The price for a ring of invisibility goes back to 3.5 or earlier. Whether or not it was a command word item then, I don't know.
Edit: Also, the Sparkwake Starknife (APG) is priced as a command-word item, but doesn't actually use a command word. Based (mostly) on this, it doesn't seem unreasonable that something like a ring of invisibility could be made to activate with another move action (say turning the ring three times) without changing the price.
It realy hurts many observation activities to speak a word every 3 mins and for a combat buff (one action to get bonus on one attack) its bad. Only when prepairing ambush and fleeing its useful, but i cannot see the justification for double prize.
Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed....
Use Activated: ... Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity,...
I added the italics to what I think are the relevant phrases. Carn is right, having to speak aloud to renew the invisibility would be counter-productive. The rules above, however, suggest that a Ring of Invisibility can be activated silently by a mental command. However, doing so takes a standard action.
The ring's description does not say it is command-word activated, but it does say it is activated. Activation makes sense, since it needs to be re-activated after making an attack.
I suppose using a mental command instead of a command word raises the price.
A rogue and a bard in the 14th-level campaign I run have Rings of Invisibility. The standard-action re-activation is enough to keep the ring from being abusive on Sneak Attacks, but the silent activation makes it great for scouting and hiding.
|
I noticed this as well when I was thinking about making a Cloak of Invisibility (to use CWI and save on the Craft Ring feat).
It could be argued that
- Invisibility is a really powerful effect for its level
- When making a new item, they advise comparing to existing items, so a different item granting invisibility should also be pricier.
It would've been good for clarity to spell out explicitly that this ring uses a aloud/silent command word though. And whether that spoken/mental command takes an action or not.
Because the guidelines are often a poor approximation of the power of something. SKR has gone into the pricing of the ring, as an example of that point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a no-brainer "next buy" for my summoner, so it's not overpriced per se. Many items prices don't follow the guidelines. After all, Bracers of armor +4 should be 2K, not 16K, but Paizo values armor values higher than the guidelines. This is similar; being constantly invisible is invaluable.
I'm not sure why people think the ring lasts three minutes. Generally speaking cl of magic items doesn't have any real bearing on what the item does unless its spell trigger or completion.
I could make a top end necklace of fireballs cl 5 for example. If you slip the ring on it should last until you break the invisibility. That said 3 minutes is more than enough time
3 minutes is 30 rounds. Each round is 6 seconds; there are 10 in a minute.
Unlimited uses of a 2nd level spell that can be used by anybody. You can swap 1 ring back and forth between party members as needed without consequence. This alone is enough to justify the price.
If you don't like the price, just use Potions of Invisibility - they're a LOT cheaper, but you obviously have a limited resource. The potions last the same amount of time as the ring, and they also cost a standard action.
Wands of Invisibility are cheaper too, and they give you 50 uses per pop. Only problem with Wands is not everybody can use them... you need to either know Invisibility as a class spell, or be trained in Use Magic Device.
With the ring, you pay to not worry about how many potions/charges you have left - but that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to use Invisibility.
|
|
But that doesnt mean the magic item prize is wrong per formula, then the spell level is simply too low.
- Invisibility is a really powerful effect for its level
I disagree. Invisibility is powerful but not unreasonably so for a spell with limited uses per day. It might be much stronger if you get unlimited uses though, and that's an argument for not following the formula.
The formula isn't a holy law, it's a guideline. It wasn't meant to be followed blindly, because if you really try to, there's lots of ways to abuse it.
It's a no-brainer "next buy" for my summoner, so it's not overpriced per se. Many items prices don't follow the guidelines. After all, Bracers of armor +4 should be 2K, not 16K, but Paizo values armor values higher than the guidelines. This is similar; being constantly invisible is invaluable.
I assume you mean a continuous Mage Armor effect. Even if you follow the table, you should apply it top down. In this case, Bracers of Armor +4 should cost 40,000 gp (4*4*2500). They are giving a discount since it basically replaces normal armor +4 (16,000 + masterwork armor).
Pathfinder is rather paranoid of allowing people and things becoming overpowered, so it takes measure, which, in turn often result in making things underpowered.
**chof**Spikechain***chof***
It's a no-brainer "next buy" for my summoner, so it's not overpriced per se. Many items prices don't follow the guidelines. After all, Bracers of armor +4 should be 2K, not 16K, but Paizo values armor values higher than the guidelines. This is similar; being constantly invisible is invaluable.Its not constant.
Wait what? It does not say once per day, or even charges, or a listed duration meaning it is constant, and it is priced as such.
Unless there is a ruling otherwise one could equally say you get the spell once, and once it is used, it is used up, by the same leap of logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of magic items are grossly overpriced. It's been that way since 3.5 (3.0 was actually pretty reasonable in many areas). Basically, the designers of the game do not like the idea of mundanes getting access to cheap, easy sources of spellcasting / magic emulation. I mean, just think about it... if anyone for some cash could be chucking out high DC save or be blinded effects or flight w/ CL = your HD (winged boots are stupidly easy to dispel)...all those super powerful masters-of-the-universe spellcasters wouldn't seem quite so special anymore, would they? Can't have that!
|
|
But that doesnt mean the magic item prize is wrong per formula, then the spell level is simply too low.
- Invisibility is a really powerful effect for its level
I disagree. Invisibility is powerful but not unreasonably so for a spell with limited uses per day. It might be much stronger if you get unlimited uses though, and that's an argument for not following the formula.
The formula isn't a holy law, it's a guideline. It wasn't meant to be followed blindly, because if you really try to, there's lots of ways to abuse it.
CLW
barkskin
energy resistanceJust the spells i can think of, which are level 1 or 2 and on which unlimited uses per day would rock far more. E.g. alawys have res 10 vs all energy types as with 30 mins duration one could always give the whole party resistance vs all options by just stopping for 3 mins every 30 mins.
CLW unlimited is obvious.So it seems more that pricing an unlimited use spell at 1800 GP * level*spell level is the problem. Who would not buy a CLW unlimited use spell for 1800 GP? Or make it double or quadruple that, would still be awesome.
Yeah, I think the formula is a risky piece of game design. I mean, the book says it's only a guideline, and that when someone wants a new sort of item, the GM should consider carefully if it's a good idea. The existence of the formula doesn't mean that everything is allowed, as long as you're willing to pay the price. There's a risk that the existence of the formula implies that anything you contrive using the formula is acceptable.
AFAIK, there is NO item that does unlimited healing. Ring of Regeneration IIRC only heals wounds suffered while the ring is worn, for example.
I think that's probably the intent. Having such an item would be disruptive, almost regardless of what it costs. There's no possible formula that gives you a correct price for the Thing That Should Not Be.
I don't really know what to make of the price for the Ring of Invisibility; why precisely this number? Maybe it fits with the WBL-level where a RoI is balanced? I don't know how they came up with the number.
However, as a GM I would take it as a sign that any other item that provides Invisibility shouldn't cost less.
They've actually said that the price of a ring of invisibility is basically a wild guess because they felt the price the table gave was too low. (They doubled it and rounded it off to a nice number.)
A lot of magic items are grossly overpriced. It's been that way since 3.5 (3.0 was actually pretty reasonable in many areas). Basically, the designers of the game do not like the idea of mundanes getting access to cheap, easy sources of spellcasting / magic emulation. I mean, just think about it... if anyone for some cash could be chucking out high DC save or be blinded effects or flight w/ CL = your HD (winged boots are stupidly easy to dispel)...all those super powerful masters-of-the-universe spellcasters wouldn't seem quite so special anymore, would they? Can't have that!
(I can't quite tell if this is sarcastic or not, so assuming it's not...) What items in the book are overpowered?
I was being sarcastic from the 3rd sentence on.
Personally, I see this a different way.
A constant +20 competence stealth bonus would cost 40,000gp (20*20*100).
Since the Ring of Invisibility is not a constant effect (3min per use) it is not as valuable. However, since it also stacks with other skill boosting effects it should cost more. Thus, half the price seems pretty good in my opinion.
- Gauss
I have a question concerning the ring of invisibility. In one of the other threads on the topic people mentioned the Ring lasting only 3 minutes per activation.
The problem is this as far as i can tell isnt supported anywhere in the rules. Generally speaking The CL of an item often has no bearing on what the item actualy does its almost always just for dispelling the item. When the items Cl does affect its abilities its usually reflected int he items descriptive text.
Anyhow as far as i can tell by the Rules a cl 10 ring of invisibility and a cl 3 one have the same effect unless a bad guys is trying to dispell the ring.
Can anyone site me a page as to where the 'ring lasts only 3 minutes' comes from?
I searched through d20pfsrd and couldnt find it though may have been using the wrong search keywords
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
By activating this simple silver ring, the wearer can benefit from invisibility, as the spell.
Since it is as the spell and the CL of the ring is 3 that makes the duration 3minutes as per the first bolded quote.
- Gauss
Funny It never occured to me to look under caster level. And yeah i caught hte correlation between the three minutes and the CL just couldnt see where the CL was determining that. It makes sense now thank you.
solution: get one made by higher level casters
Yup, that is what the formula means. Standard action casting a spell unlimited times = 1800*CL*SL+50*material cost. Welcome to the party :D
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The formula is not intended to be used 'as is'. It is a starting point after which the GM compares it to similar items and makes a determination. Any attempt to take the formula as is without GM modification will result in all sorts of insanity.
- Gauss
|
|
I think that for some spells the formula is broken, no matter what price you put there. If it can be paid, as soon as someone pays it, it breaks the game. Either people can't afford it, or if they can, they break the game.
Curative magic and blasting spells would be the primary targets. A ring that lets you cast Disintegrate every turn would be pretty scary too.
It's not that powerful to be quite honest. I'd rather just buy a pearl and use my actions wisely then let a 20k item take up one of my ring slots. Of course ambushes always make the ring pretty good to have. It really depends on how your DM does challenges. I might take it as a rogue but then again I wouldn't be playing a rogue.
The formula isn't broken - it just isn't the tool you think it is. You're trying to build a shelf with only a hammer. While a hammer is good to have when you build a shelf, you need a saw and a handful of nails too.
Basically, the guidelines work decently at pricing items when you aren't trying to make "optimal" items. Or rather, they work decently when not including spell effects but when an item does, they work badly as spell effects are FAR different in power depending on who uses the item.
The reason is that spells are designed with a certain class(es) in mind. They're not designed with respect to how you can put them in magic items - because it's easier to have fixed spell effects and alter magic items than it is to have a fixed magic item price formula and have to alter all spells and spellcasters to match.
Lets look at two similar spells - mage armor and shield. Both are 1st level spells that provide a +4 bonus to AC as their primary ability. The main differences are that shield is a shield bonus and mage armor is an armor bonus (and shield has a shorter duration).
They are both primarily wizard spells, and when a wizard cast either upon itself it doesn't matter much which (apart from duration). Thus, both fit well to have the same spell level because that's where they'll most often get used.
Now, would I rather have a command word unlimited casting CL5 shield item or the same with mage armor instead? For the vast majority of characters, the answer is SHIELD in capital letters. Anyone using decent light armor or any medium or heavy armor has little use of the mage armor spell (only against incorporeal) while anyone NOT using a good shield or tower shield (the vast majority of characters) has use of the shield spell.
Now, the formula gives that shield should cost double that of mage armor because of the shorter duration, but that's simply not enough, IMO. I know many characters who wouldn't put a thousand golds to endless mage armor but would put tens of thousands for endless Shield.
Thus, the item's value is higher than the formula talks about.
There are basically two things that most often should not at all be determined by the formula: When an item replicates a spell that is vastly better for other classes than those who can normally access it (shield), and when an item replicates a spell that is vastly better in unlimited amounts than in limited (cure light wounds). If either of those are in effect, you can basically throw the guidelines out of the window. And regardless, remember that they're only one of the tools in the toolbox and shouting that the hammer is broken because you can't cut planks with it isn't meaningful.
It applies across the board, not just to a single spell. You can't _rely_ on the formula. It works better though when used on spells that aren't many times better with unlimited castings and spells that aren't better for other classes.
At will CL1 magic missile, sleep and so on is balanced. But when you look for spells that "break" that mold - you'll find many. Because _making a universal formula isn't the goal_.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you use the any formula without GM adjudication they are broken. I could make several items that have different bonus types to AC, and stack them all, but I doubt most GM's would allow it.
In short if a GM lets a player justify a custom magic item with "the book uses this formula", the problem is not the formula. The problem is the GM.
Stringburka: Carn is right about the command word formula not using duration pricing modifiers. The duration pricing modifier applies to continuous pricing only.
- Gauss
Gauss: I know, I meant my post related to the item pricing guidelines in general, not only to command word items. A command word item of shield/MA is the same price.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stringburka: Ok :)
I think Carn just had a revelation today on how the Command Word pricing actually works and suddenly had a moment of: 'holy crap this is broken!. Revelations often come with such results. :)
Carn: As Ive stated, it's a starting point. The guidelines are not rules to play the game by despite some people thinking they are. Custom magic items should not be included in ANY game where the GM is not absolutely confident of his ability to contrast and compare the custom item to existing items and to the game.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@stringburka, wraithstrike
I am asking for 1 spell, where a unlimited standard use activation item is not broken. If there is no such spell the formula or at least using it for such items is broken.
A guideline that never produces a sensible result is a broken guideline. Guidelines are non broken if they at least sometimes produce sensible results. So please 1 spell, where applying the formula is without problem.
Other formulas produce useful results, for example the constant item formula often has acceptable results. E.g. a constant invis ring is 20000 GP, close to what the devs seemed to price ring of invis anyway. A constant resistance 10 vs one sort item is 10 K gp. No problem there.
A constant greater invis item is 224 k GP. For the price seems to be fine.
So the formula for constant items sometimes produces useful results. For constant shield and constant mage armor it produces quiestonable results, as constant mage armor is 2000 GP and constant shield is 4000 GP, both quite cheap. In general it seems to have problem with CL 1, SL 1 spells, for the rest it looks ok.
But for the standard activation unlimited casting item at 1800GP*SL*CL + 50 * material i have not seen a sensible result.
The guideline says that if the formula produces a price that is to high or low for the given effect that you ignore the the formula. It is not a "one size(formula) fits all" situation.
There will never be a formula that works because some spells are a lot better than others depending on the duration they are used, and the situations, even if the other spell is a higher level spell.
In short if you want a formula that works for every spell and/or situation then the formula will always be broken.
In short if you want a formula that works for every spell and/or situation then the formula will always be broken.I want a formula that works for some preferably many spells.
This seems to work for none or nearly none.
That can't happen. Spells are too varied in nature for that. The sword of true striking is an example of that. 8000 for a weapon that give a +20 to hit? No way.
You would have to specifically make spells with the magic item creation rules in mind. Those rules are secondary to actually playing the game, and should not take priority over spell balance. What is balanced as a spell, which has limited uses per day, is not balanced for an item that allows the spell to continually be used. That is why it won't the idea won't work*.
You can't just throw a mathematical formula out there, and expect it to apply to every effect equally.*
That can't happen. Spells are too varied in nature for that. The sword of true striking is an example of that. 8000 for a weapon that give a +20 to hit? No way.In short if you want a formula that works for every spell and/or situation then the formula will always be broken.I want a formula that works for some preferably many spells.
This seems to work for none or nearly none.
2000, duration is not measured in rounds (and it's use activated, not constant, or it would only work once)