|
4000 gold pieces for a ring of continuos gravity bow.
1st level caster*1st level spell*2000*2 (spell duration is in minutes)
1*1*2000*2
4000
or put it in your quiver and it costst
8000.
*2 for non slot item
i would recomend this as gravity bow is something you will always want but you will be wantign different rings. this quiver could also be an efficicient quiver
1800 gold pieces
then since
quote
Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
you would just add teh second items cost to it.
so for the price of 9800 gold you could have an efficient quiver of gravity bow.
might i suggest an item i enjoy using in our games
start with an efficient quiver
add continuous abundant ammunition for 4000
add greater magic weapon as cast by a 20th level wizard useable once per day with command word for 43200(3*20*1800*2)
so since its 1 hour/lvl and caster level 20 it lasts 20 hours.
add gravity bow for 4000
total cost 53k(1800+4000+4000+43200) or 26.5k if you have craft wonderous item feat.
this makes taking craft wonderous item worth a ton of cash for just one item but when your done you are packing a quiver that grants every bow you wield a serious damage upgrade. as well as a great place to store some stuff.
just pay some high level mage to cast the spell as you craft it and then you are good to go. a composite longbow of +5 strength is dirt cheap but with this bad boy on your back now its a handcannon for 2d6+10 per arrow.
I think Alex is right and the ring will cost 14k, would that be more acceptable?
Really I wouldn't bother with it though, I mean a wand is 750gp and that will take you pretty much 50 encounters. If you can't come up with another 150gp in 50 encounters, I think you're doing something wrong. I know the ring is more convenient, but you can't beat the price of the wand. Take a level of Ranger and you don't even need to fuss with Use Magic Device.
All that said, is anyone else of the impression that Gravity Bow should either be higher level, or have a much shorter duration?
Note: Very few DMs will likely allow a continuous gravity bow item in the game at 4,000 gp. (Or 8,000 gp for that matter.)
Having been in a game where a GM did just that... yeah, no, I wouldn't even allow it. Was pretty crazy and well worth more that 8K.
You must be caster level 7 to take forge ring, but you don't have to create an item at caster level 7. For instance, Ring of Protection +1 requires a a caster level of 3 times the bonus, or in this case, 3. The reason I mention this, is a Wizard with Forge Ring can NEVER make a Ring of Protection, unless he UMD's a scroll, OR he has the assisstance of a Divine caster, such as a Cleric, of at least caster level 3rd, to make the ring.
Remember that all custom magic items are at the DMs discretion. Continuous low level spells really break down in the system, such as a continuous ring of true strike....just idiotic. Don't expect your DM to allow a continuous Gravity Bow (or Shield spell for that matter) item, even if it follows the formula in the book.
Also, remember that activating items is still a standard action. So even with a wand you only get a 1 minute duration, and must draw/sheathe the wand (unless you always carry it then always drop it on the ground after using it), meaning you'll be losing a whole round of attacks unless you always know within one minute of when a fight is going to be.
Also, remember that activating items is still a standard action. So even with a wand you only get a 1 minute duration, and must draw/sheathe the wand (unless you always carry it then always drop it on the ground after using it), meaning you'll be losing a whole round of attacks unless you always know within one minute of when a fight is going to be.
I don't think this is a huge deal, the first round everyone is just getting into position anyway, so instead of taking it to move, you take it to become the equivalent of a 20mm chain gun.
Sylvanite, that only applies for command word items. If one were to use a continuous item, it continually proved the benefit of the spell. A continuous Gravity Bow is always active. Ring's of Protection, for example, don't need to be activated. Otherwise, you get into the ridiculousness of spending a standard action to activate the Ring, a standard to activate the Amulet, a standard to activate the sword, a standard to activate the armor...
By the time someone has activated all their magic items, they have to restart to keep them going.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravity bow typically adds 2.5 average damage to an attack. That means it adds 7.5 average damage to a critical hit. This is pretty good damage increase for a bow.
A magical energy enhancement (such as flaming or thundering) adds 3.5 average damage to an attack, unless the target has energy resistance.
As a GM if someone wanted to put a permanent "gravity bow" enhancement on a bow, I'd probably treat it as a +1 enhancement adjustment, just like flaming or thundering.
I'm not sure I'd even allow putting it on a ring. Can you create a "flaming" ring which makes all your weapons flaming?
I think the spell is written wrong, it shouldn't be a spell you cast on yourself, it should be a spell you cast on your bow. It's a weapon enhancement. The only reason they didn't do that is because they wanted the caster to be the only one to benefit from it. They should have just worded it that way, it is cast on the caster's weapon, but it works only for the caster. Like shillelagh, for example.
Helm of brilliance makes all weapons flaming.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Helm of brilliance makes all weapons flaming.
Helm of brilliance makes all friends nervous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Helm of Brilliance is a 125,000g item.
Helaman, why do you think it's overpowered? Do you also think the flaming property is overpowered? Since flaming actually boosts damage more than gravity bow...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No - the Gravity bow spell... not the Helm.
Yeah, that's what I meant, why do you think the SPELL is overpowered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shfish, my druid has a thundering bow because there are very few creatures immune to sonic damage. So far she's never encountered one. So for all practical purposes, her thundering bow is adding damage 100% of the time.
Is this for PFS?
I recommend using Permanency if your GM will allow it.
For the first 6 months after we were introduced the spell, we used the explanation as told to us by the character that introduced it. He said it increases the bows damage by one size category, and the threat range by 1, and he had Improved Critcal. So his bow was dealing 2d6 17-20x3.
Yeah... slaughtered everything.
So far, I've seen a Ranger, an Arcane Archer and a Fighter that UMDs a Wand use this spell and it seems to drastically increase their damage. The other thing to keep in mind is the 2d6 is multiplied on a critical. On the rare times someone rolls that 20* rolling 6d6+X kills most things.
*I have a player that out of every 10 rolls, rolls 2-3 20s. We've swapped out his dice on several occasion, just to make sure his dice aren't skewed. Dudes just friggin lucky. He was playing the Arcane Archer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tels, unless I am badly missing it, gravity bow does not increase threat range. And its total damage boost for a medium character is 2.5 damage per arrow. Depending on your level "deadly aim" does more than that, and as I have already pointed out, so does an energy enchanted bow.
Not sure how that's slaughtering everything. My druid with a thundering bow is doing OK, but certainly not "slaughtering everything". And she uses "aspect of the falcon" which does increase threat range.
No, no, no, what I meant was none of us had actually read the spell, so we went off his interpretation. He interpreted it wrong, as he was a new player and unfamiliar with the terminology and rules. This was a mistake on our part. So he was using a bow with 2d6 17-20x3, so he slaughtered everything.
I don't see where he would have even gotten that idea from...
There's really no way to misinterpret the spell like that. It never once mentions threat range or crit modifier. Even if it did, there are no threat range modifiers that stack, so a bow will never go beyond 19-20/xY.
Methinks your GM was had. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Avg on 1d8 is 4,5, on 2d6 is 7. So it is an avg bonus of 2,5 to damage that stacks with enhancement bonuses and other bonuses.
The spell has a range of 'you', = 'personal'. That means that it is not possible to make a potion out of this.
So the OP has a case with a player who wants to have access to a range:personal spell, reduce action economy from 1 action to continous, and increase damage more that for example Weapon Specialization does.
Easy in my book: no. Hell no. Not at that cost.
Only thing RAI low cost in my opinion is wand + UMD check DC 20 as a standard action, as suggested earlier in the thread.
To get the action economy and loose UMD check I would rule like this: A comparable item is greater bracers of archery, which gives +1 to hit, + 2 damage, but is less valuable thab gravity bow because it is a competence bonus, that is a bonus which could have stacking conflicts.
So, I would make the ruling like this: 25.000 price, it HAS to be bracers location. example:
Tandriniels bracers of superior archery: gr. Bracers of archery + gravity bow. Price:
25.000 + 1,5 x 25.000 = 62.500.
Still a possibility at high levels, and really cool.
Why is it an easy "no" though? For 8,000g you can increase any weapon's damage by a continuous 4.5 (+1 bonus and an elemental property).
That's quite a bit better than weapon spec too, but it's far from broken. In fact, it's RAW.
How would a permanent Enlarge be any different in damage with a permanent Gravity Bow? If there isn't any significant difference, why allow one and forbid the other? Just make sure the costs are reasonably similar.
Why is it an easy "no" though? For 8,000g you can increase any weapon's damage by a continuous 4.5 (+1 bonus and an elemental property).
That's quite a bit better than weapon spec too, but it's far from broken. In fact, it's RAW.
Not any weapon; only a weapon that doesn't have any enchantments on it. If a weapon is already +2, it costs a lot more. A permanent gravity bow item would -stack- with that, and in fact would stack with anything at all, because the bonus is effectively typeless. A level 10 character who already has a good weapon can't pay 8,000g to add 4.5 damage. The better a weapon already is, the more adding additional properties to it costs. (Well, most additional properties. Not the ones with flat costs.) A ring of +typeless damage bonus circumvents that, and should be costed carefully as a result. (Not that there aren't items in the system already that aren't careful about this, but I still think it's good to be.)
Bob_Loblaw makes a good point.
I agree Bob always makes a good point
Helm of brilliance makes all weapons flaming.Helm of brilliance makes all friends nervous.
That made me chuckle.
|
Actually, I think the permament enlarge is inferior to a permanent gravity bow. Enlarge comes with the problems that being giant bring. So the continuous gravity bow should be more expensive than that, I think.
The +1 weapon modifier seems reasonable. I think most archers would want it regardless of the extra cost. I know I would. If a player wants it despite a heavy cost, there's a good chance it's awesome.
The improved bracers are a possibility. Figuring out the price is the key. Since the cost of items tends to scale with usefullness, I don't think the standard spell level x caster level x 2000 gp is balanced here. If we consider it a bonus to weapon damage instead of a continuous spell effect we can take the weapon formula and apply it to the average damage increase: (2.5)(2.5)(2000)= 12,500 gp. That's more reasonable, I think, but perhaps still needs to be increased a bit.
The reason I think the spell is worth more is that, although the average damage is only a 2.5 increase, using a single die for damage creates an even distribution of possible damage. Using two dice (2d6) insetad of one die (1d8) creates a bell curve of damage ranges. Because of that, the archer will consistently score 6, 7 or 8 points of damage, i.e., about maximum damage per shot that he was doing before using gravity bow. This will account for approximately 45% of damage rolls. A feature that allows you to score near maximum damage about 45% of the time sounds pretty good, doesn't it? And consider that the odds of rolling minimum damage decrease from 12.5% to less than 3%.
But hey, since we're on the topic, I'd like my enlarged, greatsword wielding, greater vital striking fighter to have a continuous lead blades spell, too!
How would a permanent Enlarge be any different in damage with a permanent Gravity Bow? If there isn't any significant difference, why allow one and forbid the other? Just make sure the costs are reasonably similar.
Enlarge has it's own drawbacks, -2 dex and -1 on all attacks for size means hitting less often and therefore doing less overall compared to Gravity Bow. Your taking a -2 to hit for an average damage boost of 1(S-M) or 2.5(M-L) per shot.
being 10x10 makes navigating dungeons and narrow hallways a pain. Mundain gear cost x2. that's 1600g for a MW Large, comp. Longbow (+4 Srt), 100g +300g(mw) +400g(str) x2(large)
Granted going from small to med. ignores the size issue.
Not nearly as good as gravity bow. If this was about Lead Blades maybe.
-Flash
I'll point out two things. First, the example for a continuous item, the lantern of revealing, doesn't actually follow the formula correctly. It's based on invisibility purge which is a 3rd level spell. 3rd level * 5th level caster * 2000 gp * 2 duration modifier = 60,000 gp. But it actually only costs 30,000. And that's not even factoring in the "Does not occupy a slot" increase.
Second:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.The formulas only provide a starting point.
So a ring of constant gravity bow is feasible, but not at the guideline price.
I'd probably price it around 15k, as a number off the top of my head. Maybe more.
Also, remember that activating items is still a standard action. So even with a wand you only get a 1 minute duration, and must draw/sheathe the wand (unless you always carry it then always drop it on the ground after using it), meaning you'll be losing a whole round of attacks unless you always know within one minute of when a fight is going to be.I don't think this is a huge deal, the first round everyone is just getting into position anyway, so instead of taking it to move, you take it to become the equivalent of a 20mm chain gun.
The damage you lose by spending a round activating Gravity Bow is WAY more than gravitybow will even give you over the course of a combat in most occasions. An archer's full attack is deadly, spending one round NOT doing it to add 2.5 damage per attack is a waste of a LOT of damage.
Adding 2.5 (well, more because of crits actually) damage per attack is too good for an 8k gp item. Especially with all the previously made arguments about how it is not subject to energy resistance, non-escalating price, etc.
@Tels: I'm well aware continuous items don't require activation (though, strangely, weapons with energy enhancements DO, though most people entirely forget that or just claim the enhancements are always on). I was referring to using wands or the like to get Gravity Bow for fights.
How would a permanent Enlarge be any different in damage with a permanent Gravity Bow? If there isn't any significant difference, why allow one and forbid the other? Just make sure the costs are reasonably similar.Enlarge has it's own drawbacks, -2 dex and -1 on all attacks for size means hitting less often and therefore doing less overall compared to Gravity Bow. Your taking a -2 to hit for an average damage boost of 1(S-M) or 2.5(M-L) per shot.
being 10x10 makes navigating dungeons and narrow hallways a pain. Mundain gear cost x2. that's 1600g for a MW Large, comp. Longbow (+4 Srt), 100g +300g(mw) +400g(str) x2(large)
Granted going from small to med. ignores the size issue.
Not nearly as good as gravity bow. If this was about Lead Blades maybe.
-Flash
I'm only referring to the increased damage though. The game can handle a permanent enlarge person so why can't it handle a permanent gravity bow instead?
Because then a character would demand both, and I'd have to throw dice at their head :p
I'm only referring to the increased damage though. The game can handle a permanent enlarge person so why can't it handle a permanent gravity bow instead?How would a permanent Enlarge be any different in damage with a permanent Gravity Bow? If there isn't any significant difference, why allow one and forbid the other? Just make sure the costs are reasonably similar.Enlarge has it's own drawbacks, -2 dex and -1 on all attacks for size means hitting less often and therefore doing less overall compared to Gravity Bow. Your taking a -2 to hit for an average damage boost of 1(S-M) or 2.5(M-L) per shot.
being 10x10 makes navigating dungeons and narrow hallways a pain. Mundain gear cost x2. that's 1600g for a MW Large, comp. Longbow (+4 Srt), 100g +300g(mw) +400g(str) x2(large)
Granted going from small to med. ignores the size issue.
Not nearly as good as gravity bow. If this was about Lead Blades maybe.
-Flash
Enlarge is similar but not the same, Gravity Bow/Lead Blade > Enlarge in just hit/damage. All I was saying.
I would allow it both as an item (Continuous) so as to not stack and Perma.
But I would either
a) not allow enlarge to stack
or
b)dispel them at least once to make them pay the cash again.
-Flash
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this thread is turning into yet another demonstration of how the current magic item rules are just totally broken.
Let's say I want to build an archer from scratch, let's say level 11, just because that's the mid-range of the character levels. So let's pick "ranger" as the class.... that's a full BAB class that is able to cast spells. Really good spells, like "gravity bow". But instead of wasting time casting that spell, let's just craft continuous items to make the archer as good as possible:
Assume we've got PBS, rapid shot, many shot, precise shot, deadly aim...
So, I've got 82,000g to play with, and the magic item "guidelines" to follow. So let's buy some cool stuff:
Let's start with "bracers of true strike". Now I've got a permanent +20 to my attack rolls. Not bad. Pretty much now I need to roll a 1 to miss anything.
I'll add "aspect of falcon goggles" which is another +1, but more importantly gives me a threat range of 19-20.
Then there's the "ring of gravity bow" which makes my arrows do 2d6 damage.
What the heck, may as well throw a pair of "boots of speed" in there too, for 10 extra full BAB attacks per day...
Worried about that pesky damage resistance? No problem the "headband of permanent versatile weapon" will take care of that for you.
How much have we spent now? 32Kg? Plenty left to buy a +2 flaming bow...
So where are we now... Let's see with even just an 18 dex and 18 str (easy enough with racial modifiers, level advancement and maybe a "belt of physical might" or something...) that's, let's see..
Attack rolls of +35/+35/+35/+30/+25 for 6 arrows, each of which do 3d6+13 damage. Oh heck, let's say it's a favored enemy we're shooting at just for fun, so +41/+41/+41/+36/+31 for 6 arrows each of which do 3d6+19 damage. You're really talking about missing on a 1, so 95% chance to hit with each attack... Average damage per round at level 11 of roughly 170 damage per round. Closer to 190 if you factor in the 10% of attacks which will be critical hits.
And I've still got a ton of gold left, plus this is just off the top of my head... I'm sure a true optimizer could make this look lame.
So, the game rules essentially force the GM into saying "WHOAHH!!!! No WAY you can do all that, so here's the deal... " leading to potential claims of GM gimping of characters, GM's deliberately clamping down on PC fun, GM's not wanting to follow the rules....
It's really a mess. A big mess. I sure hope Paizo at least attempts to fix this if they do a 2.0 release.
Enlarge Person does nothing for ranged attackers unless he purchases large arrows as the arrows revert to their normal size once they leave his grasp.
Enlarge Person + abundant ammunition quiver of large arrows + Gravity Bow.
Enlarge Person does nothing for ranged attackers unless he purchases large arrows as the arrows revert to their normal size once they leave his grasp.
Enlarge Person + abundant ammunition quiver of large arrows + Gravity Bow.
I think you might have missed the point on why Enlarge Person was being discussed. And yes, combining the two is a way to be cheesy, especially with more broken custom items like a quiver of abundant ammo. Tho at least you take some penalties from enlarge person.
@Adamant Dragon: The custom magic item rules aren't broken, because they're not literal. You will never be able to come up with a pricing system that works for every spell of every level. It's the reason the custom items section has the caveat that any custom items are specifically under the purview of the DM. As soon as you start talking about custom items, you're no longer playing by RAW, but have ventured off into the murky realm of DM discretion. That's why we can't really come up with anything on these boards other than, "Well in my game I'd..."
Any player who thinks they can just make those custom items and then gets angry at the DM for denying them is a complete munchkin. No one should be going "OMG my DM is gimping me!!!11!!" when they're not allowed continuous bracers of True Strike.
It's like me claiming I can research healing spells with my wizard, since spell research is allowed by RAW and there is precedent for healing spells. Of course the DM would be right to put some serious clamps on it, to think otherwise is pure munchkinism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sylvanite:
The number of posts just on these boards claiming that a ring of true strike should cost only 4K gold because that's what the rules "guidelines" say is enough to make it clear that just that one spell is a source of continual GM/Player debate. Throw in THIS thread's attempt to create a permanent gravity bow ring at the same price, now you've got 8K gold for +20 on your 2D6 arrows.
Yes, many players will agree that 4K for a ring of true strike is broken. What bout 4K for permanent gravity bow? How many posts above are arguing exactly that? Another 4K for permanent aspect of falcon, another 8K for permanent versatile weapon...
Forcing the GM to constantly say "no" not only creates a conflict between player and GM, it actually flies in the face of the actual Paizo recommendation which is for GMs to say "yes" as much as possible, FURTHER increasing the GM/Player conflict.
It's a broken, crappy mess. Period. Putting GMs in the position of making arbitrary house rules just to keep your game from being totally broken is not high praise for the game designers.
But, as with most things, we can always take solace in the fact that 4e's magic item system is broken even worse.
|
|
If you aren't putting the enchantment on a bow, wouldn't you look towards the greater bracers of archery for an indication of cost? it costs another 10k for +1 to hit and damage (price difference between bracers and greater bracers). I think the reason they didnt make it a simple +2 to hit and damage was that ranged weapon damage is a premium and greatly desired. This is one reason you can't compare Enlarge and gravity bow. Enlarge is specifically written to NOT allow large-sized missile weapons.
Seems to me something comparable to greater bracers of archery would be reasonable, maybe 14-16k since damage is much harder to come by than attack roll bonuses and because its going to stack with the bracers of archery in the future for an archer character.
No fancy calculations here, just what it seems to me the worth.
IMHO though, if you arent a ranger or a sorcerer multi-class, you shouldn't be able to wear this ring/bag/whatever. The spell was made IMHO to help balance out rangers and arcane/martial multiclass who were bow wielders apparently, not as more window dressing for zen archers or archer fighters. Having to burn 1 round casting/using a wand sort of makes it more situational even, where you cant use it all the time without paying a 1 standard action "tax" or buffing in advance. Obviously RAW doesnt care about any of these balancing acts, but then again new magic items aren't covered by RAW either.
Saying no to custom magic items is not a house rule, it's part of the job description.
I understand you want your players to have fun, but part of being a DM is maintaining control. You're not a robot running a bunch of rule systems. If the players you have sincerely think they can just make these cheapy/munchinesque custom items and then are disappointed, then they're obviously not paying ANY attention to the game they've been playing. I mean, what kind of game would you have to be playing in before you thought a permanent +20 bonus on all your attacks was totally going to be approved for a few thousand gold?!?!?!
The gravity bow item is more understandable, and you could probably work something out with the DM, thus they would say yes, in the end. However, it'd have to cost more than the simple formula in the book says, would be my guess.
That's what DMs do. When it comes to custom things, any player who can't accept that/DM who is afraid to make rulings to keep the game in line....well I don't know how that table is going to begin with. I do give high praise to the game's designers, as this game SHOULD be somewhat open and DMs SHOULD have some guidelines that they can then interpret to keep the game running smoothly. The system accomplishes that.
The reason we keep seeing a few specific examples over and over is that they are outside the guidelines for fairly obvious reasons. The fact that they keep popping up shows just how warily they need to be regarded. The fact it's largely a few corner cases over and over shows that the rest of the system is actually working fairly decently.....or that munchkins have an uncanny knack for finding the obviously broken little areas, disregarding the caveat that says "Obvious DM discretion needed, these are just guidelines", and then pouting when the thing they knew was OP (which was why they even found it and wanted it to begin with!) is denied them.
But yeah....4e's system......yuck :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sylvanite...
I guess you've missed the numerous arguments here on these boards about the cost of a true strike ring. To say that everyone would agree that its broken is to be ignoring the actual arguments posted here on these boards. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum in fact.
Plus if you want to look at these magic item requests one at a time, then you can say "well, it's reasonable to look at a 'gravity bow' ring..." But then that same player comes back and says, "hey, you said OK to my gravity bow ring, so I assumed my 'aspect of falcon goggles' would be the same."
I am a pretty hard-ass GM. I don't care much if players whine about my rulings on things like this. But other GMs are not as willing to push back against player requests as I am.
Putting GMs in this position repeatedly when these items have been known to be broken for decades is simply a complete abdication of responsibility from the game designers.
Come up with specific magic item guidelines for any effects which modify attack and damage. It's not that hard. They just don't want to do it.
And I am pretty tired of having to be the one to have to define what is "broken" or not for their damn game.