Both came up in our Tuesday night game:
1. Magic item creation. Based on the guidelines for creating new magic items, one player in the group is convinced he can get an item with a permanent shield spell effect, granting a +4 Shield bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile. He says it'd cost around 4,000 GP.
Shield, cast as a caster level 1, a level 1 spell, times 2,000 for a continuous effect item, times 2 because it's duration is measured in min/level. 4,000 GP.
Obviously this isn't correct as that would be more than twice as good as a Ring of Force Shield for less cost. But why isn't this the case?
2. How long does it take to activate an Extraordinary ability? Specifically an Infiltrator Ranger's adaptation abilities. It doesn't talk about activation in the sections about extraordinary abilities.
Thanks in advance.
1) those item creation rules are meant to be guidelines, to be used as a starting point.
2) see page 186, core rule book.
1. That's more or less what we're thinking. Guidelines. One of the members of our party is item creation hungry, and he's inventing all sorts of items. This will require our DM to do more thinking than he's used to.
2. Huh. Page 186 was not in the index for Extraordinary abilities. In the heat of play we just checked the index and carried on. Now we know. Awesome.
Check out the price of bracers of armor +4. Those cost 16k. That's the closest thing there is to a item with continuous effect shield. Shield is probably better than bracers of armor, since shield bonuses are even rarer.
Immunity to MM is a small benefit, not really worth any extra cost, I imagine.
|
Both came up in our Tuesday night game:
1. Magic item creation. Based on the guidelines for creating new magic items, one player in the group is convinced he can get an item with a permanent shield spell effect, granting a +4 Shield bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile. He says it'd cost around 4,000 GP.
Shield, cast as a caster level 1, a level 1 spell, times 2,000 for a continuous effect item, times 2 because it's duration is measured in min/level. 4,000 GP.
Obviously this isn't correct as that would be more than twice as good as a Ring of Force Shield for less cost. But why isn't this the case?
Supposing that he wants to create a wondrous item with the following effect (say "Bracer of Shield") it should go like this:
(Spell level x Caster level x 2000gp)x2 (since spell duration is 1min/level)
IMO since craft wondrous items requires a caster level 3 the cost would be (1x 3x 2000gp)x2 = 12000gp
It's still cheap for its ability so it should be splitted in its effects as a spell:
+4 Shield bonus and Immunity to Magic Missiles.
12000gp for immunity to magic missiles is ok, so throw in an additional
10000gp (shield bonus * 2500gp) and increase the cost for multiple abilities on a single item
So it should go for 12000 + (10000 + 50%) =27000gp
If you feel nice you could offer a discount of 5% since it requires only one spell for its creation bringing it to 25650gp
Both came up in our Tuesday night game:
1. Magic item creation. Based on the guidelines for creating new magic items, one player in the group is convinced he can get an item with a permanent shield spell effect, granting a +4 Shield bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile. He says it'd cost around 4,000 GP.
Shield, cast as a caster level 1, a level 1 spell, times 2,000 for a continuous effect item, times 2 because it's duration is measured in min/level. 4,000 GP.
Obviously this isn't correct as that would be more than twice as good as a Ring of Force Shield for less cost. But why isn't this the case?
Supposing that he wants to create a wondrous item with the following effect (say "Bracer of Shield") it should go like this:
(Spell level x Caster level x 2000gp)x2 (since spell duration is 1min/level)
IMO since craft wondrous items requires a caster level 3 the cost would be (1x 3x 2000gp)x2 = 12000gp
It's still cheap for its ability so it should be splitted in its effects as a spell:
+4 Shield bonus and Immunity to Magic Missiles.
12000gp for immunity to magic missiles is ok, so throw in an additional
10000gp (shield bonus * 2500gp) and increase the cost for multiple abilities on a single itemSo it should go for 12000 + (10000 + 50%) =27000gp
If you feel nice you could offer a discount of 5% since it requires only one spell for its creation bringing it to 25650gp
The idea being you can cast a spell at a lower caster level if you choose to, so that's why it'd be caster level 1.
I do like the justification for an extra ability attached to it.
I don't blame the rules, I blame people intent on finding a way around the rules. I know this will lead to a discussion of when do you follow the chart as-is, and when do you use the chart as a base guideline.
You could even use the AC bonus squared times 2500, which would make the base +4 shield bonus cost 40,000 GP. An extra 6,000 for immunity to magic missiles using the guidelines for Shield above, and you're looking at 46,000 GP. Which isn't that bad. Shield bonuses are awesome if you're dual wielding or 2-handing.
Ring of Force Shield, by my understanding, requires a free hand to "wield" the shield, and is half the bonus.
A +2 Animated Heavy Steel Shield would still cost just over 16,000, and it only lasts for 4 rounds at a time, and has to be activated with a Move Action. I can see ~45,000 GP cost.
|
|
The idea being you can cast a spell at a lower caster level if you choose to, so that's why it'd be caster level 1.
I do like the justification for an extra ability attached to it.
I don't blame the rules, I blame people intent on finding a way around the rules. I know this will lead to a discussion of when do you follow the chart as-is, and when do you use the chart as a base guideline.
You could even use the AC bonus squared times 2500, which would make the base +4 shield bonus cost 40,000 GP. An extra 6,000 for immunity to magic missiles...
Yes the idea is correct however it shouldn't IMO ignore the required caster level for the item creation feat too, especially when creating infinite duration items.
6000gp for immunity to magic missiles is a bit cheap for me, regardless the character level a magic missile can be useful if used in numbers which is a common tactic in wars including arcane casters
(I've seen battalions of low level wizards with magic missile wands taking down stronger opponents in a battlefield)
The Shield bonus shouldn't be increased at 40000gp since it will surpass the cost of the "Ring of Shield" by a lot.
Check out the price of bracers of armor +4. Those cost 16k. That's the closest thing there is to a item with continuous effect shield. Shield is probably better than bracers of armor, since shield bonuses are even rarer.
Immunity to MM is a small benefit, not really worth any extra cost, I imagine.
The 16k is a good start point as what you are really doing is adding to AC and that would be calculated similar to armor instead of (spell)X(caster)X(set cost). From there I'd probably adjust it for not being in the right slot. That cost would also include the magic missle immunity as I think it gets into a double from not actually being a "shield" but some other slot. The immunity is game dependant, in a 7th level game at the moment and there have been less than 5 different instances of magic missle being used on a party member. If trying to stick to RAW rules, 32k would be a good ballpark I imagine.
1. That's more or less what we're thinking. Guidelines. One of the members of our party is item creation hungry, and he's inventing all sorts of items. This will require our DM to do more thinking than he's used to.
If your GM doesn't want to deal with the hassle of custom magic items, he could just decide to only allow items from the books. Custom Magic Items take a lot of mediation, so they might not be everyone's cup of tea.
If you want something "official", the Pathfinder Chronicles Podcast Paizocon 2011 Special part 1 (man, that's a long title) includes a seminar on making homebrew rules. During the seminar the head design guys at Paizo explicitly say that the table for crafting is meant to be guidelines, and they are perfectly aware that it can easily be broken. You can play that to your players if they don't think "forum trolls and too-harsh GMs" (just guessing, but that's what one of my players would say if he doesn't agree with a forum opinion) isn't an authoritative source for rules.
Link:
Pathfinder Chronicles Podcast Paizocon 2011 Special part 1
Obviously this isn't correct as that would be more than twice as good as a Ring of Force Shield for less cost. But why isn't this the case?
As the others said, it's guidelines. If you need more ammo for that argument:
The table about prices is titled "Table 15–29: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values", and the first couple of sentences in the Magic Item Gold Piece Values section are:
"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 15–29."
(You'll find this stuff on pages 549 and 550 of the Core Rulebook)
If you have the gut feeling that something is too cheap, it probably is too cheap. That part about comparing your item to existing ones is very useful. That should always be the first stop, especially for standard stuff like items that grant bonuses to attacks, AC, saves or ability scores.
The idea being you can cast a spell at a lower caster level if you choose to, so that's why it'd be caster level 1.
That's not what the rules say.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
The idea being you can cast a spell at a lower caster level if you choose to, so that's why it'd be caster level 1.That's not what the rules say.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
With a custom magic item, you'd pick whatever caster level you wanted.
For existing items, you'd use the caster level that's written in their description (e.g. Ring of Force Shield is CL 9).
Custom magic items don't have a listed CL (they don't have a listed anything), so theoretically the custom creator would decide that when they decide all the other factors of the item.
"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 15–29."(You'll find this stuff on pages 549 and 550 of the Core Rulebook)
If you have the gut feeling that something is too cheap, it probably is too cheap. That part about comparing your item to existing ones is very useful. That should always be the first stop, especially for standard stuff like items that grant bonuses to attacks, AC, saves or ability scores.
Once I thought that you first have to compare the custom item's functions to those sample items to find a good reference point, then go from there consulting the table. Thanks for quoting the text which bothers me though: It can be interpreted to mean "If you're lazy, take one of those items. Otherwise just use the table, even if it gives you cheaper prices".
So although the custom item with shield in it is infact more expensive according to the table ("AC bonus (other)" -> 4*4*2500=40000!), it does not give clear enough guidelines to avoid arguments,
"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 15–29."(You'll find this stuff on pages 549 and 550 of the Core Rulebook)
If you have the gut feeling that something is too cheap, it probably is too cheap. That part about comparing your item to existing ones is very useful. That should always be the first stop, especially for standard stuff like items that grant bonuses to attacks, AC, saves or ability scores.
Once I thought that you first have to compare the custom item's functions to those sample items to find a good reference point, then go from there consulting the table. Thanks for quoting the text which bothers me though: It can be interpreted to mean "If you're lazy, take one of those items. Otherwise just use the table, even if it gives you cheaper prices".
So although the custom item with shield in it is infact more expensive according to the table ("AC bonus (other)" -> 4*4*2500=40000!), it does not give clear enough guidelines to avoid arguments,
Comparing to existing items is not lazy, it is the first step you should always take. Especially if we're talking about standard stuff.
But note that the table is missing one information (or else is unclear on it): Shield bonus isn't really an "other" bonus. It's basically the same as armour bonus (or enhancement bonus to the shield bonus). Look at magic shields - a +1 shield's magic bonus costs the same as a +1 armour's.
The ring of force shield is more expensive than the 4000 the stats would say since it's a ring and doesn't encumber you at all - which means no armour penalty and no arcane spell failure - and the ability to have it ready as a free action rather than a the usual actions for getting a shield. That also means you can get it out of the way when you want to cast (or switch to a ranged or two-handed weapon)
If your GM doesn't want to deal with the hassle of custom magic items, he could just decide to only allow items from the books. Custom Magic Items take a lot of mediation, so they might not be everyone's cup of tea.1. That's more or less what we're thinking. Guidelines. One of the members of our party is item creation hungry, and he's inventing all sorts of items. This will require our DM to do more thinking than he's used to.
After having an artificer in my World's Largest Dungeon game, this is pretty much how I run things. You're free to craft anything you have the feats for, provided it exists in a published book. No odd stat boosting items, no custom continuous spell items, etc. It makes life much simpler.
IIRC, a Ring of Force Shield still requires the shield to be wielded.
IIRC, a Ring of Force Shield still requires the shield to be wielded.
That's true, but a normal shield is still more cumbersome. A wizard cannot use one without trouble.
|
Both came up in our Tuesday night game:
1. Magic item creation. Based on the guidelines for creating new magic items, one player in the group is convinced he can get an item with a permanent shield spell effect, granting a +4 Shield bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile. He says it'd cost around 4,000 GP.
Shield, cast as a caster level 1, a level 1 spell, times 2,000 for a continuous effect item, times 2 because it's duration is measured in min/level. 4,000 GP.
Obviously this isn't correct as that would be more than twice as good as a Ring of Force Shield for less cost. But why isn't this the case?
Supposing that he wants to create a wondrous item with the following effect (say "Bracer of Shield") it should go like this:
(Spell level x Caster level x 2000gp)x2 (since spell duration is 1min/level)
IMO since craft wondrous items requires a caster level 3 the cost would be (1x 3x 2000gp)x2 = 12000gp
It's still cheap for its ability so it should be splitted in its effects as a spell:
+4 Shield bonus and Immunity to Magic Missiles.
12000gp for immunity to magic missiles is ok, so throw in an additional
10000gp (shield bonus * 2500gp) and increase the cost for multiple abilities on a single itemSo it should go for 12000 + (10000 + 50%) =27000gp
If you feel nice you could offer a discount of 5% since it requires only one spell for its creation bringing it to 25650gp
12000 is a huge cost for immunity to magic missile. it really is a minor effect. a broach of sheilding is only 2500 for immunity to 100 points of magic missile damage
|
Well, it is nice to see that name calling and assumptions about people is not a lost art on the forum. Axl.
When a player asserts to it's clueless DM that he can by RAW have a +4 AC item for 4000 GP, it is pretty much evident the player is trying to game the system, since he knows probably more about the rules than the DM, including about the fact he shouldn't actually have this kind of item at this kind of ridiculous price - thus, being a munchkin.
I'm glad to see it is only due to an honest misunderstanding of the rules, and I'm pretty sure Axl is in the same state of mind right now.I am the player that had the question concerning the item creation as we have not used it much and it seemed that the rules that were listed where not clear as to how to deal with items that can be over powered and under priced.
As a matter of fact, check with your DM how the Crafting feats work in consideration to the average Wealth By Level (if he is already using this table to keep the power from creeping). There are two interpretations of the feats : "pay half the normal price of items and effectively double your normal wealth/power like stupid", or "spend half the price for the item you want anytime you want instead of having to find it in the world, but considering rarity of ressources, the Wealth By Level is kept intact".
First, the idea that Magic Missile immunity is worth 12k is absurd. The ability to be immune to magic missile is an aspect of the spell Shield. So if the item is created from the spell Shield there is no reason the item should not also include the immunity with it on top of the other AC increases.
Yes, Magic Missile immunity isn't probably worth so much. But it isn't because an effect on an item is based on a spell, that it works exactly like the spell.
The cost structure that I am seeing now after reading everything that has been talked about in this thread is that the item will follow similar rules like Bracers of Armor +4 (16k) plus the cost associated with the item not taking up an item slot (x2). That brings the price to 32k for +4 Shield bonus and MM immunity. I might even make the pitch that the (x2) cost is a bit much as this item's benefit cannot be stacked with other shield bonus items. Something along the lines of (x1.5) the base cost.
Actually, I would price this item depending on the shield bonus given, including from the beginning the MM immunity. You don't seem to understand how "must-have"-ish this item is, stacking with any other kind of magic enhancement to AC. You could have Amulet of natural armor, bracers of armor, ring of protection and Shield "flying stone", all stacking. This seems like an absurd amount of money, but then any optimizer will try to buy each version at the lower bonus to get a normally impossible AC at the better possible bargain. There is a reason there isn't any durable shield bonus to AC : the developers didn't want another another one again to stack with the others, and find any character with the exact same obligatory items.
Though, here is how I would calculate it :(Price of Brooch of Shielding) + ((Price of a Ring of protection + 500)bonus squared)
= 2500 + 2500xbonus².
+1 Bonus : 5000
+2 Bonus : 12500
+3 Bonus : 25000
+4 Bonus : 42500
This seems a reasonable price for an item working all day without activation, and stackable with everything. Yes, it's not cheap. Not cheap at all. Let's say you want to wield it like a shield without arcane spell failure or armor check penalty, then remove 25% of the price and round up. The +2 level, the more similar to Ring of Force Shield, is now 9500 GP instead of 12500, 1500 GP more than the ring but makes you immune to MM and must be wielded as a shield.
Suggest to the DM that he be allowed to make Command Word Activated item instead. It will be inexpensive, but eat into the action economy.
Well, it is nice to see that name calling and assumptions about people is not a lost art on the forum. Axl.
I am the player that had the question concerning the item creation as we have not used it much and it seemed that the rules that were listed where not clear as to how to deal with items that can be over powered and under priced.
First, the idea that Magic Missile immunity is worth 12k is absurd. The ability to be immune to magic missile is an aspect of the spell Shield. So if the item is created from the spell Shield there is no reason the item should not also include the immunity with it on top of the other AC increases.
The cost structure that I am seeing now after reading everything that has been talked about in this thread is that the item will follow similar rules like Bracers of Armor +4 (16k) plus the cost associated with the item not taking up an item slot (x2). That brings the price to 32k for +4 Shield bonus and MM immunity. I might even make the pitch that the (x2) cost is a bit much as this item's benefit cannot be stacked with other shield bonus items. Something along the lines of (x1.5) the base cost.
The other thing that I noticed when looking at the Ring of Force Shield is that to "wield" the ring it is a free action. That said, if a character is aware of the threat that is trying to strike him he could as a free action let go of the two-handed sword that he is wielding and use the ring. Characters with two weapons are still in a pinch.
Thoughts?
I think you might not grasp how the designers feel about this particular matter. Just to try and put it into perspective, an animated shield would cost the equivalent of +2 worth of enhancement bonus and only work for 4 rounds before having to be reactivated. I believe Paizo went so far as to change Animates Shields when Pathfinder was written. They firmly believe that the shield slot is a balancing factor. As such the 32k figure I quoted was probably on the low side as far as Pathfinder is considered, you aren't taking a penalty for wearing (no failure chance), you aren't having to reactivate it constantly (like the animated shield) and you are gaining something a shield would never get (immunity to MM without limit like the shielding item). However you may feel about it, 32k is the least you should be paying for it honestly.
|
|
(Price of Brooch of Shielding) + ((Price of a Ring of protection + 500)bonus squared)
= 2500 + 2500xbonus².
+1 Bonus : 5000
+2 Bonus : 12500
+3 Bonus : 25000
+4 Bonus : 42500That makes sense but I would present that the starting price should be lower and then scales up. Looking at an Ion stone (Dusty Rose) that gives an insight bonus to AC for 5k, the 5k starting seems really high. I realize the two-handed guys out there are going to lose their minds for this item, but the shield bonus does not stack with other shield bonuses and for that fact I am not sure that we can build this pricing structure with only the two-handed weapon warriors in mind. That is a very narrow sect of characters that are going to end up defining this item's cost.
So what I am thinking is: (Bonus^2*1,000)*2+2,500
+1 Bonus : 3,500
+2 Bonus : 10,500
+3 Bonus : 20,500
+4 Bonus : 34,500And it still has to maintain an item slot. Like bracers or glove (???) or something. Then it tags with making the item Bracers of Shielding and Armor. The cost of the shielding plus the cost of the regular Bracers of Armor ([Base Cost*.75]*1.5.
This cost structure still makes it the fourth in line for the AC boost and even later in line on down the road.
Thoughts?
I designed the price with any class in mind, especially wizards. It is either a must-have or a must-not for two-handed fighters, depending on the fact they have to wield it like a shield or not. I used the normal multiplicator for AC with a base designed with it's usefulness in mind since doing it with only the table in mind leads to things like +4 AC for 4000 GP.
The starting price is higher because it also works as a greater Brooch of shielding without limit AND a stackable protection, which is of considerable use at lower levels and is always useful for any spellcaster out here who was already hit by a quickened magic missile each round sometime in his life.This is the same starting price as an Amulet of Mighty Fists, so there is a precedent for this, and it's barely more than a +2 stat enhancement item. Yes, it isn't cheap, but it's worth it.
Please note and read again that I suggested to remove 25% of the price (multiplying by 0,75) and rounding up when using this item as a modified Ring of force shield. With this method, you get prices lower than yours (maximum 32K instead of 34,5k), using a ring slot. So I don't really understand why you are suggesting another way of calculating the price if this isn't to get it sooner.
|
Honestly, if you're going to follow the chart for pricing, then you need to follow the chart for pricing :P I'll point out that there are quite a few items that are based on a particular spell but only grant part of that spells effects. For example, the Brooch of shielding itself is based on on the spell shield but only absorbs magic missiles and does not provide a shield bonus itself.
The easiest way to create this item is to use already existing items. Given that you seem like you want a shield bonus instead of the normal ac bonus types, that's not really an option.
A shield bonus to ac would be "AC bonus (other)" which is bonus squared x 2500.
4 ac then becomes 4*4*2500, which equals 40000g. On top of that, you want magic missile immunity. If you're willing to skip the magic missile immunity, then your prices will be cheaper.
Since immunity to a spell is different than an ac bonus, the immunity will gain the price increase from Multiple Different abilities, which will multiply the cost of the ability by 1.5
Now, the Brooch of shielding gives us a basis to calculate how much a limited resistance is. 1500g. It's a continuous spell effect, with effectively a number of *charges* that counteract magic missile damage. A basic doubling of that shouldn't be equal to unlimited use, so we'll go with 2.5
1500*2.5=3750
Now, add in the multiple different abilities element.
3750*1.5=5625
Add that to the original 40000, and you've got 45,625g.
Now, if that's supposed to be a slotless item, you're looking at 91,250g.
Remember, a shield bonus is a rare bonus to armor class, so it should cost more per +1 than a ring of protection or bracers of armor.
Also remember that you're starting at the top of the chart and working your way down, and using the first option that matches what you want. In this case, you want the shield bonus to ac and the immunity to magic missile both functioning continuously. Those are two separate elements, and you must treat them as such when developing the item.
For example, an amulet of continuous true strike *might* be cheap, except that you're trying to get a continuous bonus to attack from it, which means you use a formula much higher up on the chart, one which is much more expensive.
And, in the end, the charts are just a guideline. Your dm can and should adjust the price up or down depending on how powerful the item is with all things considered.
|
|
As mentioned above a brooch of shielding does negate 100 points of magic missile damage for 2500gp, meaning that it will negate:
(Average damage)
33/16/11/8/6 Magic Missile Spells with the appropriate caster levels
If you think that 12000gp is expensive for immunity to a standard hitting, force effect, 1st level spell that may target multiple enemies and can be negated only by Shield spell,SR or higher level abjuration spells, well then maybe you should consider the opposite...
Isn't expensive to pay 2500gp for negating 6-33 magic missile spells when you could just by a wand of Shield fully charged for 750gp
Time is money and saving actions cost much more than crafting a powerful weapon or item.
A continuous effect should cost much more than a normal cast item because it takes no action from your part.
A permanent +4 Armor bonus like Mage Armor should cost more than an item that can cast Mage Armor twice per day at a 12CL.
The first costs no action and can be reactivated after a dispel, the other requires 2 standard actions per day and it doesn't reactivate after a dispel.
I am the player that had the question concerning the item creation as we have not used it much and it seemed that the rules that were listed where not clear as to how to deal with items that can be over powered and under priced.
When there are no clear rules, the old standard is used: GM using common sense. If it seems too cheap, it's probably too cheap.
First, the idea that Magic Missile immunity is worth 12k is absurd.
So is the idea that it should cost nothing.
The ability to be immune to magic missile is an aspect of the spell Shield. So if the item is created from the spell Shield there is no reason the item should not also include the immunity with it on top of the other AC increases.
Yes, there is. Unless the magic item is just a spell trigger / spell completion method and just copies the spell, the spell's original properties have nothing to do with the item.
Cases in point:
The ring of chameleon power requires the use of invisibility, but it doesn't turn you invisible. The ring of counterspells requires imbue with spell ability, but isn't limited to clerics and has no limitation on schools. The ring of evasion requirs jump, but you don't get a bonus to acrobatics checks for jumping.
I could to on, but I would end up listing half the items in the Core Rulebook.
Magic item costs work like this: you get what you pay for. Doesn't matter what spells are used because unless it's a scroll or potion or something, the original spell affect isn't necessarily copied 1:1.
+4 to your shield bonus costs 16k. If you want more than the bonus, you pay extra.
The cost structure that I am seeing now after reading everything that has been talked about in this thread is that the item will follow similar rules like Bracers of Armor +4 (16k) plus the cost associated with the item not taking up an item slot (x2).
That brings the price to 32k for +4 Shield bonus and MM immunity.
Wrong. It brings the price to 32k for a +4 Shield bonus. Again, if you want something extra, you will pay for it.
I'd say you double the cost of the brooch of shielding (since it's unlimited rather than the 101 points - which isn't that much when you consider that at 9th level, the magic missile will deal 17.5 points on average. That's less than 6 castings) to get the base cost for this. Then double again for slotless, and you get 38k for +4 shield and immunity to magic missile.
I might even make the pitch that the (x2) cost is a bit much as this item's benefit cannot be stacked with other shield bonus items. Something along the lines of (x1.5) the base cost.
No. Doesn't matter that you cannot combine it with other shields. It doesn't take up a slot. That means a guy with a greatsword can can use it to get a shield bonus (which he can't get with a shield because he doesn't have the hand free)
Thoughts?
You're making a lot of arguments for making the item cheaper than it is supposed to be. People "called you names" based on their observation that you want to get stuff for cheap.
So I say: Either stop power gaming or stop being annoyed when people call you out on it! :P
You keep trying to start with the base price the same as bracers of armor, but the BoA are armor bonuses, the most common AC bonus in the game. A shield bonus is a very rare AC bonus. Almost every character above say lvl 5 will have an Armor and Deflection bonus to AC and many will have a Dodge bonus and NA bonus as well. But few chars will have a shield bonus. Only a few classes even have shield proficiency and most will only carry a shield for emergencies. The vast majority of builds will eschew the shield for a Great Sword or TWF or a longbow or don't have proficiency at all, or don't want to risk the spell failure chance.
A Shield bonus is better (i.e. more expensive) than an Armor, Deflection, NA AC bonus. It is even better than a Dodge bonus b/c even though they stack, you loose it if you are FF. So that being said I would say that you would have to use the "other bonus" line on the list. SO a bracers of Shielding would cost 40k (4^2*2500). This is perfectly reasonable for this item because IF IT REQUIRES A SLOT and it should be bracers so that you can't wear them with the Bracers of Armor.
You have just invented a MUST HAVE item.
Are you a Fighter/Barb/Ranger? grab it b/c you get all the benefits of sword and board w/o the damage loss
Are you a wizard? grab it b/c it stacks with your amulet, bracers and rings and leaves your hands free and no action required.
Are you a Rogue/Monk? grab it b/c it's a great boost to your AC, and stacks with everything AND you don't need to spend a feat on shield proficiency
EVERYONE WILL TAKE THIS ITEM B/C IT IS BEYOND FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!
the 40k price is a bare minimum. Then you have to double it for being slotless, 80k which is on par with the Amulet of Mighty Fists +4 or a Pearl of Power 9th lvl. BUT>>>> the AoMF and Pearl of Power are only useful for a very few builds or classes (monk or unarmed/natural weapons and only 3 full caster classes).
I think I've made my point.
Free actions are taken on your turn; you cannot spend your turn Full Attacking with a greatsword, then activate your shield when an enemy walks up and starts to hit you. That is an Immediate action.
Further, you cannot simply hit with your greatsword then activate it at the end of your turn; this is effectively the same thing as hitting with a greatsword then donning a shield to get the bonus to AC.
The benefit of a Ring of Force Shield is twofold. When you decide you need more armor class for a round, you can do so without spending actions to do so. Further, it is a force effect, and works against incorporeal attacks that normally ignore armor.
What it is not meant to do is be a free bonus. The shield-hand is a tightly controlled balancing factor; if characters could somehow receive the bonus without using an action (Animated shield, also quite expensive), deciding to use their round defending (Ring of Force Shield), or putting feats or class features toward the ability (Two-Weapon Fighting) then all martial characters could be expected to buy the free AC boost, and the difference between offensive 2-hand weapon characters and defensive 1-hand weapon characters would disappear. An entire mechanical archetype would be significantly diminished.
I may be completly wrong but...
... isn't the Shield spell supposed to be cast at one's self? And not on an item you happen to be weilding?
You could have a ring, or brooch (or even a sword) that holds a 1st level spell (shield) and can cast it on YOU with a command word, like 1x per day or 3x per day depending on the number of spells the weapon can hold.
But to have the effect of the shield spell on an item just doesn't sound right to me.
Ultradan
|
|
The only thing that occurs to me at this point is that the values:
1 ^2* 2500 * 1.5= 3750
2 ^2* 2500 * 1.5= 15000
3 ^2* 2500 * 1.5= 33750
4 ^2* 2500 * 1.5= 60000
5 ^2* 2500 * 1.5= 93750
probably still need to be adjusted to account for the intentional rarity of a shield bonus to ac, and the inevitable power creep from folks nabbing the shield bonus without filling up a hand to do so.
Basically, the cost should be adjusted to the point where someone wielding a 2-handed weapon has to sacrifice enough enhancement bonus worth of gold to keep it from being an overall power increase.
It's the "out of the formulas and into dm adjucation" phase.
What would people think if the item in question were a Belt of Mage Armor that provided the continuous spell effect?
So, belt that provides a +4 armour bonus? That will be 16000gil, please. I'll ignore the slot affinity thing.
Would this be cheaper considering it's an armor bonus (not enhancement bonus or shield bonus) and thus doesn't stack with whatever armor you're wearing?
Nope.
And since the spell it's based on has a duration measured in hours? And it takes up a slot?
Doesn't matter what spell it is based on. This would basically be off-slot bracers of armour +4, and bracers of armour +4 cost 16000. You won't get this any cheaper than 16000.
If I was the DM I would totally allow such an item. But it works both ways, now all your encounters will have such items too.
In fact I would make them keyed to only the monster/NPC you are fighting. So when you loot them it would be useless. But that gives it a huge discount on crafting.
I will also add another restriction that it only works against you, so another bigger discount. The 4K wondrous item now costs only 1k for my creatures to make.
Besides the shield spell, they'll also have items that have continuous mage armor, continuous true strikes. However they only work for those creatures and specifically only against your character. So even if you loot it they are useless and worthless.
If you munchkin in my game, you will fight munchkin creatures only.
Really? I am glad to see that you have read the posts above that discuss the fact that our group saw this and thought it was wrong. So we brought it here, for discussion and thought. Not snide comments. If you can't be productive to the thread at least don't be mean about it.
I am not trying to break the game. I am trying to have a discussion on why this item should not be cheap and to determine a fair way to price the item.
I still think the MM immunity for 12k is a lot. It was discussed earlier in the post that it is rarely seen used against PC's. So lets focus on the cost of the shield bonus and leave the MM immunity out of it. As there aren't spell specific immunity items out there that can be used as a bases for comparison and I think the discussion could go on for days about what is fair for the MM immunity item to cost.
That said, I am sold on the need for a "shield" bonus item to cost more since getting a shield bonus is actually rather difficult. I think the thread agrees, for the most part, that the base cost of the item should be something in the range of [(Bonus)^2*2,500]*(Something).
The something is the thing I would like to talk about now. The something is going to be...
Honestly because the spell effect is so good that continuous use items of it cause this much of a debate, I would urge you to consider making the item 3-5 uses per day. That covers the typical amont of encounters you should be seeing (4 roughly) and once activated it pretty much lasts the encounter. With all that and the fact you are getting the full effect of the spell this way, it also keeps the price down some. It is easier on the book keeping and less annoyance on the DM to balance things and come up with a cost. Basically it ends up being a win - win situation.
|
|
Honestly because the spell effect is so good that continuous use items of it cause this much of a debate, I would urge you to consider making the item 3-5 uses per day. That covers the typical amont of encounters you should be seeing (4 roughly) and once activated it pretty much lasts the encounter. With all that and the fact you are getting the full effect of the spell this way, it also keeps the price down some. It is easier on the book keeping and less annoyance on the DM to balance things and come up with a cost. Basically it ends up being a win - win situation.
Actually, I would advise not to do this at all.
This is called "spell-in-a-can", and metagaming the hell out of "there is only x encounters per day, so I'd better get the best possible price by putting as little uses as possible but enough to never fall short" makes for terrible flavor, balance, and game spirit - especially from a crafting player. There already are wands, potions and scrolls if you want to cast a spell from an item, and this way, you have to deal with a lot of rules intended to balance the use of spells ; notably the fact that some spells can't be used at all by a non-spellcasting class. For example, you can't create a potion of Shield, because spells intended with a range of "Personal" are considered balanced enough for the base class but broken for others.The prices I gave before are inspired by the normal crafting guides. I don't have to stick with them until the end, or I will only end up with +4 AC, 4000 GP items. The calculation guides were useful to determinate the multiplicator ; but not using strict RAW calculation tables doesn't make them less RAW than the rule clearly saying to use them as a baseline, and to always check with items of similar power to estimate the price of new items. My numbers aren't less valid than if I used the pre-given, potentially broken calculation guideline, far from it.
I would by the way like to know the DM opinion of the OP about them when he gets back to the thread.
Honestly because the spell effect is so good that continuous use items of it cause this much of a debate, I would urge you to consider making the item 3-5 uses per day. That covers the typical amont of encounters you should be seeing (4 roughly) and once activated it pretty much lasts the encounter. With all that and the fact you are getting the full effect of the spell this way, it also keeps the price down some. It is easier on the book keeping and less annoyance on the DM to balance things and come up with a cost. Basically it ends up being a win - win situation.Actually, I would advise not to do this at all.
This is called "spell-in-a-can", and metagaming the hell out of "there is only x encounters per day, so I'd better get the best possible price by putting as little uses as possible but enough to never fall short" makes for terrible flavor, balance, and game spirit - especially from a crafting player. There already are wands, potions and scrolls if you want to cast a spell from an item, and this way, you have to deal with a lot of rules intended to balance the use of spells ; notably the fact that some spells can't be used at all by a non-spellcasting class. For example, you can't create a potion of Shield, because spells intended with a range of "Personal" are considered balanced enough for the base class but broken for others.The prices I gave before are inspired by the normal crafting guides. I don't have to stick with them until the end, or I will only end up with +4 AC, 4000 GP items. The calculation guides were useful to determinate the multiplicator ; but not using strict RAW calculation tables doesn't make them less RAW than the rule clearly saying to use them as a baseline, and to always check with items of similar power to estimate the price of new items. My numbers aren't less valid than if I used the pre-given, potentially broken calculation guideline, far from it.
I would by the way like to know the DM opinion of the OP about them when he gets back to the...
I'd disagree it is meta gaming, and following the advice in my last post is much less metagame-y than the original OPs desired item to be completely honest. The rules and items are already based on 3-5 times a day by the developers. Don't believe me? There are numerous items with the 3x day as put in the book, the other placce to look is the item creation rules where cost is x/5 times per day. Whether you agree with it or not the system is based on items being used 3-5 times per day RAW by the designers. Following the design philosophy already apparent by reading the rules a little bit just simplifies something that has a great deal of problems, as evidenced by this thread... It has nothing to do with metagaming and everything to do with saving the people involved a headache.
I'm not the DM of our group... at the moment. We split DMing responsibilities every few months. We're running through Howl of the Carrion King right now in the Legacy of Fire Adventure Path, and our new DM is a NEW DM. He's not the brightest at math, and everyone is doing their part to try and help him out with the rules (Combat Maneuvers, attack modifiers, etc) We're having a lot of fun, but he's not really in the best position to make judgements on things like this.
When I return to DMing, I'm certainly not going to allow custom magic item creation. Too complicated, and too easy to be abused. I figure that Paizo will come out with more magic items when they feel they need to, of if I want a specific item in a campaign I'm running, I'll have a monster drop it as loot.
If I had to make judgement, I'd say bonus squared * 2,500 * 2 is more than adequate for cost. That's 80,000 for an ioun stone that gives a +4 shield bonus to AC. Since a +2 Animated Shield only runs around 16,000, and it has to be activated every 4 rounds, paying 4 times that to save an action and not have to be re-activated seems reasonable. The cost of the Magic Missile protection should be negligible beside that. A few thousand gold. Brooch of Shielding is 750 for 101 points of protection. Remove the slot, make it permanent, and add it to an existing item... maybe runs you an extra 5-6k GP?
Creating such an item would require saving up a butt load of gold, and then setting aside several months. Not something most campaigns allow, necessarily. The time commitment more than anything else. I'm seeing this be a non-factor in any game I DM.
Once had a player want to order a specially trained riding boar. The poor character spent his money and still had to wait over a dozen sessions as the appropriate beast was found and shipped back. By the time it got there, the player regretted not just taking the riding dog option. I think his character died a session or two later, so it was honestly anti-climatic. I see a similar scenario arising.