I've been pondering this for awhile now.
A ring of standard invisibility costs 20k (2 (spell level)*3 (caster level)*2000*2 (measured in minutes per level spell)=24k, though, anybody know why this is different?). Using this formula, a ring of greater invisibility would cost (4*7*2000*4) 224k., whereas according to the book, a ring of telekinesis (a 5th level spell) costs only 75k, and a ring of elemental command (uses a 6th level spell, plus a whole bunch of extra goodies) costs "only" 200k.
Is this formula correct? Is it a means by which the designers have decreed that there shall never be a ring of greater invisibility?
Of course, doing a bit more digging in that table suggests that a person could create a command word item, like an amulet or cloak of greater invisibility, that worked 5 times per day for 7 rounds each for a cost of just over 50k. Given that one is unlikely to need greater invisibility much more often than that, it should be an okay option.
not all spells are created equal
some effects are worth more than others
now while telekinesis and greater invis are the same level of spell the power of thier effects are very differn't
consider that telekinesis is a use activated effect while greater invis ring is always on
so yeah it should be rediculiously expensive becuase its rediculously powerful ;)
not all spells are created equal
some effects are worth more than others
now while telekinesis and greater invis are the same level of spell the power of thier effects are very differn't
consider that telekinesis is a use activated effect while greater invis ring is always on
so yeah it should be rediculiously expensive becuase its rediculously powerful ;)
Well, under the description of ring of invisibility, it states that you have to activate the ring. One could therefore assume that a ring of greater invisibility would work the same way. You activate it as a standard action, it lasts 7 rounds, then you have to burn another standard action to reactivate it if the combat is still going on.
Well, under the description of ring of invisibility, it states that you have to activate the ring. One could therefore assume that a ring of greater invisibility would work the same way. You activate it as a standard action, it lasts 7 rounds, then you have to burn another standard action to reactivate it if the combat is still going on.not all spells are created equal
some effects are worth more than others
now while telekinesis and greater invis are the same level of spell the power of thier effects are very differn't
consider that telekinesis is a use activated effect while greater invis ring is always on
so yeah it should be rediculiously expensive becuase its rediculously powerful ;)
1 std action every 7 rounds, that hardly a limiting factor, hell I don't remeber the last time I play'd a combat that went beyond 7 consecutive rounds.
its a very powerful ability for any character, and it should be expensive as hell.
consider that shadowdancers have thier whole class based around being unseen and striking from the shadows and this 1 ring can do a much better job over thier class.
Invisible Charging Rage Barbarian ..... you get the idea
Invisble Caster who can cast without risk of AoO's
Of course such a ring would just force a GM to start using monsters who can see invisible.
If you want to be invisible best just to ask the wizard ;)
I would look at the warlock. They get a 24 duration, at will, greater invisiblity on themselves as a Dark Invocation, which is available at 16th level, and is equivalent to an 8th or 9th level spell.
But at that level of play, true seeing and permanent see invisiblity are pretty common too.
Creative Director
|
Correct; the magic item formulas are not exact; they're a starting point. When you price out a new item, you should start with the formulas to get a starting point for your item. Then you should compare it to similar items. The "sweet spot" for an item's price is best described as a point where it's not an obvious choice which item you would buy if it were put up against several similar items.
As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.
|
As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.
This. There are some spells (not even high-level spells, necessarily!) where having unlimited access to them would be deeply unbalancing. A ring of true strike would be another example.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.This. There are some spells (not even high-level spells, necessarily!) where having unlimited access to them would be deeply unbalancing. A ring of true strike would be another example.
Actually, I've never thought an unlimited true strike is that unbalancing - as long as it's priced right (it would have to be more than the formula for a 1st level spell indicates). If you used it all the time, you'd only attack every other round, and it would only apply to your first attack in the following round. For fighter types, this means their highest iterative attack, and that should be hitting more than 50% of the time anyway. not only that, but once you use the trick once or twice at most on a given foe, they can see - hmm, he always doesn't attack for 1 round, then really hits me with ease - I'll just withdraw, dimension door, fly away, go invisible, etc. right after he activates.
Ring of greater invisibility 75k - when you activate it, you are invisible until you deactivate it. For 10 rounds per day, you can make attacks without the invisibility dropping.
I took the price of a ring of invisibility + the price of a ring of greater invisibility 5 times a day(10 rounds per day is roughly 3-5 encounters).
Actually, I've never thought an unlimited true strike is that unbalancing - as long as it's priced right (it would have to be more than the formula for a 1st level spell indicates). If you used it all the time, you'd only attack every other round, and it would only apply to your first attack in the following round. For fighter types, this means their highest iterative attack, and that should be hitting more than 50% of the time anyway. not only that, but once you use the trick once or twice at most on a given foe, they can see - hmm, he always doesn't attack for 1 round, then really hits me with ease - I'll just withdraw, dimension door, fly away, go invisible, etc. right after he activates.
A ring of quickened true strike on the other hand...
Actually, I've never thought an unlimited true strike is that unbalancing - as long as it's priced right (it would have to be more than the formula for a 1st level spell indicates). If you used it all the time, you'd only attack every other round, and it would only apply to your first attack in the following round. For fighter types, this means their highest iterative attack, and that should be hitting more than 50% of the time anyway. not only that, but once you use the trick once or twice at most on a given foe, they can see - hmm, he always doesn't attack for 1 round, then really hits me with ease - I'll just withdraw, dimension door, fly away, go invisible, etc. right after he activates.As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.This. There are some spells (not even high-level spells, necessarily!) where having unlimited access to them would be deeply unbalancing. A ring of true strike would be another example.
That's not what your typical powergamer wants from an unlimited True Strike magic item though. They're thinking an item that grants -every- attack they make a +20 to hit, -every- round with no limit. I've had players argue that it should not only be allowed, but at a cost indicative of a mere 1st level spell.
Same problem, different spell. Shield to be exact. I had to explain that the formula was only a guide line... we did figure up a price on a Ring of Shield.
|
|
OK so you get one Truestrike per round (not +20 on every attack).
Cost is 2000 X 9 (caster level) X 5 (spell level of quickened true strike) = 90k.
Now if that gave it to you for EVERY attack in the round it would be unbalanced giving it for your first attack in the round? I can spend 90k better thank you very much.
It's a +20 insight bonus, so it stacks with just about every other bonus; also it allows the attack to ignore (anything less than total) concealment.
I'm actually less worried about a fighter getting this, as much as I would be worried about a rogue getting this.
I would tentatively allow such an item in my game only if it required a standard action to operate, and only functioned once per day.
|
OK so you get one Truestrike per round (not +20 on every attack).
Cost is 2000 X 9 (caster level) X 5 (spell level of quickened true strike) = 90k.
Now if that gave it to you for EVERY attack in the round it would be unbalanced giving it for your first attack in the round? I can spend 90k better thank you very much.
It's a +20 insight bonus, so it stacks with just about every other bonus; also it allows the attack to ignore (anything less than total) concealment.
I'm actually less worried about a fighter getting this, as much as I would be worried about a rogue getting this.
I would tentatively allow such an item in my game only if it required a standard action to operate, and only functioned once per day.
Rogue getting it isn't a big deal because rogues can get a wand and use magic device it. Regardless of whether true strike ignores concealment a rogue isn't going to be able to sneak attack a target with concealment.
Rogue getting it isn't a big deal because rogues can get a wand and use magic device it. Regardless of whether true strike ignores concealment a rogue isn't going to be able to sneak attack a target with concealment.
True, concealment still screws the rogue. But the item described above had a quickened true strike, which a wand can't contain. It'd pretty much guarantee that the rogue would hit with his sneak attack, every time, which is what I think the concern is about.
|
|
Regardless of whether true strike ignores concealment a rogue isn't going to be able to sneak attack a target with concealment.
Hmm, yeah I was thinking the rule was written that they couldn't sneak attack if there was a miss chance for concealment, but it's not.
Intuitively this spell should allow such a sneak attack but the wording of the rules does not actually allow for that.
|
|
True, concealment still screws the rogue. But the item described above had a quickened true strike, which a wand can't contain. It'd pretty much guarantee that the rogue would hit with his sneak attack, every time, which is what I think the concern is about.
Rogue getting it isn't a big deal because rogues can get a wand and use magic device it. Regardless of whether true strike ignores concealment a rogue isn't going to be able to sneak attack a target with concealment.
Ack... sometimes I miss important words.
This is one of those items that just doesn't belong in the game, a great example of why custom items need close GM adjudication.
|
Correct; the magic item formulas are not exact; they're a starting point. When you price out a new item, you should start with the formulas to get a starting point for your item. Then you should compare it to similar items. The "sweet spot" for an item's price is best described as a point where it's not an obvious choice which item you would buy if it were put up against several similar items.
I assume using the formula in reverse to compare spells or effects yields useful information about spells that are under/over powered for their level/duration/etc and also by inference what level a new (or existing) spell should really be. I wonder if the designers or play-testers use this as a testing tool?
Shouldn't you base it on Ring of Blinking: Greater Invisibility for 7 rd, standard action to activate (unlimited useage).
Caster 7, 27K.
Since Blink and G. Invis are similar. Heck, Blink is stronger.
|
|
Shouldn't you base it on Ring of Blinking: Greater Invisibility for 7 rd, standard action to activate (unlimited useage).
Caster 7, 27K.Since Blink and G. Invis are similar. Heck, Blink is stronger.
Maybe. Greater invis is higher level though.
As for which is stronger, it depends. Does the enemy have see invisible? Can they attack with force spells or ghost touch? Unless the enemy has see invis they can't even target the right space.
Correct; the magic item formulas are not exact; they're a starting point. When you price out a new item, you should start with the formulas to get a starting point for your item. Then you should compare it to similar items. The "sweet spot" for an item's price is best described as a point where it's not an obvious choice which item you would buy if it were put up against several similar items.
As for a ring of greater invisibility, something like that SHOULD be a lot more expensive, since not having to take an action in combat to activate invisibility is incredibly powerful. Frankly, I would suggest not creating this item, in any event, because it's so much better than a regular ring of invisibility that it kind of makes that item feel kind of worthless.
Sounds like your very sentimental to the invisibility ring. Yes I agree that a greater invisibility ring should cost a LOT more, but it wouldn't make it any more useless than a +1 natural armor amulet vs. a +2 natural armor amulet.
i dont know what the cost would be but couldnt you do it a bit like the boots of haste? 10 rounds a day total split up however you choose?
Might make the ring more balanced.
Actually, I've never thought an unlimited true strike is that unbalancing - as long as it's priced right (it would have to be more than the formula for a 1st level spell indicates). If you used it all the time, you'd only attack every other round, and it would only apply to your first attack in the following round. For fighter types, this means their highest iterative attack, and that should be hitting more than 50% of the time anyway. not only that, but once you use the trick once or twice at most on a given foe, they can see - hmm, he always doesn't attack for 1 round, then really hits me with ease - I'll just withdraw, dimension door, fly away, go invisible, etc. right after he activates.That's not what your typical powergamer wants from an unlimited True Strike magic item though. They're thinking an item that grants -every- attack they make a +20 to hit, -every- round with no limit. I've had players argue that it should not only be allowed, but at a cost indicative of a mere 1st level spell.
I hear ya on that one... We had one guy who talked our DM into puting Hunter's Mercy (Auto crit) onto a bow, with the limitation of it only affecting the first arrow he fired in a round. Between that, and the other buffs on the bow, it was just a sick weapon.