My GM allows the crafting of unusal or unique items. At this point he has agreed to charge for these items using the formulas that are currently in the books. So, I have had our party crafter make a ring that provides the Shield spell 3/day with a CL1. The cost for this is 1x1x1800x3/5/2=540.
Anyway the GM is OK with this cost, but the crafter feels it should be much more expensive since it provides a +4 shield bonus to AC and incorporeal attacks, as well as protection from magic missiles. He feels this item should cost almost as much as +4 armor.
I feel that 540 gp is a fair cost for an item that activates a 1st level spell and must use a standard action to activate with a duration of 1 minute (10 rounds), which admittedly is plenty for one combat.
How would others cost this item?
In general, it depends on the spell and what you are comparing it to. Mage Armor for instance is a spell that should be priced higher than the Shield spell if used in a magical item, since the longer duration makes it more valuable.
That said, personally I'm fine with an item like the ring you describe.
the book already says that an item that adds to AC that isn't a deflection or Armor bonus costs "the bonus squared x 2500" (pg 550 CRB). So your base cost is 40,000gp. Then you drop down on the table and see the line that says that charges per day means you divide the charges by 5 and mulitiply that by the price:
40000x3/5= 24000gp for this item.
Compare this to a Ring of Force shield which grants a +2 shield bonus at will. However, it takes up 2 slots, 1 for the ring and 1 for the off-hand so that you can wield the shield. Since this item takes up 2 slots instead of 1. The RoFS calculated on the table on pg 550 should cost
2x2 (square AC bonus) x 2500 = 10,000gp, so there is a discount for taking 2 slots.
Your ring should cost AT LEAST twice as much as the RoFS, since it's twice as good, but has limited uses per day. The 1 minute increment means that it's good for just about every encounter and it's rare to have more than 3 encounters in a day, so the discount should be small.
In conclusion this should cost probably around 16-20k gp.
@JB
Items that give a bonus to AC translates to a constant bonus - the item in question applies a bonus for 1 minute at a time and has a maximum duration of 3 minutes per 24 hours.
As for the RoFS, it can be activated and deactivated as a free action - it is also constant.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're GM (and every previous poster) is doing is missing the forest for the trees. They see a 1st level spell and say "Yeah that should be cheep." But not all spells are created equal. The rules clearly say that you start at the top of the chart and work your way down, meaning that well before the cost for spell activation you get to the rules for giving yourself a shield bonus to AC. Which is much more expensive (see above post).
Every few weeks some one posts an item like this (the other one being true strike items), and say "This item, despite being one of the best possible items in the game, should be super cheep." A Shield bonus is a rare bonus. It's hard to get. Only 3 ways that I know 1) shield spell, which has a range of personal, 2) ring of force shield and 3) Shields. Remember many classes aren't even proficient in shields and using a shield has significant trade offs, mainly that you can't use a bow or two handed weapon, significantly reducing your possible damage output.
What you're doing is cherry picking rules to avoid some of the built in assumptions of the game that are designed to balance the game. If you want to use the shield spell, be a first level sorcerer or buy a wand, but don't try to create a custom item when there is already an item that isn't half as good but is priced at 16 times greater.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kindly note that Mage Armor put into a magic item is Bracers of Armor. +4 Bracers of Armor is 16k.
The "only 1 minute at a time" is nonsense. 1 Minute is 'long enough to be useful in a fight". Any item usable 5 times a day, regardless of duration, is treated as if usable ALL the time, and has no price divisor. So 'only usable 3 times a day' as an argument means nothing. If you only FIGHT once/day, it's three times as many uses as you need.
The item should be priced as if granting a +4 Shield Bonus to AC, which is a base of 40k...this rule supercedes level-based pricing rules absolutely.
Only usable 3 times a day is 3/5ths of that cost, so 24k is the proper cost of this item. If it were usable 5 times a day, it would be the full 40k price...the same as a permanent Shield Spell effect.
Kindly note that caster level is NOT a calculation here. So if you want to make the shield last 10 minutes at a time with a higher caster level, that does NOT increase the cost.
Also note that trying to make cheap 'Shield' effects has been going on for as long as the infinite-use Cure Light Wounds ring and the True Strike sword.
You price something close to the value of what it is providing. In this case, a +4 Shield spell is equal to a +3 Ghost Touch Shield, which is around 36k, with the benefits of letting you wield a two handed sword and spellcast freely, and immunity to magic missiles.
At 24k he's getting a STEAL of a deal.
Underpricing benefits is one of the fastest ways to let a campaign get out of control.
==Aelryinth
OK, so a few things.
1. Why have you decided to divide the prince by 2? I get 1080 based on the formula, but you have indicated a /2 in your formula I don't see.
2. This should be a rod. Command word spells/day is what rods do. As such, this should then also require craft rod.
This is definitely not op for the level or price. Some people just hate MIC so much that they throw their hands up when anyone wants to build a custom item.
OK, so a few things.
1. Why have you decided to divide the prince by 2? I get 1080 based on the formula, but you have indicated a /2 in your formula I don't see.
2. This should be a rod. Command word spells/day is what rods do. As such, this should then also require craft rod.
This is definitely not op for the level or price. Some people just hate MIC so much that they throw their hands up when anyone wants to build a custom item.
1) You are correct, I can't find the divide by 2 rule either
2) Good point, a wand also requires that you can use it.The shield spell is the equivalent of a +3 ghost touch, animated buckler that also is enchanted as a broach of shielding (1500gp x2 since it's combining itmes). Assuming the Shielding ability is like energy resistance and has only a gp cost, the shield spell is as good as a shield that costs 39,000gp. How is it not game breaking to have an item that costs 1080gp if calculated one way but 39,000 if calculated the other way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, the first rule of magic item pricing is that you always compare the item to other items of similar powerlevel. Only if you can't find such an item do you resort to the fallback method, the formulas. And even then, those just give you a starting point.
This should not be priced as a '1st level spell' item, as it doesn't have that level of power. Further, this is a personal spell. Personal spells are generally stronger than the average spell of their level because they can assume certain things. Like that the wizard casting Shield isn't doing so so that the can have the best of both worlds while swinging his greatsword and has a big bonus to AC from a shield.
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. 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 Values.
Everyone keeps saying "show me where that rule is." As BillyGoat already pointed out, there are no rules for pricing magic items. It is up to the GM to make a fair price. In this case, this GM thinks my fighter should be able to walk into a store and buy one of these for 1080gp.
There is no RAW argument to be made, because there is no RAW. There is only opinion about game balance. I and several others here think that this GM is making a mistake.
pg 549 CRB
The easiest way to come up with a price is to complare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that as a guide.
Further down the same page,
First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth
emphasis mine.
For example, lets say I want a Ring that I can use to activate a Shield of Faith spell. This spell is a 1st level spell with 1 min/lvl duration. This ring has 3 uses per day. So it should only cost 1080gp according to the formulas on page 550. Which is a lot cheaper than a ring of protection +2 at 8,000gp. Now yes it isn't used all day long, but the formula assume that a 5 uses per day item is priced the same as a continuous use item. So it's not that much worse either.
I agree 26k is fair, but not 1080 which is what the OP suggests.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked JD, I'll extend the offer. Quote the actual rule that says that the static armor bonus cost trumps the spell-effect cost. I'd be happy to withdraw my argument if you can quote the rule. I didn't find it when I looked, but I'm as fallible as the next man.
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item in the Core Rulebook, the GM should require using the price of the Core Rulebook item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.
Example: Patrick's wizard wants to create bracers with a continuous mage armor ability, granting the wearer a +4 armor bonus to AC. The formula indicates this would cost 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica reminds him that bracers of armor +4 are priced at 16,000 gp and Patrick's bracers should have that price as well. Patrick agrees, and because he only has 2,000 gp to spend, he decides to spend 1,000 gp of that to craft bracers of armor +1 using the standard bracer prices.
As far as that goes, I have rethought my position on this and agree with the idea that the base cost of the item should be set according to armor bonus rules. The 5 charges a day assumes that a character will have that ability when ever they need it. 5 major combats a day is high for any group, beyond that is rare. So 5 charges a day can be assumed to equal always on, and therefore the same price as always on.
+4(16,000) + 18000 for energy resistance (force?) = 34,000 X 3/5 = 20,400gp.
This would be a slotless item (rod), but I feel the standard action requirement offsets that.
So, I pretty much agree with Billy Goat on the pricing topic. I think a GM would be very fair to price this item between 20-25kgp.
Every single character I know would buy that ring. That coupled with the fact that it makes the character who actually bothers to use a real shield a total chump tells me the item is way,
WAY
too cheap
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Headbad of vast intellect (4000 gp) granting UMD (4000 GP) if the character doesn't already have the skill.
Wand of Shield (750 GP), DC 20 to activate.
And using the core rules, this requires a move action to get out,a standard to use, and then a move to put away assuming you also aren't going to just drop your magic stick on the ground like a hooligan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The quote from Ultimate Campaign is the tipping point for me.
I'm now fully satisfied that the price tag of 25,800 gp for a ring (slotted) granting the same effect as Shield 3/day is about right.
The quote from Ultimate Campaign uses an item that gives an unlimited effect - an pair of bracers that gives, in effect, permanent mage armor is the equivalent of bracers of armor +4. Both items give a +4 armor bonus that persists throughout the day.
Since the items are essentially identical, clearly one should not be so much cheaper than the other.
However, the item in question here does not give a permanent bonus. It requires a standard action (in itself a high cost in the action economy) to activate, and it only gives 10 rounds (1 minute) of duration per time it's used.
The price of 25 800 GP is for a +3 ghost touch animated buckler... That provides a +4 bonus 24 hours or 1440 minutes a day, assuming the character hangs on to it. It costs no action to activate.
However, the ring discussed here provides a +4 bonus for only 3 minutes a day. It requires a standard action to activate for each 1 minute of activity. It is trivially easy to dispel.
Do you honestly not see why one should be cheaper than the other?
Kindly note that caster level is NOT a calculation here. So if you want to make the shield last 10 minutes at a time with a higher caster level, that does NOT increase the cost.
This is flat out wrong. The formula (Spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp) takes both Caster Level and spell level into effect, and increasing either will sharply increase the price of the item.
As for Cheapy's argument - first of all the ring takes up a ring slot and you'd need it to be continually equipped in order to be able to activate it on time. Like you mentioned, the wand can be carried equipped or not - and with a spring loaded sheath you can equip it (swift), activate it (standard), and store it (move). Or, like you mentioned, just drop it for free.
Whether or not you allow this item, as indeed whether or not you allow any custom items, is ultimately up to the GM. Some campaigns would find this item overpowered/broken/cheesy, others would find this item underwhelming due to the activation cost.
That said, I would allow this item in my campaigns at the price suggested.
A 5/day item is assumed by the very rules you disparage to be the equivalent in cost of an unlimited use item. Quit ignoring that part for your 'unlimited vs limited use' argument.
And Billy Goat, kindly go price out Shield of Faith (mentioned above) which provides a deflection bonus, and Barkskin, which provides a Natural Armor Class bonus, using your system.
You will undoubtedly find that your system of pricing is CONSIDERABLY cheaper then having to buy such things yourself. And yet, there are no x/day Barkskin and Shield of Faith items in the core rules.
The pricing of those items alone should be enough to tell you that AC rules are the dominant rule. Ditto Bracers of Armor.
And to repeat it, a 5 use/day item is the equivalent priced of an unlimited item. So, 3 uses a day is 3/5th the price. That's all the discount he's getting, and it's still a really, really good deal.
Oh, and also note, enemies can't sunder a Shield spell. And the odds of him getting dispelled are slim to none.
============================
Let me sum up what is trying to go on here.
The OP wants an item that provides a substantial AC benefit on demand, without having to pay for having that benefit all the time.
It's the same reasoning that monks choose Barkskin for their first qin-qong power...the benefit of having the AC when you want it vs the huge investment of having it all the time is a massive cost saver.
The OP doesn't want to spend 36k on a buckler that won't be needed 95% of the time, he just wants the benefit when it IS needed...5% of the time. In other words, he wants to be like a spellcaster.
If the DM allows the making of this item at 1080 gp, then he should also allow armor and shields that cast Greater Magic Vestment instead of using the armor pricing rules, and weapons that cast Greater Magical Weapon instead of using the Weapon Pricing rules. The price of such things should drop by 50%. Ditto, all Rings of Protection and Amulets of Barkskin should be retooled to be x/day items and impart substantial cost savings to the non-casters who use them.
Which, if you are annoyed by the fact casters do NOT have to pay major gold for mandatory items like weapons, shields, rings of prot, amulets of Nat AC, and the like, probably wouldn't be all that bad an idea.
==Aelryinth
Kudaku. If the item is priced by EFFECT (+1, +2 etc) as it SHOULD BE, then caster level is NOT figured into pricing. A +1 Amulet with a caster level of 20 sells for the same price as a +1 Amulet with a caster level of 3.
This item will be priced the same way.
The WRONG way of calculating the item is spell level x caster level x x/5/day x 1000. Using this is a last ditch formula when all other comparisons have failed.
To get a now-classic view of an item, the Falcon's Aim gauntlets were priced this way, using the wrong formula (level, caster), and came in substantially under Bracers of Archery, despite being 2-3x more powerful.
They have now been errata'd up to 16k in price, comparable to the Bracers.
Caster level x spell level is the LAST formula to use when calculating the value of something, not the first...simply because it is the easiest to abuse.
===Aelryinth
Aelryinth, I'll ask you kindly to go read the rules on magic item pricing, or read them again if you already have. You're repeatedly making mistakes in how you you apply the formulas presented there.
The rules can be found here.
Some numbers to make the discussion more meaningful. Note, these are the prices according to the magic item creation table. Whether or not you follow that table is irrelevant to these particular numbers.
A 1/day CL 1 shield spell, use activated (standard action), takes a slot by itself would be 400 gp according to the table.
A 5/day CL 1 shield spell, use activated, takes a slot by itself would be 2000 gp.
A 1/day CL 5 shield spell broken into 1 minute uses (see boots of speed), use activated, takes a slot by itself would also be 2000 gp. You only get to ignore changes in the caster level when there are no mechanical effects beyond the dispel DC.
An unlimited use-activated CL 1 shield spell, still taking a slot by itself would still be 2000 gp. Note that it's still use-activated and will require you to burn a standard action every minute to maintain it and another if it gets dispelled (at a DC of 11 IIRC).
A constant effect CL 1 shield spell would be 4000 gp (x2 duration modifier) except that in this case, you should definitely use the +4 shield bonus and the separate brooch of shielding. The biggest difference here is that you no longer need to use actions to keep the shield up. Also, it'll come back on its own if it gets dispelled although it might take a few rounds.
The wording on the duration modifier is ambiguous and it might apply to the unlimited use-activated item too.
Now, what price you actually assign to any of these items is a GM call, but the need to use standard actions to keep the shield up is definitely worth some kind of discount over the continuous effect.
Some numbers to make the discussion more meaningful. Note, these are the prices according to the magic item creation table. Whether or not you follow that table is irrelevant to these particular numbers.
A 1/day CL 1 shield spell, use activated (standard action), takes a slot by itself would be 400 gp according to the table.
A 5/day CL 1 shield spell, use activated, takes a slot by itself would be 2000 gp.
A 1/day CL 5 shield spell broken into 1 minute uses (see boots of speed), use activated, takes a slot by itself would also be 2000 gp. You only get to ignore changes in the caster level when there are no mechanical effects beyond the dispel DC.
An unlimited use-activated CL 1 shield spell, still taking a slot by itself would still be 2000 gp. Note that it's still use-activated and will require you to burn a standard action every minute to maintain it and another if it gets dispelled (at a DC of 11 IIRC).
A constant effect CL 1 shield spell would be 4000 gp (x2 duration modifier) except that in this case, you should definitely use the +4 shield bonus and the separate brooch of shielding. The biggest difference here is that you no longer need to use actions to keep the shield up. Also, it'll come back on its own if it gets dispelled although it might take a few rounds.
The wording on the duration modifier is ambiguous and it might apply to the unlimited use-activated item too.
Now, what price you actually assign to any of these items is a GM call, but the need to use standard actions to keep the shield up is definitely worth some kind of discount over the continuous effect.
By your notion ring of invisibility would cost 12000gp, though it is 20000gp. Clearly the game intends you to price items by benefit first, guidelines second. The idea that the proposed item should cost anything less than 16000 is insane. 20-25k is more inline though I would completely understand any DM pricing it as high as 30k
By your notion ring of invisibility would cost 12000gp, though it is 20000gp. Clearly the game intends you to price items by benefit first, guidelines second. The idea that the proposed item should cost anything less than 16000 is insane. 20-25k is more inline though I would completely understand any DM pricing it as high as 30k
Some numbers to make the discussion more meaningful. Note, these are the prices according to the magic item creation table. Whether or not you follow that table is irrelevant to these particular numbers.
...
Now, what price you actually assign to any of these items is a GM call, but the need to use standard actions to keep the shield up is definitely worth some kind of discount over the continuous effect.
You seem to have misread my post. I wasn't arguing what the price should be, just that whatever it is, it should be cheaper than an equivalent effect that doesn't require activation. The numbers are just there to show what the magic item creation table has to say about this. Again, you might not follow the table. (That said, I have no problem with the cheap prices in my games.)
By your notion ring of invisibility would cost 12000gp, though it is 20000gp. Clearly the game intends you to price items by benefit first, guidelines second. The idea that the proposed item should cost anything less than 16000 is insane. 20-25k is more inline though I would completely understand any DM pricing it as high as 30kThat's what's insane. It's far worse than a shield that costs that much. For the same price a caster could get an Ghost Touch Mithril Buckler +3 -- active all the time. Someone with an actual shield proficiency could get a +1 Animated Ghost Touch Heavy Shield or a +2 Animated Heavy Shield. All of these would be far superior to the Shield Ring and only cost 16k.
You have no idea how an action economy works or how you can easily have many small battles spread over 30+ minutes.
The Guidelines are actually pretty darn good for X/day spells that require a standard action to use -- at least for balanced spells. They are basically just an expensive way for a non-caster to cast a spell. Nothing wrong there. Broken effects only come in when you are trying to do something that's continuous, use activated, a unique effect, etc.
1) I don't understand where you get "for the same price." Regardless of the base item the +3, Ghost Touch is a cost of +6 of 36,000gp. Not the same, but much more. The shield spell is duplicating quite a bit more than that. Buckler +3, Ghost Touch, Animated, Energy Resistance (force) is the duplicated effect. That is an 86,000gp item.
2) The action economy requirement is the same as the wizard who casts the spell. Standard action. It is appropriate that the item carries the same activation requirement.
3) Whether or not I understand how many combats a character may face in a day doesn't change the fact that 5/daily command word items are assumed to have the functional usefulness as an always on item is a design choice made by the development team. These equivalencies are justified. If you disagree, that is an issue you have with the game, and that is not my problem.
4) The balance in pretty darn good for spells that have a range of close or touch, last minutes per level, and don't provide blanket bonuses to stats. One like Shield which are balanced in the game to be useful only to wizards, cast in combat, and provide a bonus only in that combat do NOT balance well with the MIC guidelines. This is why the game calls for DM's to price similar items FIRST, and use the guidelines SECOND.
You seem to have misread my post. I wasn't arguing what the price should be, just that whatever it is, it should be cheaper than an equivalent effect that doesn't require activation. The numbers are just there to show what the magic item creation table has to say about this. Again, you might not follow the table. (That said, I have no problem with the cheap prices in my games.)
My bad on that. Although, the point about ring of invisibility still stands. it requires a standard action to activate and costs more than the guideline table would indicate it should.
1) I don't understand where you get "for the same price." Regardless of the base item the +3, Ghost Touch is a cost of +6 of 36,000gp. Not the same, but much more. The shield spell is duplicating quite a bit more than that. Buckler +3, Ghost Touch, Animated, Energy Resistance (force) is the duplicated effect. That is an 86,000gp item.
Where did you get energy resistance (force) from?
2) The action economy requirement is the same as the wizard who casts the spell. Standard action. It is appropriate that the item carries the same activation requirement.
It's still a disadvantage to a crafted item that has the same effect as an item that provides that effect without needing an action economy requirement. That's part of the reason why you can't compare an item that casts shield 3 times a day at CL 1 and a +whatever shield. They should not be priced at the same level, since there is a massive difference in how useful they are.
3) Whether or not I understand how many combats a character may face in a day doesn't change the fact that 5/daily command word items are assumed to have the functional usefulness as an always on item is a design choice made by the development team. These equivalencies are justified. If you...
First of all it's not the same - there is a separate formula used for items that are always on compared to items that have 5 charges a day.
That said, we're not discussing a ring with a continuous Shield effect and we're not discussing an item with 5 charges. We are debating the price of a single specific item: A ring that casts shield 3 times a day.
1) I don't understand where you get "for the same price." Regardless of the base item the +3, Ghost Touch is a cost of +6 of 36,000gp. Not the same, but much more. The shield spell is duplicating quite a bit more than that. Buckler +3, Ghost Touch, Animated, Energy Resistance (force) is the duplicated effect. That is an 86,000gp item.Where did you get energy resistance (force) from?
There is no such thing, but the shield spell does provide an ability very close to this.
2) The action economy requirement is the same as the wizard who casts the spell. Standard action. It is appropriate that the item carries the same activation requirement.It's still a disadvantage to a crafted item that has the same effect as an item that provides that effect without needing an action economy requirement. That's part of the reason why you can't compare an item that casts shield 3 times a day at CL 1 and a +whatever shield. They should not be priced at the same level, since there is a massive difference in how useful they are.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. You want to price the item per the spell but get the usefulness of always on. Doesn't work that way. The spell has drawbacks. As you can see from above, the equivalent "always on" buckler would cost almost 90kgp. I am suggesting a price between 20-25, which I will point out is less than everyone else in the "don't price it like a spell" camp.
3) Whether or not I understand how many combats a character may face in a day doesn't change the fact that 5/daily command word items are assumed to have the functional usefulness as an always on item is a design choice made by the development team. These equivalencies are justified. If you...First of all it's not the same - there is a separate formula used for items that are always on compared to items that have 5 charges a day.
That said, we're not discussing a ring with a continuous Shield effect and we're not discussing an item with 5 charges. We are debating the price of a single specific item: A ring that casts shield 3 times a day.
You clearly aren't paying attention. We (ie, everyone here except for you) are taking the 3 times per day into account with the price. The command word (5 times a day) is priced at 9/10ths (or close enough, if you really want to split that hair, by all means do so.) the cost of "always on" The charges per day line has a note to adjust the price for charges different from 5. This is why the above formulas all have a *(3/5) in them.
So if you want to apply all the modifiers to the item then it would look something like this.
+3, Ghost Touch, Animated, Energy Resistance Buckler. = 89,000
Command word activation *.9 (design team valuation, NOT MINE) = 80,100
3 times a day *.6 = 48,060
If you don't like that number that is fine. I don't care. But it is reasonable given the guidelines in the game.
3) They are assumed to sorta be equivalent. These are rough guidelines and in particular they fall apart with use activated/continuous items. This is not such a situation.
Granted, 9/10ths, pretty close.
4) It just happens that you aren't very good at finding a reasonable price for something. A shield that would be better 99%+ of the time and against an incorporeal you'd want to kill them quickly anyway. So that +4 AC just isn't worth as much as you think it is.
If I am not very good, show me an equivalent item priced less. Until then I stand by a +4 armor bonus costing what a +4 armor bonus costs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
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?
When balance was mentioned several posts up I made the distinction between minutes/level and hours/level. All the pricing I have given it based on the benefit not the spell so those calculations do not belong in my price.
Are we resorting to straw men arguments now? Single use versus multiple use/day, everyday. The fact that shield isn't potionable makes this even more silly.
Tell you what, make a suggestion as to what you would price the item at. Take into account all the benefits, and describe why you reached that conclusion. Then we can debate the merits of each.
I'm not arguing that your math is wrong (though I do think that most here agree that this item should not cost 48 000 GP), I'm pointing out that you've repeatedly stated that an item with 5 charges and an item with continuous duration is priced the same. That's simply not true.
As for the rest of it... How did I make a straw man argument? You specifically asked for an item that provided a +4 armor bonus to compare. Shield provides a Shield bonus. Mage Armor on the other hand, does provide an armor bonus. As for the difference between the potion and the bracers, you missed out on two other elements - the same two elements people have been pointing out for a while now. Limited duration and action economy.
If you want me to use Shield specifically, then a wand of Shield costs 750 GP, or 15 gp per charge.
Whether or not I'd allow the item depends on the campaign I'm running, and what the other characters are in the party, as well as their general level of optimization.
In a Kingmaker campaign this item is quite powerful since there are usually few encounters per day, and the AP is rest-friendly - there's plenty of downtime. I'd most likely either not allow it or place the price a bit higher - 4000 GP or so.
In a RotRL campaign this item is not particularly powerful since there are usually numerous (7+) encounters per day and there's a clock involved - ie the characters will not be able to rest as often as they might like, which means this item will get less uptime. In a campaign like this I'd most likely just use the baseline formula, and put the price on 1080 GP.
To sum this up: We have a difference of view here: You consider the most similar item to this an (incredibly poorly optimized) shield.
I consider the most similar item to this a wand priced at 750 GP.
I find that the shield is a bad comparison because it provides constant uptime, doesn't require an action to activate, and that the price is artificially inflated by the horrendously overpriced Ghost Touch ability.
ghost touch is only +1, not that expensive. Also, if you read the Animated shield enhancement, you'll see that the shield only flies around for 4 rounds before hitting the floor, less than 1/2 the duration of the shield spell, you also still suffer from ACP or spell failure and non-proficiency, so if anything Animated is an underestimation of the price.
There is already an item that is almost identical to the OP item. As I said in my first post, the Ring of Force Shield has a cost of 8,500gp, so a ring that provides double the benefit should cost at least double the cost, but since bonus costs increase on a logarithmic scale it should probably be closer to three times the cost.
Now you may think that the RoFS is too expensive, but the rules clearly state that you start with a comparable item to find a price and this is an almost identical item, except better. 16-20k gp is more than fair, minimum.
Ghost Touch for armor is (for some reason) considered a +3 bonus for armor and +1 for weapons. Hence the overpriced issue.
Ring of Force Shield can be activated as a free action, and has no limitation on how often you can use it, or for how long. That said, I do think the RoFS is a better comparison than the animated shield mentioned earlier.
However I still think 16-20k is monstrously overpriced for this item.
I don't agree with the idea of pricing this as a consume able item, especially given that the use/day is being argued that the item doesn't provide enough benefit. This item will be in the campaign forever. Pricing like a wand you will burn up quickly doesn't make since to me.
I also will say that my suggested price for the item was ~20k, because I understand the functionality is far less than that of the always on item. My argument has been all along that the 5/daily = always on is a developer assumption. The problem with pricing it inline with a consumable is that it becomes an item that is a must buy. Items that are must buy send up red flags.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand your sentiment regarding consumables, but let's do an experiment:
You have three encounters a day. Each time you spend one charge from your wand of shield, or one charge from this custom item. The effect is identical.
The item costs 1080 from the formula, the equivalent of 72 charges of Shield (15 GP per charge).
72/12 (average number of encounters it takes a character to level is about 12) means that 72 charges of Shield will last you six levels, or from lvl 1 to 7. the second wand will take you from 7 to 13, and so on.
Considering the WBL increase you experience in the same period, the wand is a minimal expense and the money you "save" is not really an issue. Finally, the wand is more flexible, since it is not limited to how many encounters you have per day.
Another reason I think this item should be affordable is that it allows characters who are not able to buy wands to keep up by letting them use their own items to wmulate spells, though at a disadvantage, compared to characters who can use wands.
Edit: my apologies in advance if I missed any typos or math errors - I'm typing this on a tablet st the moment and I never could get used to the auto speller :(.
That makes a bunch of sense, and exposes a game assumption that I have ignored. In my games characters level much more slowly. I understand the idea that the difference between "anyone can use, three times a day" and "casters can use, 50 times ever" is less pronounced when you level in 12 encounters.
It would seem that the price difference between 750 and 1080 could make up for that difference in such a case if it didn't open up use to non-casters, and I could get behind that price in that game (ie, default game assumptions)
If we were to change the range from personal to touch and could agree that that would raise the spell level by 1, then 3x2x1800x3/5 = 6480. Given the game assumptions that you state above I would be ok with that price.
That makes a bunch of sense, and exposes a game assumption that I have ignored. In my games characters level much more slowly. I understand the idea that the difference between "anyone can use, three times a day" and "casters can use, 50 times ever" is less pronounced when you level in 12 encounters.
It would seem that the price difference between 750 and 1080 could make up for that difference in such a case if it didn't open up use to non-casters, and I could get behind that price in that game (ie, default game assumptions)
If we were to change the range from personal to touch and could agree that that would raise the spell level by 1, then 3x2x1800x3/5 = 6480. Given the game assumptions that you state above I would be ok with that price.
Busy day today...didn't expect this many responses or such a discrepancy in cost. Anyway I would argue that the cost for non casters to use an item that grants spells is already taken into account in the formula. Are you suggesting a wizard should pay less than a fighter for a ring that provides the shield spell 3/day?
For a wizard it would essentially be a weaker version of a pearl of power or 3. Instead of recalling any 1st level spell, the wizard could `re-cast this spell 3/day but only at CL 1.
I'm suggesting that a price that come close to a similar wand (which would be caster use only) is too low. Given the other responses to this thread, I think everyone agrees with that; it is by how much that is in question.
Given that your DM approved that price I would go with it and not look back.
a Pearl of Power is cheap because it 1) requires the person using it to be a spellcaster and 2) can only bring back spells the person has actually cast that day and 3) requires them to take the action to cast the spell again.
Giving shield AC bonuses to characters and classes that would normally not receive them is POWERFUL. It is the SAME reason monks grab barkskin to cast with Ki powers...the extra AC is extremely, wonderfully good.
Shield is no different. It has to be priced as an 'other AC benefit' item, because ALL items that grant AC follow those rules.
Then it has to be broken down by uses/day.
Giving +4 AC to a character who normally can't have it is a huge bonus and really swings the balance factor.
==Aelryinth
The main difference of continuous vs activated is that it impacts action economy. If you need to spend a standard action getting your shield spell on, its not as useful. For example: you won't have it if you are ambushed, of if a negotiation breaks down. Especially with a 1 minute duration.
a Pearl of Power is cheap because it 1) requires the person using it to be a spellcaster and 2) can only bring back spells the person has actually cast that day and 3) requires them to take the action to cast the spell again.
I just want to point out that 2 and 3 here apply to this hypothetical ring too. It only gives one specific spell and it requires an action to use (the same action a spellcaster would require to cast the spell by the way).
Quinggong Barkskin is a poor comparison for two reasons.
First, because Barkskin has a duration of 10 minutes/level.
Secondly, it uses the monks level as CL.
That means a 4th level monk can cast this and get a 40 minute duration, enough to last him through a dungeon. it can also be pre-cast before he enters said dungeon because the duration is so forgiving.
Barkskin for quinggong monks is wonderful because it gives extra ac with no penalty.
Now, if you look at my very first post in this thread I said that Shield is fine specifically because it has such a short duration that it would need to be cast in combat, whereas an item that cast Mage armor should be priced higher because it lasts longer and thus can be cast out of combat.
Finally, I'd like to ask you again (Aelryinh) to go read the section on magic item price estimates. You're still working under some serious misconceptions about how they work.
@Dtbone
I'd be skeptical of allowing Shield to target others since that could open up some unintended side effects.
Instead, I'd count the number of wands it would take for said character to advance an arbitrary amount of levels and base the price around that.
For instance, at 12 encounters per level it would take a level 1 character 240 encounters to reach lvl 20. 240 / 40 = 4,8 wands of Shield. The price of 5 wands of shield would be 3600 GP, which should be the high limit of the price tag on this item in the encounter track I described. That said, once you get above level 10 no self respecting character is going to spend his first round casting a 1st level buff, so I'd consider that on the high end. However if your characters go through more encounters for each level then items like this are more valuable since they'll save you money in the long run. In that case I'd feel free to adjust the value accordingly.
All that said, I still have a hard time justifying this item being worth more than about 4000 GP.