAW. Personally, I don't like to let players to create any wondrous items that perform the same function as an item that already exists in the DMG. Otherwise, they tend to come up with some pretty ridiculous, min/maxing items. (Example: Goggles of Strength +6. I seriously had a player try this on me.)

Sometimes I'll throw in a redesigned item as treasure. (Example: bracers of the mountebank.) However, that's usually only after some pretty careful deliberation.

If my players want to design their own items, that's fine. However, I have the final say as to whether or not it exists in game. Also, the more unique the item, and the more it fits your character concept, the more likely I will allow it.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Logic still rules in Mr. Fishy's game.

The RAW is a guide line not a noose to rules lawyer your DM with.

Facing was intend as a note on the use of the spell which in text states "in front of the caster" a flanking enemy could be behind the caster as he (the caster) targets the opposite flanker. Thus avoiding the shield effect, just like be outside of a cone's spread.

This one has been playing Mass Effect, so those ones should forgive this one for speaking like a ponce. This one agrees with that one regarding the rules noose, however this one would not like to be the DM at a table where shield facing is an issue, since this one is a human and not a computational matrix.

Zo

PS: The Shield spell should not be used as an end run for a blanket +4 to AC, IMO. Heh, blanket +4.

good thoughts, thanks everyone for your feedback so far.

how much does a ring of shielding cost? I'm not finding it in the SRD at all. anyone have a URL handy?

Minis, Mr. Fishy has shut down fights over cover and clear shots with dice as position markers for players versus NPCs. Minis work the best as they're more consistent. But dice arranged to show a complex tactic situation can save a lot of bickering over line effect and cover.

Thus a facing could be determined. Magic missle is a no miss so unless the shield is blocking line of effect that shield is a useless.

sozin wrote:

good thoughts, thanks everyone for your feedback so far.

how much does a ring of shielding cost? I'm not finding it in the SRD at all. anyone have a URL handy?

I think they are referring to a ring of force shield, Core, p481.

sozin wrote:
how much does a ring of shielding cost? I'm not finding it in the SRD at all. anyone have a URL handy?

I think he means a ring of force shield. However, it doesn't block magic missiles, so maybe he's talking about something else.

Yeah, these are the situations where you look at what the spell provides, and put things in perspective.

I mean, an extended version of the Shield spell put into a wondrous item would cost vastly more, so why would it be cheaper as a permanent item?

Anyways... here's how I look at it:

Brooch of Shielding: Charged use item is half the cost of an unlimited use item, and going by the average damage of a magic missile, we are looking at "close enough" to 50 charges. I'd put it at 3000gp for the permanent version.

Shield bonus is an "other" bonus, simply because it stacks so nicely with everything else. So bonus squared x 2500gp.

So here' the pricing (all assume permanent magic missile protection):

+1 6,750gp
+2 14,500gp
+3 27,000gp
+4 44,500gp

For higher bonuses, simply do bonus squared x 2500gp, +4500gp (3000gp x 1.5 for additional ability charge).

Oh, and the item slots (gloves = quickness) seems to no longer be in the rules, so maybe Pathfinder got rid of that?

Edit:

Thinking on this...

Shield bonuses are similar to armor bonus in useability (less useful as deflection), but still stacks. So maybe x1500gp instead?

In that case, use this chart:

+1 5,250gp
+2 10,500gp
+3 18,000gp
+4 28,500gp

Keep in mind that these are all base price costs. Cut them in half if they are making it themselves.

Yeah I think all the ability (Str, Dex, Cha, etc.) boosting items are now either belts for physical stats and headbands for mental stats. But you can have multiple ability boosting effects on a single belt or headband.

Nothing in the rule prevents someone from creating an ability boosting item for another body slot, but I think that would increase the cost of the item. Haven't checked that yet.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Facing was intend as a note on the use of the spell which in text states "in front of the caster" a flanking enemy could be behind the caster as he (the caster) targets the opposite flanker. Thus avoiding the shield effect, just like be outside of a cone's spread.

I'm sure Mr. Fishy understands that the description of the shield spell is just flavor text and that Pathfinder doesn't have facing, so the shield spell does provide a +4 shield bonus in all directions under all circumstances (except in an anti-magic zone).

Tikael wrote:
I could swear this has been talked about before...

It comes up a lot.

 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You're forgetting a Shield Spell works against incorporeal attacks, too. Thus, it's effectively Ghost Touch. The ability to deflect Magic Missles is minor, but the character also isn't occupying a hand with a shield...that's worth a lot, as he can now use a Greatsword and get his shield bonus. It's actually HUGE for a melee person.

He's effectively getting the same benefit of a Ghost Touch Animated Shield +3, which is equal to a +6 Shield, with 50% slot kicker. So, he's looking at 54,000 GP for continuous use.

Compare effect to effect, and increase price for slotless. HE'd be better off making the animated shield, if it's still allowed.

===Aelryinth

I do not think it makes sense to make all those different calculations on what it should cost. By RAW his pricing is correct, but unfortunately the magic item creation chapter also states that you should look towards similar items or effects. And here a Ring of Force Shield is as similar as it can be, so have him make that instead.
The same applies to items with continuous use of Mage Armor that is much cheaper than BoA+4. It's a no go since there is a similar magic item.

Sadly it makes the rules for pricing custom magic items a tad difficult to count on.

Demoyn wrote:
I'm sure Mr. Fishy understands that the description of the shield spell is just flavor text and that Pathfinder doesn't have facing, so the shield spell does provide a +4 shield bonus in all directions under all circumstances (except in an anti-magic zone).

As per RAW. He was house-ruling facing.

Zo

DigMarx wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
I'm sure Mr. Fishy understands that the description of the shield spell is just flavor text and that Pathfinder doesn't have facing, so the shield spell does provide a +4 shield bonus in all directions under all circumstances (except in an anti-magic zone).

As per RAW. He was house-ruling facing.

Zo

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that he understood that because I've had DMs that honestly believed things such as this because of flavor text.

For instance, I once had a DM that ruled evasion was useless against a fireball in a 20x20 room because there wasn't any square that didn't get hit by the fireball (due to the rule that says you can't use evasion if your movement is restricted). House rules like that can be really frustrating for many players (especially rules lawyers like me), so I just wanted to clarify.

ok, for starters, I did NOT read all the posts in this thread. If I missed something, please point it out to me in a non-arse way :)

Now, I'm currently playing an Elf Transmuter lvl 6. I took craft wondrous item at level three and made this very item (although mine is a nicely crafted coat). I'm also wearing +1 Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt (+5 armor). at in a DEX of 20 (+2 from the Physical Enhancement from the Transmuation school). so we add it all up, and i have a 24 AC.

Gamebreaking? Not a chance.

Should it cost more? I make this choice based solely on the fact that i'm the constant GM for our group, but am currently playing because another player wanted to try GMing. So Again, No.

Why? because why should a wizard be screwed for spending a FEAT and GOLD to make a good spell constantly active?

I'm in a party of a Half-orc Barbarian and a Human Fighter. The barbarian has +1 Red Dragonhide Breastplate (chosen for thematic reasons, he cares little for AC) and the Fighter has +1 Spiked Breastplate (he's a grappling machine!). I currently have the highest AC, outranking the fighter by 1 point.

Why isn't it gamebreaking? The fighter and the barbarian can take hits I can't.

Why shouldn't it cost more? because you shouldn't punish a player for being creative (yes I know this idea is EVERYWHERE on the boards, but I discovered that joy on my own and was later disappointed it had already been done with the Mage Armor/Shield/Expeditious Retreat idea).

IMO, shield should just never have been a first level spell. It's waaay too good.

Icaste Fyrbawl wrote:

Why shouldn't it cost more? because you shouldn't punish a player for being creative (yes I know this idea is EVERYWHERE on the boards, but I discovered that joy on my own and was later disappointed it had already been done with the Mage Armor/Shield/Expeditious Retreat idea).

You definately shouldn't punish players for being creative.

But the reason it should cost more, isn't so much a matter of punishment as it is a matter of balance. If you allow magic items with constant Mage Armor and Shield, most players would choose to buy them compared to other magic items. If this is the case, it is properly underpriced.

Demoyn wrote:

I'm sure Mr. Fishy understands that the description of the shield spell is just flavor text and that Pathfinder doesn't have facing, so the shield spell does provide a +4 shield bonus in all directions under all circumstances (except in an anti-magic zone).

The text implies a facing by being written into the text of the spells description. Just as burning hands implies fire damage with the flames being mentioned in the spells description. Rules lawyers usually use the whole rule not the half the like.

Is the fire in the fireball description flavor too?

The first thing that people need to do is let go of the magic item creation chart as being some sort of gospel - it is a set of guidelines to help players and DMs hash out the cost of an item, or the cost of making an item. Just because a first level spell is cheap to put into an item by that chart doesn't mean an item that duplicates a first level spell should be cheap.

For certain, an item that grants a perpetual AC bonus should be calculated based on the AC bonus it is providing. Ring of Force Shield is a good example, though one that I don't believe people use properly. It says that it creates a shield-shaped wall of force that can be wielded like a heavy shield - meaning it doesn't simply grant the AC bonus, it needs to be used as a shield to do so. Look at the rules for fighting with two weapons, two-handed weapons, or casting spells while using a buckler. While I wouldn't apply the -1 to attack necessarily, losing the shield bonus whenever you decide to use that hand for other things during a round should certainly apply since you're not using the shield to defend yourself.

As someone suggested, the item will, in effect, be a +4 Animated Ghost Touch Shield (+7 Shield - 49,000 gp). There isn't much reason to give a player 2000gp gloves that provide the same (better, even) benefits than an item that would cost almost 50,000 gp normally.

Icaste Fyrbawl wrote:

Why shouldn't it cost more?

It's a personal spell that lasts only for 1min/level. Both should be factored into the item's cost.

Having something constantly on that you can cast upon another that lasts for hrs/level is a much different creature imho.

Consider the cost of a +2 animated shield (though in pathfinder even that's not a constant shield bonus) which does not protect against incorporeal attacks, doesn't give immunity to magic missiles and comes with both proficiency requirements and spell failure...

Also towards your particular group figure that both the fighter and barbarian could use this item, which is better than a 16k gold item (+2 animated shield)...

-James

Well, James, The Fighter briefly did while his armor was being enchanted. However, it would also depend on your resources in your campaign. In the instance of the OP question, his player created the item himself. That takes time, money, and a feat. The feat itself is worth a good amount of gold he can never get back. But i'm not going to start an argument over it. After all, I'm still a proponent of Enjoyment over Cost. And there are still monsters who can stomp the AC problem. Also, another point I'd like to make, if you fear this will cause unbalance, why not require the item only be usable by his class or race? Yes it makes it cheaper, but unless everyone is the same class or race, it limits its resale or its usefulness to the rest of the party.

On a higher note, I guess a better question would be: Are the Magic Item Creation rules flawed?

Mr.Fishy wrote:
Demoyn wrote:

I'm sure Mr. Fishy understands that the description of the shield spell is just flavor text and that Pathfinder doesn't have facing, so the shield spell does provide a +4 shield bonus in all directions under all circumstances (except in an anti-magic zone).

The text implies a facing by being written into the text of the spells description. Just as burning hands implies fire damage with the flames being mentioned in the spells description. Rules lawyers usually use the whole rule not the half the like.

Is the fire in the fireball description flavor too?

Wait a minute, facing matters again? Could you point me to the 'Combat Facing' section of the book? I could've swore that was an optional rule in another book..

Edit Before anyone gets jacked up, I must specify that I do not jest.

Mr.Fishy wrote:
The text implies a facing by being written into the text of the spells description. Just as burning hands implies fire damage with the flames being mentioned in the spells description. Rules lawyers usually use the whole rule not the half the like.

Firstly, using the word "implies" in any disagreement over rules as extensive as the D&D (or Pathfinder) rules means you've already lost because the rules are hard and fast. They're not meant to be interpreted. This is why the first rule of the DMG is that the DM is always right and can change any rule he wants. Burning hands, in fact, does not IMPLY anything.

Secondly, rules lawyers use every word in every rule. Rules lawyers are nothing if not literal.

Unfortunately the one chapter that Paizo changed extensively layout-wise is the combat chapter. I wasn't able to quickly find the page number that the "no facing" rule was on, but as soon as I do I'll gladly point it out to you.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Is the fire in the fireball description flavor too?

Burning Hands

A cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips. Any creature in the area of the flames takes 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).

Notice the first sentence where it describes the spell. This sentence has absolutely no effect on gameplay. It is a description of the spell's effect to help the DM.

The second sentence is where the crunch is. How do you know that burning hands does fire damage? Because the second sentence specifically says "1d4 points of FIRE DAMAGE".

Now take fireball for instance. The first sentence begins with, "A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and...". If you read the rest of the spell's description you'll notice that there's no rule in there for any audible effect of the spell.

Does the low roar cause a chance to deafen? Does the low roar specifically allow another listen check for roaming monsters to hear combat? Does the low roar stop bard song?

The fact is that it does none of those things, because the rules don't say that it does. The shield spell is the exact same way (as are ALL of the spells in the core rulebook).

Text of the spell states in front of the caster. The text of fireball states fire damage but it could be flavor as it is not in the spell write up with the level and range.

Play as you see fit. Mr. Fishy stands on the rule of logic.

Icaste Fyrbawl wrote:

On a higher note, I guess a better question would be: Are the Magic Item Creation rules flawed?

Well if you mean the guidelines for DMs to design new items, then I would say that they are misleading. People view it as formulae for all items without checks or balances, which is wrong.

If it's the rules for using the item creation feats, then I think those are fine,

James

Mr.Fishy wrote:
Play as you see fit. Mr. Fishy stands on the rule of logic.

I'm sure there's a lot of logic in your description of gnomes throwing around magical spells, dwarven fighters in full plate with shields swimming in water, druids walking on lava and taking no damage (nor leaving tracks), and halfling rogues jumping 30 feet over a pit filled with monstrous scorpions. Logic has no place in Pathfinder.

demoyn wrote:

Firstly, using the word "implies" in any disagreement over rules as extensive as the D&D (or Pathfinder) rules means you've already lost because the rules are hard and fast.

Secondly, rules lawyers use every word in every rule. Rules lawyers are nothing if not literal.

Burning Hands

A cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips. Any creature in the area of the flames takes 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).

Notice the first sentence where it describes the spell. This sentence has absolutely no effect on gameplay. It is a description of the spell's effect to help the DM.

The second sentence is where the crunch is. How do you know that burning hands does fire damage? Because the second sentence specifically says "1d4 points of FIRE DAMAGE".

First, no rule is hard or fast. If they were there would be no lawyers.

Second, every word includes, flavor. Burning Hands used the casters hands, that's what that S is for by components.

demoyn wrote:
Logic has no place in Pathfinder.

What page is that rule on???

Mr.Fishy wrote:
Burning Hands used the casters hands, that's what that S is for by components.

So a dragon can't cast burning hands? Naga, beholders, aboleths, intelligent creatures with a single level of sorcerer, none of them can cast burning hands if they do not have hands?

Sorry, Mr. Fishy is just throwing chum in the water again.

Here's some more chum.

Demoyn wrote:
Rules lawyers use every word in every rule. Rules lawyers are nothing if not literal.

Mr. Fishy quotes the Gospel of RAW.

"Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."

Gospel of Fishy "Play as you will."

HaraldKlak wrote:

I do not think it makes sense to make all those different calculations on what it should cost. By RAW his pricing is correct, but unfortunately the magic item creation chapter also states that you should look towards similar items or effects....

No, by RAW his pricing is NOT correct. It's not even close. The FIRST rule of custom item pricing is to compare it to existing items. You don't get to pick and choose the rules AND claim you're following the RAW.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Second, every word includes, flavor. Burning Hands used the casters hands, that's what that S is for by components.

Next you're going to try to say that burning hands requires two free hands to cast because the title of the spell says HANDS (plural). That, obviously, is wrong also.

If you want to misinterperet the rules and/or use your own house rules based on flavor text then I'm all for that. I wouldn't play in your game personally because that's not my type of game, but I'm ecstatic that the very basis of this game allows that much freedom. I would, however, appreciate it if those house rules stay out of a thread asking an official rules answer.

Mr.Fishy wrote:
demoyn wrote:
Logic has no place in Pathfinder.
What page is that rule on???

The very first page. You know, the one that says Pathfinder is a FANTASY game.

Mr. Fishy merely quoted the RAW. Mr. Fishy as so quoted you (Demoyn).

So Mr. Fishy doesn't understand the misinterperetion.

Mr. Fishy never mentioned a house rule. Mr. Fishy mentioned facing because the spell description did.

"Play as you see fit," is the only house rule Mr. Fishy has offered.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy never mentioned a house rule. Mr. Fishy mentioned facing because the spell description did.

"Play as you see fit," is the only house rule Mr. Fishy has offered.

The mere fact that you mentioned facing as a rule is, in fact, a house rule because facing doesn't exist in Pathfinder. Regardless, we're getting way off topic so I'll exit stage left.

OK, see you later, maybe we can disgree about something else.

heres a few questions

if there is no facing, why are there rules for flanking?

the concept of flanking requires the concept of facing.

if the somatic components for a spell require a free hand, why can a dragon cast spells with these components?

if a dragon can perform the somatic components with his clawed paws, why can't a grappled sorcereress use her feet for the somatic components?

the dragon has no hands and thus cannot cast certain spells, if the dragon is getting away with breaking this rule by using it's forelegs, i think the grappled sorcereress should have the RIGHT to use her feet whilst her arms are bound by grapple. a grapple binds the arms, not the feet.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

heres a few questions

if there is no facing, why are there rules for flanking?

There are rules for flanking BECAUSE there are no rules for facing. Sneak attack used to be called "backstab." A thief (rogue) had to be "behind" the target to use "backstab." With no "behind," or "front" for that matter, the flanking rules were written to determine when a "backstab" could take place.

So, the only reference to combat facing was from the variant rules from Unearthed Arcana:

SRD Variant Rules wrote:
The standard d20 combat rules intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight.

Flanking occurs when the target has to divide his attention, not because his back is turned.

The problem isn't that the wording of the spell implies facing rules. It simply says that it's in front of the caster. The caster can simply face any direction he wants at any time. It doesn't matter that it's only in front, since his front can be facing any direction he wants.
A spell description isn't going to be the place where they imply fixed facing rules that the DM will now have to adjudicate...

Regarding a +2 Ghost Touch Animated Mithral Light Shield... well, that's if he wanted every single benefit of the spell.
At that point, you might as well make it a deflection bonus, instead of a shield bonus and call it a day.

Regarding Dragons casting spells with somatic components... They have 2 claw attacks. This means their front limbs are considered "claws", which can wield weapons and manipulate objects (see the universal monster rules, natural attacks). These are hands with sharp points on the end of some sort, not feet.
This is the equivalent of Lizardfolk having claw attacks on their hands. They can still cast spells, because they are hands with claws on them, not feet. Same applies to Dragons.

 1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>