Robes of mage armor, just a worn robe that provides a +4 armor bonus to AC would be 2000gp
i.e. Continuous duration item: caster level (1) x spell level (1) x 2000gp?
Just seems kinda cheap.
I think it should actually be using this formula:
AC bonus (other) = Bonus squared x 2,500 gp (ex. Ioun stone, dusty rose prism)
And the footnote: If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.
So +4 squared = 16, 16*2,500 = 40,000gp
Close, but actually Armor bonus = Bonus squared x 1,000 gp. The AC bonus (other) is for crazy stuff like Luck, as these stack with Armor, Dodge, etc. So, +4 is 16,000 which is, coincidentally, the exact same as Bracers of Armor +4 (which this item basically copies to another body slot).
The right answer
Edit: What erian_7 said.
First rule of magic item pricing: Compare to existing items. If you cannot find anything like it, use the formulae.
If the GM thinks you're trying to pull a fast one, expect anvils to fall onto your character from outer space, killing him instantly with out the chance to dodge or anything.
Robes of mage armor, just a worn robe that provides a +4 armor bonus to AC would be 2000gp
i.e. Continuous duration item: caster level (1) x spell level (1) x 2000gp?
Just seems kinda cheap.
If you add the + 1.5 cost for continuous it is 3000 gp. I actually think this is a fair price. Mage armor's duration is 1 hour/level. At the time you have 3000 gp to spend on this magic item, it would properly be more worthwile just using 1 or 2 first level spells when you go on adventures.
Erian_7: It cannot be compared to the bracers of armor + 4, these give an enhancement bonus to armor AC which stacks with existing armor. These makes the bracers a viable choice for any character, not only non-armored ones.
The robe of mage armor grants you a decent armor bonus but cannot be used with existing armor. At the same time you use up a slot on your body to wear it, which could be used for another (better) magic item.
I don't think it in anyway is overpowered. Comparatively you could buy three lvl 1 pearls of power for the same price. This way you only have to prepare 1 mage armor but can use it up to four times a day (how many times do you need more than 4 non-consecutive hours of mage armor a day?) AND you have to choice of using the pearls of power to recast any other spell you prepared that day.
|
If you add the + 1.5 cost for continuous it is 3000 gp.Robes of mage armor, just a worn robe that provides a +4 armor bonus to AC would be 2000gp
i.e. Continuous duration item: caster level (1) x spell level (1) x 2000gp?
Just seems kinda cheap.
Where do you see the rule that says continuous duration uses x1.5 the closest I see is a footnote that says if the duration is in minutes per level then x1.5 but this is an hours per level duration.
and you're flat out wrong about bracers of armor
granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor.
this is the same as every edition that I'm aware of (starting with 2e)
Just a robe variant of bracers of armor, not a big deal. Price accordingly.
Erian_7: It cannot be compared to the bracers of armor + 4, these give an enhancement bonus to armor AC which stacks with existing armor. These makes the bracers a viable choice for any character, not only non-armored ones.
This is wrong.
Bracers of Armor give an "armor" bonus. So does armor. They don't stack.
You wear chainmail and bracers of armor +4 and your AC is exactly the same as if you were not wering the bracers at all.
There is one difference.
Because the bracers of armor count as a force effect (says so in the description), they count their full AC bonus against attacks by incorporeal creatures who would otherwise ignore your chainmail.
But that's different than stacking.
The robe of mage armor grants you a decent armor bonus but cannot be used with existing armor. At the same time you use up a slot on your body to wear it, which could be used for another (better) magic item.
Just like the bracers.
I don't think it in anyway is overpowered.
But it is overpowered for a mere 3,000 gp.
Static bonuses from magic items let their users focus on other things. A mage with a robe, or a pair of bracers, that gives him +4 AC never has to prepare mage armor. He can use that spell slot for something else, like maybe Magic Missile.
Futher, he is never caught flat-footed at his natural AC because the robe/bracers are always on.
And he doesn't have to waste the first round of a fight activating his armor - he can get right to business dropping enemies on round 1.
For this, the price is higher.
Comparatively you could buy three lvl 1 pearls of power for the same price. This way you only have to prepare 1 mage armor but can use it up to four times a day (how many times do you need more than 4 non-consecutive hours of mage armor a day?) AND you have to choice of using the pearls of power to recast any other spell you prepared that day.
Sure, if those happen to be floating around in Sandpoint...
|
Robes of mage armor, just a worn robe that provides a +4 armor bonus to AC would be 2000gp
i.e. Continuous duration item: caster level (1) x spell level (1) x 2000gp?
Just seems kinda cheap.
Bracers of Armour +4 =16,000 gp. This is the same item, just with a different slot taken up.
(edit) while we're talking about item costing, I'd appreciate it if someone could give me some feedback on this item . I think it's a solid concept, but I've only eyeballed the price since it's a non-standard effect.
Erian_7: It cannot be compared to the bracers of armor + 4, these give an enhancement bonus to armor AC which stacks with existing armor. These makes the bracers a viable choice for any character, not only non-armored ones.
Already corrected adequately above, but I just wanted to note that this misconception is so common, I'd almost advocate for having a big side-bar note on the same page as Bracers of Armor pointing this out. Of course, it's not quite as bad as the guy I had try to slip in a Chain Shirt under this Breastplate and then stack those with the Bracers...
Where do you see the rule that says continuous duration uses x1.5 the closest I see is a footnote that says if the duration is in minutes per level then x1.5 but this is an hours per level duration.If you add the + 1.5 cost for continuous it is 3000 gp.Robes of mage armor, just a worn robe that provides a +4 armor bonus to AC would be 2000gp
i.e. Continuous duration item: caster level (1) x spell level (1) x 2000gp?
Just seems kinda cheap.
My bad, I thought the 24 hours or more were at normal cost, so hours had to be at a higher cost. Seeing as it is half price, then hour/level should surely be normal price.
and you're flat out wrong about bracers of armor
granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor.this is the same as every edition that I'm aware of (starting with 2e)
Well I can't really agree with you (or the others) on this one. To me it seems fairly clear that this must be a mistake in the writing.
Why so? If it is indeed supposed to be a armor bonus and not an enhancement bonus to armor the rest of the description makes no sense at all.Bracers of Armor must have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant an armor special abilities.
Why bother writing the paragraph on special abilities (which in all aspect of the rules ís equivalent to enhance bonusses, and never normal bonusses) if it isn't possible to take anyway?
On the question about the usefullness of the robe versus casting mage armor:
On anything other than the first one or two levels you really don't need to spend your first action casting mage armor, unless you are suprised. The duration is so long that you just cast it as soon as you come close to possible danger.
Maybe pearls of power isn't flowing around in every corner of Sandpoint. But being a really cheap magic item, it might be possible to acquire. If not, the robe of mage armor surely isn't availiable anyway. Other than that, the wizard might craft ithe Pearls himself for a mere 500 gp.
Why would anyone choose to pay 16000 for a robe of mage armor? At the time you get this kind of money using one or two first level spells to protect yourself all day really doesn't matter. And at that point I think you would prefer to use your spell slot (and money) on something that cannot be reproduced by a first lvl spell.
And no, the robe of mage armor is NOT just a bracers of armor at another slot (whether or not you think it is supposed to be a regular armor bonus). What makes bracers of armor really worth buying, and paying the price, for many characters, is the possibility to fit additional armor special abilities onto your character.
But if you want to have a seriously overpowered magic item, following the magic item creation rules, you buy the Robe of Guidance for the 2000 gp, granting you a +1 competence to attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks (and surely some really pissed off deities).
|
|
And no, the robe of mage armor is NOT just a bracers of armor at another slot (whether or not you think it is supposed to be a regular armor bonus). What makes bracers of armor really worth buying, and paying the price, for many characters, is the possibility to fit additional armor special abilities onto your character.
Repectfully, I beg to differ. When an item grants a specific kind of bonus (stat, AC, to hit etc...) it works under the rules governing that bonus (top section of table on item creation), not the spell being replicated (bottom section). Otherwise, you'd have items that have an ongoing True Strike effect on them for a fraction of the cost of creating an item with much lower to hit bonus.
Well I can't really agree with you (or the others) on this one. To me it seems fairly clear that this must be a mistake in the writing.
Why so? If it is indeed supposed to be a armor bonus and not an enhancement bonus to armor the rest of the description makes no sense at all.Bracers of Armor must have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant an armor special abilities.Why bother writing the paragraph on special abilities (which in all aspect of the rules ís equivalent to enhance bonusses, and never normal bonusses) if it isn't possible to take anyway?
It's true that the PRPG version has introduced some ambiguity here, but there's several things working against an interpretation that Bracers of Armor stack with normal armor.
First, as mentioned previously, is precedent from previous rules. In all editions the bracers (which used to be bracers of defense, as a note) have specifically not stacked with armor.
Secondly, as noted in the entry itself and quoted above, the bonus type for the bracers is explicitly noted as an Armor bonus. The enhancement bonus mentioned later is specifically referenced for purposes of adding enhancement properties as can be done with armor. Coupled with the above precedent, and the fact that the SRD version is an Armor bonus, assuming the type is now Enhancement is a bit shaky.
A final piece comes in the Requirements section, which folks often overlook. If the bracers were meant to provide an Enhancement bonus to AC there is a spell that is appropriate--specifically magic vestment. Obviously as a 3rd level spell, this would drastically increase the cost of the bracers. Instead they are built on mage armor, which specifically grants an Armor bonus.
Folks are, of course, free to rule this differently in their own games, based on the DM's interpretation, but I'd be very surprised if any official voice supported the view of bracers granting anything other than an Armor bonus.
But if you want to have a seriously overpowered magic item, following the magic item creation rules, you buy the Robe of Guidance for the 2000 gp, granting you a +1 competence to attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks (and surely some really pissed off deities).
Guidance grants a +1 competence bonus on a single attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. If the robe did all three, that's three separate spells. I'd actually treat this as Save bonus (other) = 2,000 plus Skill bonus (competence) = 100 plus Weapon bonus (other--have to make up this category for such an item) = 2,000 for a total of 4,100. That's not too bad, but vastly more expensive than a cloak of resistance +1 (I might even say the bonus only applies to one save category, based on the limitations of guidance), weapon +1, and random skill boost item, plus it occupies the robe slot (knocking out armor for the fighter types or more useful robes for wizs and such).
Repectfully, I beg to differ. When an item grants a specific kind of bonus (stat, AC, to hit etc...) it works under the rules governing that bonus (top section of table on item creation), not the spell being replicated (bottom section). Otherwise, you'd have items that have an ongoing True Strike effect on them for a fraction of the cost of creating an item with much lower to hit bonus.
Good point, I fully agree that items such as the one you mention would be gamebreakingly overpowered. And that is also what I tried to say with my example of a Robe of Guidance. There has to be some balance between effect and price.
I think the biggest problems arrive when making continouos use of single-use spells. These are not supposed to be ongoing effects by any means, that is why the effect is often larger than any other.
If I have to try an make the rules make sense about this (and I don't since I am very tired right now), then perhaps a spell such as True Strike which does not have a duration (eg. is single use) can't be applied to the continouos use rules. The pricing starts at duration in rounds, why anything less (single use) can't be done.
That being said, there is properly other spells with duration, that is problematic to make continouos, that have a duration.
But in the original discussion I still think the price fits the effect. And I don't think the Mage Armor is comparable to the Armor Bracers, as I said in your quote.
Guidance grants a +1 competence bonus on a single attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. If the robe did all three, that's three separate spells. I'd actually treat this as Save bonus (other) = 2,000 plus Skill bonus (competence) = 100 plus Weapon bonus (other--have to make up this category for such an item) = 2,000 for a total of 4,100. That's not too bad, but vastly more expensive than a cloak of resistance +1 (I might even say the bonus only applies to one save category, based on the limitations of guidance), weapon +1, and random skill boost item, plus it occupies the robe slot (knocking out armor for the fighter types or more useful robes for wizs and such).
Well, in my understanding of the spell, you don't have to chose which roll you want to give the bonus when you cast, it is just specified that you don't gain it on all three. But as I read it (and have used it) you can chose to use on one of any of the three rolls during the duration of the spell. I might be wrong, but i don't think so ;-)
You could argue that the continouos use only grants you one competence bonus per round, however, and vastly diminish the effect of the item.Concerning the Bracers, I cannot argue against you. If the effect has always be an armor bonus, then it most certainly still is. I am not sure if I like the fact that you can use it for armor special abilities, since it haven't got precedent in the rules, where special abilities is tied to enhancement bonusses.
Well, in my understanding of the spell, you don't have to chose which roll you want to give the bonus when you cast, it is just specified that you don't gain it on all three. But as I read it (and have used it) you can chose to use on one of any of the three rolls during the duration of the spell. I might be wrong, but i don't think so ;-)
You could argue that the continouos use only grants you one competence bonus per round, however, and vastly diminish the effect of the item.
I think the key is as noted above--if the spell effect is covered in one of the categories, use it first, then turn to the Spell Effects section for anything else. In any case, a DM obviously has to make a judgment call and the creation rules even call out anything other than scrolls, potions, and staves as needing special attention.
Concerning the Bracers, I cannot argue against you. If the effect has always be an armor bonus, then it most certainly still is. I am not sure if I like the fact that you can use it for armor special abilities, since it haven't got precedent in the rules, where special abilities is tied to enhancement bonusses.
There is precedent, actually, from some non-OGL sources. It was either the Arms and Equipment Guide or the Player's Guide to Faerun, I believe, that first brought around the notion of adding these armor-related enhancements to Bracers of Armor. I've seen it used as a house rule for years and it's generally well accepted. The addition of these enhancements basically helps out the no-armor fighter types (monks, swashbucklers, primitives, etc.) so they can get the same tricks as armored folks. I've never found it to be imbalanced in any way. Granted, the rules in PRPG should take a bit more care in using any bonus type labels, but I've got not problem with Reflecting Bracers of Armor +3 (Wonder Woman anyone?).
EDIT: Verified, it's in the Arms and Equipment Guide where they first allowed adding armor enhancements. It actually allowed stacking up to +5 enhancement effects (but not actual Enhancement bonuses to AC) for a total +13 "value" on the bracers. Magic of Faerun introduced the Bracers or Striking, which allowed the addition of weapon enhancement effects so long as they'd work on bludgeoning weapons.
Concerning the Bracers, I cannot argue against you. If the effect has always be an armor bonus, then it most certainly still is. I am not sure if I like the fact that you can use it for armor special abilities, since it haven't got precedent in the rules, where special abilities is tied to enhancement bonusses.
I am fairly sure the reference to enhancement bonus is merely a mental version copy and paste error.
Under the Armor section, it explains:
A suit of armor with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
It is my belief that the author copied this paragraph and pasted into the text regarding Bracers of Armor. Clearly, not an exact copy and paste because the wording is completely different, but it says exactly the same thing. In the mind of the author, he mentally copied the paragraph and reproduced it for Bracers of Armor without editing it properly to reference the Armor bonus.
The fact is the text for Bracers of Armor specifically describes the bracers as having an armor bonus:
granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor.
This is a direct and indisputable description of the type of bonus this item grants: armor.
Later, a reference is made to how to calculate special abilities. This reference is not describing the Bracers of Armor, or specifically describing the bonus provided by this item.
Instead, it is specifically describing how to supplement the AC bonus with special armor abiltiies, and in doing so, it mislabels the previously defined armor bonus.
The important distinction is that this second reference is not in any way trying to describe or define the AC bonus. It just hapens to contain a mislabeled reference to it.
Which says to me that I should abide by the deliberate and direct definition given first, and assume the second reference contains an unintended error.
|
|
theres actually a really simple way to follow up on this, organized play.
In organized play you can't stack bracers of armor with other types of armor. Debate settled, except for the beta which is the first time BoA have been able to be enchanted with properties, but until the official release they are still using the SRD, and in the SRD you can't stack BoA with regular armor.
So I guess the question is do you think that Jason changed how BoA work fundamentally for the Beta despite all previous editions them working the way we are telling you they work?
And once again, you're free to houserule it however you want. But by the rules, its an armor bonus. in fact funnily enough, by the rules as written in the beta you still can't enhance BoA with a special ability because the rules say that they grant an armor bonus and can be enhanced with special abilities, but they require an enhancement bonus to be enchanted and you can't by the rules give BoA a +1 enhancement. That's seriously funny.
I am not debating that BoA is an armor bonus anymore, given the previous arguments. If it has worked this way earlier, it still does since the wording hasn't been changed.
But the special abilities is a problem when fitted to an armor bonus and not enhancement. I am fairly certain that it is meant to be a possibility even though the later wording of requiring an enhancement bonus is a contradiction.
However given the question from the OP, then the armor bonus is even more difficult to price based on the Magic Item Creation rules, since they only mention Armor Enhancement bonusses.
I believe that 16.000 for a Robe of Mage Armor (or BoA+4 without the possibility of special ability) is way too much for the effect compared to just using the spell mage armor. But that is obviously a matter of taste.
I am curious though if anyone would choose to buy such an item for this price instead of using the spell, and at what levels you would do so?
|
|
I am not debating that BoA is an armor bonus anymore, given the previous arguments. If it has worked this way earlier, it still does since the wording hasn't been changed.
But the special abilities is a problem when fitted to an armor bonus and not enhancement. I am fairly certain that it is meant to be a possibility even though the later wording of requiring an enhancement bonus is a contradiction.
However given the question from the OP, then the armor bonus is even more difficult to price based on the Magic Item Creation rules, since they only mention Armor Enhancement bonusses.
I believe that 16.000 for a Robe of Mage Armor (or BoA+4 without the possibility of special ability) is way too much for the effect compared to just using the spell mage armor. But that is obviously a matter of taste.
I am curious though if anyone would choose to buy such an item for this price instead of using the spell, and at what levels you would do so?
Don't forget that mage's aren't the only ones who can benefit from Mage Armor. I've seen players of monks use them since technically they aren't armor to increase their AC and I've seen bards and even high dex fighters that prefer to use them and either don't have the spell in their spell list or just plain don't want to waste a spell slot. Also there are PrCs like the suel Arcanamach that open up spellcasting to classes that didn't have it before but then have a very limited spell list or # per day where they don't want to have to waste one spell on mage armor and even if they did it would only last 1-3 hours.
Also I'm absolutely sure that the intent is that the BoA have to have at least a +1 Armor bonus to be fitted with a special ability and that it is just a copy paste error as the previous poster stated. It's to prevent someone having a Bracers of Fortification with no actual armor bonus.
I believe that 16.000 for a Robe of Mage Armor (or BoA+4 without the possibility of special ability) is way too much for the effect compared to just using the spell mage armor. But that is obviously a matter of taste.
I am curious though if anyone would choose to buy such an item for this price instead of using the spell, and at what levels you would do so?
There are lots of ways to answer this question.
Let's say you're a fighter. And you're wearing non-magical masterwork Full Plate. You could take that armor to a mage and he could enchant it into +4 Full Plate. He would charge you the listed price of 16,000 gp.
Is that way too much to pay for +4 Full Plate?
Your AC goes up 4 points for 16,000 gp.
Too much?
The price point for Bracers of Armor is the same as for magical ordinary body armor.
But the bracers have two benefits that +4 Full Plate (or +x any armor) does not have.
One, there are no proficiencies associated with the bracers, so every class in the game can wear them. For example, monks get some pretty good bonuses to their AC when they wear no armor. But they can wear these bracers to gain as much as 8 extra points of AC, and unlike his WIS bonus or his monk AC bonus, the bracers even work when the monk is immobilized or helpless, encumbered, etc. And monks don't have Mage Armor on their spell list...
Two, there are no penalties associated with the bracers, so you can climb in them, jump in them, swim in them, and cast spells in them, all without penalties. This makes them a good choice for some classes that can wear armor, and makes them an excellent choice for arcane casters who don't want to fizzle all the time. Sure, most arcane casters have Mage Armor on their spell list, but some don't (prohibited school, special class/PrC that is arcane but doesn't get this spell) and even so, Mage Armor caps at +4 AC, but the bracers go all the way up to +8 AC. And even the mages who have Mage Armor on their list and can't afford bracers higher than +4 AC yet may still enjoy not having to take up a couple slots every day for their Mage Armor spells, or having to spend the first round of combat casting Mage Armor instead of blasting the bad guys.
And now, thanks to Pathfinder, there is a third reason to love these bracers.
Three, the [b]armor[b] modifier doesn't stack with real armor, but the other abilities do. So a fighter might wear his +4 Full Plate, and his +1 Bracers of Armor of Moderate Fortification and Invulnerability. The +1 from the bracers is wasted (doesn't stack) but the 75% chance to ignore a critical hit or a sneak attack, and the damage reduction of 5/magic both stack. Total price: 63,000 gp. Compare to the cost of +4 Full Plate of Moderate Fortification and Invulnerability which costs 100,000 gp. Not a bad way to save 37,000 GP.
So, to answer your question, if I were a mage with Mage Armor on my list, and I had 16,000 gp to spend, Bracers of Armor +4 would not be my first choice. If I were a fighter wearing Full Plate, I wouldn't even consider Bracers of Armor. Rangers might prefer to buy a bow first, barbarians might prefer to get a good sword first, etc.
But for any class who has already figured out their primary magical attack option (magic sword, wand of fireball, whatever) and is looking to invest in AC, then Bracers of Armor is very appealing to me for everyone except classes wearing heavy armor.
I would even consider paying for +4 bracers/robe if I were a wizard, just to free up those spell slots so I don't have to memorize Mage Armor, waste time at the start of the fight, or get caught with my Mage Armor down.
I believe that 16.000 for a Robe of Mage Armor (or BoA+4 without the possibility of special ability) is way too much for the effect compared to just using the spell mage armor. But that is obviously a matter of taste.
I am curious though if anyone would choose to buy such an item for this price instead of using the spell, and at what levels you would do so?
I mostly agree with your assessment. I'd only use Bracers of Armor if (a) I didn't have anyone in my party who could use a wand of Mage Armor, or (b) if the bonus was higher than +4 (making Mage Armor obsolete), or (c) I was playing in a world that didn't have "magic shops" and I found a pair in a pile of loot.
stuffI know I plan on houseruling out the BoA enhancement ability just because of that kind of cheese :D
Well, yeah, it is cheesy.
But there are other limiting factors.
Such as the requirement of being 14th level to create the bracers I used in my example (+1 Moderate Fortification and Invulnerability).
Also, only a small handful of armor properties can be applied, and most of the good ones cannot (due to the restriction that the bracers cannot have an armor ability with a flat price adjustment).
Also, the bracers take up the hands slot.
So a fighter with magical armor and magical bracers of fortification will use two slots to do what magical armor of fortification could have done on its own. That means no Gauntlets of Rust or Gloves of Storing, etc.
And of course, such bracers won't be found in any published adventures, because until now, they were impossible.
So if you don't put them in a hoard, your players will have to make their own because they will never be just lying around anywhere.
With all the inherent limitations, I myself am inclined to leave them as is. I might even drop one in a hoard, though it might be something like +3 Light Fortification - something a monk could use, for example.
|
Interesting there is so much disagreement over such a basic magic item.
I would rule simply that Bracers use an Armor Bonus just like normal armor and they do not stack, but can also accept bonus enhancements, just like armor, but up to the limit of +8 instead of +10. In a nutshell I am pretty sure that is the intent behind the item.
And the cost of +4 Bracers in PRPG is 8,000gp, not 16,000gp. So a character can afford a Robe of +4 AC by 5th or 6th level, and would be using 3rd level spells as the highest spell, so a 1st level spell is still rather important to have. Seems like a Robe of +4 AC would be rather desirable to me.
And the cost of +4 Bracers in PRPG is 8,000gp, not 16,000gp.
That's the construction cost, not the purchase cost.
I can see why a few classes, especially monk, would use the Bracers, apart from the additional special abilities which are interesting for several classes.
One thing that ellude me in this discussion, is the comparison of BoA and the Robe of Mage Armor.
Yes, the Robe can be similar to BoA+4. But the Bracers have a two important features in which they are better. Firstly, the armor bonus can be spend on special abilities. Secondly, you can improve them to a higher armor bonus, unlike the Robe which are always +4.
Since they are not equal, the price shouldn't be the same.
So, if you are MAKING a Robe of +4 AC wouldn't you use the construction cost rather than the purchase cost?And the cost of +4 Bracers in PRPG is 8,000gp, not 16,000gp.That's the construction cost, not the purchase cost.
Yes, but this discussion has used base prices and not construction prices from the OP's first post. I really doesn't matter which prices we use, as long as they are comparable.
One thing that ellude me in this discussion, is the comparison of BoA and the Robe of Mage Armor.
Yes, the Robe can be similar to BoA+4. But the Bracers have a two important features in which they are better. Firstly, the armor bonus can be spend on special abilities. Secondly, you can improve them to a higher armor bonus, unlike the Robe which are always +4.
Since they are not equal, the price shouldn't be the same.
I believe the comparison is between a Robe of Mage Armor +4 and a set of Bracers of Armor +4.
Those should be equal. 16,000 gp each.
And they should both be equal to the enchantment price suit of any magical armor +4, except with the armor, you also include the price of the masterwork armor, so +4 chainmail costs 16,000 for the enchantment and an extra 300 gp for the masterwork chainmail.
All of that should be equal.
Bracers with a different armor class should be higher or lower price as appropriate.
As far as getting special armor abilities instead of just getting AC, that doesn't change the price structure. +1 Bracers of Armor with Moderate Fortification are priced the same as +4 Bracers of Armor. This is the pricing structure already built into 3.5 and Pathfinder. All Pathfinder added is the ability to apply this pricing structure to Bracers of Armor - but the price is still the same. It is not a "benefit" to the Bracers of Armor for two reasons.
One, if you can do this for bracers, you can also do this for a robe, if you like.
Two, the pricing is alrady in place, and presumably balanced, so that these armor special abilities are priced correctly. If their prices are correct, and balanced, then +4 Bracers of Armor are no better and no worse than +1 Bracers of Armor with Moderate Fortification, so their price should be equal. If your contention is that armor special abilities are poorly priced, that is a topic for a different discussion.
The rules for taking an existing pair of Bracers of Armor +4 to some mage somewhere and asking him to improve them to +5 should also apply to improving a robe from +4 to +5, so that shouldn't be any different either.
Hence, I would price the bracers and the robe exactly the same.
Two things:
1) I dislike making armor bonusses in magical items. They cannot be compared directly to armor enhancement bonusses, since it is two different types of bonusses which stack with eachother but not any of the same kind. The are no rules for pricing an armor bonus to a magic item, as they are written.
I can't see the logic in making a special kind of armor bonus for Bracers of Armor, when they just as well could be made an enhancement bonus (except they would stack with mage armor). This way they would truly be equal to the enhancement bonus bought for your armor. This way they would also have the same game mechanic as Amulet of Mighty fists, which is properly the magic item they are most comparable to.
2) If the logic behind the comparison of the Bracers and the Robe is saying "They can do the same", well then of course they should cost the same. But the original proposition was a Robe with continous Mage Armor. As a spell effect, the bonus cannot be further enhanced, and the bonus cannot be substituted for special abilities, since the spell does not allow this.
Otherwise it would not be a Robe of Mage Armor but a Robe-of-Bracers-of-Armor.
This is basically an academic exercise in how DM's should price items they create (or adjudicated a player-created item). The important thing to do in any magic item pricing exercise is stated in both the SRD and the PRPG rules:
The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide.
For this particular item, the question is "can I create a wondrous item that grants a +4 Armor bonus to AC as a force effect?"
The answer is, "Yes, and the easiest way to price it is by looking at an item that does the exact same thing--Bracers of Armor +4."
With that easy answer, the cheese-route of getting a 2,000 gp item that does what a 16,000 gp already does is eliminated. Beyond changing body slots, these two items (disregarding the bracer's options for taking on other armor-like enhancements) are identical.
If the question is "can I create a wondrous item that grants a +4 Enhancement bonus to AC?" then the answer is "Yes, but the price is harder to determine because there is no existing item with which to compare." Further, I'm not aware of any item that grants an Enhancement bonus to another item, i.e. an Amulet of Mighty fists enhances the actual wearer, as does an Amulet of Natural Armor, the various ability boost items, Boots of Speed, etc. I don't know of any item that grants an Enhancement bonus to a sword, armor, or shield--the bonus is always applied directly to the item. Competence bonus, check. Luck bonus, check. Insight bonus, check. The closest I can think of are the Magic Item Compendium "slot-filler" gems that can be added to armor and weapons to give them swappable abilities. I could see those being created to give an item an Enhancement bonus when the gem is attached to the item.
So, end result for me in that exercise would be to (a) not create such an item as a DM or (b1) tell the player such an item would grant something other than an Enhancement bonus or (b2) tell the player the item would have to be based on a continuous Magic Vestment spell and priced as follows:
+1 (Spell level 3 X caster level 5) = 15 X 2,000 = 30,000 gp
+2 (Spell level 3 X caster level 8) = 24 X 2,000 = 48,000 gp
+3 (Spell level 3 X caster level 12) = 36 X 2,000 = 72,000 gp
+4 (Spell level 3 X caster level 16) = 48 X 2,000 = 96,000 gp
+5 (Spell level 3 X caster level 20) = 60 X 2,000 = 120,000 gp
The reason being this player could then get a +1 Armor of Whatever Other Bonus Abilities (e.g. +1 Ghost Touch Armor of Moderate Fortification and Invulnerability) and still benefit from a +5 Enhancement bonus to AC. It's a strange way to go, and not in my opinion very cost effective, but also not something I'd disallow.
That's my logic, but another DM might come at it another way--say pricing it just like a normal Armor enhancement bonus, or using the Bonus Squared X 2,500 gp line.
Two things:
1) I dislike making armor bonusses in magical items. They cannot be compared directly to armor enhancement bonusses, since it is two different types of bonusses which stack with eachother but not any of the same kind. The are no rules for pricing an armor bonus to a magic item, as they are written.
You're missing something very fundamental here.
Armor only does one thing. You put on a suit of chainmail, you only get one statistic out of it that is not a penalty to you.
AC.
Specifically, the armor portion of your AC.
It's not the shield AC, or the deflection AC, or the dodge AC. It is the armor AC.
So if that chainmail in magical, and it has a +3 (e.g.) "enhancement" bonus, you have to ask yourself what that bonus "enhances".
It does not enhance the metallic shinyness of the armor. It does not enhance the weight of the armor. It does not enhance any of the penalties like Arcane Failure or Armor Check Penalty.
And it doesn't enhance you either. You aren't taller, or heavier, or meaner, or smarter.
No, what the enchantment on the armor "enhances" is the armor bonus. It effectively makes the armor bonus bigger than it was without the magic.
Chainmail givs you 5 points of armor value to your AC. +3 chainmail gives you 8 points of armor value to your AC.
Thus, "enhancing" an armor bonus just makes that armor bonus bigger.
I can't see the logic in making a special kind of armor bonus for Bracers of Armor, when they just as well could be made an enhancement bonus (except they would stack with mage armor). This way they would truly be equal to the enhancement bonus bought for your armor. This way they would also have the same game mechanic as Amulet of Mighty fists, which is properly the magic item they are most comparable to.
It's not a special kind of armor bonus.
It's the same exact kind of armor bonus.
Your +3 chanmail has an armor bonus of 5 enhanced to 8 by the magic. That's just an armor bonus.
Your +3 Bracers of Armor have an armor bonus of 3. That's just an armor bonus too.
Both are the same kind of armor bonus (there is only one kind of armor bonus called, surprisingly enough, "armor bonus").
Exactly the same.
2) If the logic behind the comparison of the Bracers and the Robe is saying "They can do the same", well then of course they should cost the same. But the original proposition was a Robe with continous Mage Armor. As a spell effect, the bonus cannot be further enhanced, and the bonus cannot be substituted for special abilities, since the spell does not allow this.
Otherwise it would not be a Robe of Mage Armor but a Robe-of-Bracers-of-Armor.
Well, nobody would, with our current magic rules, make an item of "continuous Mage Armor".
They would make a robe, using their Mage Armor spell and their Craft Wondrous Item feat.
And when they were done, it would function exactly like Bracers of Armor, but would use a different body slot.
There would be no reason or benefit to do it any other way.
You're not setting out to make an item that has a continuous spell effect on it.
Instead, you're setting out to make an item that has a continuous AC modifier, of the type "armor bonus" on it. Since rules for this exist, and a sample item exists to use it as a guideline, that's what you'd use.
Ok,
It seems to me that by the strictest interpretation of the rules, the following could happen.
Bracers of Armor (+N): These provide an Armor Bonus of N. In and of themselves, BoA should not be able to have any armor enhancement abilities (like Light Fortification or Ghosttouch or anything else) because they do not have an Enhancement Bonus.
However,
Any piece of armor (armor being anything that provides an Armor Bonus) can be enchanted with an Enhancement Bonus to Armor Bonus. Thus, theoretically, you could take your Bracers of Armor +4 and enchant them to be BoA(+4) +1. They would then have a +4 Armor Bonus, and a +1 Armor Enhancement. Once they had a +1 Armor Enhancement, they could then have Light Fortification applied (Making them the equivelant of BoA(+4) +2). This is confusing, but it is consistent.
For those who think this is 'double dipping', it is equivelant to a chain shirt +1 of light fortification.
Chain Shirt of Light Fortification price: 4,250gp
+1 Bracers of Armor (+4) of Light Fortification: 20,000gp
BoA(+4) : 16,000
+1 Bonus: 1,000
Light Fortification 3,000
Now, the bracers have no armor check penalty or spell failure penalty, but you can get that on a Chain Shirt as well with special materials (Elven Leafweave or Mithral). I believe you can get that on the Chain shirt with one of those two special materials, didn't have the book to look them up. Mithral would be another 1,000gp if I remember correctly.
The bracers +4 armor bonus would not stack with a chain shirt, nor would it's +1 enhancement bonus stack if the chain shirt had a +1 enhancement. The bracers would effect ghosts etc since they are force effect for their Armor Bonus (and enhancement bonus). So you could wear both items without getting stacking benefits there. Where you could get stacking is special abilities (Light fortification and then having Slick on the chain shirt.
However, to get that stacking, you're paying an extra 16,000gp for the bracers. Granted, you could do it a lot cheaper by grabbing BoA +1 and enchant them and boost them.
Can it be abused, yes. That's the DM's job to keep from happening. It does offer some classes ways to get armor they can't get otherwise, but it's much more expensive. You're paying through the nose for the 'I'm not wearing armor'. ANd that's fair, since that's part of what balances out the character classes. Wizards don't get armor but do get massive spells. Fighters don't but get massive defense. If the wizard wants to be an armor tank he needs to pay through the nose for it. And for the same gold, the fighter will ALWAYS have better AC (20K buys a lot of equip for the fighter, as opposed to one item for the mage).
The issue really comes down to BoA being very very ambiguous, unfortunately. I could see allowing the robes of armor, same price as BoA, and even allowing enchantment bonus's on either. By the time the wizard can afford that much, he has much better options. He's paying for the convienence of having the armor permanent.
I may not be remembering a rule from somewhere, so maybe it specifically says you can put enhancement bonus's on BoA, but I don't remember that anywhere.
Ok,
It seems to me that by the strictest interpretation of the rules, the following could happen.Bracers of Armor (+N): These provide an Armor Bonus of N. In and of themselves, BoA should not be able to have any armor enhancement abilities (like Light Fortification or Ghosttouch or anything else) because they do not have an Enhancement Bonus.
However,
Any piece of armor (armor being anything that provides an Armor Bonus) can be enchanted with an Enhancement Bonus to Armor Bonus. Thus, theoretically, you could take your Bracers of Armor +4 and enchant them to be BoA(+4) +1. They would then have a +4 Armor Bonus, and a +1 Armor Enhancement. Once they had a +1 Armor Enhancement, they could then have Light Fortification applied (Making them the equivelant of BoA(+4) +2). This is confusing, but it is consistent.For those who think this is 'double dipping', it is equivelant to a chain shirt +1 of light fortification.
Chain Shirt of Light Fortification price: 4,250gp
+1 Bracers of Armor (+4) of Light Fortification: 20,000gp
BoA(+4) : 16,000
+1 Bonus: 1,000
Light Fortification 3,000
I like this idea.
Quite an interesting approach, and might even be fun to try it out, but it's not exactly the RAW.
I think I would change your opening line to "It seems to me that by the strictest misinterpretation of the rules, the following could happen."
I call it a misinterpretation because the Pathfinder Beta does indeed say bracers of armor can have special armor properties.
Now, it does in fact contain an error in how it references adding these armor properties based on the "enhancement" bonus of the bracers, which is obviously a misprint error since they don't have an enhancement bonus.
I think Occam's Razor works best here.
It is far more likely that the author accidentally referenced the wrong bonus than it is that he mean a whole missing paragraph of subtext, becaue your interpretation would require such a paragraph. Something to the effect of "It is further possible to enchant bracers of armor with the traditional enhancment magic available to all other body armor. See page x for details on this type of armor enhancement. This enhancement bonus adds to and stacks with the armor bonus of the bracers."
Without that paragraph, assuming that such a paragraph should exist seems a much greater leap of faith than assuming the author accidentally referenced the wrong type of bonus.
But hey, I could be wrong.
And your interpretation sounds more fun...
It would allow for +18 AC from the bracers (8 armor bonus and 10 enhancement bonus). That's a lot. Very nearly as much as you can get enchanting real (normal) armor.
But the real armor slows you down, affects many skills, and inhibits arcane casting. You can't sleep in most real armor. It's impolite to wear armor to many social events - ballroom dancing in full plate is laudable. And some classes can't even wear certain kinds of real armor.
In return, the bracers cost more.
Fair enough, and it might even be workable.
I would dread such an item on a master monk... Yikes!
|
|
OK, reread the description again and again and again.
What I get now is almost a two part item.
The first part is the bracers themselves offering an Armor Bonus 1-8 just like wearing armor. Therefore the bonus granted by Bracers do not stack with any armor worn. This is paragraph one.
The second part reads that the Bracers can be enchanted with Armor abilities just like armor can. It makes one exception that any ability that is a flat gp cost can not be applied to Bracers. It then states that to have an armor ability the bracer must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to add armor abilities. Paragraph two.
This then would mean you have your Bracers of Armor +4. If you want to add Light Fortification (a +1 cost) you must first have them enchanted with a +1 enhancement bonus. Thus in the final analysis this particular Bracers of Armor would amount to +5 AC Light Fortification. Your total enhancements cannot exceed +8. So you COULD have Bracers of Armor +8 with up to +8 worth of enhancements added.
The author specifically uses two different bonus types in the description. So total AC bonus could be +13 with up to 3 more points worth of enhancements. Pretty nice, but can get expensive quick.
And since the only spell requirement to make the Bracers is Mage Armor, I would rule that Robes as OP operate in the same manner.
I like this idea.
Quite an interesting approach, and might even be fun to try it out, but it's not exactly the RAW.I think I would change your opening line to "It seems to me that by the strictest misinterpretation of the rules, the following could happen."
I call it a misinterpretation because the Pathfinder Beta does indeed say bracers of armor can have special armor properties.
Yep,
But as the above poster pointed out, because of the way they worded it, it's ambiguous. However, either way, I too like the way it works. It's expensive too, so it's not something someone who has any other choice will do.
And your interpretation sounds more fun...
<bows>
Thanks. :) I prefer the Circus Clown's razor to Occom's, that which is the most fun is likely the best solution.
It would allow for +18 AC from the bracers (8 armor bonus and 10 enhancement bonus). That's a lot. Very nearly as much as you can get enchanting real (normal) armor.
And it only costs about 4 times more too. :)
I'm still working out PF though, so, would +18 even be possible? I would have thought 13 with up to +5 in enhancements. Or did Paizo do away with the 'max Enhancement = +5'?
But the real armor slows you down, affects many skills, and inhibits arcane casting. You can't sleep in most real armor. It's impolite to wear armor to many social events - ballroom dancing in full plate is laudable. And some classes can't even wear certain kinds of real armor.In return, the bracers cost WAY more.
Fair enough, and it might even be workable.
I would dread such an item on a master monk... Yikes!
There, fixed that for you. :)
But yeah, a Monk with that would be nasty nasty.
|
|
I'm still working out PF though, so, would +18 even be possible? I would have thought 13 with up to +5 in enhancements. Or did Paizo do away with the 'max Enhancement = +5'?
Nope still there in the chart for armor. You can't have an enhancement bonus above +5, but it is used to price abilities.
BoA can have a max AC of +13. Then add some abilities and you are good to go.
Essentially I am now reading the item as armor ranging from +1 to +8, and you can then enchant the item just like a regular piece of armor up to +8 enhancements/abilities.
It would allow for +18 AC from the bracers (8 armor bonus and 10 enhancement bonus). That's a lot. Very nearly as much as you can get enchanting real (normal) armor.And it only costs about 4 times more too. :)
I'm still working out PF though, so, would +18 even be possible? I would have thought 13 with up to +5 in enhancements. Or did Paizo do away with the 'max Enhancement = +5'?
No, you're right. I had meant to say "effective AC".
Up to 5 Enhancement AC plus another 5 "effective bonus" worth of armor special abilities.
Until you start to look at the 3.x Epic Handbook...
But the real armor slows you down, affects many skills, and inhibits arcane casting. You can't sleep in most real armor. It's impolite to wear armor to many social events - ballroom dancing in full plate is laudable. And some classes can't even wear certain kinds of real armor.In return, the bracers cost WAY more.
Fair enough, and it might even be workable.
I would dread such an item on a master monk... Yikes!
There, fixed that for you. :)
But yeah, a Monk with that would be nasty nasty.
Well, not too "WAY more".
+10 Full Plate: 101,650 GP. AC 13, 5 special abilities, only allows 1 point of DEX, huge skill and arcane penalties.
+10 Bracers(+8): 164,000 GP. AC 13, 5 special abilities, allows all your DEX, no skill or arcane penalties.
And for all that, the bracers don't even cost a full 2/3 more gold than the full plate.
Definitely more, but not WAY more, I wouldn't think.
That might be balanced, but it might be overbalanced in favor of the bracers.
Well, not too "WAY more".+10 Full Plate: 101,650 GP. AC 13, 5 special abilities, only allows 1 point of DEX, huge skill and arcane penalties.
+10 Bracers(+8): 164,000 GP. AC 13, 5 special abilities, allows all your DEX, no skill or arcane penalties.And for all that, the bracers don't even cost a full 2/3 more gold than the full plate.
Definitely more, but not WAY more, I wouldn't think.
That might be balanced, but it might be overbalanced in favor of the bracers.
I guess that comes down to how you look at it then. 60% increase in price to me is way more. Granted, no skill penalties, but then again, most people wearing full plate aren't skill or arcane oriented.
Probably a bit in favor of the bracers, at level 20, where money is easy to come by, but at level 1 to 15, the full plate will be much easier/cheaper to obtain.
Well, nobody would, with our current magic rules, make an item of "continuous Mage Armor".
You're not setting out to make an item that has a continuous spell effect on it.
Instead, you're setting out to make an item that has a continuous AC modifier, of the type "armor bonus" on it. Since rules for this exist, and a sample item exists to use it as a guideline, that's what you'd use.
Given that the rules allow spells to be cast on items, and specifically with continuous use, then I fail to see why you wouldn't set out to make an item that has a continuous spell effect on it.
The rules specificly offers the pricing for doing. Why wouldn't you then?
On another note, I would put the Robe of Mage Armor to the famous "acid test".
Given that the crafter of it is a caster with the mage armor spell, which is most likely.
Comparing it to buying/creating a few lvl 1 pearls of power and from lvl 3 onwards having a +4 AC for most of my active day, at higher levels all day:
Would I pay 16000 to the Robe: Never.
Then the price should be lower.
Personally I am not sure if I would buy it for the original calculation of 2000 gp (here it comes into account that I play a low-gold campaign, so I wouldn't waste 2000 for something that only really benefit until I become lvl 6 or 7).
Would I pay 16000 to the Robe: Never.
Then the price should be lower.
Personally I am not sure if I would buy it for the original calculation of 2000 gp (here it comes into account that I play a low-gold campaign, so I wouldn't waste 2000 for something that only really benefit until I become lvl 6 or 7).
Well, I play in a high-gold campaign.
My 2nd level mage inherited a family vinyard and winery, 1100 acres of pure burgundy heaven. His monthly income is 60,000 gold. Every month.
He was wearing bracers of +4 AC by level 3, and he paid 20,000 gp for them because the merchant knew he was rich and gouged him.
Didn't blink an eye.
Heck, I bought two pair at that price. One for adventuring, and one a little fancier for formal occasions at the palace.
OK, not really.
But my point is, you can't drag campaign-specificities into a discussion of core mechanics.
Look at the wealth/level tables in the core book and make your "acid test" decision according to those levels.
Because I assure you, the items and their prices, in that same core book, are assuming your wealth will be commensurate with the wealth/level table.
Any other campaign issues, whether lean or rich, cannot be included in the test.
You are right about that. So changing the test, I might just buy the Robe for 2000 gp.
At 16000 it is still too expensive at the levels it is useful.
You are right about that. So changing the test, I might just buy the Robe for 2000 gp.
At 16000 it is still too expensive at the levels it is useful.
What you would pay for it and what constitutes a fair price are not the same thing. If you could get a +4 armor bonus for 2000gp, nobody would buy any bracers of armor before at least +5. Everybody who must avoid physical armor would get the robes. This is why you are only expected to look at the magic item creation pricing structure as an initial guideline. You are also expected to compare with similar items.
Besides, the guidelines have a variety of different pricing guidelines and the one most appropriate should be taken, not simply the cheapest one you can find. So, armor bonuses being extremely important in this game, they price out at bonus squared x 1000. Other spell effects that do not match any of the other bonuses types listed in the pricing table are given a very general guideline of spell level x caster level x 2000.
What you would pay for it and what constitutes a fair price are not the same thing. If you could get a +4 armor bonus for 2000gp, nobody would buy any bracers of armor before at least +5. Everybody who must avoid physical armor would get the robes. This is why you are only expected to look at the magic item creation pricing structure as an initial guideline. You are also expected to compare with similar items.Besides, the guidelines have a variety of different pricing guidelines and the one most appropriate should be taken, not simply the cheapest one you can find. So, armor bonuses being extremely important in this game, they price out at bonus squared x 1000. Other spell effects that do not match any of the other bonuses types listed in the pricing table are given a very general guideline of spell level x caster level x 2000.
Fair enough, the 2000 gp was just the original example.
But if the price is 16000 for the Robe, then nobody would buy it, but go for the bracers instead. Since it doesn't have special abilities and caps at +4, shouldn't it be just a bit cheaper?
What you would pay for it and what constitutes a fair price are not the same thing. If you could get a +4 armor bonus for 2000gp, nobody would buy any bracers of armor before at least +5. Everybody who must avoid physical armor would get the robes. This is why you are only expected to look at the magic item creation pricing structure as an initial guideline. You are also expected to compare with similar items.Besides, the guidelines have a variety of different pricing guidelines and the one most appropriate should be taken, not simply the cheapest one you can find. So, armor bonuses being extremely important in this game, they price out at bonus squared x 1000. Other spell effects that do not match any of the other bonuses types listed in the pricing table are given a very general guideline of spell level x caster level x 2000.
Fair enough, the 2000 gp was just the original example.
But if the price is 16000 for the Robe, then nobody would buy it, but go for the bracers instead. Since it doesn't have special abilities and caps at +4, shouldn't it be just a bit cheaper?
No,
It is functionally identical to the bracers, just in a different body slot. The fact that it tops out at +4 doesn't make it any cheaper. BoA +4 top out at +4 (BoA +5 is a different item, that's why it's listed like that in the item guide).Now,
Your Robe of Armor (which has a +4 Armor Bonus) could be enchanted to +1 Robe of Armor (+4 Armor Bonus, +1 Enhancement Bonus) for 17,000.
It's honestly very expensive, but, when you think about it, Monks, Wizards, Sorcerers *will* pay for it if they need permanent defenses, because it's all they have.
I have a Poisondusk Lizardfolk Scout/Warlock in my current game (Obviously SRD, not PF) that has BoA +2, and wants to trade them in for BoA +3. He doesn't wear any armor (he's a small creature, with a very low strength, so wearing armor is bad for him, and on top of that, he's a dex/tumble build and armor messes up his skills, and his camouflage doesn't work if he wears armor). The player is more than willing to spend the gold to get the bracers, since they don't interfere with his skills or special abilities.
Have any of the people talking about making +1 Bracers of Armor +4 for 17k considered that you could also make +2 Bracers of Armor +3 for 13k? Does it not seems strange to allow three nearly identical items (BoA +5, +1/+4 and +2/+3) that give the identical effect (+5 armor bonus to AC) that have 3 significantly different prices? (25k, 17k, 13k)
Why is anyone making a +5 BoA without immediately putting on a +4 additional bonus? A +2/+3 item is cheaper and faster to make.
Conceptually, I think of Bracers of Armor as "Bracers of Armor (no bonus)" that give +0 AC, no max dex, 0% ASF and +0 ACP. They have negligible cost, but can be given an enhancement bonus at the usual price. So a BoA +5 costs 25k and grants a +5 armor bonus to AC.