Actually the magus does not have Mage Armor on its spell list. Which kind of sucks if you're playing a bladed scarf dancer, kensai, spire defender, or staff magus. One of those weird little things...
I don't think it's the bracers that are overpriced, I think it's the defense spells of arcanists that are too powerful. This is from the perspective that arcanists tend to be on the strong side of the class balance, and that part of that's because they've lost a lot of the fragility they had in earlier editions.
Dropping MA/shield down to 2+1/2 levels (max +4) or even 2+1/3 levels (max +4) would change this for quite some bit.
The difference between shield and Mage armor is more then duration.
You can't get +4 Shield AC without a magic shield (tower shields give a TH penalty and aren't an even comparison). To rival the efficacy of a Shield spell, you need a heavy shield +2 or a light shield/buckler +3.
To give the protection of a Mage ARmor spell you need...a chain shirt. No magic required. That's why Mage Armor isn't near as much of a problem as Shield.
Armor might have an arcane penalty. But it doesn't stop flurry of blows, THW, TWF AND impose a penalty to spells like a shield does. Everyone wants a shield for the AC. No one wants to really give up the damage and effects you have to in order to get that AC.
Shield spell, voila, no restrictions. Hugely valuable AC boost you need magic to replicate.
Bracers aren't really overpriced. The mage is getting a weightless, no dex limit, no arcane casting penalty, good vs incorps +4 or higher bonus to AC for a low level slot. It IS better then leather +2.
And yes, mages don't bother Getting Bracers until ALL their other defensive stuff is +5, it's not cost efficient to. But when you've got the +5 ring, amulet, and dex booster+6, it's finally time to invest some money into Bracers...exactly like Melees have to invest in their own armor, eventually a mage will, too.
==Aelryinth
Let's take this command word thing to the Barkskin level.
Caster level 3 Amulet gives Barkskin+2 for 6000 gp for 30 minutes/use. 3/day is 3600 gp. It's 8k for a +2 amulet of natural armor.
Caster level 6, +3 Nat AC for 12000 gp 5/day, or 7200 3/day, 1 hour/use. Vs 18,000
Caster level 9, +4, 18000 gp, or 10,800 3/day. Vs 32,000. Lasts 90 min.
And Caster level 12, +5, 24000 gp 5/day, or 14,400 3/day, vs 50,000, cost savings of 35,600 gp. You can do better then 2 for one! And it lasts two hours per use.
I can definitely see why you want to cast the spell instead of treating it like all other AC items.
==Aelryinth
Let's take this command word thing to the Barkskin level.
Caster level 3 Amulet gives Barkskin+2 for 6000 gp for 30 minutes/use. 3/day is 3600 gp. It's 8k for a +2 amulet of natural armor.
Caster level 6, +3 Nat AC for 12000 gp 5/day, or 7200 3/day, 1 hour/use. Vs 18,000
Caster level 9, +4, 18000 gp, or 10,800 3/day. Vs 32,000. Lasts 90 min.
And Caster level 12, +5, 24000 gp 5/day, or 14,400 3/day, vs 50,000, cost savings of 35,600 gp. You can do better then 2 for one! And it lasts two hours per use.
I can definitely see why you want to cast the spell instead of treating it like all other AC items.
==Aelryinth
Are we seriously still talking about this?
There was another thread regarding the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard and most people thought it was not under priced.
We can extrapolate the cost of the shield device usable 3/day from the cloak. If anyone would pay much more than the standard formula of (CL x SL x 1800 x #uses per day / 5) for this item, then they are fools and I have a bridge for sale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard wearing a chain shirt gets a +4 bonus to AC and a 20% spell failure. The ac bonus lasts all day, and costs 100 GP. He can take feats or spend 1000 GP to upgrade to a mithral chain shirt to lower or completely eliminate the spell failure chance. He can also carry a wand of Shield to emulate the barbarians shield effect (but significantly cheaper at 750 GP), giving him a total of +8 AC.
A barbarian using a ring of Shield gets a +4 bonus to AC and wastes 20% of his Attack actions in a typical encounter activating said item. The AC bonus lasts for three minutes total per day, and costs somewhere between 1100 and 12 000 (originally 30k+) GP depending on who your GM is. The barbarian has no options to make the ring cast faster, so he is stuck with the action economy penalty for the period he chooses to use the ring.
...There are times when I wonder why Mundanes cant have nice things.
Yes, Paizo can get pricing wrong. Is it possible that Paizo got it right with the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, and seriously overpriced the Bracers of Archery and Greater Archery?
It is possible that none of them is priced well, but I do not believe it possible that Bracers of Falcon's Aim are priced appropriately. The bracers give the wearer's bow the equivalent of +2 in enchantments - something that normally costs 8,000 gp and is transferrable to boot. The spell is simply too good for the spell-based pricing formulas to generate a fairly priced magic item.
|
Actually, you have repeatedly stated that having 5 charges a day is "functionally" the same as having the item active all day - including in my previous quote. Speaking of which, since we're talking about paying attention, you need to read the fine print on continuous spell effects... It alters the cost of the item depending on the duration of the original spell. In Shield's case, it doubles it. That's what I was referring to when I said it's not the same price.
As for a +4 armor bonus costing what a +4 armor bonus costs... Why does bracers of Mage armor cost 16 000 GP and a potion of Mage Armor 50 gp? After all they give the same bonus... Right?
2 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.
It is continuous? No. Not applicable.
|
|
It is possible that none of them is priced well, but I do not believe it possible that Bracers of Falcon's Aim are priced appropriately. The bracers give the wearer's bow the equivalent of +2 in enchantments - something that normally costs 8,000 gp and is transferrable to boot. The spell is simply too good for the spell-based pricing formulas to generate a fairly priced magic item.
Yes, Paizo can get pricing wrong. Is it possible that Paizo got it right with the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, and seriously overpriced the Bracers of Archery and Greater Archery?
From the PFS General discussion:
Hi all. I have sat down with Jason Bulhman this morning and discussed several of these topics.
First, we will be banning bracers of the falcon's aim until the price can be errataed.
Second, we will not be banning snow ball.
So Paizo acknowledge that the bracers of falcon's aim price is wrong.
Actually, you have repeatedly stated that having 5 charges a day is "functionally" the same as having the item active all day - including in my previous quote. Speaking of which, since we're talking about paying attention, you need to read the fine print on continuous spell effects... It alters the cost of the item depending on the duration of the original spell. In Shield's case, it doubles it. That's what I was referring to when I said it's not the same price.
As for a +4 armor bonus costing what a +4 armor bonus costs... Why does bracers of Mage armor cost 16 000 GP and a potion of Mage Armor 50 gp? After all they give the same bonus... Right?
2 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.It is continuous? No. Not applicable.
My point exactly - thank you :)
(sighs) If you will look at the charges/day section, a 5 chg/day item is considered to be equal to a continuous item for purposes of pricing.
We HAVE already gone over this part. Like, 5 times?
Which is why the 3/day is being priced at 60% of a 5/day item, i.e. a CONTINUOUS item.
So not only applicable, but the base, the guideline, and the required standard.
==Aelryinth
Let me ask a question, for everyone: what kind of level increase would you apply to a metamagic feat that let you use personal range spells as touch spells (or maybe at close range if you think there's some broken combo with touch spells and various touch-spell-specific abilities)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(sighs) If you will look at the charges/day section, a 5 chg/day item is considered to be equal to a continuous item for purposes of pricing.
We HAVE already gone over this part. Like, 5 times?
Which is why the 3/day is being priced at 60% of a 5/day item, i.e. a CONTINUOUS item.
So not only applicable, but the base, the guideline, and the required standard.
==Aelryinth
5/day is priced the same as an unlimited use-activated item, which isn't always the same price as a continuous item. (I will admit that this particular part of the table could be interpreted differently.)
For shield specifically, that means a continuous shield would theoretically be priced the same as 10 uses per day, except that so far no one has disagreed that a continuous shield should use the bonus squared pricing.
The definition of unlimited use-activated is that it's active whenever you need it to be active.
So, you'd have the AC bonus when you need the AC bonus.
Which basically is the exact same thing as continuous.
If you're going to pick a nit on this point, then do me a favor and tell me how you'd price Magic Weapon vs a +1 Sword on the same justification?
It's an AC item and should be priced as such, not as a cast/day item.
==Aelryinth
For shield specifically, that means a continuous shield would theoretically be priced the same as 10 uses per day, except that so far no one has disagreed that a continuous shield should use the bonus squared pricing.
No one includes me here. The same goes for say magic weapon or any other continuous numerical bonus I can think of off the top of my head.
And use-activated means you need to use it to activate it.
use-activated means swinging the sword.
Use-activated means catching a blow on your armor.
==Aelryinth
The definition of unlimited use-activated is that it's active whenever you need it to be active.
No, it's that you can activate it at any time as a standard action. There is a huge difference between unlimited use true strike (standard to activate, lasts one round) and continuous true strike (always on), to take an extreme example.
Action economy is the key here. While unlimited use and continuous may work similarly for long-duration buffs like Mage Armor, only needed to be spent an action per hour, when talking about short-term buffs that you won't really have up all the time (unless spending 10% of your waking time activating it) it makes a huge difference.
To clarify the types I'll use true strike as an example because it's simple and short-duration.
So, a sword with true strike of different types:
Command word at will: Standard action to cast true strike, to get a +20 to next attack if made within 6 seconds.
Use-activated at will: When you strike, it will cast true strike, so depending on interpretation either you get +20 to each attack or to each attack after the first in a 6-second period.
Continuous: You always get +20 on attacks with the sword.
The first one does not upset action economy much and shouldn't really be a big deal if someone wants to get it, the second and third ones are extremely powerful
@Ilja
Thank you for outlining that so succinctly. Like Aelryinth said, I've been trying to explain this repeatedly but it just didn't seem to catch.
The section on item activation lumps use-activated and continuous items together.
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
That plus the entry in the costs table gives two possible interpretations that I can see. Either use-activated and continuous are synonymous, or they're similar but not quite the same. I feel that for most effects the need to use a standard action to activate them is a significant drawback unless they have a very long duration, which is exactly what the duration multipliers reflect if they only applied to continuous abilities and the phrase use-activated refers to needing to use an action to activate the item.
That is a unique way of looking at it...use-activated means swinging the sword.
Use-activated means catching a blow on your armor.==Aelryinth
No, that's probably the standard way of looking at use-activated, though there is no mechanical way to catch a blow on your armor. Potions are use-activated because you drink them, swords are when you strike them, use-activated armors are usually activated when you are hit or targeted. Items like rings etc would probably normally be use-activated when you put them on, which makes them similar to continuous items except the effect ends when the duration has expired (if it had one). Due to this it's not really fitting to put use-activated on a ring/belt/whatever unless done for specific reasons (for example, a ring that is use-activated when you strike someone with your fist could be reasonable).
In some cases use-activated will work similar to command word, in some cases they'll work similar to continuous. Use-activated items however can have non-duration effects or targeted effects, that are triggered without spending an extra action.
Consider an arrow that casts Blindness on it's victim.
- It cannot be continuous because that'd be something like whoever has it in her hand/possession would be blind.
- It cannot be a command word item because that'd be like "say hopscotch and some guy gets blind"
- It's triggered by use (hitting someone with it), thus it's use-activated.
That plus the entry in the costs table gives two possible interpretations that I can see. Either use-activated and continuous are synonymous, or they're similar but not quite the same. I feel that for most effects the need to use a standard action to activate them is a significant drawback unless they have a very long duration, which is exactly what the duration multipliers reflect if they only applied to continuous abilities and the phrase use-activated refers to needing to use an action to activate the item.
Needing to use an action isn't really a drawback with use activated magic because that magic is intended to be triggered and active when you use an item that happens to use an action to use in the first place. The magic kicks in automatically for no additional action cost. For example, with a pea shooter of fireballs, you'd fire off the spell by using the peashooter in its normal way. The action is spent using the peashooter, the fireball is along for the ride and is always available whenever I use the peashooter. A crowbar of bull's strength enhances my strength when I use an action to pry something open with the crowbar. It's not continuous because it isn't an enhancement that's always there just by carrying the crowbar, but it is active every time I use the crowbar.
And if it's armor of or a cloak of fire resistance... That item is used whenever I'm wearing it and is thus virtually synonymous with continuous. I stick it on the slot it uses and it turns on. I take it off, it turns off.
If you ask a question and the only answer you're willing to hear is "yes, you're right," you shouldn't bother asking the question, because all you're doing is wasting everyone's time. D'arandriel has made it clear that all s/he wants is to be told how right s/he is - that, in fact, those who disagree are "fools" - and that means that asking the question in the first place was utterly pointless.
This is inaccurate. I had initially agreed that the cost for shield with cl1, 3/day should cost from 1000-4000. This seemed reasonable to me. Once the cloak of the hedge wizard was brought up, the game changed. It just wouldn't make sense to be charged an astronomical amount of gold when all I want is only the shield power of a cloak of the hedge wizard - nothing else. I'm willing to pay a slight premium for the convenience of using it 3/day instead of switching items. But because of how the cloak is priced, I just don't see justification for a five figure cost on this item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bill Dunn, that's not what I meant by use an action. I meant that it actually costs you a standard action to activate without having to say a command word out loud, such as "turn the ring around your finger three times" or something.
There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually have experience of using this item.
Well, not really. I played in Kingmaker as a two-handed-weapon fighter with a one level dip in wizard. He could carry a wand of Shield in one hand as he explored, use it, and then drop it as a free action to attack.
It wasn't very useful.
During a random wilderness encounter, it almost always seemed better to attack than spend a round increasing AC. (He also had a wand of Mirror Image which usually seemed like a better use of an action if he needed protection.)
In a dungeon, you can cast Shield before opening a door, but unless you absolutely know that a serious battle will break out immediately you open the door, your casting will likely be wasted. Not too bad with a 15gp wand charge, but if you're exploring a big dungeon and can only cast Shield three times a day the chances of you having it up when you really need it are low.
I would value this item at around 5000gp. More if you have a GM who usually gives you a chance to buff before combat.
|
|
(sighs) If you will look at the charges/day section, a 5 chg/day item is considered to be equal to a continuous item for purposes of pricing.
We HAVE already gone over this part. Like, 5 times?
Which is why the 3/day is being priced at 60% of a 5/day item, i.e. a CONTINUOUS item.
So not only applicable, but the base, the guideline, and the required standard.
==Aelryinth
My point was that if you are making a charges/day item you don't use the modifier for the spell duration, as it is not a continuous item.
What Kudaku made of that is his problem.The definition of unlimited use-activated is that it's active whenever you need it to be active.
So, you'd have the AC bonus when you need the AC bonus.
Which basically is the exact same thing as continuous.
If you're going to pick a nit on this point, then do me a favor and tell me how you'd price Magic Weapon vs a +1 Sword on the same justification?It's an AC item and should be priced as such, not as a cast/day item.
==Aelryinth
How you make a use activated shield item?
You can make a command word or continuous item, but use activate require that the activation is part of the use of the item.
A ring that grants continuous air bubble... Well, first I'd consider similar items.
The helmet of underwater action allows continuous underwater breathing but it also gives you a 30 foot swim speed (which also means a +8 bonus to swim checks, and that you can fight underwater with no penalties) and it gives you five times better sight range underwater. That's priced at 24 000 GP, but there's a lot of different price modifiers in there. The +8 bonus to swim (ring of swimming +10 is 10 000 GP alone), the 30 speed itself, and the sight bonus are all significant attributes for the item in question.
Pearl of the Sirens is a slightly better fit. It's priced at 15 300 GP but it gives a swim speed of 60 (!), continuous water breathing, and essentially Freedom of Movement when countering water. Again, a lot of modifiers (+8 swim, 60 speed, ignore penalties of fighting underwater) you will not get with just Air Bubble.
The cloak of the Manta Ray is priced at 7200 GP. It too gives a 60 swim speed, underwater breathing, but you have to shapeshift into a Manta. Depending on your class this is awesome, impractical, or horrible.
Next we'll try out some formulas. Another spell that is similar to air bubble but has a significantly longer duration is Water Breathing. However water breathing allows multiple targets, which air bubble does not. The formula for Water Breathing would be as follows:
3 * 5 * 2000 = 30 000 GP. That's more expensive than any of the items listed above but provides a fraction of the benefit, so clearly in this case water breathing is not a good comparison.
Finally, let's try the formula using Air Bubble. 1 * 1 * 2000 *2 = 4 000 GP for a continuous air bubble effect. Personally I think that sounds about right. I'd probably price a continuous item of Air Bubble somewhere between 4k and 5k gp.
|
|
Let me ask a question, for everyone: what kind of level increase would you apply to a metamagic feat that let you use personal range spells as touch spells (or maybe at close range if you think there's some broken combo with touch spells and various touch-spell-specific abilities)?
Read what the alchemist can do with touch injection, infusions and personal only spells and you will see why that shouldn't be allowed at all.
It would require changing all the personal range spell so that they a sawing throw an/or spell resistance and/or affect only willing targets.
@Kudaku, what about the other items?
@Diego Rossi, what about a metamagic feat that made personal spells close range and only worked on a willing target?
Although I'm not sure I understand your complaint about the alchemist. It seems like they can already do exactly that at the cost of a 2nd level spell instead of a feat.
All of the items would be descending in value from the first ring.
The last two rings I'd probably charge about 1000 GP for, command word and turning the rings both translates to a standard action so I consider them worth about the same.
The two that activate automatically would be somewhere in the middle. Not more than 2000-2500 gp, give or take.
You wouldn't consider the ability to activate it silently, or more importantly in this case, underwater (where you can't speak) as worth some difference in price?
You'd need one hand free in order to turn the ring while speaking the command word only requires the ability to speak - I can imagine situations where either would be more beneficial. The ability to activate it silently/underwater might be worth a small premium, but imo not more than a few hundred gold.
The difference, according to my interpretation of the table, between use-activated and command word would be 120 gp (in this case).
The price of the Cloak D'Andriel loves so much for its brokenness is the proper price of an item that grants a +1 Shield AC bonus. The fact it is +4 is what breaks the pricing strictures.
I already broke down exactly how a shield bonus should scale and the proper pricing structure at all levels of bonus for such a thing...just like every other AC granting item.
I also broke down the costs of every other AC granting item if you DON'T use the proper structure, and by the time you get to the end you're basically down to half cost and less.
A true striking use-activated sword will activate when it is swung, so it can guide the blow.
A Blindness-inflicting use-activated arrow will activate when it HITS, because then it has a viable target. Note that it only needs a touch attack to go off, unlike the arrow itself. But if it misses, it won't discharge the Blindness and can be recovered to use again.
A use-activated piece of armor will activate when it is swung at, as it attempts to protect the wearer before a blow lands.
==Aelryinth
The standard action cost is subsumed in the making of a x/day use item. I'm not ignoring it, it's part of the price. If you don't like it, too bad. The benefits of the AC outweigh your action economy.
The short duration is not a factor. He needs it for one fight, and it lasts just long enough for one fight. The duration is calculated metacheese to lower the price, not a drawback.
The ease of dispelling means that a) it will be the last spell a dispel picks on to dispel or b) it gets dispelled instead of some other hugely valuable spell, for a net win-win.
It also conveniently ignores that the classes with the most to gain from this item (TWF, THF, Monks) are also almost never, ever targeted with dispels.
It breaks the AC pricing guidelines in NUMEROUS ways. It's not balanced. And even if you use the pricing guidelines properly, and advance the caster level, it still is cheaper then following the flat AC bonus table that it should be.
Plus, it sets precedent. If you allow this for Shield, you have to allow it for the other big 3 AC bonuses, which is going to potentially drop THEIR pricings down in half.
So, if you don't have a problem with this pricing, be prepared for the cost of other AC items to drop, too. Either you operate on one paradigm, or you explain to the sword and board guy why his shield has no value anymore.
==Aelryinth
The standard action cost is subsumed in the making of a x/day use item. I'm not ignoring it, it's part of the price. If you don't like it, too bad. The benefits of the AC outweigh your action economy.
The short duration is not a factor. He needs it for one fight, and it lasts just long enough for one fight. The duration is calculated metacheese to lower the price, not a drawback.
When you initially joined this thread, you stated that a ring that cast Shield five times a day at CL 1 was worth 40 000 GP. Since the ring only had 3 charges, you divided 5/3 and concluded that the ring was worth 24 000 GP.
You have later changed that number at least once (as have many other posters in this thread, including me), down to (I believe) roughly 12 000 GP.
Do you still believe the ring is worth 12 000 GP? If not, what would you consider a fair price for the item?
YOu seem to have missed the post on the previous page where I broke down what the price of the item should be at each Shield AC breakpoint, like all other AC granting items, Kudaku.
As for your question, it was pointed out to me that a spell with a duration in minutes uses a .5 cost modifier. My initial assessment of 40k as RAW pricing for a +4 outside AC bonus, the standard for the chart, was cut to 60% to 24k, and then in half to 12k.
The proper pricing should be as follows:
====================================================================
Also like to point out just how cheesy that level 1 caster level is.
A standard item is CL = 3x Bonus. This even applies to Nat Armor, despite Barkskin STARTING at +2 at level 3.
Using the AC calculation method, the default CL on this item, with a +4 AC bonus, would be 12. Meaning that the Shield, when it went up, would be good for 12 minutes, not for 1. So it might extend into a second fight.
The default pricing for an item that provided a Shield Spell constantly would be 40k. This is the same as a device casting the spell 5 times a day. As has been pointed out, the 1 minute/level duration means the cost is cut in half, so 20k...still cheaper then a +3 ghost Touch shield.
If we chop it to 3/5ths, that's 12k for a +4 AC bonus for at least three fights a day, more if you move quickly.
That's STILL dirt cheap.
NOW, if we treated the AC bonus progression like all others (deflection, armor, etc), what you really should have is a progression of AC that you can 'buy up' as you level.
A +1 Shield Bonus usable 5/day OR Continuously, would be 1250 gp (half of 2500), duration 3 minutes by default. 3/day would be 750 gp.
A +2 Bonus would be 5000 gp (2500 x4, div/2), for 6 minutes each time. 3/day would be 3k.
NOTE: THis is exactly how a Ring of Force Shield is priced, at 10k/5k to make for its +2 benefit, and basically unlimited duration!
A +3 bonus would be 11,250 gp (2500 x9, /2) for 9 minutes each time. 3/day would be 7,750 gp.
A +4 bonus would be 20k (2.5k x16, /2) for 12 minutes each time...the item we are talking about would be 12k for 3 uses.
And it would top out at a +5 Shield bonus, costing a raw 62,500 gp, /2 = 31,250, and 3 uses/day would be 18,750.
ANd that's how this item should be priced out...consistent by benefit and level for what it provides.
The +4 AC benefit is too huge and overpriced to use the caster level x spell level model, and the metagaming to assign it the minimum only makes it more apparent what is going on. If you do it with this item, do it with the other 'big 3', and let everyone take advantage of the cost savings.
====================================================
Basically, the issue is that the spell is four times as powerful, or more, then Mage Armor. Mage armor provides half the maximum AC you can get from normal armor. Shield provides twice the AC of a normal heavy shield.
The item designer sees how good the spell is for the benefit it grants, giving an AC bonus he's not eligible for, and a BIG one, a whopping +4.
He's trying to play 'caster level and uses/day' against the AC bonus, and claiming uses/day trumps the AC item table.
He's wrong, he's ignoring the balance issues at play in an attempt to get a major benefit for extremely little gold.
There is NOTHING in the rules that justifies treating Shield AC any different then any other AC bonus...you apply the cost by the BENEFIT you receive, not by caster level x spell level. The latter is the EXACT same problem that the Bracers of Falcon's Aim used. THe primary source of comparison here is the Ring of Force Shield from the core rules, not some cloak that uses the wrong schema.
CL x SL is the LAST recourse of pricing an item, because it is generally the cheapest way to make an item. This is little more then manipulation of the cost tables.
You MIGHT be able to make an argument that Shield AC should be priced as Armor AC, but it wouldn't fly with me. Shield AC is not available to a lot of styles and classes, and you are effectively giving it away.
Anytime you make the benefit of a shield freely available, you devalue the original to nothing, and it already has a problem staying relevant.
Yes, it's very cool you can get this huge AC bonus at low levels for the cheap manipulating the rules this way. I can do the same thing with Barkskin. It IS rules manipulation, and it's not balanced.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I did read it - I just wanted to make sure that your stance had not changed further :)
Needless to say I think you apply the formula incorrectly and I don't agree with your overall assessment, but honestly I feel like further debate is pointless. I suggest we agree to disagree.
I think part of the problem is that Shield and Mage Armor are badly designed spells. They should be more like Shield of Faith and Barkskin, giving smaller AC bonuses at lower caster levels.
The benefits of the AC outweigh your action economy.
The benefits to AC may sometimes marginally outweigh the cost to your action economy. In a three round battle, you're losing a third of your damage output for the sake of taking less damage, which is only useful if you're the focus of enemy attacks (unlikely if you're buffing yourself instead of fighting).
I consider comparisons to AC items that don't use up a standard action largely irrelevant.
The short duration is not a factor. He needs it for one fight, and it lasts just long enough for one fight.
A twelfth level magus can cast Shield and enter a dungeon and expect the AC bonus to last for several battles without loss of action economy. Duration is a factor.
If you allow this for Shield, you have to allow it for the other big 3 AC bonuses
Would you buy four (cheap) items that take up four equipment slots to increase your AC by 12 or so (compared to naked; they don't stack with regular gear) by using four standard actions in combat? I don't think you'd be very popular with the group.
Items that can cast those other spells should be cheaper than a Shield ring, since they're not Personal. You can already drink potions of them or get allies to cast them on you via wand.
@Matthew
We've been having this discussion for four pages now and I believe Aelryinth is one of few persons who still feels this item is worth more than 10 000 GP. The average seems to be between 4 and 6k gold, with a few outliers.
I agree with you that Shield and Mage armor are front-loaded spells. I did some theorycrafting on a better way to calculate the bonuses from Shield and Mage armor in this post. The numbers are of course open for adjustment, but I think Mage Armor and Shield should have a better AC bonus progression than Barkskin and Shield of Faith, since Barkskin and Shield of Faith are available to classes that already use armor, while arcane casters rely on defensive spells to try and catch up.
@Matthew
We've been having this discussion for four pages now and I believe Aelryinth is one of few persons who still feels this item is worth more than 10 000 GP. The average seems to be between 4 and 6k gold, with a few outliers.
I agree with you that Shield and Mage armor are front-loaded spells. I did some theorycrafting on a better way to calculate the bonuses from Shield and Mage armor in this post. The numbers are of course open for adjustment, but I think Mage Armor and Shield should have a better AC bonus progression than Barkskin and Shield of Faith, since Barkskin and Shield of Faith are available to classes that already use armor, while arcane casters rely on defensive spells to try and catch up.
The benefit of changing how the CL of Shield interacts with the AC bonus given is that it scales the item and the wand equally.
Putting an arbitrarily high value on an item that replicates a spell while keeping the wand at the original (low) price means the ability to use that wand is suddenly dramatically more valuable.
In this case Aelryinth's flawed formula concludes with 12 000 GP. For the same price a character that is able to pull off the DC 20 UMD check or that already has Shield on his spell list (ie most arcane and several divine casters) can buy 16 wands of Shield, which translates to 800 charges. 800 charges is roughly three times the amount needed to use one charge per encounter from level to 20.
Your example is facetious, Kudaku.
You can make exactly the same argument for Bracers of AC +4. For Amulets of Barkskin +2. Etc, etc, etc. By your argument, all the pricing for AC guidelines are borked with respect to wands. Which should probably tell you how underpriced wands are, IF there wasn't the little problem of having to invest in UMD and possibly fail the check, so your trick isn't going to be routinely usable until level 6+, at least.
It is also worth noting that on the 'buy items to progress AC' tables, Mage Armor is the only armor a mage uses until ALL OTHER AC benefits are maxed out. Why? Because going from Mage Armor to Bracers of AC +5, a benefit of +1 AC, costs 25,0000 gp. YOu can get go from +4 deflection to +5 deflection for 14k, the most expensive jump for +1 AC otherwise.
================================================
Matthew, your Magus' Shield spell might last long enough for two encounters, but the likelihood for three is small. On the other hand, Shield of Faith, Barkskin, and Mage Armor have extended durations which will last through multiple encounters, and simply will be cast well ahead of time, obviating the need to blow standard actions in combat.
Indeed, if your Shield spell will last through multiple encounters with that style of play, then the above will last through the entire dungeon with one use, further dropping the layout you need for such protection!
Likewise, Shield will either be used ahead of time, or, if it's not needed, simply ignored in favor of getting the enemy dead, if that's more important. You'll simply make the judgment call, on what's more important (exactly like any caster does choosing between a buff or offensive spell).
And the thing is, if you don't cast it, you're 'normal', like everyone else, like you are supposed to be. If you do, then you're +4 AC ahead of the curve, and rocking hard.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your example is facetious, Kudaku.
You can make exactly the same argument for Bracers of AC +4. For Amulets of Barkskin +2. Etc, etc, etc. By your argument, all the pricing for AC guidelines are borked with respect to wands. Which should probably tell you how underpriced wands are, IF there wasn't the little problem of having to invest in UMD and possibly fail the check, so your trick isn't going to be routinely usable until level 6+, at least.
I don't think it is, actually. If anything I think it illustrates how highly Paizo values continuous bonuses over spell trigger items, which requires actions. Well, that and that Paizo has embraced a very strict pricing model for wands, scrolls and potions.
Also, you should note that Shield of Faith has the same duration as the Shield spell.Now, if you want to see a truly facetious example:
We are designing a custom item and want to get an idea as to how much it should cost to commission it. The item is a ring that casts Shield once per day with a duration of 1 minute per casting.
There is both a similar item available (Cloak of the Hedge Wizard) and spell trigger itemxs (wand of shield) that replicate the spell exactly, but I'm going to ignore that because I have decided to disagree with it. Clearly the price is way off and I'm about to illustrate why.
A ring that casts shield once per day gives you a +4 AC bonus for 1 minute per 24 hours.
A ring that gives you a continuous +4 bonus to AC costs approximately 40 000 GP.
Continuous translates to 24 hours of uptime, or 1440 minutes.
So we take 40 000 GP, divide it by 1440, and now we know how much a +4 untyped bonus to AC is worth if it's limited to 1 minute per day.
40 000 GP / 1440 = 27,77777777777778.
So an item that casts shield once per day at CL1 is worth approximately 27 gp, 7 sp, and 7 cp.
Clearly Paizo have no clue what they're doing as the cloak of the hedgewizard is priced at 92 times the price of my shiny new ring.
/end facetious example
It's fairly easy to twist math into giving you whatever answer you want. That doesn't mean the answer you wind up with is the right one.