a Pearl of Power is cheap because it 1) requires the person using it to be a spellcaster and 2) can only bring back spells the person has actually cast that day and 3) requires them to take the action to cast the spell again.I just want to point out that 2 and 3 here apply to this hypothetical ring too. It only gives one specific spell and it requires an action to use (the same action a spellcaster would require to cast the spell by the way).
Not exactly. Pearls require a person who can cast prepared spells to prepare a particular spell (thus using part of their granted class abilities) and then use an action to recall a spell already cast. Then they can recast the spell. 2 actions, loads of prereqs.
I don't think it's valid to count using your class abilities as they were meant to be used, getting full effect from them, as a down side. And with a pearl of power, that can apply to any of the likely several spells they'd prepared that day.
The two actions instead of one is a valid issue, but only if you accept that one vs zero is a valid issue. Also, there's another timing issue here. You can use the first action at any time and have that spell ready any time later that day, giving something similar to a long duration effect. Wouldn't you agree that if the regained spell went away after only a few minutes the pearls would be worth less?
Quinggong Barkskin is a poor comparison for two reasons.
First, because Barkskin has a duration of 10 minutes/level.
Secondly, it uses the monks level as CL.That means a 4th level monk can cast this and get a 40 minute duration, enough to last him through a dungeon. it can also be pre-cast before he enters said dungeon because the duration is so forgiving.
Barkskin for quinggong monks is wonderful because it gives extra ac with no penalty.
Now, if you look at my very first post in this thread I said that Shield is fine specifically because it has such a short duration that it would need to be cast in combat, whereas an item that cast Mage armor should be priced higher because it lasts longer and thus can be cast out of combat.
Finally, I'd like to ask you again (Aelryinh) to go read the section on magic item price estimates. You're still working under some serious misconceptions about how they work.
@Dtbone
I'd be skeptical of allowing Shield to target others since that could open up some unintended side effects.
Instead, I'd count the number of wands it would take for said character to advance an arbitrary amount of levels and base the price around that.For instance, at 12 encounters per level it would take a level 1 character 240 encounters to reach lvl 20. 240 / 40 = 4,8 wands of Shield. The price of 5 wands of shield would be 3600 GP, which should be the high limit of the price tag on this item in the encounter track I described. That said, once you get above level 10 no self respecting character is going to spend his first round casting a 1st level buff, so I'd consider that on the high end. However if your characters go through more encounters for each level then items like this are more valuable since they'll save you money in the long run. In that case I'd feel free to adjust the value accordingly.
All that said, I still have a hard time justifying this item being worth more than about 4000 GP.
This seems completely reasonable to me. I'm happy to pay a fair price for this item, and I definitely thought ~20,000 was an absurd amount. I'm not trying to take advantage of the GM, and respect the party crafter's opinion, who is a very good friend of mine. This seems like a reasonable compromise.
Kudaku, I think you are having problems reading the magic item pricing rules, and encourage you to go look at them with an open mind and eye to game balance again.
Pearls require the caster to use a spell slot with shield spell. The ring does not require a caster to use a spell slot, or even to be a caster. Yay, extra spells freed up!
Pearls require the caster to fetch out the pearl and bring the spell back. The Ring does not.
Pearls require the caster to again cast the spell, possibly requiring defensive casting or triggering AoO's. The ring does not. It simply activates when you want it.
Pearls are cast at the level of the wizard. The Ring is cast at whatever caster level it is set at when created, since caster level is not calculated in the price of AC generated items (it's subsumed as part of the minimum price calculation, I'm assuming).
==Aelryinth
I'm curious if people would have the same issues with cost if a wizard made this ring for himself. Then, it just boils down to be able to "cast" a spell the wizard can already cast an extra 3 times per day.
It seems like people are taking issue because the item is being made for a melee combatant.
Kudaku, I think you are having problems reading the magic item pricing rules, and encourage you to go look at them with an open mind and eye to game balance again.
I'd be happy to address any concerns you have with my interpretation of the magic item pricing guidelines, could you be more specific?
|
I don't have Ultimate Campaign, which I am told deals with more on Magic Item Crafting, but by the Core Rule Book, there's a couple of paragraph's we may want to revisit in the Magic Item Creation section.
Magic Item Gold Piece Values
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: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
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. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
Emphasis mine. So, let's compare to an existing item in the CRB, which gives a similar bonus. Some say the Ring of Force Shield would be a good one, as it gives a shield bonus to AC. Others might say the Ring of Protection might be better, as it gives a +4 bonus to AC, albeit a deflection bonus, which requires no hand to use.
Pros of the proposed item :
Force Armour (works versus incorporeal attacks)
Immunity to Magic Missile
Gives a Shield bonus to AC (an uncommon bonus, usually requiring the use of your off hand, shield proficiency , possibly limiting spell-casting, two handed/two-weapon fighting)
Gives a significant AC bonus (equivalent of +8 Dex, or a +8 Str bonus to enemies to hit)
Cons of the proposed item :
Requires a standard action to activate (much like drinking a potion, using a wand, or casting a spell)
Lasts one minute per casting (more than enough for any single combat)
Can only be used 3 times per day (so three combats per 24 hour period)
Are you honestly telling me that you think those trade offs are worth 31,000gp of a discount? Seriously? The difference in WBL of a level 2 and a level 8 character right there.
The litmus test (I may be using that phrase wrong, sorry if I am) for a "broken" item, as I've been told, is whether the item in question is so unequivocally better than any other, comparable option, that you would pick it, hands down, every time. The suggestion that this item is any less than that is, frankly, silly. Buy two, for 2,160gp, then take turns with them. As long as you never have more than 6 combats per day, the use per day limit is no longer a problem. Seeing as casting the spell normally would be a standard action anyways, and an efficient party is usually hard to take by surprise, that's not really a con either. And since one minute is more than enough for a single combat, that's not a real con either. No cons, good pros, and 30,000gp less. Yeah, perfectly reasonable item. /s
@Lordsynos
How about we compare to a wand of shield? Like you said, the activation and the duration is the same after all. All the items you use for reference have hanger-on abilities, such as constant protection bonus, free action to activate and deactivate, and so on.
If you bought two rings of Shield, for 2160, you could instead buy 3 wands of shield (for 2250 GP) and have 150 charges - That'll last you from level 1 to 12. I'm guessing that by level 12 you have better things to do with your first round than to cast a 1st level spell. At least I sincerely hope so.
In short, the discount seems massive because you are comparing the custom item to the wrong items.
As for Ultimate Campaign, it expands on the limitations of custom items. I'd rather not copy the full text as I'm not sure if that goes against the Paizo forum rules, but I will quote the two examples they use to define broken items:
Edit: Actually, the UCamp notes on magic items are listed on the Paizo PRD. Since it's already available online I feel it should be all right to qutoe the text. I edited my previous spoiler to have the full text.
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item in the Core Rulebook, the GM should require using the price of the Core Rulebook item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" descriptions.
Example: Rob’s cleric wants to create a heavy mace with a continuous true strike ability, granting its wielder a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls. The formula for a continuous spell effect is spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp, for a total of 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica, the GM, points out that a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon costs 50,000 gp, and the +20 bonus from true strike is much better than the +5 bonus from standard weapon enhancement, and suggests a price of 200,000 gp for the mace. Rob agrees that using the formula in this way is unreasonable and decides to craft a +1 heavy mace using the standard weapon pricing rules instead.
Example: Patrick’s wizard wants to create bracers with a continuous mage armor ability, granting the wearer a +4 armor bonus to AC. The formula indicates this would cost 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica reminds him that bracers of armor +4 are priced at 16,000 gp and Patrick’s bracers should have that price as well. Patrick agrees, and because he only has 2,000 gp to spend, he decides to spend 1,000 gp of that to craft bracers of armor +1 using the standard bracer prices.
Please note that the first text references items with unlimited use (and by extension unlimited uptime) as the items that are most frequently inappropriately priced. To build on that, t both examples cover items that provide continuous bonuses - a mace that has continuous True Strike and bracers that have continuous Mage Armor. Clearly theese need to be, and are, compared with other items that provide continuous bonuses (a +5 mace and bracers of armor +4, respectively). The ring in question in this thread does not provide a continuous bonus - it requires an action to activate. It should be compared to an item that has a similar action cost.
If the PC in question was trying to make an item that provides a continuous Shield spell I'd be 100% in agreement with the other posters that the item is underpriced and should be marked up accordingly. However, that is not what he is doing.
That said, the exact cost of the item is entirely up to the GM and I've said myself that I'd price this item between 1080 GP and 4 000 GP depending on the character and the campaign it would be used in. If you make this item cost any more than 4 000 GP the wand is so much cheaper that the item will never see game time. Hell, just look at the third post in this thread.
The reason a wand is priced so cheaply is that you have to be able to use it. If it's already on my spell list, then it's a worse use because it is limited to 1 minute instead of min/lvl. If it isn't on my spell list then I have invested significant resources in UMD to be able to use it. A DC 20 roll on UMD is nothing to sneaze at. Even at level 10 you need a very high Cha or have invested in Skill Focus for that to be an Auto-success. Also the wand still only has a range of personal, so the person who can already cast the spell is the only one who benefits, as opposed to this item which is open to every body.
Lets think of a class that would not take this ring at the first chance he got.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe a Cleric? or Bard?
Alchemist: Of course, since they're not proficient in shields.
Barbarian: absolutely takes it, now he can Two-hand that greatsword and still have the equivalent of a +2 heavy shield with no penalty at a discount of 3000gp
Bard: maybe not, don't really have good melee two handed weapons, but if you're going with a short bow?
Cavalier: Same as Barb
Cleric: same as bard, but don't get short bow.
Druid: Same as Barb, but with greatclub
Fighter: same as Barb
Inquisitor: If melee, maybe not. But if bows, you bet.
Magus: Yeah, Shield bonus and Spellstrike!!
Monk: Huge boost to AC, and stacks with everything, since it's almost impossible for Monk to get shield bonus otherwise
Oracle: Maybe same boat as Cleric, but no if Battle oracle or some other that gives proficiency in martial weapons
Paladin: See Barb
Ranger: Now you can TWF and get huge shield bonus
Rogue: Yes, since not proficient with shields
Sorcerer: Now you don't have to use your very limited spells known on shield. May rather a wand.
Summoner: Put it on your eidolon and don't need to touch it to cast on them.
Witch: Shield isn't on witch list, so absolutely.
Wizard: Now I just freed up 3 spell slots, and I can save my pearl for something else.
If almost EVERY class in the game would take it without a thought don't you think it should be a little more than WBL of a level 2 character? Also the benefit is better than items 10x or more expensive, so why would I ever get rid of it?
|
|
Firstly, thank you for sharing the Ultimate Campaign section. I'm so used to just skipping to the specific sections I'm looking at, I hadn't even noticed it was added to the PRD. That's awesome. :D
@Lordsynos
How about we compare to a wand of shield? Like you said, the activation and the duration is the same after all. All the items you use for reference have hanger-on abilities, such as constant protection bonus, free action to activate and deactivate, and so on.
If you bought two rings of Shield, for 2160, you could instead buy 3 wands of shield (for 2250 GP) and have 150 charges - That'll last you from level 1 to 12. I'm guessing that by level 12 you have better things to do with your first round than to cast a 1st level spell. At least I sincerely hope so.
In short, yes. The action economy advantage is that great.
Well, firstly, I'd say that the first suggestion the guidelines give is "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." I think a Ring of +4 Shield AC is more comparable to a Ring of +4 Deflection AC than to a wand, so that would be the pricing to use, with adjustments made afterwards for the limited uses, shorter duration and standard action requirement.
Secondly, comparing a command word item to a wand is not an equivalent comparison. Looking at the Magic Items section, we see that wands are spell trigger items.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Shield is only on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, so without an investment in Use Magical Device, only sorcerers/wizards can use a wand of Shield. Also, as someone noted previously, a wand requires more of an action economy investment, seeing as you value it so highly. You need to ready the wand, cast the spell, and put it away again. I'd also argue it's harder to lose/steal/break the ring on your hand than the wooden stick you carry around with you. If comparing a wand to a slotted item was a fair comparison, why does anyone, ever, buy bracers of armor 1 - 4? Just buy a wand of Mage Armour, makes much more sense.
Ultimate Campaign Examples
Please note that the first text references items with unlimited use (and by extension unlimited uptime) as the items that are most frequently inappropriately priced. To build on that, t both examples cover items that provide continuous bonuses - a mace that has continuous True Strike and bracers that have continuous Mage Armor. Clearly theese need to be, and are, compared with other items that provide continuous bonuses (a +5 mace and bracers of armor +4, respectively). The ring in question in this thread does not provide a continuous bonus - it requires an action to activate. It should be compared to an item that has a similar action cost.
If the PC in question was trying to make an item that provides a continuous Shield spell I'd be 100% in agreement with the other posters that the item is underpriced and should be marked up accordingly. However, that is not what he is doing.
You're right, the examples in question do specifically refer to unlimited use items. That doesn't mean that they have to be unlimited use to make them ridiculous. For example, let's take that continuous Mage Armour item in example 2. The book example pushes the idea that, because it's a +4 AC bonus item, it should be priced the same as the actual +4 AC bonus item. Very reasonable. So let's apply the logic being used for the Ring of Shield to the Bracers of Mage Armour. Instead of being continuous, we make them command word, and give them 16 charges per day. I mean, between sleeping, eating, resting, crafting, etc, etc, the adventuring day is rarely, if ever, 16 hours long, so that'll be effectively the same as continuous. That gives us 5,760gp, 10,240gp cheaper than the +4 Bracers of Armour. But it's okay now, because it's command word activated this time, right? Right?! :D
To say that a command word item that grants the Shield spell usable 3/day, for one minute at a time should cost almost as much as an item that constantly grants a +4 armor bonus is ridiculous. The two are not comparable in any way whatsoever. A command word item is already priced more than wand because anyone can use it - the cost is already factored in. Action economy, no matter what level is always important. The Shield can be dispelled.
I'll pose the question again, if a wizard were crafting this item for himself, would the reaction be this visceral?
To say that a command word item that grants the Shield spell usable 3/day, for one minute at a time should cost almost as much as an item that constantly grants a +4 armor bonus is ridiculous. The two are not comparable in any way whatsoever. A command word item is already priced more than wand because anyone can use it - the cost is already factored in. Action economy, no matter what level is always important. The Shield can be dispelled.
I'll pose the question again, if a wizard were crafting this item for himself, would the reaction be this visceral?
Yes because it doesn't matter who he's making it for. maybe down the road that same wizard tries to sell it. What would he say to the perspective buyer? that is just mimics a 1st level spell 3 times per day? Or that it creates in invisible tower shield that also blocks ghosts and magic missiles?
I'm surprised no one is comparing the proposed ring with a Shield Cloak.
...especially as it actually provides the same type of AC bonus as a shield spell, as opposed to bracers of armor or rings of protection.
-TimD
How would others cost this item?
Somewhere in the 20k range.
I do not consider faux-penalties when figuring the price of an item. The 3/day restriction is such a penalty, unless your campaign regularly has more than 3 combats per day. Strictly speaking yes, it's a limitation, but it's one that will never come into play.
I give some weight to the standard action, since you don't have to activate a continuous bonus, worth some discount but not a massive one.
20k feels about right retail.
As near as I can tell we're at an impasse here so I am going to bow out of this thread with this final post:
I believe the wand is the better comparison for this ring because the wand matches the action economy of activating the item, it matches the duration, and it is already clearly valued with a fixed price. While a ring is a tempting comparison because it takes the same item slot, its a flawed comparison because the items are otherwise very different.
Wands require either a racial trait (half-elf) or a trait and skill ranks (UMD), so you should not consider the the wand and the custom item of equal value. That said, I fail to see how "doesn't need to be able to use wands" makes an item literally 26 times more expensive. Why should classes and races that can trigger wands get so much more mileage out of their WBL?
Pricing an item that casts a 1st level spell at CL 1 3 times a day at 20 000 GP is unsound when the same amount of money would buy you 26 wands of the same spell. This is the kind of attitude that demonstrates why Use Magic Device is one of the best skills in the game, and half-elves one of the best races.
In my opinion this item should be priced somewhere between 1100 and 4000 GP, depending on how the GM envisions his campaign and the character options available in the group.
I'm surprised no one is comparing the proposed ring with a Shield Cloak.
...especially as it actually provides the same type of AC bonus as a shield spell, as opposed to bracers of armor or rings of protection.
-TimD
Aside from the possibility that nobody had noticed it, I think a good reason nobody's comparing the price is because it's not a good comparison. The shield cloak doesn't mimic the shield spell. Rather, it provides the wearer with a masterwork, light, wooden shield but sticks it in the shoulders slot, gives it a lower weight, and cuts the removal time from a move action to a free action. The shield cloak shouldn't figure into price comparisons any more than a regular magic shield should.
Wands require either a racial trait (half-elf) or a trait and skill ranks (UMD), so you should not consider the the wand and the custom item of equal value. That said, I fail to see how "doesn't need to be able to use wands" makes an item literally 26 times more expensive. Why should classes and races that can trigger wands get so much more mileage out of their WBL?
Of course, this could indicate that the formulaic prices for wands and other things that mimic spells directly are the prices that are borked rather than the prices for bonused items like bracers or things that confer bonuses but happen to also mimic spells.
The problem with wand pricing is that a 750gp wand is supposed to give 1d8+1 healing 50 times or do 1d4+1 damage 50 times. It is NOT supposed to give a +4 shield bonus infinity times.
The shield spell itself is awkwardly balanced in that it gives arcane casters a way to sure up their AC. This spell and spell effect were NEVER meant to be given to marshal characters. This is why the spell has a range personal. The Wand also has that restriction. That restriction is the biggest difference in price issue. The formula was not designed to take personal range spells and turn them over for wide use in the game. This is clearly an area where the formula doesn't work. Giving un-handed shield bonuses to characters who fight with two-weapons, two-hands or don't have shield proficiencies is a major tipping point for game balance.
Lets look at this a different way. Buy a sipping jacket (5,000gp) and 240 (12 encounters/level x 20 levels) potions of shield. That's 17,000gp. That is the effect you are trying to mimic. This also requires you to haul those potions around with you all the time which reflects quite a discount in the price of what you are asking to do. This does also have the benefit of activating as a swift action.
Oh, but you can't get a potion of shield! Because it doesn't have the right target! Because that would be too good! So even at 17,000gp (which is as close to finding another item that we have come to yet) you are priced too low.
20~25k is completely reasonable.
As near as I can tell we're at an impasse here so I am going to bow out of this thread with this final post:
I believe the wand is the better comparison for this ring because the wand matches the action economy of activating the item, it matches the duration, and it is already clearly valued with a fixed price. While a ring is a tempting comparison because it takes the same item slot, its a flawed comparison because the items are otherwise very different.
Wands require either a racial trait (half-elf) or a trait and skill ranks (UMD), so you should not consider the the wand and the custom item of equal value. That said, I fail to see how "doesn't need to be able to use wands" makes an item literally 26 times more expensive. Why should classes and races that can trigger wands get so much more mileage out of their WBL?
Pricing an item that casts a 1st level spell at CL 1 3 times a day at 20 000 GP is unsound when the same amount of money would buy you 26 wands of the same spell. This is the kind of attitude that demonstrates why Use Magic Device is one of the best skills in the game, and half-elves one of the best races.
In my opinion this item should be priced somewhere between 1100 and 4000 GP, depending on how the GM envisions his campaign and the character options available in the group.
The DC 25 check to use a wand is not easy to make with a class low on skill points and a low CHA (dump stat for many classes) At low levels your success rate is extremely low which will result in many wasted actions. That's devastating for a buff that needs to be used in combat to last long enough
Don't underestimate not having to make that check (equivalent +24 in the skill). Alternatively, just buy wands if the check is so easy.
Why not compare the ring to a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard. One version includes 1/day shield spell as a command word activated ability. If you separate out the costs of the other abilities (a couple of at will 0 level spells and another 1/day 1st level spell) it follows the MIC table with the shield portion being worth 360gp.
This would make a 3/day shield item 1080gp.
Now that... Is interesting. Thank you for linking to that item, Telmar! I haven't read the UE in a while, maybe I should give it another go.
Oh, and Steve - the DC to activate a wand is 20, irregardless of the CL and spell level of the wand. Not 25.
Ehhhh, while that is a good find, that cloak is far too all over the place for me to think it's a good reference to compare against. It's trying to squeeze one price onto 8 items of very different power levels. The Enchantment version is basically useless, and the transmutation version is a great item. It's a rip-off for the enchantment, and really good for the transmutation.
Plus, cloak slot, meaning the price is probably influenced by the 'not the Cloak of Resistance' factor.
I was referring to the individual spells that make each of the 8 versions up.
Not all spells of a given level are equal in power, and that's why you only use the formula as a fall back, and not as the go-to.
The cloak of the hedge wizard is a great find. Its absolutely comparable. If my GM were not allowing custom items, I could even accomplish what I need with three cloaks and just change cloaks between fights. All the other abilities are just gravy. I feel like I've priced the item appropriately at this point and am confident that a 20k price tag is absolutely outrageous.
And we know that Paizo never mucks up on their item pricing, and violates their own rules in doing so, right?
Bracers of Falcon's Aim, anyone? Everyone howled that buffing the price to 16k was outrageous, when it was simply balanced against the bracers.
Infinite use of Resistance is effectively +1 Protection, and that's not priced into the cloak, either.
So, no, all pointing out the cloak is doing is informing us that Paizo lets stuff slip by, too. Nice catch on sniffing out a loophole, however.
==Aelryinth
If you think the cloak has been wrongly priced , please open a thread asking for it to get FAQed.
In the meantime, I think the cloak proves my point in that you cannot price an item that provides a circumstantial short duration buff on the same level as an item that provides a persistent bonus. Charging 20k gold for the ring in question is heavily overpricing the item.
Of course, you're still more than welcome to price items in your games in whatever way you feel is most appropriate.
And we know that Paizo never mucks up on their item pricing, and violates their own rules in doing so, right?
Bracers of Falcon's Aim, anyone? Everyone howled that buffing the price to 16k was outrageous, when it was simply balanced against the bracers.
Infinite use of Resistance is effectively +1 Protection, and that's not priced into the cloak, either.
So, no, all pointing out the cloak is doing is informing us that Paizo lets stuff slip by, too. Nice catch on sniffing out a loophole, however.
==Aelryinth
I have to agree. Looking at the other options that the cloak offers it is clear the shield spell is a serious oversight.
I feel like the people trying to make these items outrageously expensive are the same people that do everything they can to prevent crafters from crafting. Basically, the table's prices for per day abilities are fine unless you're the kind of GM that likes to have an iron grip on the magic and magic items in your game (i.e. wants to play a low magic game).
Edit: Look at it this way. Some people think that Pathfinder and Golarion are a fairly high magic setting and wonder why fighters can't get nice things. Other people think Pathfinder should be low magic and wonder why wizards get all the nice things.
If you're in the former camp, the magic item table actually works very well for a large variety of things. If you're in the latter camp, you would likely rather get rid of most magic items anyway, so why are you even bothering trying to put a price on them?
I feel like the people trying to make these items outrageously expensive are the same people that do everything they can to prevent crafters from crafting. Basically, the table's prices for per day abilities are fine unless you're the kind of GM that likes to have an iron grip on the magic and magic items in your game (i.e. wants to play a low magic game).
Edit: Look at it this way. Some people think that Pathfinder and Golarion are a fairly high magic setting and wonder why fighters can't get nice things. Other people think Pathfinder should be low magic and wonder why wizards get all the nice things.
If you're in the former camp, the magic item table actually works very well for a large variety of things. If you're in the latter camp, you would likely rather get rid of most magic items anyway, so why are you even bothering trying to put a price on them?
Unfounded personal attacks seems like the right time to bow out of this thread myself. You guys have fun now.
I'm not trying to attack anyone. Clearly there are multiple ways of playing the game. People who want a low magic game aren't playing the game wrong, but if you try to interpret all the rules through a low magic lens and then say your interpretation is the right one, that is wrong.
If you don't mind the idea of a shield item, but think that a personal range is a significant limitation, consider what spell level a touch range shield spell would be in your game and price the item based on that. If you think it'd be level 2, then a 3/day command word item would be 6,480 gp.
I feel like the people trying to make these items outrageously expensive are the same people that do everything they can to prevent crafters from crafting.
I think not. At least in my case, I'm more interested in making sure that items are priced appropriately compared to their utility, particularly compared to well-established items that offer similar levels of benefit (which, as part of the Big Six, also tend to be under-priced). Pricing things badly leads to too many dominating strategies (like the Big Six themselves) and that's bad for the game.
I feel like the people trying to make these items outrageously expensive are the same people that do everything they can to prevent crafters from crafting.I think not. At least in my case, I'm more interested in making sure that items are priced appropriately compared to their utility, particularly compared to well-established items that offer similar levels of benefit (which, as part of the Big Six, also tend to be under-priced). Pricing things badly leads to too many dominating strategies (like the Big Six themselves) and that's bad for the game.
I don't see that you've said what you'd price this item as, so I can't tell whether or not I'd consider your price outrageous.
Also, are you saying that the big six are underpriced? While I might agree with that to a degree, there's always going to be some kind of similar item or set of items and anything that's more expensive than those (at around the same level) isn't going to get used very often.
At 1080 gp, this would be an item for a level 3 or 4 character. The question then is, what else might a level 3 or 4 character be comparing this to when trying to decide what to buy (assuming they've already spent about 2/3 of their wealth on weapons and armor)?
|
|
I'll pose the question again, if a wizard were crafting this item for himself, would the reaction be this visceral?
If it's just for himself? I.E. Has a restriction, can only be used by the Wizard <name>, of <alignment> and <race>? Then I'd let the discounts in the Magic Item Creation section for restrictions to come into play. Specifically, "Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%." Say a 90% discount for being specifically for him and only him, making it effectively unusable to anyone else and unsellable down the line. I mean, it's just for himself, so that restriction shouldn't be a problem, right?
I'm surprised no one is comparing the proposed ring with a Shield Cloak.
...especially as it actually provides the same type of AC bonus as a shield spell, as opposed to bracers of armor or rings of protection.
Well, that's because the Shield Cloak, much like the Ring of Force Shield and as Bill Dunn pointed out, actually summons a shield. Which is not what this item would do, and not what the spell Shield does. It provides a solid +4 AC bonus, no hands, no spell failure, no ACP included. This effect is closer to that of Barkskin, Shield of Faith, and Mage Armour, hence why these spells, and the items made from them, namely Amulet of Natural Armour, Ring of Protection, and Bracers of Armour respectively, are the more accurate comparisons.
I believe the wand is the better comparison for this ring because the wand matches the action economy of activating the item, it matches the duration, and it is already clearly valued with a fixed price. While a ring is a tempting comparison because it takes the same item slot, its a flawed comparison because the items are otherwise very different.
A wand is a poor comparison because if you use the ring 3 times per day, after 17 days, the ring is better. And you know the funny thing about a ring that has 3 charges per day? After 17 days, it still has those three charges per day. How long do your games last? In-game time. A month? Three? A year? A ring can't be compared to a wand, because it's a ring, and not a wand. In 1,000 in-game years time, long after your character is dead and gone (unless you're some sort of funky, but we'll ignore that), the ring would still be outputting three castings of shield per day for its new user. After 50 uses, the wand becomes inert.
Also, I'm not saying that it's the ring, specifically, it needs to be compared to. In fact, in my last post, I used the Ultimate Campaign example you posted to show this same logic applied to the Bracers of Armour doesn't work out right. Much like the above, you can make an item which gives a boost similar to an existing item at a significantly reduced price. And just like the GM in the example does, any GM should say "No. Match it to an item with a similar bonus." I gave three good examples above, items that give a solid boost to AC, and that cost significantly more. You're focusing on the spell itself (a level one spell) to give a comparison, because it gives you a price that makes sense to you. I'm focusing on the bonus of the spell (+4 AC) to give a comparison, and it gives me a price that makes more sense to me. There are items in the CRB that back up my pricing. As for yours, I'll get to that further down.
Wands require either a racial trait (half-elf) or a trait and skill ranks (UMD), so you should not consider the the wand and the custom item of equal value. That said, I fail to see how "doesn't need to be able to use wands" makes an item literally 26 times more expensive. Why should classes and races that can trigger wands get so much more mileage out of their WBL?
Pricing an item that casts a 1st level spell at CL 1 3 times a day at 20 000 GP is unsound when the same amount of money would buy you 26 wands of the same spell. This is the kind of attitude that demonstrates why Use Magic Device is one of the best skills in the game, and half-elves one of the best races.
Because they have access to those spells anyways, and the wand isn't meant to be that much of a boost? Maybe, referencing Bill Dunn again, it's the wand's pricing that is in error, and not the others? Or maybe wands aren't supposed to be used with personal spells, much like potions, as BigDTBone pointed out, but it was never errata'd, because any GM with common sense would stop such an item under the "compare to similar items" guideline? Who knows.
I think the requirement to restrict yourself to a particular set of classes/races/skill sets shows that this is, in fact, a powerful option, and the price needs to reflect that. I mean, a standard action is the end of the world, but having to sink your (mostly likely limited) skill points into UMD or only play half elf with a specific racial trait is no big thing? Come off it.
In my opinion this item should be priced somewhere between 1100 and 4000 GP, depending on how the GM envisions his campaign and the character options available in the group.
Wait, the wand is cheaper than that. If the wand is the same, but cheaper, why not just buy the wand?
Why not compare the ring to a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard. One version includes 1/day shield spell as a command word activated ability. If you separate out the costs of the other abilities (a couple of at will 0 level spells and another 1/day 1st level spell) it follows the MIC table with the shield portion being worth 360gp.
This would make a 3/day shield item 1080gp.
Holy carp. Seriously. That's insane. A PRD Link for those who can't access d20 at work, such as myself.
Still, I'd never expect to make a custom item on its basis, because the item maintains a level of balance (once per day). As soon as you change any one aspect of that item, whatever balance held in it falls apart. Then it needs a GM audit, and that still comes back to that important line in Magic Item Creation, namely "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". And a +4 AC item should be compared to other +4 AC items, not to a X spells per day item.
I feel like the people trying to make these items outrageously expensive are the same people that do everything they can to prevent crafters from crafting. Basically, the table's prices for per day abilities are fine unless you're the kind of GM that likes to have an iron grip on the magic and magic items in your game (i.e. wants to play a low magic game).
Edit: Look at it this way. Some people think that Pathfinder and Golarion are a fairly high magic setting and wonder why fighters can't get nice things. Other people think Pathfinder should be low magic and wonder why wizards get all the nice things.
If you're in the former camp, the magic item table actually works very well for a large variety of things. If you're in the latter camp, you would likely rather get rid of most magic items anyway, so why are you even bothering trying to put a price on them?
Dude, I love custom magic items. I've never played a craftsperson, but I have one in my group, and we're always going to him. WBL went out the window ages ago, we have unique powerful relics each and a variety of standard magic items. And we paid reasonable prices for them based on their respective power levels. I think items should be balanced. And this one isn't.
I don't see that you've said what you'd price this item as, so I can't tell whether or not I'd consider your price outrageous.
Also, are you saying that the big six are underpriced? While I might agree with that to a degree, there's always going to be some kind of similar item or set of items and anything that's more expensive than those (at around the same level) isn't going to get used very often.
At 1080 gp, this would be an item for a level 3 or 4 character. The question then is, what else might a level 3 or 4 character be comparing this to when trying to decide what to buy (assuming they've already spent about 2/3 of their wealth on weapons and armor)?
At level 4, a character has 6,000gp. If they spent 4,170gp on a +2 Heavy Steel Shield, they'd have a +4 shield bonus to AC that has a -1 ACP, 15% spell failure, 15lbs weight and takes up one hand. Or they could buy the ring talked about in this thread for 1,080gp, and get a +4 shield bonus to AC that also protects from magic missile and protects from incorporeal attacks. That's perfectly balanced, right?
At 1080 gp, this would be an item for a level 3 or 4 character. The question then is, what else might a level 3 or 4 character be comparing this to when trying to decide what to buy?
How about something else that costs 1000gp?
This seemingly normal pearl of average size and luster is a potent aid to all spellcasters who prepare spells (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, and wizards). Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast that day. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl. Different pearls exist for recalling one spell per day of each level from 1st through 9th and for the recall of two spells per day (each of a different level, 6th or lower).
The ring is better than this item because:
The ring works three times a day, the pearl works once.The ring works for anyone, the pearl works only for prepared casters who have already spent part of their daily abilities to cast this spell.
The ring uses one standard action, the pearl uses 2 move actions and 2 standard actions.
Compared to other 1000gp items this thing blows them away.
A question for the OP, why not buy a +1 buckler with your 1000gp? If the answer is something like, "because I dont want to equip an item in my off hand (for two-handed or two-weapon fighting), because I want the +4 bonus over the +2 bonus, because I don't want it to get sundered, because I really hate magic missiles (and being shot by them less than that), because I hate incorporeals and want a defense against them.
If ANY of those are reasons you would buy this item instead of a +1 Buckler then you AGREE this item is more powerful than other items for the price you are proposing.
There's clearly two sides that are very far apart on this one. Like I said earlier, based on the cost of a cloak of the hedge wizard, I feel that I priced the item appropriately.
If it's just for himself? I.E. Has a restriction, can only be used by the Wizard <name>, of <alignment> and <race>? Then I'd let the discounts in the Magic Item Creation section for restrictions to come into play. Specifically, "Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%." Say a 90% discount for being specifically for him and only him, making it effectively unusable to anyone else and unsellable down the line. I mean, it's just for himself, so that restriction shouldn't be a problem, right?
Watch out for those restrictions. They're a trap. I would suggest to all GMs everywhere to NEVER allow any PC or NPC to use them - they are ONLY for the DM to create unique types of magical items.
I mean, really, you're OK with a magical item crafter getting a 90% discount?
Hey, Bob the Barbarian, I understand you want a +5 Keen Flaming Speed Greatsword. I can make that for you for 100,000 gp, but, if you want it so that only you can use it, your enemies can't steal it and use it against you or sell it, thieves won't want to take it, etc., then I can make it for you for only 10,000 gp.
So you're OK with level 5 PCs walking around with these kinds of items?
Worse, if one item crafter can do this, then every crafter in the entire game world can do it. Why should Fred, the NPC magic item guy in Absalom, make a +4 greatsword and sell it to fighters for 32,000 when he could make a +5 Keen Flaming Speed sword (special order for "Joe" the "chaotic good" "human" fighter, and sell it to him for 20,000 gp. You know FOR A FACT which weapon Joe wants to buy, so surely Fred will make that for him special order. Likewise, Grimtooth the troll wizard will be making +2 Special Order greataxes for his troll army at a mere cost of 1,100 gp per troll (and the PCs can't even loot these magical axes and sell them in town for anything more than the price of masterwork).
Heck, Albert the alchemist can crank out potions of cure light wounds for "Cedric" the "lawful neutral" "halfling" cleric at the cost of 4 full potions for only 5 gp (total!), and Cedric can make a wand of cure light wounds for "Dave" the "lawful good" "dwarf" paladin for just a mere 37.5 gp per fully charged wand he makes.
No, applying these price reductions is absurd by any stretch of the imagination.
These restrictions only exist as a tool for the GM to create interesting and unique types of items for special situations, like the old-school Drow with magical weapons and armor that only the drow could use (the items dissolved in the sunlight). Or maybe the GM wants to create a cult of humans who worship a giant kraken and their temple is deep under the ocean, so the high priest creates amulets of water breathing restricted only to priests of the kraken-god. Stuff like that.
No, the RAW doesn't say the GM must use the restrictions this way, but it's clear that letting any magical item creator use them at will is absurdly game-breaking.
|
|
If it's just for himself? I.E. Has a restriction, can only be used by the Wizard <name>, of <alignment> and <race>? Then I'd let the discounts in the Magic Item Creation section for restrictions to come into play. Specifically, "Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%." Say a 90% discount for being specifically for him and only him, making it effectively unusable to anyone else and unsellable down the line. I mean, it's just for himself, so that restriction shouldn't be a problem, right?Watch out for those restrictions. They're a trap. I would suggest to all GMs everywhere to NEVER allow any PC or NPC to use them - they are ONLY for the DM to create unique types of magical items.
I mean, really, you're OK with a magical item crafter getting a 90% discount?
** spoiler omitted **
No, the RAW doesn't say the GM must use the restrictions this way, but it's clear that letting any magical item creator use them at will is absurdly game-breaking.
No, I'm not really okay with them at all. It's very easy to make crazy powerful items for next to nothing, as you pointed out. I need to remember to put /s in my posts.
You know, I promised myself I'd stop posting in this thread... Dangit :)
@LordSynos
Have you read the whole thread? No offense, but you are making arguments that have already been presented and debated for a few days now.
I covered the difference in pricing in between a wand and the ring in question in a previous post where I suggested the item should have a price between the formulated price of 1080 and approximately 4000 gp, depending on how useful the GM thinks the item will be, and how restrictive the charges/day ratio is.
Instead of counting days you should count encounters. A character levels up approximately every 12 encounters, so in order to reach lvl 20 he goes through roughly 240 encounters. Buying five wands (250 charges) of Shield would come to a total of 3750 GP. IE if you buy five wands of Shield you can cast shield in every single encounter you have between levels 1 and 20 and still come below the maximum price I suggested.
In my opinion the odds of that character actually casting a first level spell on his first round in combat when he goes past level 7 or so (instead of taking an action that'll actually end the encounter faster) are slim, but we're erring on the side of caution here.
Look, I've said this a few times but I'll say it again: You don't need to price this item exactly according to the formula - I personally would not. Like I've said earlier, I'd consider this item worth between 1k and 4k gold.
That said, I'm primarily arguing against posters like who think the item should cost between 20k (JB - 24k, Aelrynth - 36k, Billygoat- 26k, assorted other posters) and 40k gold. At one point it was compared to a a +3 animated ghost touch force resistance shield, worth approximately 86 000 gp...
Do you honestly think that shield, or an item with a constant AC bonus is a more valid comparison than a few wands that has the same activation cost and the same duration limitation? Sure, you can add on an extra cost since the ring doesn't require you to have Shield on your spell list. However, 20k gold will buy you 26 wands of shield. By that point you're just punishing people for not playing classes with spell lists, really.
Edit: Oh, and giving players the "specific x" discounts on magic items is akin to letting players build their own race with the race builder - only do it if you really trust the player, and look over whatever they've made carefully before you allow it into the game.
You know, I promised myself I'd stop posting in this thread... Dangit :)
@LordSynos
Have you read the whole thread? No offense, but you are making arguments that have already been presented and debated for a few days now.
I covered the difference in pricing in between a wand and the ring in question in a previous post where I suggested the item should have a price between the formulated price of 1080 and approximately 4000 gp, depending on how useful the GM thinks the item will be, and how restrictive the charges/day ratio is.
Instead of counting days you should count encounters. A character levels up approximately every 12 encounters, so in order to reach lvl 20 he goes through roughly 240 encounters. Buying five wands (250 charges) of Shield would come to a total of 3750 GP. IE if you buy five wands of Shield you can cast shield in every single encounter you have between levels 1 and 20 and still come below the maximum price I suggested.
In my opinion the odds of that character actually casting a first level spell on his first round in combat when he goes past level 7 or so (instead of taking an action that'll actually end the encounter faster) are slim, but we're erring on the side of caution here.
Look, I've said this a few times but I'll say it again: You don't need to price this item exactly according to the formula - I personally would not. Like I've said earlier, I'd consider this item worth between 1k and 4k gold.
That said, I'm primarily arguing against posters like who think the item should cost between 20k (JB - 24k, Aelrynth - 36k, Billygoat- 26k, assorted other posters) and 40k gold. At one point it was compared to a a +3 animated ghost touch force resistance shield, worth approximately 86 000 gp...
Do you honestly think that shield, or an item with a constant AC bonus is a more valid comparison than a few wands that has the same activation cost and the same duration limitation? Sure, you can add on an extra cost since the ring doesn't require you to have Shield on your...
This is a completely unrelated (ok, it is related) question. Do you feel that rangers and paladins should be able to take the weapon specialization feat if they wanted to?
I would most likely not allow them to take the feat with a normal feat slot unless could make a good argument explaining how their character qualifies for the feat.
However I'd probably let them spend money on a custom enchantment that would grant them the feat so long as the enchanted weapon was wielded. Roughly like how Keen emulates Improved Critical.
How about a ring? That 3 times a day will give you the weapon specialization, conjure the weapon, imbue the wielder with the proficiency to use that weapon, and not require you to hold the weapon in your hand while you attack with it?
How about 1080gp? What about 4000gp?
It's a ridiculous idea. Because you shouldn't give the nice things one class gets to another class. Especially if it makes the other class better at the things they do. Personal range spells are one of the nice things casters get all to themselves. They aren't supposed to get out for the rest of the world to use. Would you let a 3/day true strike ring into the hands of a marshal character for 1000~4000gp? I don't think so.
This is a completely unrelated (ok, it is related) question. Do you feel that rangers and paladins should be able to take the weapon specialization feat if they wanted to?I have no problems with Rangers and Paladins taking this feat.... as long as they have four levels of Fighter under their belt. Fighters don't have much that is all their own. Which is why I'm not big on giving their few defining specialties to any other class.
That was kinda my point, that letting the nice things classes get out for everyone to use is... lame.