you certainly achieved your goal. (my shocking grasp magus build will take 2 of the Type 1 please)
A ring of Magical Might 1 will Always be better than a Ring of Wizardry 1 and at less than 1/3 the cost. As you go up to a Type 4, however, the benefit is still always better, but the cost difference is negligible (4000gp). So as a magic item it doesn't seem too over powered. and cost is really an odd thing in PF, some GM's hand out lots of coin/value, others not so much, so in a low GP campaign it might be over powered since you can get them much easier, but in a high GP campaign, I see them as easy to get as a ring of Wizardy.
I don't see much issue overall, however, I'd place the costs of the lower rings higher, just for better game balance.
|
Note that for a Prepared Caster:
A Pearl of Power operates on command (requiring a standard action) and only refreshes a specific used prepared spell, allowing you to cast that specific spell a second time in a subsequent round. As such, they are typically used between fights.
A Ring of Wizardry, on the other hand, requires no action to activate and can be used to prepare an completely different set of spells in the new spell slots it provides. Even if you decide to prepare multiples of the same spell, you don't have to take three rounds to cast two copies of the same 'standard action casting time' spell.
Basically, Pearls are cheaper, but much more limited than the Rings.
For a Spontaneous Caster:
A Runestone of Power and Ring of Wizardry function very similarly, providing extra spell slots without requiring extra actions. This 'not requiring an extra action' factor is presumably the major reason Runestones are more expensive than Pearls.
In theory, the ring would be superior if you have some ability that requires an open spell slot to use, but even then there is little reason not to use your Runestones before you start using your actual spell slots (unlike pearls, you don't need to use your actual spell slots first).
The one potential drawback of the Runestones is their 'An expended runestone of power recharges its capacity after 24 hours' restriction, but I'm guessing most tables will just assume it refreshes when you refresh your spells.
Ideally, a ring should be about half the price of a collection of Runestones providing the same number of slots (since it takes a specific item slot), but this will make your new rings really cheap (just 2,000g for a ring providing a pair of level 1 spontaneous spell slots)...
|
|
normally rings run 150% Wondrous Item cost
How are you coming up with this? The Ring of Protection definately doesn't have a 150% modifier in its pricing, nor does the Ring of Climbing and the like.
There is a suggested 150% modifier for moving an 'standard item' to a different slot (like the Ring of Resistance instead of a Cloak of Resistance) but I don't think this comes into play here.|
|
Ring of Wizardry: [ring] ⌈1.25{any arcane}*(NmbrSlot^1.16)*2000*(SplLvl^1.5), 100⌉gp to grant up to 4 spell slots to any arcane caster up to Fourth spell level. A user must wear the ring one day to attune the ring before he gains the benefit. A ring loses its attunement to a wearer after 1 minute of loss or 1 hour of doffed possession(such as taking it off but keeping it in a pocket, this includes magic jar and similar effects).
This item does not accumulate(stack) with other slotted items that grant spell slots at the same spell level.Req: Forge Ring, able to cast the number of slots of the spell level to be granted by the ring.
First: 4 slots (arcane) $12500.
Second: 4 slots (arcane) $35400.
Third: 4 slots (arcane) $64900.
Fourth: 4 slots (arcane) $99900.
First off, the 'no stacking' rule is not good when you are effectively competing against an 'easier to acquire' (with their low cost, individual runestones will likely be available long before your rings are) 'fully stacking' slotless item.
The fundamental issue with your pricing is how it compares to the equivalent Runestone costs (all percentages are rough, and reversing the 'unslotted' adjustment includes applying the 'additional power' +50% for each stone past the first):
- Runestone of Power [1st] = 2,000g * 4 = 8,000g vs your 12,500g ring (+50% Cost, or +125% after reversing the 'unslotted' adj).
- Runestone of Power [2nd] = 8,000g * 4 = 32,000g vs your 35,400g ring (+10% Cost, or +50% after reversing the 'unslotted' adj).
- Runestone of Power [3rd] = 18,000g * 4 = 72,000g vs your 64,900g ring (-10% Cost, or +30% after reversing the 'unslotted' adj).
- Runestone of Power [4th] = 32,000g * 4 = 128,000g vs your 99,900g ring (-25% Cost, or +10% after reversing the 'unslotted' adj).
Basically, spontaneous casters will just pretend these rings don't exist (like everyone does with the official versions) and prepared casters will likely make do with their even cheaper (though more limited) pearls...
|
|
1) the ring works for any arcane caster.
Yes, prepared casters need to use pearls, but those function just differently enough that I'm trying to avoid using them in this comparison.
Basically, Pearls are great for spells you only want to cast once per fight (like perhaps Shield) or multiple times outside of a fight (like perhaps Mage Armor) but not very good for spells you want to cast multiple times in one fight (like perhaps Magic Missile), while Runestones (like rings) function equally well in all of these situations.2) Runestone cost = 200% Pearl of power cost. Both are slotless.
Yep, making your rings comparatively more expensive for prepared casters than they are for spontaneous casters, as long as you accept their limitations (which you often can without significant issue).
3) Runestone only work for spontaneous casters.
Is it the way it works? Are Spontaneous slots that much more valuable? hmmm...
I'm guessing (and it is just a guess) that most of the extra cost for a runestone is the fact that it doesn't cost you an extra standard action to use.
4) MY base calculation for values of these things.
Yes, you can price items however you like, but pricing them so high that most people will just ignore their existence (like the official versions) kinda just wastes your time...
5) The ring takes up a slot. Ring slots are common so you keep it through most polymorphs.
The finger that bears this ring is a finger that can't bear another ring, and there are a lot of good ring options out there.
I'm not certain if you just phrased this poorly or have forgotten how Polymorphs actually operate RAW (perhaps after playing with 'house rules' for too long):- Yes, you do keep the ring's effects while polymorphed, which is a plus, but
- No, if your ring actually stays 'out' while polymorphed, you probably have your unslotted items available as well.
6) 4 or 6 Spl slots [ring] is better than 1 Spl slot [none].
But '1 Spl slot [none]' * 4 is better (and generally still cheaper) than '4 or 6 Spl slots [ring]', particularly if you disregard the 4th level versions as you suggest. You kinda seem to be under the impression that you can only have one copy of a specific Runestone at a time, which is not the case...
Just looking at the level 1 versions combined with the 'Wealth By Level' and 'Purchasing Magic Items' guidelines:
- Individual Pearls of Power are craftable at 3rd level, affordable by 3rd level, and can be purchased in Small Towns.
- Individual Runestones of Power are craftable at 3rd level, affordable by 3rd or 4th level, and can be purchased in Large Towns.
- Your version of the Ring of Wizardry is craftable at 7th level, affordable at 6th or 7th level, and can only be purchased in a Metropolis.
The real test would be to survey people playing actual arcane casters and ask which of the following options their character would go for:
- No extra slot items (by the time your rings are available, you probably don't really need the extra slots),
- Pearls/Runestones (being cheaper, available earlier, allowing you to add just one or two slots rather than 'four or none', and leaving that ring slot open for other options, or
- Your version of the Ring of Wizardry.
|
|
I found that I made a mistake in my top post. I made an effort to remove all mention of arcane and I missed one. My intent was to make these rings work for all casters.
As for the price, I was considering increasing it by another 50% (2000 gp). The proposal of 12k for a type 1 by Azothath seemed a bit too much.
I'm also not sure if Azothath intended to keep the double spell slots with the rings. I was going for finite number of spells, not doubling the base spell slots of every arcane spellcasting class you had. You can get a lot of 1st level spells if you multiclass enough.
@Taja I haven't heard about what you think of the rings aside from thinking Azothath prices were too high. What are your thoughts?
Considering the Ring of Mysticism also exists, I wouldn't worry about boosting the prices because just because any caster can use it.
Looking at Azothath's suggested prices again, it kinda seems more like an effort to come up with the 'formula' behind the official prices (with the 1st level ring being significantly off but the others being within 10% or so) than establishing what these rings should actually cost....
In order to effectively compete with Runestones (which work for all spontaneous casters), the base pricing should be along the lines of:
[Spell Slot Level]^2 * 1,000g * [Number of Spell Slots Granted]
Assuming a ring grants 4 extra spell slots, that means 4,000g for a 1st level ring, 16,000g for a 2nd level ring, 36,000g for a 3rd level ring, and 64,000g for a 4th level ring.
Honestly, I still think that Runestones/Pearls are the better option as you can start getting them earlier (when those spell slots are most important) and they never become truly obsolete (A level 1 ring should eventually be unequipped in favor of a better ring, but you can 'equip' your Runestones/Pearls forever even if you don't actually use them most days)
I do have to admit that my 'nearly 4th level' Mesmerist would be sorely tempted to spend her 4k gold 'life savings' on a 'four level 1 slots' ring if one became available before a Headband of Alluring Charisma does...