That is ANOTHER facetious example, Kudaku.
It doesn't matter if a bonus is +1 for one minute or +1 for 1440. It matters that the bonus is there when you want it to be there.
And that's exactly what spells and temporary buffs do. It doesn't matter if you are hasted all day. It matters that you are hasted when you are in the fight.
That's why there's the /5 divisor on price, and a 5/day item = continuous. Because 5 times a day is basically as good as being continuous for all practical purposes. Indeed for MANY days, you simply won't need it at all, and then you're losing all the gold you spent right and left entirely. That's absolutely horrible! By that logic, can I go down to 1/day and 'build up' unused charges so I only expend them when I want to?....
The cl x sl examples are purely ways intended to reduce the price down to the minimum necessary to have the AC desired at the point desired, and not have to 'pay' for all the time it's not being actively used.
The rules do NOT agree with that line of logic, happily. The WBL tables assume permanent AC and permanent bonuses, and this is simply a method of trying to maximize wealth and get around the standards.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm getting really tired of saying this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Continuous does not equal an item with 5 charges per day. Not in how it plays out and not according to the magic item guidelines.
Please read the second footnote on the PFSRD, located here. Then read the following.
A command word item with 5 charges per day on a Shield spell costs 1800 GP.
CL times Spell Level times 1800 GP / (5/number of charges)
1 * 1* 1800 / (5/5) = 1800
A Use-Activated or Continuous Item with the Shield Spell costs 4000 GP.
CL times Spell Level Times 2000 Times 2 (since Shield has a duration measured in minutes) = total theoretical cost.
1 * 1 * 2000 * 2 = 4000 GP.
IE the ratio for a continuous item and an item with 5 charges of a 1st level spell with a duration measured in minutes is roughly 1 to 2, and you'd in fact need 11 charges before the math broke even.
Part of that gap is the increased duration itself, but another element is the fact that Continuous items do not require an action to activate and the shorter the duration the greater the benefit of not having to use an action to activate the spell!
Building on that, there is a significant difference in utility between an item that is
A: Always Active. A ring of Resistance +1.
B: Activates whenever needed. A ring of Feather Fall.
C: Requires a standard action to activate, has a long duration and thus does not need to be used in combat. A potion of Mage Armor.
D: Requires a standard action to activate, has a short duration and needs to be activated in combat. Our custom ring of Shield.
The price estimate you lay out is what I'd possibly consider for a Ring of Mage Armor (assuming MA was not altered as I outlined earlier) or a Ring of Shield that could be activated as a free action, both useable 3 times per day.
Your math assumes that the ring will be roughly 30% as useful as a continuous +4 bonus while requiring a standard action (in combat) to activate, and having a maximum uptime of 3 minutes. If you actually consider the item, you'll see (as have most of the other persons who have posted in this thread) that that is not the case.
Finally, stop acting like you're on the high ground and the rest of us are trying to game the system. The very first and most important concept in the magic item guidelines is the following:
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.
Such items have been presented, and you have repeatedly ignored them. The cloak of the hedge wizard is exactly what the OP is trying to make with some handy extras, and wands copy the spell mechanics down to the letter.
In my opinion this item should not cost more than 4000 GP, with the sweet spot varying with the campaign and the party itself.
Aelryinth: Might it be that you are confusing use-activated for command word? Since you are stating things about how use-activated items work, while neither bracers of armor nor the ring we're discussing here are use-activated. It doesn't seem unlikely.
I agree that an armor that casts Shield on you when you're attacked should cost similar to an armor that gives +4 to AC, but there's a large difference between that and something that is essentially a wand that doesn't require UMD.
By the guidelines, a slotless command word item with 1 use/day is worth about as much as a 50 charge wand.
No, the problem is that you are confusing an AC-granting item calculation for a spell-casting item calculation.
The charges per day is a special modifier applied to the base cost calculation. The table is very specific about primary calculation. Shield bonus to AC is an AC Bonus/Other calculation, and is based on bonus^2 x 2500 gp.
You then apply the special charges/day rule, which modifies the previously calculated base price. For PF's purposes, 5 charges a day for an effect costs as much as a continuous effect...modified further by duration costs in the subnote. We know this because 5 charges a day results in NO modifiers to the base price.
What you seem to be trying to do is apply the Command Word calculation effect to the spell, and then use the charges/day rule to modify that.
That is clearly a case of trying to manipulate your costs by moving from the AC schema to the SLxCL schema. It is exactly what people try to do with True Strike swords, Rings of unlimited CLW, and so forth and so on.
I'm not using the continuous/use-activated pricing schema. It's clearly unbalanced for this application. I'm using the very appropriate Other AC based calculation.
I am willing to note that the short duration cuts the price in half, and 3/day is 60% of base cost. The value of the item is based on the benefit it provides, not the SLxCL, which just results in spell cherry-picking.
I'm not even sure how use-activated/continuous even comes into play here vs Command Word.
=+Aelryinth
No, the problem is that you are confusing an AC-granting item calculation for a spell-casting item calculation.
Except you actually have to cast the spell/activate it manually to do it. What's the price of a potion of mage armor in your opinion?
For PF's purposes, 5 charges a day for an effect costs as much as a continuous effect...
Nothing in the rules indicate such, and I dare you to find evidence of it. A continuous effect generally costs caster level * spell level * 2000 (adjusted for spell duration and ad hoc balance) and an unlimited usage/5 charges per day effect generally costs caster level * spell level * 1800 (again ad hoc adjusted).
Or do you have proof of the opposite?
Quote from the pfsrd:
Command word Spell level x caster level x 1,800 gp
Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000
Also, note that these are all _guidelines_ and should be used with care. While the pricing _generally_ is the same for 5/day as unlimited, the DM may put further restrictions based on the type of spell (unlimited air bubble vs 5/day air bubble = same thing. unlimited CMW vs 5 CMW/day = not the same thing).
What you seem to be trying to do is apply the Command Word calculation effect to the spell, and then use the charges/day rule to modify that.
Yes, because it's a command word item and those are explicitly the type of items adjusted by uses per day.
That is clearly a case of trying to manipulate your costs by moving from the AC schema to the SLxCL schema. It is exactly what people try to do with True Strike swords, Rings of unlimited CLW, and so forth and so on.
"Trying to manipulate" is following the most obvious route and using the pricing mentioned for the intended type of items? Oh, I guess it's the second most obvious route, the most obvious is comparing to already-existing items, which has been done, and those are pretty cheap.
And again, no-one here is trying to make a true strike sword. Though honestly, if someone says "hey, can I make a command word sword that casts true strike when I use it?" I'd say "okay, let's check the command word pricing and adjust it because it's a strog spell for it's level to put into an item".
An item that casts true strike as a standard action lasting for 6 seconds should NOT be priced as a continuous 24/7 bonus of +20 to all attack rolls. Isn't that obvious?
I'm not using the continuous/use-activated pricing schema. It's clearly unbalanced for this application.
You have not shown at all how this would be unbalanced? What makes this so unbalanced compared to the current balance, considering wands of shield?
The value of the item is based on the benefit it provides, not the SLxCL, which just results in spell cherry-picking.
Fully agreed that the value is based on the benefit. So with it costing 24k, should I buy the ring that sometimes will allow me to gain a +4 shield bonus for a minute three times per day, or pay 27k for a ring of blinking that will give enemies 50% miss chance for nearly as long and can be used at will? Hmmm, +4 AC or 50% miss chance. Hard choice. Errrr, not.
Or should I get a +4 mithril buckler, that will not protect me from incorporeals but doesn't require any kind of prebuffing, is on 24/7 indefinately, gives a higher bonus, and with the 7k that's over after that buy something awesome like a bunch of potions of greater invisibility mirror image or similar, so you can properly buff and defend yourself those rare times a dangerous incorporeal is around?
I mean, I'm all for comparing to existing items. Thing is, the alternatives at that level of wealth blow this ring out of the water. Heck, a +3 mithril buckler is only 10k, less than half! The thing you miss (defense against incorporeals) is more than made up for by being on 24/7, not eating a ring slot, not requiring activation, and still being at least somewhat useful in an antimagic field.
If I played and our party found one of these rings and a +3 mithril buckler, I'd hope to get the buckler. Every time. Except maybe with your pricing in a magic item shop campaign because I could take the ring, sell it, and buy myself a similar buckler as well as some minor treats.
I'm not even sure how use-activated/continuous even comes into play here vs Command Word.=+Aelryinth
Not at all, that's the point. It's a command word item and should be regarded as such.
I'm not even sure how use-activated/continuous even comes into play here vs Command Word.
Clearly.
Ilja? Can you try to explain why we prefer to use the Command Word basis instead of a continuous AC Bonus/Other basis for the pricing? It might have more weight coming from you.
Finally, please stop accusing us of trying to manipulate cost. It's false, it's insulting, and it's getting really old.
Edit: Ha, ninjaed! And what a ninja!
EDIT: I'm a ninja
And I mean, if we meet at the middle, you propose 24k, I propose around 4k, so let's take the example if it costs 14k.
What build would pay 14k for a ring like this? The only type I could ever even consider would be big two-handed brawlers and monks, because those are the only ones who'd be sucky enough at UMD not to prefer a wand and at the same time cannot use a buckler.
And let's say it's a big two-handed fighter. Say she puts about 40% of her wealth towards her weapons and strength boosters and gloves of dueling etc, and about 20% towards her armor, and about 10% towards random stuffz (like bags of holding, various circumstantial trinkets etc). That leaves her with a 20% budget left over for misc defensive items. Now, at any time she'll want a ring of protection +4 before one of these rings; it's only 2000 gp more expensive and protects miles and miles better. Also, she'll probably want a cloak of protection, at least a +3, before she considers this item.
That means 20% of her budget must be at least 39k for it to even make sense (and then we don't consider blur effects etc). This means 15th level is the soonest she'll start considering getting one of those rings. And at 15th level rocket launcher tag is full on, every _action_ will be critical, and you can't spend a round just getting a basic AC buff up.
At 15th level, that money could have been put towards a scarlet ioun stone that'd give +15 to Use Magic Device, as well as 3 3rd level wands of shield, allowing her to use Shield up to 150 times which lasts for 3 minutes (aka much more possible to prebuff with) and of course giving all the other benefits of having +15 UMD, as well as leaving the ring slot free.
And that's at a price of 14k.
Can you post _any_ example of a character where this would be the best way to spend her money, even for 14k? Or if we go by your pricing, 24k?
So we have a few possible means of achieving the desired effect-
- 3x per day Shield Spell item (cheap version, as outlined by OP)
- 3x per day Shield Spell item (really expensive version, as outlined by a few in this thread)
- Headband of Int with UMD bonus, and a Wand of Shield (medium expensive)
- A Wand of Shield, max ranks in UMD and a Masterwork UMD tool (super extra really cheap)
I know which one i'd pick.
I also know which one I'd laugh at if someone tried to sell me.
Well, masterwork UMD tools are kinda gray area by the rules, and the investment cost of skill points can hurt a lot, especially for the classes that want them (for a BSF with a greatsword or a monk it means either no perception or no acrobatics depending on class).
Also, headbands/stones and ranks are only useful at higher levels, so can only really be compared to the expensive version.
For a fighter, I'd prefer a headband to a stone since a +2 stone and a +6 wisdom headband is better than a +4/+4 headband.
EDIT: I think at 4k, it would be a very considerable item for some characters. At a certain point by the mid-levels, it would be decently cheap and you may not require something else on a ring slot. For 8k, I think some characters sometimes may consider it, but I'd not think I'd see it in play other than as random loot. Higher than that and I don't think anyone would ever get it.
^hah true true, they've been unusually antagonistic lately.
On masterwork UMD (and other things).
BTW, if you compare a 1 charge wand to a potion, you can work out what "having the spell on your list" (which is the main difference between the two) would be worth. The potion is 10/3 times as expensive. I wouldn't say it's appropriate to apply that to command-word/use-activated/continuous items though as that's already factored in to the price. You might could make a case for that for a personal range spell though, which would raise the price from 1080 to 3600 gp.
Your logic doesn't work because the exact same overly-defensive comparison exists for Barkskin and Shield of Faith, which are your Deflection and Nat Armor bonuses.
And those items use the AC bonus table, which is primary and dominant over the Spell-Trigger table for making of magic items.
The problem you're having with the 12k item is that it's a 12k item for a +4 bonus. That is DIRT CHEAP for a +4 bonus, and you know it.
In all honesty it should be starting as a 1500 gp, 3 min/use +1 bonus (not 1 minute...remember minimum caster levels are MUCH higher if you use base AC bonuses) and scale from there.
Your wand alternative provides a +4 bonus for one minute, requires you to draw the wand, stow the wand, and either have the spell on your class list or invest ranks/feats/stats/a tool that doesn't exist into UMD. THe Ring gives you an effect for 12 minutes, and doesn't need any of that.
So, you're not making an even comparison. You're trying to boondangle the pricing guidelines.
If you argue so vociferously for the shield bonus, then I should be able to do exactly the same for my deflection and Nat AC bonuses...and Ultimate Magic made a very clear case that such things should be priced like the permanent items, because that is effectively what you are doing.
In short, Ilja, your arguments are invalidated on the face of the fact that said similar items already exist, and use the AC table, not your command word table. Actually, without altering the price, you can make it a swift action to activate, as doing so does not change the price. Actually, I believe you can make it a free action, like the Ring of FOrce Shield, and it won't change the price.
But you don't get a DISCOUNT for doing so, and that's what you're trying to apply here, finagling the pricing rules to your advantage, trying to move them from where they belong to where you want them. It isn't going to fly.
as for the 5/day, come on, use some logic. The 5/day rule only modifies the base price. If the base price is figured by the AC calculation method, the 5 uses = continuous, which, for example, a Ring of Barkskin or mage armor will effectively be.
And if you're making an AC based effect, that's the pricing schema you use, not the command word based, which is based on a different balance paradigm.
I look at this item, and I see 3 uses/day = getting through most combats; 1st level caster ability = lasting one fight, and command word pricing = cheapest possible pricing schema, esp. cut in half for a short duration spell.
It's price wrangling at its finest, and it's not valid.
all your arguments on price comparisons exist for other ac generating spells. They don't matter. Magical items that generate AC effects use the AC guidelines to do so. Using the command word to do so is a surefire way to generate imbalance. It's why it's not done.
My advice? If you think the alternative is better to use the Wand, then, by cost, you are absolutely correct. The same is true of EVERY SINGLE AC GRANTING EFFECT!!!
And yet, people still buy Prot Rings and Nat AC Amulets. Ultimate Magic specifically gives directions that items that cast mage armor should be priced as Bracers of Armor, not command word items...and this carries over to other AC devices.
You say, it's a first level spell.
I say, you're cherry picking best spell effects.
You say, it can be replicated by a +2 H Shield.
I say, that's a 6-8th level AC item by itself, and the bonus is that of a 9-12th level caster effect (looking at Barkskin and Shield of Faith) with tons of advantages over actually holding a shield in a fight.
You say, it only lasts one minute.
I say, you only WANT it to last one minute. Because that's one combat. Having it last two minutes is going to waste a minute and double your cost. Having it at level 3, which is the minimum CL for an AC item, is triple the cost for 2 minutes of useless duration. If you don't get at least ten minutes, you can't reliably use it for 2 fights.
And that would cost TEN TIMES AS MUCH. You're better off just buying another separate use for one minute.
In short, this item is using the CLW pricing max out. Nobody buys a level 2-5 CLW. Why? Because the 20% increase in healing isn't worth the 100% increase in price. CLW are used after combat...there's no action cost which would justify buying more potent healing wands.
Likewise, that's what you're doing here. You're using level 1 pricing to buy a level 9-12 AC bonus just long enough to be useful, and not wasting any money on extra duration, because that would magnify your costs tremendously. Here, benefit is fixed, and duration is a completely useless add-on. You only WANT CL 1, just like a CLW.
Then you're turning around and arguing that it's balanced to do this, when the other AC bonus granting items in game have the exact same arguments and we've been specifically told NO, that's not what we're supposed to do.
So, I say, buy your Wand of Shield and use it instead. There'll be no questions. It's still price leveraging, but no worse then the CLW does, in the end. I'm sure the investments you make in classes, skills and action economy will all balance out in the end.
==Aelryinth
The problem you're having with the 12k item is that it's a 12k item for a +4 bonus. That is DIRT CHEAP for a +4 bonus, and you know it.
A potion of mage armor is 50 gp for a +4 bonus. So just saying "a +4 bonus" says nothing. Heck, a potion of Jump is 50 gp for a +10 bonus!
It's all in the how, when and what.
Your wand alternative provides a +4 bonus for one minute, requires you to draw the wand, stow the wand
The same as drawing and equipping the ring.
and either have the spell on your class list or invest ranks/feats/stats/a tool that doesn't exist into UMD
Or an 8k ioun stone if we want to spend cash. Still cheaper than a 24k item.
THe Ring gives you an effect for 12 minutes, and doesn't need any of that.
Uhm... For one minute up to three times per day, you mean. So 3 minutes tops, though you have to spend 18 seconds activating it.
So, you're not making an even comparison. You're trying to boondangle the pricing guidelines.
No-one is making an "even comparison"; since the item doesn't exist and no similar item exists we can't. We have to eyeball it to a large degree, ask ourselves "at what price would this item be considered, yet not an obvious choice?".
In short, Ilja, your arguments are invalidated on the face of the fact that said similar items already exist,
Again, quote please? I've never seen any item more similar than the wand, and the wand is still quite far from it.
Actually, I believe you can make it a free action, like the Ring of FOrce Shield, and it won't change the price.
Price is determined by usefulness and clearly a free action shield is more useful than a standard action one. You seem to jump between "this is BROKEN!" and "this is not RAAAWWWWW!", whichever fits you best at the moment.
But you don't get a DISCOUNT for doing so, and that's what you're trying to apply here, finagling the pricing rules to your advantage, trying to move them from where they belong to where you want them. It isn't going to fly.
as for the 5/day, come on, use some logic. The 5/day rule only modifies the base price. If the base price is figured by...
You've still provided no evidence that base price is figured by the continuous price. No evidence at all.
Honestly, you're arguing directly and explicitly against the guidelines in several places (and obvious example claiming 5/day and continuous be priced the same), and claim the guidelines be on your side. I don't see any point in discussing this further, since you seem completely unwilling to even consider yourself being wrong despite several people asking you to reconsider it, and also because you consistently imply that applying the guidelines as they are written and in regard for balance is "loopholing" or "abusing" or other thing normally seen as immoral. I don't care for that kind of arguments.
I'm tired of discussing the guidelines since you seem to have misunderstood them in several places and won't even consider that to be the case. The guidelines are only the fallback anyway, so if you want to continue this, please answer the following three questions honestly:
1. Do you think we should go by what is a reasonable price based on usefulness primarily, rather than arbitrarily using the guidelines to come up with a more or less random price?
2. If the answer to 1 is "yes", what do you think is a reasonable price?
3. What evidence do you claim suggests that a lower price than this is too cheap, in terms of actual game balance rather than arbitrarily interpreted guidelines?
And here I thought the encouragement to 'hug it out' had scared
Aelryinth away from the thread >__<.
The 'ring' I'm referring to is my ring, which is 12k for a +4 Shield bonus to AC 3 t/day, using the proper pricing schema, and being a +4 bonus is cast at 12th level, giving a duration of 12 minutes.
Not a rules-minmaxing CL1.
I've already gone over multiple time what fair pricing is.
It's usefulness is slightly higher then Nat Armor because it gives a bonus that normal classes normally do not give/get.
Items that grant AC use the AC schema, not the 'cast spells' schema. Attempting to use the latter is trying to finagle the system, and all examples point away from doing this. You have no support in any assertation to use your cost-minimizing schema.
It's an 'other bonus'. Not an armor bonus, a SHIELD bonus. It doesn't matter if Mage Armor grants a +4 or Jump a +10. This is an 'other bonus', and other bonuses are priced at 2500^bonus.
This gets you an item that gives you a +4 AC bonus you normally would not have, usable 3 t/day for 12 minutes at a time. By the guidance of a Ring of Force Shield, you can have it a free activation action without altering the price.
By the footnote Kudaku brought up in Part 3 of the table, uses/day only modifies the base price. Base price uses the Other AC schema. 5/day is the 'base price', and such an item will end up costing exactly what a continuous item will. In the case of something like mage armor, it will actually have a duration more then 24 hours/day, so the comparison is fine.
12000 gp for a Shield bonus you can put on at will 3 t/day and keep your hands free is a fair price. It compares reasonably well to the +2 Bonus of the existing Ring of Force Shield.
If you feel it's an unreasonable price because you can min-max wands with other pricing schema, go for it. It doesn't change what a permanent magic item is supposed to abide, and yes, I keep noticing that you're totally ducking the Shield of Faith and Barkskin comparisons, because both also heavily favor the way you want to use, and both are NOT supposed to be used for permanent items that way.
You keep arguing '1st level spell', and completely ignoring that the guideline is '+4 other AC benefit', not '1st level spell.'
==Aelryinth
Since you ignored the questions in my post and are basically just repeating the mantra of "OH YOURE MUNCHKINS", I see no reason to respond to your post further. Good night.
All your questions have been answered repeatedly and you choose to keep looking past them for justification for treating your item with spell-in-a-can pricing.
For probably the 5th time, just for you, I'll enumerate:
The price of the item is 12k. That's dirt cheap for a +4 other AC benefit, which is HUGELY useful.
The price is derived from comparison with other AC producing items, including the Ring of Protection, which is derived from extremely similar source, but at only half the benefit of the level 1 spell, is much less useful, and Bracers of Armor, which are priced more cheaply as armor, and are explicitly called out that using spells to create a 'similar but not the same' effect is effectively creating Bracers, and to use Bracers pricing schema. This will be ported over to get a fair price for the item.
Price breaks are included for a short duration spell and usable 3 t/day vs 5 t/day, the latter being the baseline.
Comparison to potions and wands is irrelevant. This is a permanent magic item providing an AC benefit, and needs to be compared to other items which provide similar benefits, the closest example being the Ring of Force Shield (providing half the AC benefit) and Ring of Protection (based on a very similar spell).
In all such instances, the items are priced on AC benefit, not caster level x spell level, which would give a whopping spread of price points and dissimilar benefits. If the person wishes to make a wand or potion instead, he can explicitly create such things based on existing rules.
But if he's making a permanent magic item, he compares it to other items that provide similar benefits, not the most advantageous pricing schema.
==Aelryinth
There's a simple houserule that I use in my games, which is:
Any item that creates a spell effect N times per day that uses a spell effect with a range of personal must be either a spell trigger or spell completion item.
So if you are a caster who has that spell on his list or you are good making UMD checks then you could get one for 1080, or whatever the basic cost was. But a character like that could also just get a wand.
If you can't cast shield or make a UMD check then you are stuck with a ring of force shield.
Personal spells are normally designed to give a class an ability that would be powerful if they were not of that class, but being in that class it gives them an advantage in an area that they are weak. AC is one of the issues that is a problem for wizards but not much of one for fighters. Giving a two-handed fighter a +4 shield bonus is a much bigger deal than giving one to your average wizard, whose best defense is simply to not make himself a target. The same can be said for true strike which gives a buff to a wizard that for a wizard is not that useful, but for a fighter would be awesome.
Of course, I can see a version of shield that did not have a range of personal, but instead said "controlling a shield spell is difficult; characters who cannot cast shield only gain a +1 shield bonus from the spell instead of +4."
A +1 shield bonus for 1 minute 3 times per day? Yeah you can have that for 1080 gp.
Peet
For the same justification you could get Mage Armor +4 for an hour, Deflection +2 for the same minute, and for SIX TIMES the price, +2 Nat Armor for ten minutes.
These kinds of things are price manipulation lures. Of all the above choices, Shield provides the biggest bang for the buck (since +4 Shield AC is much harder to come by then +4 armor), and the biggest opportunity to cut costs.
This is why AC items are priced via benefit, rather then by SL x CL. The benefits become extremely out of whack if you price them any other way.
And yes, +1 Shield AC for 1080 gp is not that much out of line. By the pricing schema, it would actually be 1500 gp...but it would be cast at level 3, not level 1, so it's actually a better deal even as it sidesteps the 'CLW' price min-maxing stuff, since the default caster level for other AC buffs is AC benefit x 3.
==Aelryinth
At the end of the day, I think we are all agreed that the formulas to create a custom magic item is just a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. So Aelryinth is not incorrect. With that said, I'm glad he's not my GM. As has been stated, if this was an effect I wanted desperately, there's better ways to do it for 12,000 gold or less. I could have 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard for considerably less. Anyway, I got the answer I needed and wanted to thank everyone. I'm actually shocked this thread is as long as it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I've been continuing to post in this thread because I regularly use the forum search feature to help me get an impression about how most people deal with whatever issue I'm unsure how to resolve.
Searching for custom item pricing rules currently brings up this thread as the very first hit, and I can't for the very life of me let Aelryinth's view stand unopposed. That said, trying to discuss this is akin to headbutting down a wall that calls you dirty names in the process.
I am growing frustrated from the previously mentioned headbutting so I will post one last post after this one. I would appreciate it greatly we can all agree to disagree, and the next post was left standing as the last in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for advice on an Item of Shield, this is for you:
The majority of posters here have stated that a reasonable price for a ring that casts Shield 3/day at CL1 should be priced between 1080 gp (the cost of of the item according to the spell charge formula) and roughly 8000 gp (the cost of a Ring of Force Shield), with the median and average cost coming to about 4500 GP. Please note that there are those who disagree with this price estimate, this is merely a summary of the general opinion. Some estimates have been below, and some estimates have been above.
Under no circumstances should you allow an item that casts Continuous Shield for this price, as that would be more reasonably priced using the continuous AC bonuses for a total of 40 000 GP.
Should you want to get 'underneath the hood' and get a better grasp on the different price estimates and why there are so many different opinions on this particular item, I encourage you to read the full thread - it has many excellent arguments presented.
Addendum: The game developers have noted that making 'spells castable' items instead of continuous items is effectively trying the break the balance of the AC vs level system. (See, Ultimate Magic, Mage armor casting item vs Bracers of Armor). They instruct you to use the continuous item tables for AC items that are not wands or potions.
The illogic of cost factors between different spells providing the same level of AC also contributes to this discrepancy. For whatever price you end up charging for your item of Shield for +4 Shield AC, you'll pay the same thing for Shield of Faith for a +2 Deflection bonus; 2x as much for a Mage Armor +4 Bonus (because of the longer duration); and 7.2x as much for a Natural Armor +2 bonus (Duration = 1.2x, 2nd level spell, CL 3 minimum), using whatever justification you designed the item for in the first place.
The AC pricing tables were put in place to override and smooth these discrepancies, and make AC improvements a gradual process free of wild price imbalances between spell levels and caster levels.
==Aelryinth
Just couldn't help yourself huh ^^
Note that you quoted prices that agreed with you.
I didn't quote prices. I quoted the rules the developers said to follow, and the consequences if you used the rules you want to use.
It's not my fault you are ignoring precedent for AC advancement in favor of minmaxing gold cost for a juicy spell with an alternate cost methodology. And the other two spells people try to do the same thing with, True Strike and CLW, are also both level 1, and also great spells when cast at level 1...rapidly ceasing to be cost-effective when you get above level 1.
It's a pattern, and I don't blame you for falling into it. But that doesn't mean I have to let you encourage others to do the same thing. It's going to get shot down.
And as has been noted several times, if you simply scale the AC benefit appropriately by level, there isn't a problem with the pricing at all. The problem mainly occurs at CL 1 with the outsized reward for the cost.
==Aelryinth
Note that you quoted prices that agreed with you.
I didn't, actually. I would personally price this between 1000 and 4000 GP depending on the campaign and the character in question, most likely around 2500 gp - which I have stated repeatedly. What I did do was to gather, summarize, and present the opinion of the thread as a whole to the best of my ability. Including your opinion.
I didn't quote prices. I quoted the rules the developers said to follow, and the consequences if you used the rules you want to use.
Actually, you only quoted the guidelines that are most convenient for you, while ignoring the alpha rule of Magic item pricing - look for similar items and price accordingly.
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.
The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is an item with an effect identical to the ring in question, priced at a quarter of the amount you erroneously claim is appropriate. Apparently even the designers of the game disagrees with your take on items that replicate spell casting.
Another item that is similar would be a wand of Shield. It requires the same standard action to activate, identical duration, and the same effect. It's not a perfect fit (seeing as how wands require you to have the spell on your spell list or ranks in Use Magic Device), but it's not an unreasonable comparison.It's not my fault you are ignoring precedent for AC advancement in favor of minmaxing gold cost for a juicy spell with an alternate cost methodology.
Your hypocrisy is astonishing.
It's a pattern, and I don't blame you for falling into it. But that doesn't mean I have to let you encourage others to do the same thing. It's going to get shot down.
And as has been noted several times, if you simply scale the AC benefit appropriately by level, there isn't a problem with the pricing at all. The problem mainly occurs at CL 1 with the outsized reward for the cost.
==Aelryinth
The vast majority of people posting in this thread would actually allow the item, and at a significantly lower price than the one you are demanding.
There might well be a problem with the arcane AC buffing spells, but if so that needs to be dealt with on a ground level - by altering the spell itself, not by punishing people for not playing arcane casters. You are certainly free to make a new thread in the Homebrew or Rules forum arguing that Mage Armor and Shield should be altered. However, this is not the place for that debate.
Finally, I'd like to ask you to remove the "Addendum" from your previous post. At the moment that implies that I agree with your view, which I most certainly do not.
I once played in a high powered game where one of the characters, a 7th level rogue, had a dagger that could cast every single first level arcane spell in the game, at will.
It didn't break the game. It didn't even change it that much. It just meant the rogue got to be more useful and have more fun, and the wizard (me) got to spend less time scribing low-level scrolls.
Weird, right? Nothing broke. It was fine. It was even fun.
It was badwrongfun though, so we should probably have never played that game, and we should definitely feel bad for enjoying it.
You are ignoring the similar item rules, not I, Kudaku. I am being SLAVISHLY ADHERENT to them.
You, on the other hand, are avoiding them at any cost.
The similar items are the Ring of Protection, Bracers of Mage Armor, and the Amulet of Natural AC...other items that produce level scaling AC benefits from similarly low-level base spells, and are found in the core rules.
You are citing a single item that does not adhere to the standard pricing guidelines, from a splatbook already known on these boards for putting in other inaccurately priced items.
You are ignoring the rule in that very book that says making an item that produces AC should be assessed as other AC producing items...an example of INCREDIBLE hypocrisy when you cite an item from that very book that doesn't agree with that guideline, just like Bracers of Falcon's Aim ALSO violated the rule...which establishes precedent that they get the rule wrong and miss things, too, and yet you claim developer infallibility? More hypocrisy!
Ugly word, isn't it?
------
And no, I won't be removing Addendum. You posted that as a 'guide to others', specifically citing prices you and a few others agreed with, and marginalizing others by the very nature.
If you want to pretend to be 'even-handed', then you have to cite the justification on cost and how you came to it, on both sides of the argument. You didn't do that at all. You posted opinions on the your chosen price range.
Your justifications on cost don't pass the sniff test. They apply unevenly to other low-level spells in cost and benefit. At the margin, it is clear that the only reason Shield is being used is because the cost/benefit is so very large (minimum twice as high as any other AC producing spell!). The margin of benefit rapidly fades and then becomes negative as you consider the other comparable spells in comparable items doing the same thing for wildly varying benefits.
This also violates the established nature of AC granting items, which you are also ignoring in favor of the most abused and least applied pricing schema.
I simply cannot believe you won't even consider that a level 1 Shield casting effect should only have a +1 bonus, and that way fit into your price range. Take note that there are +1 Rings of Prot, and Amulets of Nat Armor, and Bracers of Armor, yet none of those bonuses are even POSSIBLE with cast spells.
But no. You want the massively outbalanced effect, for the minimum cost possible, with a formula that skews wildly when other spells are plugged in, exactly as it is NOT SUPPOSED TO DO.
And so, I added an Addendum. If you don't like it, well, I didn't like the original post. At least now it's two-sided, and people can choose.
==Aelryinth
Doomed, that dagger would be abused all to heck in a standard campaign, and you know it!
I note it was given to the rogue, who is infamous for lack of power. Yes, it probably helped him stay relevant. It was probably a load of fun. In the hands of a min-maxer, well, it could have gotten very, very carried away.
What level did it cast at? I mean, seriously, such a thing is ripe for all kinds of abuse. CLW at will is alone wonderful.
But if he didn't abuse it and had fun with it, more power to him.
If the DM decides to let this Shield item fly for underpricing, then he has to accept the consequences if the players want to do it with other things. I'm totally cool with that...but he has to know, he has to ground his choices, and justify what he's doing.
And he's going against the established rules. Home-brew all you like, but that's not a rules discussion, that's a 'having fun' discussion, which is something very different.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth, there is a line from the West Wing that comes to mind...
When the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side, argue the facts...
...When you don't have the law on your side, when you don't have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.
Please stop banging on the table. It's loud, annoying and it's getting you nowhere.
Kudaku, I have the rules on my side. I have the facts on my side.
Why are YOU 'banging on the table', and telling me that I don't? You've only cited opinion, and nothing concrete from core to support you.
Instead, you're accessing the least-used, and most abused set of crafting rules possible, to reap maximum benefit from least gold, just like others trying to make CLW and True Strike Rings, with arguments that fall apart as soon as you apply the same logic to similar, yet less lucrative spells.
You're doing it in the face of the devs saying Not To Do This.
Meh.
==Aelryinth
I would like to point out that nearly every poster ever will jump on the chance to point out that any custom magic item is homebrew and GM-oversight territory. As you might guess from my phrasing, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but I usually let it slide (and even mention it myself) because while their eagerness bugs me, they are technically correct (though I wouldn't always agree that's the best kind of correct).
And I'm perfectly fine with the GM ruling that way if he's ready to take the consequences of his actions to do so.
He just has to realize the consequences, and that what Kudaku is arguing goes right against what the Devs said to do in [1]almost this exact situation [/I] (using Mage Armor instead of Shield).
It's just...weird.
==Aelryinth
I'd reply to that (command word vs continuous, 3 minutes vs 24 hours, that the phrasing you're referrign to is specifically describing items with unlimited charges or continual effects, that WANDS are illegal by how you interpret that sentence) but honestly we're just rehashing old and by now pointless arguments.
Instead, let me ask you this: What would it take for you to decide that your price estimate is too high?
What level did it cast at? I mean, seriously, such a thing is ripe for all kinds of abuse. CLW at will is alone wonderful.
1st level. As basic as it gets. The dagger essentially let the rogue use first level spells like a wizard uses cantrips, but locked at 1st level casting strength.
We weren't really min-maxing, but we were definitely power gaming I suppose. The point is that allowing Shield at will (which did get used by that character pretty often) didn't hurt our game at all.
And CLW isn't an Arcane spell. I did specify that.
And CLW isn't an Arcane spell. I did specify that.
Infernal healing, however, is, and I could see my players abusing that.
I love the idea of the item, and may end up stealing it for an upcoming campaign, but limit it to Sorc/Wiz spell list CRB only to prevent completely trivializing healing. Anything else, well, if they want to use the action, then more power to them.
What level did it cast at? I mean, seriously, such a thing is ripe for all kinds of abuse. CLW at will is alone wonderful.1st level. As basic as it gets. The dagger essentially let the rogue use first level spells like a wizard uses cantrips, but locked at 1st level casting strength.
We weren't really min-maxing, but we were definitely power gaming I suppose. The point is that allowing Shield at will (which did get used by that character pretty often) didn't hurt our game at all.
And CLW isn't an Arcane spell. I did specify that.
It's on the bard list at level 1 also vanish comes to mind as an abusable spell. Really the surprising thing about your first post was the unrelated victim posture you adopted. No one is talking about how people should play the game, we are talking about how to price a ring.
|
I'm not even sure how use-activated/continuous even comes into play here vs Command Word.Clearly.
Ilja? Can you try to explain why we prefer to use the Command Word basis instead of a continuous AC Bonus/Other basis for the pricing? It might have more weight coming from you.
Finally, please stop accusing us of trying to manipulate cost. It's false, it's insulting, and it's getting really old.
Edit: Ha, ninjaed! And what a ninja!
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items in the Core Rulebook (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values on page 549 of the Core Rulebook), 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 the “command word” or “use activated or continuous” lines of Table 15–29 on page 550 of Core Rulebook.
If you are looking for advice on an Item of Shield, this is for you:
The majority of posters here have stated that a reasonable price for a ring that casts Shield 3/day at CL1 should be priced between 1080 gp (the cost of of the item according to the spell charge formula) and roughly 8000 gp (the cost of a Ring of Force Shield), with the median and average cost coming to about 4500 GP. Please note that there are those who disagree with this price estimate, this is merely a summary of the general opinion. Some estimates have been below, and some estimates have been above.
Under no circumstances should you allow an item that casts Continuous Shield for this price, as that would be more reasonably priced using the continuous AC bonuses for a total of 40 000 GP.
Should you want to get 'underneath the hood' and get a better grasp on the different price estimates and why there are so many different opinions on this particular item, I encourage you to read the full thread - it has many excellent arguments presented.
You should not equate the majority of posters with the majority of posts. While the majority of posts tend to favor your position, by my count 10 unique posters agree with your price range while 15 unique posters agree that it should cost significantly more.
I'm not even sure how use-activated/continuous even comes into play here vs Command Word.Clearly.
Ilja? Can you try to explain why we prefer to use the Command Word basis instead of a continuous AC Bonus/Other basis for the pricing? It might have more weight coming from you.
Finally, please stop accusing us of trying to manipulate cost. It's false, it's insulting, and it's getting really old.
Edit: Ha, ninjaed! And what a ninja!
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items in the Core Rulebook (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values on page 549 of the Core Rulebook), 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 the “command word” or “use activated or continuous” lines of Table 15–29 on page 550 of Core Rulebook.Diego, I actually counted you as "no clear opinion" now I think it would be safe to include you in the "this item should cost more than 5k" group. If you agree then my last post should be 10-16
What made you think I counted posts instead of posters?
Please note that the price estimate I suggested was somewhere between 1k and 8k, with the average coming to about 4500 GP. I actually did a count of posters and sorted them into "below 4000", "between 4000 and 8000", and "above 8000". My final tally was 9 posters for below 4000, 5 posters for "between 4000 and 8000", and 5 posters for "above 8000". That brings us to a total of 19 posters in a thread of 21 - there were some posts I did not credit with a 'vote', since they were ambiguous or did not clearly state an opinion.
I did not place Diego in a bracket as I couldn't find him making a price estimate, but I will now add him to the final group.
For what it's worth I prioritized later posts over earlier ones as quite a few people changed their mind on the item's value as the thread progressed - especially after the comparison to wands and/or the cloak of the hedge wizard. For instance DTBone's first price estimate was at 20-25k, while he later values the item at 6480 here.
Here are the estimates I found and used as basis for my previous post - I added Diego at the end.
A= below 4000 GP
B= between 4000 and 8000 GP
C= above 8000 GP
Peet 1080 A
Magimaster 1080 A
Doomed Hero unspecific but believed to be A - A?
D'arandriel 1080 A
Majuba 1080 A
Jack Rift unspecific but certainly not C - believed to be A- A
Ilja 3500 A
Darkwarriortarg seems to agree with initial price - 1080 A
Kudaku 1000-4000 GP depending on the campaign A
Matthew Downie around 5000 GP B
Bill Dunn about 4000 GP B
Glendwyr 6000 +/- 2000 seems reasonable B
Drachasor 4000-8000 gp depending on how you rule Personal Spells B
BigDTBone 6480 B
Aelryinth 12 000 GP C
LordSynos 10-20k range C
Lord Pendragon 20k C
J B 200 16-20k C
Billygoat 26k C
Diego Rossi 10-16k C
I just did a count myself.
2 - posted without giving an opinion on the value of the item.
3 - posted without giving a number, but said that 5 digits is too much
9 - posted without giving a number, but said that (roughly) low 4 digits is too cheap
10 - posted saying they'd price it at or below 4000
3 - posted with a price above 4000 but still 4 digits (up to 6480)
4 - posted with a price in the 5 digits
The mean average for those that actually posted numbers is 6795.
The median is 4000.
The mode is 1080.
Edit: Kudaku, you can put me at 1080. While I can see a case for anything between that and 6480, if you were to try and buy this in the game I'm running now, it'd only cost 1080. The 3600 was just an example of a different way to estimate the value.
Edit again: If I were to run a low magic game, I'd price it at 6480, but I'm not and I don't consider that the default campaign type.
Good job with the accounting. I must have double counted some. And I did give priority to earlier posts which could account for some of the difference as well. However, I still stand by my sentiment that "majority" is not an appropriate way to characterize the group who thinks 4500 gp is a good cost. It could just as easily be stated as the majority believe the item should cost between 4000 and 26000 with an average of 15,000gp.
The number is silly and doesn't represent whats going on here.
Pricing New Items
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items in the Core Rulebook (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values on page 549 of the Core Rulebook), 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 the “command word” or “use activated or continuous” lines of Table 15–29 on page 550 of Core Rulebook.
This to me demonstrates how this is not an overpowered item specifically because they talk about 2 kinds of items when they mention "loopholes" and items that have a much lower cost than others.
1. Items that have unlimited uses per day of a spell effect.
2. Items that are use activated or continuous.
Such items have items have two benefits:
1. They provide you with unlimited uptime.
2. They have no cost to activate in combat - since the duration is continuous then you can assume that the spell is always in effect.
The ring in question does not qualify as a loophole item under these classifications because it has a sharply limited uptime and because it requires a hefty action cost to be used in combat - and due to the low duration, that is where it be used.
Finally, if we look at the products Paizo themselves have released then they do not seem to think this is an unreasonable price range either - the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard and wands of Shield both provide excellent points of comparison.
That does not mean that we must blindly trust the guidelines and decree from the heavens that this item is priced exactly 1080 - there is, and should be, a heavy dose of common sense involved whenever you price an item. What would be a perfectly acceptable item in one game might be woefully over/underpriced in another.
However, I find it troubling when myself and many other posters in this very thread are called "minmaxers", "powergamers" and are accused of using "price in a can"-reasoning and "rules manipulation" for stating a well thought out and in my opinion well argued opinion solidly founded in the magic item price guidelines.
I just did a count myself.
2 - posted without giving an opinion on the value of the item.
3 - posted without giving a number, but said that 5 digits is too much
9 - posted without giving a number, but said that (roughly) low 4 digits is too cheap
10 - posted saying they'd price it at or below 4000
3 - posted with a price above 4000 but still 4 digits (up to 6480)
4 - posted with a price in the 5 digitsThe mean average for those that actually posted numbers is 6795.
The median is 4000.
The mode is 1080.Edit: Kudaku, you can put me at 1080. While I can see a case for anything between that and 6480, if you were to try and buy this in the game I'm running now, it'd only cost 1080. The 3600 was just an example of a different way to estimate the value.
Edit again: If I were to run a low magic game, I'd price it at 6480, but I'm not and I don't consider that the default campaign type.
I think Kudaku is smart to point out some people have changed position during this thread. Your totals add up to 31 unique views while this thread has only 21 posters. At least I don't feel as bad for jacking it myself now.