It's becoming clear to me that we're operating on different levels of optimization :)
I wouldn't consider the ring of true strike that powerful, actually. That is if you mean a martial character. The only marshal class I'm familiar with was in 3.5 and I haven't read that class description in a long, long time so I'd rather not speculate on that one.
Every other round you're giving up all attacks in order to get +20 to hit on your first attack the next round? I really don't consider that particularly overpowered. To put it in context, a Magus (which I'd personally consider a martial character) with the wand wielder arcana and a RAW/RAI wand of True Strike priced at 750 GP can cast True Strike and make full attacks (via Spell Combat at a -2 penalty) each round.
That said, we're getting off topic - we're discussing a ring that casts Shield 3/day at CL 1. Which of the price estimates here do you think is the most reasonable? Why? If you don't agree with any of the ones suggested, feel free to make your own :)
Try giving that ring to a caster with powerful ray spells. Maybe an Arcane Trickster with sneak attack added on top of Polar Ray?It's becoming clear to me that we're operating on different levels of optimization :)
I wouldn't consider the ring of true strike that powerful, actually. That is if you mean a martial character. The only marshal class I'm familiar with was in 3.5 and I haven't read that class description in a long, long time so I'd rather not speculate on that one.
...?
An arcane trickster would be able to use a wand of True Strike for the exact same effect and he's still only casting one offensive spell every two rounds. He'd also be able to prepare and cast the spell normally, since True Strike is on the arcane spell list and significantly lower than Polar Ray.
And honestly, if you need two rounds of windup to do accurate damage with an 8th level arcane spell, you're doing something wrong.
A better option for your theoretical 17th level (ninja1/rogue1/wizard x/trickster y) character is to take Quicken Magic (Spell Perfection: True Strike is optional) and cast quickened True Strikes each round before casting the polar ray. Behold! He gets the full benefit of True Strike+Polar Ray and he follows a normal action economy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I'm almost never on the side of arguing that an item should be priced lower. Lots of great reasoning about item prices that just don't apply to 3/day shield.
1080gp is fine as a price. I'd probably bump it 50% for being a personal spell, double at most. 2160gp total. If you have a very conscientious player, who remembers to activate the item every time you open a door to a dangerous-looking room, they might get pretty good value out of it. Most of the time, it will be theoretical.
An equivalent way of looking at it would be to ask the price of a +3 Ghost touch buckler that you have to put on at the start of every battle, because a loose strap makes falls off after a minute, and the strap breaks every day after the third time you put it on.
This is not equivalent to a continual use item in any way (as the literally continuous mage armor item example is). The continuous cost calculation would be 3600 gp (doubling for min/level spell), and would of course be far too low. But the equivalent of 3 potions per day?
Good reactions guys - there's a lot of crazy calculations out there, but this one is pretty legit.
That was kinda my point, that letting the nice things classes get out for everyone to use is... lame.
I can't disagree more with this statement. There are many magic items that give you abilities that you would not otherwise have access to - particularly powers and abilities that emulate spells, which is what this entire thread was related to. With that said there is the ring of evasion, bracers of the avenging knight, a cursed sword that causes you to rage (which is not such a bad curse, even according to the description of the item). These are all off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come with much more if I wanted to. I do think class abilities in an item should generally be costly, but there is a huge distinction between spells, which are used to empower magic items in the first place and class abilities.
And I could use a greatsword while getting the protection of a Shield+3 and more.
For no more then the normal action to equip a shield. Uh Huh.
And for a monk, it won't trigger the hampering of my class abilities not allowing me to wield a shield, and I still get Shield AC! Yay!
And I believe my price quote was 24k, which is 3/5ths of the 40k base that this item is worth (2500 x 16 gp), NOT 36k. Do be accurate, please.
==Aelryinth
And I could use a greatsword while getting the protection of a Shield+3 and more.
For no more then the normal action to equip a shield. Uh Huh.
And for a monk, it won't trigger the hampering of my class abilities not allowing me to wield a shield, and I still get Shield AC! Yay!
And I believe my price quote was 24k, which is 3/5ths of the 40k base that this item is worth (2500 x 16 gp), NOT 36k. Do be accurate, please.
==Aelryinth
So all this time I was busy not paying attention. Congrats on RPG Superstar top 16, that contest has a fairly extensive custom magic item creation / pricing round, does it not?
And I believe my price quote was 24k, which is 3/5ths of the 40k base that this item is worth (2500 x 16 gp), NOT 36k. Do be accurate, please.
==Aelryinth
That post went through a series of rewrites as I was going through the thread and finding finding higher and higher price comparisons. The 36k was a leftover from your statement here:
You price something close to the value of what it is providing. In this case, a +4 Shield spell is equal to a +3 Ghost Touch Shield, which is around 36k, with the benefits of letting you wield a two handed sword and spellcast freely, and immunity to magic missiles.
At 24k he's getting a STEAL of a deal.
That said, you are correct - you compared the item to a 36k item, you did not say the item should actually cost that. I apologize.
By the way, since you are clearly still following this thread, do you have any intention of answering my previous question? :)
Edit:
The main thing I see here is people unable to realize just how expensive a standard action is.
Agreed.
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.
Ok. First, can someone show me where it says you have to take the pearl of power out of your pocket to use it?
Second, the pearl of power grants any spell you've used that day. It seems like this point continues to be ignored. That is a major boost in power and price compared to an item that grants a specific spell again which would be roughly equivalent to a 1 charge per day wand, which would be worth maybe 300 gp.
Third, the pearl has an effective duration of 24 hours. You can easily use it between combats and not worry about its effect ending before the next one. The shield will usually run out before the next combat. That kind of difference is enough to show up in the pricing.
Fourth, while all those are decent reasons to want this ring over a +1 buckler, that's an entirely one-sided comparison of the two and most of those reasons are pretty situational. What if you don't want to worry about getting your shield dispelled, or you don't want to worry about only having a shield for 3 minutes each day, or you want your shield to work during a surprise round, or you want to apply some feats to your shield, etc.
Even if you take the price for a continuous +4 shield bonus and try to work backwards from there, 5 uses per day is worth 5 hours per day because anything else would have a duration multiplier. At 5 hours per day, I'd agree that it'd be worth more than 1800 gp, but then you wouldn't be simply replicating the shield spell anymore anyway. Durations of minutes have a x2, which could possibly give something around 10k, but can you seriously tell me this is an appropriate item for an 8th level character and that such a character wouldn't rather spend their money on other things, like an actual +3 buckler which would be cheaper at 9305 gp. You might still prefer the ring if you're in a low combat game with lots of incorporeal creatures, but you can't use such a specific situation to give a general price.
Again, if you really think the personal range is a huge limitation, raise the effective spell level. As a level 2 spell shielding touch would cost 6480 gp, which is expensive enough that I don't think any of my characters would ever buy it, but maybe someone would. I can tell you that any of my casters would much rather have a few pearls of power.
@MagiMaster
I believe Shield has a duration counted in minutes, not hours.
A 1st level casting of Shield would last 1 minute, or 10 rounds.
So an item with 5 charges of shield equals 5 minutes per day of "Shield uptime", not 5 hours.
That said, I entirely agree with you on the differences between this item and a magical shield, as well as the points on Pearls of Power.
A PoP is a downtime item - you use it primarily between encounters to replenish spells you already used, much like you'd primarily use a wand of infernal healing to heal up between encounters. The action economy penalty isn't as bad for the pearl as it is for the shield ring, since the duration of Shield pretty much explicitly only makes it useful if you activate it during your first round of combat.
All that said, let's go with trusty Aelryinth's suggestion of 24k - do you honestly think this item is worth 24 pearls of power? Actually, let's have a look at what 24k gold can buy you!
Boots of speed are literally half the price at 12k, and allow you to use Haste for 10 rounds per day, divided up as you see fit, as a free action.
A ring of invisibility is still cheaper at 20k and lets you go invisible at will with a standard action - quite literally 100% invisibility uptime for less cost than a +4 shield bonus for 3 minutes a day.
That's exactly what I mean. If you're trying to work backwards from the continuous +4 shield bonus, you have to take that in to account.
Edit: So if you want to use the continuous +4 shield bonus as a base, that's 4*4*2500 or 40000 gp for the base item. Reducing that to 5 charges per day is the same price only for effects with duration measured in hours. To reduce that to minutes, you have to divide by 2. (It's times 2, but we're doing things in reverse here.) Then, you multiply by 3/5 for 3 charges, then by 0.9 for command word. So you get 40000 / 2 * 3/5 * 0.9 = 10800 gp. (Note, I still don't think this is a reasonable price.)
|
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.
Yes, I have. I am aware I'm repeating other people, but I haven't really read any rebuttal to their points that, I feel, properly counters them, so I reiterate, as they are still valid. It also doesn't help that I don't have much time and may not be able to respond but once or twice per day. When I do, I choose to respond to all posts since my previous posting, to make sure no one is feeling ignored. Besides, the post has only been up for three days, I think you're exaggerating how far back I'm referring to.
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.
Really? Maybe if you're playing fast track, I suppose. And frequently have encounters above APL. For a quick example, at level 1, a 4 - 5 player party gets 100 XP each for a CR 1 encounter. That means 30 encounters at slow character advancement, 20 at medium, and 13 at fast. That could lead to anywhere between 600 and 260 encounters, give or take, depending on number of above APL, less than APL, non combat encounters, etc, etc, etc. And, of course, if there are more than 3 encounters on one day, the rings limitation comes into play, and depending on GM, that could be very often, or not at all.
Like I asked before, if the wand is so much better/more efficient than the ring anyways, why do you want the ring so bad? Just get a wand and be done with it. I'm not arguing the price of a wand 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.
Interesting that 4K comes up in your suggestion, seeing as that's how much a continuous shield item costs. Using the formulas from the book that is. Strange how you can build a continuous +4 Shield AC item (1*1*2,000*2) for 4,000gp, but a +4 AoNA costs 32K, same with RoP, and 16K on the BoA. That's because the formulas don't work right. And, given that, I'd first compare the item to items that do the same thing, the deflection AC, the natural armour AC, and then adjust downwards for having limited charges. How to adjust it is a big question, but down to 1,080gp, or even 4,000gp, is far too generous. To be honest, I'd sooner say it just can't be made, or insist they buy the wand, than try and work out a fair price that maintains balance. I'm not a game dev, I don't have the experience to do that. At a guess, 10 - 20K range sounds closer to being reasonable, because it does only have 3 charges per day, and you do need to activate it, but depending on GM and players, those may be false restrictions that never come up.
And I could use a greatsword while getting the protection of a Shield+3 and more.
For no more then the normal action to equip a shield. Uh Huh.
And for a monk, it won't trigger the hampering of my class abilities not allowing me to wield a shield, and I still get Shield AC! Yay!
And I believe my price quote was 24k, which is 3/5ths of the 40k base that this item is worth (2500 x 16 gp), NOT 36k. Do be accurate, please.
==Aelryinth
Anything that boosts a monk is fine, because they are awful.
A +1 Animated Heavy Shield is clearly superior to the Ring of Shield. Free action to activate, you can still hold a two-handed in one hand before activation, and it can be used in every combat that day. It's just 1 AC short. Ghost Touch and Magic Missile Immunity come up so rarely as to not be worth pricing, quite frankly -- you'll encounter area dispels about as often. The shield is a +3 item, so, imho, anything over 9k is pretty out there.
The main thing I see here is people unable to realize just how expensive a standard action is.
Really? You have read Animated, right? Clearly not, because you've misrepresented it entirely.
Animated: As a move action, an animated shield can be loosed to defend its wielder on its own. For the following 4 rounds, the shield grants its bonus to the one who loosed it and then drops. While animated, the shield provides its shield bonus and the bonuses from all of the other shield special abilities it possesses, but it cannot take actions on its own, such as those provided by the bashing and blinding abilities. It can, however, use special abilities that do not require an action to function, such as arrow deflection and reflecting. While animated, a shield shares the same space as the activating character and accompanies the character who activated it, even if the character moves by magical means. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency. If the wielder who loosed it has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it to end its animation as a free action. Once a shield has been retrieved, it cannot be animated again for at least 4 rounds. This property cannot be added to a tower shield.
A move action to activate, lasts for 4 rounds (at which point it drops, and needs to be picked up before you can take a move action to reactivate it, seeing as how would you reactivate it without holding it? You also cannot reactivate for 4 rounds after it has deactivated), you still take the ASF, ACP and non-proficiency penalties of wielding the animated shield, you still carry the weight of a shield, it still restricts characters that cannot carry shields/metal items, and it costs the equivalent of a +3 Heavy Shield, namely 9,170gp. It also doesn't protect against incorporeal or magic missiles, and you must have a generous GM to completely discount those. I've had 3 incorporeal encounters (two of which nearly resulted in a TPK), and a few magic missiles thrown at me, in my 2 years playing the game. Not one area dispel though.
I'd note that 22.5k is the price of an item that gives a +3 AC bonus of type X (not deflection, shield, natural, or armor) always without any action needed.
A Monkey's Belt gives you +2 Dex, costs 9.4k, swift action to animate a tail. This tail can be used for 5 non-consecutive minutes per day. It can wield a shield. It can be used for other things.
A +1 Heavy Shield + Monkey's Belt gives +4 to AC and only costs 10.4k. It gives you a lot of useful tricks, +1 to reflex saves, climb bonuses, etc. Further, it is easy to replace the shield with something better.
Once again, you might want to take a look at the actual item before talking about what it does. Monkey Belt
This furry brown belt resembles the tail of a monkey. The belt grants the wearer a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the belt is worn. The wearer does not lose his Dexterity bonus to AC while climbing, and does not take a –5 penalty on Climb checks when climbing at half his speed. As a swift action the wearer can command the belt to animate, transforming it into a prehensile tail under the wearer's control. The tail does not grant the wearer any additional attacks or actions per round, nor can it wield weapons, but it can make unarmed attacks and hold or manipulate objects about as well as the wearer's normal limbs (though any activity requiring fingers is beyond the tail's capabilities). The belt can function as a tail for 5 minutes per day. These minutes do not need to be consecutive.
So, a + 2 enhancement bonus to Dex, which isn't a bonus to AC for everyone, due to Max Dex on armour, and won't stack with other enhancement bonuses to Dex. If we're factoring in set item slots, it also prevents access to the belt of physical anything. It cannot make additional attacks, actions or wield weapons, but it can wield a shield? I don't think that's clear from the description at all, would even argue that if it can't wield a weapon, it can't wield a shield. Not as good as you're making it out to be at all.
Ok. First, can someone show me where it says you have to take the pearl of power out of your pocket to use it?
Second, the pearl of power grants any spell you've used that day. It seems like this point continues to be ignored. That is a major boost in power and price compared to an item that grants a specific spell again which would be roughly equivalent to a 1 charge per day wand, which would be worth maybe 300 gp.
Third, the pearl has an effective duration of 24 hours. You can easily use it between combats and not worry about its effect ending before the next one. The shield will usually run out before the next combat. That kind of difference is enough to show up in the pricing.
Fourth, while all those are decent reasons to want this ring over a +1 buckler, that's an entirely one-sided comparison of the two and most of those reasons are pretty situational. What if you don't want to worry about getting your shield dispelled, or you don't want to worry about only having a shield for 3 minutes each day, or you want your shield to work during a surprise round, or you want to apply some feats to your shield, etc.
1. I don't think it does anywhere, but I would have considered it logical that you must be touching it in some way, like a ring on your finger or a sword in your hand. Then again, there's a cloak on your back, so it's not stated and there is basis. Actually a nice little boost to PoP in the game I'm in.
2. Level 1 spell. They are tied to a specific level, let's not forget. Not saying you necessarily did, but you did say any spell, which is inaccurate.
3. I don't get you here. Honestly. It does have an effective 24 hours, in the same way the shield ring does. You can use those 3 charges in the ring any time within that 24 hours, just like you can use the PoP any time in those 24 hours. But the PoP only has one use in that time, while the ring has 3 uses.
4. As situational as worrying about getting your shield dispelled? Or as a surprise round? Or you're building a sword & board fighter? None of his examples are any more situational or uncommon than yours. Unless that's the point you're making?
@Kudaku
Boots of Speed. Free action to activate, 10 rounds of Haste, which do not need to be consecutive. A powerful, valuable item.
Ring of Invisibility. At will Invisibility. Another powerful, useful item.
While we're comparing to other random items in the magical item list, how about the Ring of Jumping, Improved. 10,000gp, +10 bonus to jumping. Totally worth near the same as the Boots of Speed, right? /s
Items aren't balanced. Trying to compare this ring that gives +4 shield AC to an item that doesn't give +4 shield AC is an exercise in pointlessness. The best we can do is compare it to an item that gives +4 other AC, of which we have three, all of which have costs in the 5 digits.
On a selfish side note, I really wish people would link to the PRD as opposed to d20pfsrd. I can't access the latter at work, while I can the former. I also apologise again for repeating any arguments that have been made previously, and for the excessively long post.
Really? Maybe if you're playing fast track, I suppose. And frequently have encounters above APL. For a quick example, at level 1, a 4 - 5 player party gets 100 XP each for a CR 1 encounter. That means 30 encounters at slow character advancement, 20 at medium, and 13 at fast. That could lead to anywhere between 600 and 260 encounters, give or take, depending on number of above APL, less than APL, non combat encounters, etc, etc, etc. And, of course, if there are more than 3 encounters on one day, the rings limitation comes into play, and depending on GM, that could be very often, or not at all.
Keep in mind that characters get XP from other sources than just encounters - quest xp, for instance, on would also affect their progression. That said, if you have more encounters per level then an item that gives x charges per day would be more valuable. I believe I stated that in the previous post where I explained the encounter/level.
Like I asked before, if the wand is so much better/more efficient than the ring anyways, why do you want the ring so bad? Just get a wand and be done with it. I'm not arguing the price of a wand here.
I don't want the wand - it's not my character. The reason I'm arguing the price of a wand is because I think it is a valid item to compare to the ring in question - more so than a permanent +4 AC item. The ring has the same action requirement and duration as a first level wand, while an item that gives a permanent +4 bonus is considerably more powerful.
Interesting that 4K comes up in your suggestion, seeing as that's how much a continuous shield item costs. Using the formulas from the book that is. Strange how you can build a continuous +4 Shield AC item (1*1*2,000*2) for 4,000gp, but a +4 AoNA costs 32K, same with RoP, and 16K on the BoA. That's because the formulas don't work right. And, given that, I'd first compare the item to items that do the same thing, the deflection AC, the natural armour AC, and then adjust downwards for having limited charges. How to adjust it is a big question, but down to 1,080gp, or even 4,000gp, is far too generous. To be honest, I'd sooner say it just can't be made, or insist they buy the wand, than try and work out a fair price that maintains balance. I'm not a game dev, I don't have the experience to do that. At a guess, 10 - 20K range sounds closer to being reasonable, because it does only have 3 charges per day, and you do need to activate it, but depending on GM and players, those may be false restrictions that never come up.
We're not discussing an item that gives a continual shield effect, which coincidentally is specifically covered in the magic item guidelines. The formulas work fine as long as you actually read the item guidelines and apply a healthy dose of common sense.
That said, the reason why I added some flexibility in the price estimate I'd use is specifically because the item becomes more or less powerful depending on the campaign in question. In Kingmaker I'd price this item at 4000 GP. In Rise of the Runelords, I'd probably price it somewhere between 1500 and 2000 GP.
There was an interesting article written by one of the designers who worked on the Monster Manual V back in the day. He stated that the typical monster lives, on average, for five rounds before he dies.
Let's borrow that estimate and apply it to Pathfinder - each character gets five full rounds to act, then the monster is dead. Think about it. You get 5 standard actions (to cast a spell, make an attack, activate an ability, whatever), and then the encounter is over.
IE starting your round by casting shield gives you a +4 AC bonus, and you lose on one of those standard actions - you are effectively nauseated for the first round. You're 20% behind another class that would instead spend that standard action trying to end the encounter by casting a spell, making a full attack, and so on.
That is why I think having to spend a standard action to activate this item is a a huge drawback, and why I think pricing it roughly along the lines of wands (the exact price being based on how useful you think the item actually will be) is a better comparison than an item that doesn't require said action to activate.
As for the ring of Jumping and Boots of haste - That just illustrates how Paizo values items that give a constant bonus significantly higher than items that have a short duration? You're proving my own point :)
Finally, I'll try to use PRD links for the remainder of this thread, but my default is usually PFSRD because I prefer their search engine setup and how they compile information. So nothing personal if I slip up on that :)
Items aren't balanced. Trying to compare this ring that gives +4 shield AC to an item that doesn't give +4 shield AC is an exercise in pointlessness. The best we can do is compare it to an item that gives +4 other AC, of which we have three, all of which have costs in the 5 digits.
All the items you are comparing this item against provide a constant AC bonus. It's just not remotely close to compare an item that must be activated to be used and has a limited duration to an item that is always providing protection. As has been pointed out before, the most apt comparison in the game would probably be the cloak of the hedge wizard. It wouldn't even make sense to charge upwards of 20k for this item if I could simply craft or purchase three cloaks of the hedge wizard to accomplish the same thing, with additional perks thrown in.
Ok. First, can someone show me where it says you have to take the pearl of power out of your pocket to use it?Second, the pearl of power grants any spell you've used that day. It seems like this point continues to be ignored. That is a major boost in power and price compared to an item that grants a specific spell again which would be roughly equivalent to a 1 charge per day wand, which would be worth maybe 300 gp.
Third, the pearl has an effective duration of 24 hours. You can easily use it between combats and not worry about its effect ending before the next one. The shield will usually run out before the next combat. That kind of difference is enough to show up in the pricing.
Fourth, while all those are decent reasons to want this ring over a +1 buckler, that's an entirely one-sided comparison of the two and most of those reasons are pretty situational. What if you don't want to worry about getting your shield dispelled, or you don't want to worry about only having a shield for 3 minutes each day, or you want your shield to work during a surprise round, or you want to apply some feats to your shield, etc.
1. I don't think it does anywhere, but I would have considered it logical that you must be touching it in some way, like a ring on your finger or a sword in your hand. Then again, there's a cloak on your back, so it's not stated and there is basis. Actually a nice little boost to PoP in the game I'm in.
Even if you need to be touching it, which isn't unreasonable, I don't think it'd be quite right to charge you a move action to put your hand in your pocket and another to take it out.
2. Level 1 spell. They are tied to a specific level, let's not forget. Not saying you necessarily did, but you did say any spell, which is inaccurate.
Yes. Any level 1 spell, and not just that, but you get to wait until it's obvious which level 1 spell you need if you want to.
3. I don't get you here. Honestly. It does have an effective 24 hours, in the same way the shield ring does. You can use those 3 charges in the ring any time within that 24 hours, just like you can use the PoP any time in those 24 hours. But the PoP only has one use in that time, while the ring has 3 uses.
No, the ring has a duration of 1 minute. You use it and the effect of that charge is gone in one minute. You use the pearl and the effect lasts until you cast the spell you just got back, which could be all day.
4. As situational as worrying about getting your shield dispelled? Or as a surprise round? Or you're building a sword & board fighter? None of his examples are any more situational or uncommon than yours. Unless that's the point you're making?
That's exactly my point (although I imagine surprise rounds are more common than magic missile users). The ring balances fairly well against a +1 buckler IMO. You get more AC (2 more actually) from the ring, but only for a little while and you have to waste an action to use it.
Also, so far, no one has said that an unlimited shield item should be priced at 4k. In fact, that seems to be the one thing everyone's agreed on.
My point, and several other people's point, is that the formula on the table works fine for X/day items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't use the Pearl to get back the spell until you know what spell you want to get back. What if you need Mage Armor or Magic Missile or another Color Spray or Burning Hands?
Using Shield to buff Monks is okay? The one area monks do NOT have a problem with is AC. And you're basically saying its okay to give every class a cheap +4 Shield Bonus to AC, because it's okay for Monks to have it. Uh huh.
Your comparison between activated short-term effects and continuous effects does NOT reflect reality, D'ANdriel.
You're actually comparing 'continuous effects' to 'the effect goes up when I want and need it to, so I can save money.'
And the action to activate it? Basically no different then the cost to unsling and equip a normal shield. Oh, right, except a TWF, a THF, a Monk, and an archer can't equip shields. But now they can, and get a better AC then a +3 Animated Shield, and it lasts longer per use, and is effective against incorps and magic missiles, for 1/10th the price or less, and all they have to do is spend the same action they'd use to get the shield out in the first place.
Yeah, priced accurately.
I can see the minute/level of usage dividing the price in half, which would take it down to 12k base. And since Mage Armor is effective against incorps and that feature isn't reflected in the price, I'm okay with ignoring that. Magic missile is also a niche feature, and that's okay to ignore.
On the flip side, metagaming a level 1 casting level JUST to keep the price down, since so few fights last more then 10 rounds, is pure and utter cheese. You do know that the default for an AC bonus caster level is 3x bonus, right? So the default minimum level for this effect is level 12, not level 1 (this will not increase the price, as the AC method ignores caster level).
I'll go down to a 12k based purely on the duration factor, but I honestly don't believe it in my gut. 3/4 of the time, this is going to be put up BEFORE a fight, not during it, and there won't be any action waste. In any event, it's not much more then the action to pull a shield off your back and let it go, and the bonus is BIG, hugely beneficial to anyone that can grab it.
In any event, it is totally clear by the rules that AC bonus items use the AC calculation methods, not the spells/day methods, and, citing items which erroneously do not do the same, is not a comparison.
Unless you plan on repeating this cost-cutting calculation for Mage Armor, Shield of Faith, and Barkskin, the default is the only proper way to go with this.
==Aelryinth
You don't use the Pearl to get back the spell until you know what spell you want to get back. What if you need Mage Armor or Magic Missile or another Color Spray or Burning Hands?
Using Shield to buff Monks is okay? The one area monks do NOT have a problem with is AC. And you're basically saying its okay to give every class a cheap +4 Shield Bonus to AC, because it's okay for Monks to have it. Uh huh.
Your comparison between activated short-term effects and continuous effects does NOT reflect reality, D'ANdriel.
You're actually comparing 'continuous effects' to 'the effect goes up when I want and need it to, so I can save money.'
And the action to activate it? Basically no different then the cost to unsling and equip a normal shield. Oh, right, except a TWF, a THF, a Monk, and an archer can't equip shields. But now they can, and get a better AC then a +3 Animated Shield, and it lasts longer per use, and is effective against incorps and magic missiles, for 1/10th the price or less, and all they have to do is spend the same action they'd use to get the shield out in the first place.Yeah, priced accurately.
I can see the minute/level of usage dividing the price in half, which would take it down to 12k base. And since Mage Armor is effective against incorps and that feature isn't reflected in the price, I'm okay with ignoring that. Magic missile is also a niche feature, and that's okay to ignore.
On the flip side, metagaming a level 1 casting level JUST to keep the price down, since so few fights last more then 10 rounds, is pure and utter cheese. You do know that the default for an AC bonus caster level is 3x bonus, right? So the default minimum level for this effect is level 12, not level 1 (this will not increase the price, as the AC method ignores caster level).
I'll go down to a 12k based purely on the duration factor, but I honestly don't believe it in my gut. 3/4 of the time, this is going to be put up BEFORE a fight, not during it, and there won't be any action waste. In any event,...
Coincidentally, once per day Mage Armor with CL1 is also covered under the cloak of the hedge wizard, which leads me to believe that using the formulas presented for charges per day is the most appropriate formula to use when crafting this type of item. No one is arguing that they want a continuous +4 AC on the cheap. No one is trying to make a 3/day mage armor with CL8, which for all intents and purposes would be a +4 continuous item. But we are talking about the Shield spell, not Mage Armor. The item in question is +4 AC, 3/day with a one minute duration. The costs per use are comparable to the cloak of the hedge wizard, which is an official, "RAW" item, so how can anyone justify this type of item costing so much more than the cloak.
Aelryinth, I was going to quote each section of your post but in the end it just got too long, so I'm just going answer this in order:
The difference between unslinging and equipping a normal shield and casting a Shield spell is that a character equips the shield as soon as he feel like he might be in danger - I know my party does. Whenever they're in an environment they feel is potentially hostile they draw weapons and equip shields, cast long-term buffs like Mage Armor, Barkskin, Heroism, and so on. Do the same thing with this item, and you're out of charges literally three minutes in.
As for 3/4ths of the time you have time to activate it first - either you have an incredibly sneaky group that all make stealth checks or utilize spells like Silence in order to consistently surprise the enemy (and if so they deserve the benefit of a surprise round), or you need to GM monster and NPC intelligence and perception checks better.
Activating an animated shield is a move action, not a standard action.
A +3 animated shield would either provide a +4 or a +5 bonus, depending on whether it is light or heavy. A Shield spell does not give better AC than a +3 animated shield, at best the bonus is equal... For three minutes a day.
It should also be noted that the Animated quality was one of the things Paizo had in its sights when they released PF, since it was one of the most popular enchantments in 3.5. There is a reason no one uses animated shields anymore.
TWF, THF, and archers can all equip a shield - it's called a buckler.
You keep repeating that the rules on custom items say this and say that - that's part of the reason why I've asked you (repeatedly) to read them again. There are no hard rules on custom items, which is a good thing. If there were hard rules like you seem to think there are, that creates things like the RAW Continuous Shield or Continuous Infernal Healing ring for pocket change. Instead, there are guidelines - How you interpret those guidelines while pricing an item is up to each individual GM. Personally, I think you are misinterpreting them, but that's your right.
I do think it's nice of you to reduce the price. I still think it's too high but at the very least we've got some movement :)
Finally, I disagree with you that monks do not have a problem with AC. That's really not the topic of this thread though.
|
It seems pretty clear to me that pricing this as less than a shield +1 is pretty ludicrous - the shield doesn't apply to touch attacks, it doesn't render you immune to magic missiles, and you can't use it and still have two hands free; it adds armor check penalty, spell failure, and weight, and it provides a lower bonus to AC to boot. I can't think of an occasion where I wouldn't take this over a shield +1 - for a lower price, I could just buy this ring and keep a shield on hand for backup. And obviously, if you would never choose a loosely comparable alternative over this item, you've underpriced it.
The Shield Spell does not provide protection from touch attacks. It does provide protection from incorporeal touch attack. I believe anyways.
The is no way in the 9 hells I would pay over 4k for a ring that gave me 3 minutes of +4 AC a day. Don't care if I am an arcane caster, in which by the time I would have the money for the ring, my casting of shield last longer or Divine in which I cast shield of faith and its bonus goes up over the levels, and last as long or longer. I my opinion, I have always preferred shield to learn first at low levels is the number of magic missiles that get shot at you. By 4th I am casting Mage Armor, then when needed shield. Sorry for all who priced this ring in the 10k range, but that is tom foolery! If the caster level was higher, say level 10+ maybe. But then we are only 1/2 the duration of mage armor at level one! Which other that immunity to magic missile and armor not shield bonus has the same effect in that i t counts verse incorporeal touch attacks. Not all touch attacks, just from ghost and similar normally undead things. K, rant done. Have fun.
|
|
Keep in mind that characters get XP from other sources than just encounters - quest xp, for instance, on would also affect their progression. That said, if you have more encounters per level then an item that gives x charges per day would be more valuable. I believe I stated that in the previous post where I explained the encounter/level.
...non combat encounters, etc, etc, etc...
I did mention that, yes. Non combat encounters could be traps, monsters that can be circumnavigated or diplomancied, story events, puzzles, the list goes on. And it's quite possible you did, but not in the post I responded to, which is the one I'll be focusing on when responding. Which is why repeating something already said, but still valid, can come in handy.
I don't want the wand - it's not my character. The reason I'm arguing the price of a wand is because I think it is a valid item to compare to the ring in question - more so than a permanent +4 AC item. The ring has the same action requirement and duration as a first level wand, while an item that gives a permanent +4 bonus is considerably more powerful.
What about a wand reflavoured to be a ring? I'm wondering how that affects balance and mechanics. There's so many feats and options to consider, but a ring that has 50 charges, then no longer works. For all intents and purposes, a wand, but worn like a ring? Besides the point I suppose, but an interesting consideration.
So why can't the same rules be used to make a ring of barkskin or mage armour or shield of faith? The Mage Armour example from earlier being the best comparison. Items that are effectively the same as an item that exists should be compared to items that exist. I agree that a 3 castings per day item is different than continuous one, but if you have an experienced, competent, paranoid group of adventurers, coupled with the (hopefully limited) subconscious metagaming of players who control them, the main limitations presented by a 3 castings per day item vanish. There are so many ways to avoid an ambush, predict a fight, buy time, that one standard action before the fight starts is not really a big thing. Then you have ten rounds to start, and end, the fight. You yourself said that an average encounter lasts 5 rounds, so ten is plenty of time. Then carry two or three of these around and you have the same effective bonus as a continuous item, the +4 Shield AC whenever you need it, for a substantially reduced price than it should be.
And as I mentioned last time, using the same rules that make this 1 - 4K ring of shield, you can make a continuous +4 Shield AC item for 4,000gp. Why is that application of the formulas considered invalid, but this one perfectly fine? The answer is that neither are valid, because the Formulas. Don't. Work.
IE starting your round by casting shield gives you a +4 AC bonus, and you lose on one of those standard actions - you are effectively nauseated for the first round. You're 20% behind another class that would instead spend that standard action trying to end the encounter by casting a spell, making a full attack, and so on.
Well that's not a fair comparison at all. Nauseated is horrible, and you lose your standard action. For Shield, you have +4 AC, a solid bonus to armour, representing 20% on a d20, reducing your enemies ability to hit you significantly. Saying that's the same as losing the action is nonsense.
As for the ring of Jumping and Boots of haste - That just illustrates how Paizo values items that give a constant bonus significantly higher than items that have a short duration? You're proving my own point :)
Ha! Well played. :D Still, methinks you'd prefer a 3/day +10 to jump for one minute for a fraction of the price than the one that's always on but costs a fortune. Because you'd still have it whenever you need it, and you'd save substantial amounts of gold. But that's not an item I can find. I wonder why that is?
Finally, I'll try to use PRD links for the remainder of this thread, but my default is usually PFSRD because I prefer their search engine setup and how they compile information. So nothing personal if I slip up on that :)
Nothing personal? You didn't even capitalise my name in that last quote. I'm so wounded. j/k, and thank you. :)
All the items you are comparing this item against provide a constant AC bonus. It's just not remotely close to compare an item that must be activated to be used and has a limited duration to an item that is always providing protection. As has been pointed out before, the most apt comparison in the game would probably be the cloak of the hedge wizard. It wouldn't even make sense to charge upwards of 20k for this item if I could simply craft or purchase three cloaks of the hedge wizard to accomplish the same thing, with additional perks thrown in.
Personally, I think that says more about the cloak of the hedge wizard. That item is ridiculous. Even internally, it has 8 versions, some of which I would gladly pay more than the described price, some I wouldn't pay for at all. All I can really say about it is repeat what I said last time it was brought up.
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.
Even if you need to be touching it, which isn't unreasonable, I don't think it'd be quite right to charge you a move action to put your hand in your pocket and another to take it out.
You're right, probably just the one move action to stick your hand in your pocket/pack/pouch, to "ready" it, as it were, and then the standard action to activate it.
Yes. Any level 1 spell, and not just that, but you get to wait until it's obvious which level 1 spell you need if you want to.
True, but still just a level one spell. Which could be shield, or anything else. And it assumes you're a prepared spellcaster, which most classes aren't.
No, the ring has a duration of 1 minute. You use it and the effect of that charge is gone in one minute. You use the pearl and the effect lasts until you cast the spell you just got back, which could be all day.
Ah, gotcha now. I'm assuming though, given the nature of the PoP, that you won't use it like that. You'll wait until you know you have a level one spell that you've already used that you need to use again. Otherwise it could potentially go to waste, such as the example you present where you re-prepare the spell and an entire 24 hours pass without it getting used. So, like the ring, you will only use it when you need it, hence how long it lasts afterwards is practically immaterial.
That's exactly my point (although I imagine surprise rounds are more common than magic missile users). The ring balances fairly well against a +1 buckler IMO. You get more AC (2 more actually) from the ring, but only for a little while and you have to waste an action to use it.
My point, and several other people's point, is that the formula on the table works fine for X/day items.
A Buckler, for the record. You get 2 more AC, can wield weapons without a penalty, can two handed, two weapon fight and cast spells while still benefiting from the AC, are protected from magic missiles, incorporeal attacks, and it weighs less, which might be important to your standard strength starved wizard. In turn, it costs one standard action to benefit from for 10 turns, as opposed to the buckler which would be always on. Not sure if I agree that they are balanced. Whether early or late game.
I don't agree. There may be some items out there that represent some kind of balance, that the designers and developers all thought were okay. But if you take those same items and start messing with bits and pieces of them, replace a spell here, an ability boost there, you can wind up with vastly more powerful items, that wreck that careful balance.
Coincidentally, once per day Mage Armor with CL1 is also covered under the cloak of the hedge wizard, which leads me to believe that using the formulas presented for charges per day is the most appropriate formula to use when crafting this type of item. No one is arguing that they want a continuous +4 AC on the cheap. No one is trying to make a 3/day mage armor with CL8, which for all intents and purposes would be a +4 continuous item. But we are talking about the Shield spell, not Mage Armor. The item in question is +4 AC, 3/day with a one minute duration. The costs per use are comparable to the cloak of the hedge wizard, which is an official, "RAW" item, so how can anyone justify this type of item costing so much more than the cloak.
How can you say it works perfectly fine with one spell but not with another? If the formula is so easily corrupted with a 3/day mage armour CL8 item, what makes you think that the formula is good for anything at all? And simply put, balance and verisimilitude. The cloak is once per day, that's the way it was designed, changing that makes it no longer the balanced RAW item. You can bring a dozen around and keep changing them if you like, but you'll look mighty funny.
Aelryinth, I was going to quote each section of your post but in the end it just got too long, so I'm just going answer this in order...
As for 3/4ths of the time you have time to activate it first - either you have an incredibly sneaky group that all make stealth checks or utilize spells like Silence in order to consistently surprise the enemy (and if so they deserve the benefit of a surprise round), or you need to GM monster and NPC intelligence and perception checks better.
A +3 animated shield would either provide a +4 or a +5 bonus, depending on whether it is light or heavy. A Shield spell does not give better AC than a +3 animated shield, at best the bonus is equal... For three minutes a day.
TWF, THF, and archers can all equip a shield - it's called a buckler.
You keep repeating that the rules on custom items say this and say that - that's part of the reason why I've asked you (repeatedly) to read them again. There are no hard rules on custom items, which is a good thing. If there were hard rules like you seem to think there are, that creates things like the RAW Continuous Shield or Continuous Infernal Healing ring for pocket change. Instead, there are guidelines - How you interpret those guidelines while pricing an item is up to each individual GM. Personally, I think you are misinterpreting them, but that's your right.
I do think it's nice of you to reduce the price. I still think it's too high but at the very least we've got some movement :)
Finally, I disagree with you that monks do not have a problem with AC. That's really not the topic of this thread though.
I have no problem with monstrously long posts. I do feel the need to apologise for them now though. Sorry everyone. :P
Or have one party member who does all that, and travels ahead of the party. A Scout, one might say. Mayhaps a Ranger? Some form of Roguish fellow?
I can only assume a mistake was made here, where the +2 equivalency of Animated was included in the Shield's bonus value. I shouldn't speak for Aelryinth though.
All those can wear a buckler, yes. they suffer a -1 to all attacks while doing so, and lose the AC when they do their thing.
I agree, these are all guidelines at the end of the day. And I need to submit this now, even though it's not complete. Sorry, will try and finish this later.
I did mention that, yes. Non combat encounters could be traps, monsters that can be circumnavigated or diplomancied, story events, puzzles, the list goes on. And it's quite possible you did, but not in the post I responded to, which is the one I'll be focusing on when responding. Which is why repeating something already said, but still valid, can come in handy.
Ah, that's what I get for skimming your post. I reposted that particular note because in my estimate of 12 encounters per level a 20th level character would go through 240 encounters - not 260. Honestly I got that estimate from a bit of forum searching, I didn't crunch the numbers myself. It felt about right for the fast track, which is what the AP's I have experience with have used.
What about a wand reflavoured to be a ring? I'm wondering how that affects balance and mechanics. There's so many feats and options to consider, but a ring that has 50 charges, then no longer works. For all intents and purposes, a wand, but worn like a ring? Besides the point I suppose, but an interesting consideration.
It is indeed an interesting question. If you mean the ring would be a spell trigger item with 50 charges I would probably price it at approximately the same price as a wand. At low levels the ring is more tempting since you're unlikely to have two other magic rings, while at higher levels the wand (preferably in a springloaded wrist sheath) is the better option since you'll likely want to use both ring slots for something that gives a constant bonus.
Well that's not a fair comparison at all. Nauseated is horrible, and you lose your standard action. For Shield, you have +4 AC, a solid bonus to armour, representing 20% on a d20, reducing your enemies ability to hit you significantly. Saying that's the same as losing the action is nonsense.
I agree that it's not a fair comparison, but I find nauseated fitting because it means you are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention for your first round. Much like if you spend that round to cast Shield. It's an extreme example, but it illustrates how much it hurts to lose that first standard action. Hell, Nauseated is probably one of the worst conditions in the game and it gives you no mechanical penalties, all it does is take away your standard action.
And as I mentioned last time, using the same rules that make this 1 - 4K ring of shield, you can make a continuous +4 Shield AC item for 4,000gp. Why is that application of the formulas considered invalid, but this one perfectly fine? The answer is that neither are valid, because the Formulas. Don't. Work.
I'm only replying to this because you quoted me immediately before typing this, but I never claimed that the formulas work perfectly - they're guidelines. That said, the continuous Shield item you keep mentioning is exactly the kind of item they specifically call out as needing a different price than what the formula creates, since it uses a cheap spell to simulate a continuous effect granted by much more expensive items. The problem here is that some of the other posters believe that callout covers all items that emulate spells instead of items that emulate spells continuously.
When it all comes down to it the primary idea for price estimate guidelines state that you should find the item most similar to the item you're trying to create, and then adjust the price accordingly.
In my opinion a 1st level wand of Shield is the most similar item. I would crank the price up somewhat since it's not a spell trigger item anymore, increase the price if I think the item will outlive the charge life of a wand, and finally adjust the price somewhat depending on how useful I believe the item will be, but ultimately I would most likely price it between 1 and 4 thousand gold.
The main reason I'm still in this thread is because people are suggesting absolutely outlandish price estimates for this item - if you look at the first page you'll see suggestions that range from 20 to 35k. Granted you're allowed to price your own custom items however you want, but the OP came to the thread specifically to ask for advice on this topic and I just can't let that stand unopposed.
Now I'm not saying that this item needs to follow the formula exactly, but if you honestly think anyone is going to buy an item like this for 36 000 GP then I have a lovely somewhat damp holiday apartment I'd like to sell you. It's in Atlantis.
Ha! Well played. :D
Thank you :)
LordSynos - that's quite a long post...BTW - as much as I disagree with how you and some others want to cost this item, I appreciate the thought process and input. At the end of the day, I do disagree that this item should be expensive. Even a "discounted" cost of 12k is completely absurd. Like I said, it would be less expensive to purchase 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard and change them between combats. That alone tells me that any cost that is greater than 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard is just too much. That doesn't even take into account the at will prestidigitation and resistance, and once per day Endure Elements the cloak provides.
With a duration of one minute (10 rounds), there's functionally no difference in having an item with three charges vs. having three items with one charge if you switch items between combat. I may buy into the argument that having multiple uses per day should be more expensive than multiple separate items if the duration of the spell was in rounds, and really, not much more than 5 rounds at that.
IE starting your round by casting shield gives you a +4 AC bonus, and you lose on one of those standard actions - you are effectively nauseated for the first round. You're 20% behind another class that would instead spend that standard action trying to end the encounter by casting a spell, making a full attack, and so on.
There's a fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. Using a standard action to gain a benefit that will be useful in subsequent rounds is not like being nauseated. The action isn't wasted or lost, it's invested in gaining an advantage for subsequent actions.
That is why I think having to spend a standard action to activate this item is a a huge drawback, and why I think pricing it roughly along the lines of wands (the exact price being based on how useful you think the item actually will be) is a better comparison than an item that doesn't require said action to activate.
The activation requirement is something to consider, however, you should always be wary of any pricing suggestion based on spell level x caster level in magic item pricing. It's a one-size fits all solution that may be OK for some spells, too low for others. True strike is one of the poster children for the sort of spell that doesn't price out well as a magic item - exceptional powerful effect for a low level spell and caster level.
I think, compared to the value of other 'plused' items, the spell-based value is too low. The bonus squared * 2500 formula for Other AC, however, also is too high since, I believe, that formula assumes that not only will the AC value stack with virtually everything, but it will also not behave like a shield bonus and be ignored by most touch attacks. I'd, therefore, be more inclined to eyeball the price on the armor bonus. That suggests a baseline 16,000 for a continuous +4 item. Command word items, are generally 90% of continuous or use-activated so that cuts us down to 14,400. And then 3/5 of that for the 3 uses/day nets us about 8,640 as a suggestion.
Now, it's time to compare that suggestion with the one using just the spell, command word activation, and 3 charges/day. That suggests 1080. That's a pretty big difference and I'm inclined to think truth lies somewhere between the two. But where should we finally fall? We could simply average them and get 4860. So let's look at other items at about 1080, 8640, and 4860.
At 1080, we've got nearby things like +1 shields, mithral shirts, bracers of armor +1, brooches of shielding (magic missile defense). I think the item in question is potentially better than a brooch of shielding in the long run, though less easy to activate.
At 8640, a close comparison is the ring of force shield at 8500. That offers half the AC benefit, no benefit vs magic missile, implied benefits vs incorporeal touches since it's a force shield, and ties up a hand also by implication. It is activated by a free action and has unlimited uses/day. Overall, I think that's a better benefit. So we're looking lower than 8500.
Looking at 4860, in the ballpark we've got elven chain, +2 shields, wands of 2nd level spells, and 2nd level pearls of power. And that's starting to look like a reasonable value to me. I'd stick the value at about 4,000 gp.
@Bill Dunn
I used Nauseated as an example to illustrate how important losing that first standard action is compared to an item that provides an continual benefit with no need for an action to activate it. I realize it's not an entirely fair comparison. Then again, I don't think a +3 animated ghost touch force resistance buckler is a particularly fair comparison either ^^
That said, I'm all right with a sticker price of 4,000 gp - especially if the PC is in a campaign that's on the normal or slow xp track.
woops, yes, the +3 should have been a +2 typo.
The shield AC is in the 'other' category because it is, like armor, something that requires proficiency and a slot. Too, it interferes with spellcasting, and outright negates many class abilities if you want to take the benefit of the AC. Everyone can get deflection and Nat AC bonuses via gear. Not everyone can get Shield bonuses and still function, because using a shield places a restriction on certain things you can do. Getting not only Shield AC, but really, really good Shield AC, is a have your cake and eat it too scenario.
As mentioned above, TWF, THW and archers can wear a buckler, but can't get any AC from it, so it's a moot comparison.
The only reason the CL is 1 is because that's ten rounds, and more then one fight. That's pure metagaming. YOu know it's only going to be good for one fight, so why invest in any level higher then 1 when the duration is just going to be wasted?
The bonus is huge. +4 right off the bat, equal to a shield +3. I can't think of ANY other spell then mage armor that provides a bonus that high...and mage armor effects use the armor rules, too.
The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is a nice rules loophole. So was the Bracer of Falcon's Aim. Paizo can get pricing wrong, too.
The action to use an Animated Shield if surprised is to draw it, then release it. That's a double move action, or a standard action if the DM is generous. And classes that don't normally use shields, who would be using this ring, aren't going to be toting a shield around all the time on their arm.
And if you use this toy, be very prepared for the rest of the players to want the same thing for barkskin, mage armor, and shield of faith. It would only be fair.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also like to point out just how cheesy that level 1 caster level is.
A standard item is CL = 3x Bonus. This even applies to Nat Armor, despite Barkskin STARTING at +2 at level 3.
Using the AC calculation method, the default CL on this item, with a +4 AC bonus, would be 12. Meaning that the Shield, when it went up, would be good for 12 minutes, not for 1. So it might extend into a second fight.
The default pricing for an item that provided a Shield Spell constantly would be 40k. This is the same as a device casting the spell 5 times a day. As has been pointed out, the 1 minute/level duration means the cost is cut in half, so 20k...still cheaper then a +3 ghost Touch shield.
If we chop it to 3/5ths, that's 12k for a +4 AC bonus for at least three fights a day, more if you move quickly.
That's STILL dirt cheap.
NOW, if we treated the AC bonus progression like all others (deflection, armor, etc), what you really should have is a progression of AC that you can 'buy up' as you level.
A +1 Shield Bonus usable 5/day OR Continuously, would be 1250 gp (half of 2500), duration 3 minutes by default. 3/day would be 750 gp.
A +2 Bonus would be 5000 gp (2500 x4, div/2), for 6 minutes each time. 3/day would be 3k.
A +3 bonus would be 11,250 gp (2500 x9, /2) for 9 minutes each time. 3/day would be 7,750 gp.
A +4 bonus would be 20k (2.5k x16, /2) for 12 minutes each time...the item we are talking about would be 12k for 3 uses.
And it would top out at a +5 Shield bonus, costing a raw 62,500 gp, /2 = 31,250, and 3 uses/day would be 18,750.
ANd that's how this item should be priced out...consistent by benefit and level for what it provides.
The +4 AC benefit is too huge and overpriced to use the caster level x spell level model, and the metagaming to assign it the minimum only makes it more apparent what is going on. If you do it with this item, do it with the other 'big 3', and let everyone take advantage of the cost savings.
==Aelryinth
I can't help but feel that a character who is perfectly aware of the duration of her own spells and creates an item that takes that duration into consideration is being smart, not metagaming. Of course, for some people 'being smart' and 'metagaming' are interchangeable.
Well, let me put it this way. If the average fight used AD&D rounds, where each round equaled one minute, would they be making a toy like this?
Of course not, because then it would be Caster level 10 to be effective, and the cost savings of the minimum caster level would evaporate.
==Aelryinth
...If the average Pathfinder fight used AD&D rounds, where each round equaled one minute, then this item would still have a duration of 10 rounds at level 1, or 10 minutes. Or are you saying that all CL1 spells with a duration counted in rounds would only be active for 6 seconds, or 10% of the round?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is a nice rules loophole. So was the Bracer of Falcon's Aim. Paizo can get pricing wrong, too.
Yes, Paizo can get pricing wrong. Is it possible that Paizo got it right with the Bracers of Falcon's Aim, and seriously overpriced the Bracers of Archery and Greater Archery?
It's nice to see you've come down in how you price this item, but no one in their right mind would pay 12k for an item that grants the Shield spell 3/day at CL1.
Regardless of whether they got the price wrong on the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard or not, it is an official, recognized item. Unless there is an errata and Paizo determines that the did not price it appropriately (I'm not holding my breath), there is cost and precedent for an item that already provides Shield (albeit only once a day), so this is all a moot point to me.
A shield spell has a duration of minutes. If fighting rounds equaled a minute, there's no way Shield would be useful at level 1, period. But since it's just long enough to last for virtually any fight, level 1 is best and most cost effective.
Seriously, the problem is the +4 bonus off the first level spell. If it was +1 and scaled, as is 'proper' for an AC bonus granted by an item, it wouldn't look so nice at all.
Note that if you use 'proper' pricing, the Ring of Force Shield comes in spot on at 10k.
And no, D'Andriel...bonuses to hit and damage are always worth more then bonuses to AC. Even goes to the ioun stones and stuff. Just like a cheap +4 AC can be a real game-changer, easy bonuses to hit change your offensive ability entirely. It's one of the reason why such things were extremely rare in 4E...I think the best you could manage at a typical encounter was designed to be 70 or 75% hit rate. With Pathfinder, it's quite easy to get to 95%, and that's after Power Attack.
==Aelryinth
Both Mage Armor and Shield are front loaded spells, mage armor more than shield really. Both give a +4 bonus at level 1, which does not scale. Mage Armor has a duration long enough to be activated pre-combat and last through multiple encounters. Nevertheless you can buy a potion of Mage Armor for 50 gp, or a wand for 750 gp. Shield on the other hand gives a bonus that is harder to replicate, but struggles with a duration that translates to one or two encounters at most. Since the spell has range: Personal you can't find it in potion form, but you can still buy a wand which will save you money in the long run.
If you really do think an item that casts shield or Mage Armor is overpowered I'd suggest rewriting Mage Armor and Shield so that they benefit more from CL. For instance Shield could start out at +2, with a +1 bonus for every 2 CL after level 1, finishing at +4 on level 5.
If we do the math we get the following, assuming a ring that casts Shield 3/day vs a wand of Shield with the same caster level:
CL1 Ring: 1080 GP for a +2 bonus, 1 minute duration, 3/day.
CL 3 Ring: 3240 GP for a +3 bonus, 3 minutes duration, 3/day.
CL 5 Ring: 5400 GP for a +4 bonus, 5 minutes duration, 3/day.
CL 1 wand: 750 GP for a +2 bonus, 1 minute duration.
CL 3 wand: 2250 GP for a +3 bonus 3 minutes duration.
CL 5 wand: 3750 GP for a +4 bonus 5 minutes duration.
That way you increase the price across the board instead of picking on classes that can't dodge the horrible price increase by using a cheap 750 gp wand instead of buying a 12k/25k/36k GP monstrosity ring. If you think that is still too cheap you can adjust the CL to AC bonus ratio, which will increase the price across the board.
That said, if you ask an average PF player with some level of system understanding what spells he thinks are broken/overpowered and need an adjustment, I highly doubt he is going to start off his list with Shield and Mage Armor.
As for the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, BigDTBone started a thread on the price of the cloak here. So far the feedback has been pretty unanimous that it is well balanced or at the very least not broken.
If the GM will allow you to craft this item, don't forget to craft continuous true strike item as well!
Capitalism, ho.
If the GM will allow you to craft this item, don't forget to craft continuous true strike item as well!
Capitalism, ho.
I really miss the sarcasm tags from the OotS-forums.
I'd personally price this at 3500 gp.
Why? Because I think requiring activation is kind of a big deal, and so I think it's fair to price it similar to a consumable, that is, as a regular unslotted command word item. So 2*1800/(5/3)=2160.
However, allowing access to a spell not easily gained access to (since it's not available on any core command word item and can't be made into a potion) is very powerful, so I usually apply an ad-hoc markup of anywhere between 50 and 100% depending on what the item in question is. In this circumstance, it's a good item most martials want to get sooner or later, but it's limited duration and activation time (activation takes 10% as long as it's duration) limits it's usefulness.
If someone wanted to make it of a higher level though, the price would increase a _lot_. If it was CL3 it would be far than 3 times as useful as it is now, since it can become part of any pre-combat buff order much much more easily.
I would price a command word activated item of true strike similarly.
Why? Because I think requiring activation is kind of a big deal, and so I think it's fair to price it similar to a consumable, that is, as a regular unslotted command word item. So 2*1800/(5/3)=2160.
Slight nitpick here, the actual formula would be (1*1)*1800/(5/3) = 1080 gp, which is how the OP found his price estimate.
You make a good point about the value of the item increasing with the CL. The numbers I posted previously was primarily meant to outline what I meant when talking about altering the Shield spell, you could adjust the price increase (and the CL to AC bonus ratio) to whatever you feel comfortable with.
That's the great thing about magic item guidelines - in one game this item would be very powerful indeed, in another game this item is mediocre. The fact that there are no hard rules means that each GM is free to decide for himself where he feels comfortable putting the price on it.
Ah, got the impression the item was unslotted. Yeah, being a ring would drop the price slightly, probably would put it around 3k then.
It should be more expensive than a ROP+1, anyway.
But I agree that the shield and MA spells are too frontloaded by themselves and should've been caster level based. 2+1/2 level (max +4) sounds about right for Shield/MA.
I'm trying to figure out what an ROP+1 is, but I haven't had my morning coffee yet...
Another example is Mage Armor, it is even more heavily impacted by increasing the CL.
A 3/day CL 5 Mage Armor ring would cost 5400 gp if you follow the formula exactly, but it'd give you 15 hours worth of +4 armor, while Bracers of Armor prices a continuous +4 bonus at 16 000 GP.
Really, that's where the GM adjudication comes in.
Yeah, mage armor I would NOT go by the command word pricing guidelines. It's the very limited duration and the long activation time in relation to that which makes it okay in my book with something like Shield.
Though if you price an item of Mage Armor very highly compared to the command word guidelines then you can wind up with characters carrying a crate of Mage armor potions - for the price of 1 pair of bracers +4 you could buy 320 potions or an ungodly amount of wand charges.
Which brings us back to increasing the CL/benefit ratio of the spell. I think we've gone full circle!
Though if you price an item of Mage Armor very highly compared to the command word guidelines then you can wind up with characters carrying a crate of Mage armor potions - for the price of 1 pair of bracers +4 you could buy 320 potions or an ungodly amount of wand charges.
Which brings us back to increasing the CL/benefit ratio of the spell. I think we've gone full circle!
Yeah, mage armor is easier to access through potions, but the benefit of a long duration is kinda lost if each iteration costs 50 gp. If I have a 3/day 1-hour spell, I don't have to be careful with them - at the slightest chance of combat I can activate it, because it's likely combats won't be over more than a 3-hour period of the day. However, if I drink a potion at the slightest hint of combat, I'll use up 3 potions/day whether I need them or not, and over time, 150 gp/day is still a noticable price.
A wand is more useful, and with the long duration getting someone else to use it on you would be reasonable (compared to Shield). Regardless of whether you use potions or a wand though, the action economy is far worse than for a ring. The ring is a standard action, no AoO to use and can thus be used at the start of a combat if necessary, a potion is move action that provokes to retrieve it (or a full-round action if it isn't easily available) then a standard action that provokes to drink it.
A RoP +1 btw is a ring of protection +1, 2000 gp for constant +1 deflection AC.
Someone with ASF? They aren't going to use an animated shield.
Note that if there isn't an easily accessible shield command word item, it's not nearly as likely they'll use the spell by themself. Bards and witches don't have it on their spell list, don't know if magus or summoner has it and can't look it up atm but for summoners and sorcerers it still takes up a spell known and for prepared casters it's still a spell slot per day (or a wand).
I agree with you that the item shouldn't be priced like an animated shield, but I don't really think that's a strong argument.
It's easy to boost the dex bonus and add other enhancements to the same slot. The rules go over this. So this isn't a limitation. +2 Dex also gives a bunch of other benefits.
Just a nit-pick, but those aren't rules, they're clearly stated as guidelines; as such, a player can't assume they can freely do that, just like a player can't assume to freely call a home-made outsider even though there's guidelines for monster creation. In some games it's freely allowed, but it's really a table-to-table thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, mage armor is easier to access through potions, but the benefit of a long duration is kinda lost if each iteration costs 50 gp. If I have a 3/day 1-hour spell, I don't have to be careful with them - at the slightest chance of combat I can activate it, because it's likely combats won't be over more than a 3-hour period of the day. However, if I drink a potion at the slightest hint of combat, I'll use up 3 potions/day whether I need them or not, and over time, 150 gp/day is still a noticable price.
A wand is more useful, and with the long duration getting someone else to use it on you would be reasonable (compared to Shield). Regardless of whether you use potions or a wand though, the action economy is far worse than for a ring. The ring is a standard action, no AoO to use and can thus be used at the start of a combat if necessary, a potion is move action that provokes to retrieve it (or a full-round action if it isn't easily available) then a standard action that provokes to drink it.
If you're on the XP fast track and drink 1 mage armor potion in every encounter (which is most likely excessive, but it makes the math simple) you'll reach level 20 after 240-260 encounters, or before the potion expense (260*50= 13 000 GP) catches up to the price of +4 bracers. Needless to say, the wand savings (15 gp per charge instead of 50 gp) blows the potions out of the water and make the bracers look even worse. The action economy economy of the potion is worse than the ring, but with a duration of 1h you don't really need to drink the potion in combat anyway - you can drink it before entering a dungeon and probably have the effect in play for the full duration of the dungeon. Admittedly, that YMMV depending on the campaign and how your GM plays.
I guess my point is that when designing a command word item with Mage Armor, I would either:
- Price it up but not enough that consumables blow it out of the water. If it's priced too high it provides that much more incentive to take UMD, play a class with a spell list, or badger your wizard friend to use it on you all the time. In my opinion the mundanes are struggling to keep up as it is.
- Price it up and increase the price of consumables with the same effect - a very ugly fix, since all potions and wand prices uses a fixed formula at the moment.
- Alter the effect of Mage Armor so that there is more incentive to use higher CL versions of the spell. Still an ugly fix since you have to modify an existing spell, but has some potential.
How about... While changing the Mage Armor effect, you also alter the duration of the spell? 10 minutes/CL strikes me as much more reasonable than 1h/CL.
A RoP +1 btw is a ring of protection +1, 2000 gp for constant +1 deflection AC.
Can't believe I missed that - thanks!