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.
I didn't bother to mention it because I thought it was the obvious way to do things, but yes all those numbers are from the individual poster's latest post.
Feel free to double check me though. I very well might have overlooked something.
darkwarriorkarg - 750
D'arandriel - 1080
Drachasor - 1080
MagiMaster - 1080
telmar - 1080
Majuba - 2160
Ilja - 3000
Kudaku - 4000
Bill Dunn - 4000
Jack Rift - 4000
Matthew Downie - 5000
Glendwyr - 6000
BigDTBone - 6480
Aelryinth - 12000
j b 200 - 18000
Lord Pendragon - 20000
BillyGoat - 25800
Knight Magenta - -
TimD - -
Doomed Hero - -
Cheapy - +
The Mighty Khan - +
Torger Miltenberger - +
LordSynos - +
Quantum Steve - +
LazarX - +
Petty Alchemy - +
Diego Rossi - +
Peet - +
DM_Blake -
Jacob Saltband -
Poldaran -
Edit: I'm pretty sure darkwarriorkarg wouldn't actually price the ring at 750. His statement was roughly "just buy the wand at 750." So I put him in the first bin, but shouldn't really have included him in the averages. That raises the mean to 7173, but doesn't change the median or mode.
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.
I really did hope Aelryinth would let the thread end with that post, so I put a fair amount of work into it to make it as fair and balanced as possible - I still have links to each post stating a price estimate bookmarked in a separate folder :)
For what it's worth the mean I arrived at was 4000 gp as well, while the average was somewhat higher (and in my opinion artificially inflated) due to the difference between posters who suggested prices ranging from 'high' and 'really high'. For instance one estimate of 26 000 GP would require six posters suggesting 1080 to average out to 4000 gp.
Actually, I suppose I could have made a 4th option being "above 15 000 GP". Four of the six posters who thought the item should be worth more than 8k also thought it should cost in the vicinity, or more, than 20k.
Finally, if for whatever reason you feel I misrepresented your view in the previously posted list let me know and I'll edit the post for as long as I can.
@ Magimaster
It's either really too late for me to be up, or I just flat out don't understand how the internets work. I swear this thread says "Kudaku, Aelryinth, Ilja and 18 others" in the sub-forum page. but you show 32 here and I got 26+ (wasn't counting "no opinions") After looking at your count my 10(less than 4k) vs 16(more than 4k) seems to be right in line.
I think it is time to go to bed.
@ Kudaku
It's all good. I think this thread has run its course. Look forward to seeing you in other forums.
I think it is time to go to bed.
@ Kudaku
It's all good. I think this thread has run its course. Look forward to seeing you in other forums.
Good night Bone, and the same to you - I just want to state that you're one of the people I really enjoyed discussing this with. It's very refreshing to meet someone who keeps a cool head and an open mind when entering an internet discussion forum :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol @ this thread...
Pricing this thing is so simple, it's ridiculous.
Compare a "Ring of Shield" (continuous) vs a +4 Ring of Protection.
Following the suggestions given by the RAW, both should be 16,000gp because that is the cost of the +4 RoP and the Shield ring is very similar.
Then, apply the "only usable 3 times per day" math by multiplying 16,000 by 0.6 (3/5) to get a purchase value of 9,600gp.
(Personally, as a GM I would bump the "Ring of Shield" to 18,500 or so instead of 16,000 because a Shield spell is significantly better than a plain ol' +4 enhancement bonus to AC - one because it's a much less common type of bonus, two because it completely negates magic missile damage, and three because it works against incorporeal attacks. I would suggest making it even higher, but to be fair it does only work in the direction you are facing.)
Done.
This didn't need 6 pages.
Lol @ this thread...
Pricing this thing is so simple, it's ridiculous.
Compare a "Ring of Shield" (continuous) vs a +4 Ring of Protection.
Following the suggestions given by the RAW, both should be 16,000gp because that is the cost of the +4 RoP and the Shield ring is very similar.
Then, apply the "only usable 3 times per day" math by multiplying 16,000 by 0.6 (3/5) to get a purchase value of 9,600gp.(Personally, as a GM I would bump the "Ring of Shield" to 18,500 or so instead of 16,000 because a Shield spell is significantly better than a plain ol' +4 enhancement bonus to AC - one because it's a much less common type of bonus, two because it completely negates magic missile damage, and three because it works against incorporeal attacks. I would suggest making it even higher, but to be fair it does only work in the direction you are facing.)
Done.
This didn't need 6 pages.
Interesting reading! Can you elaborate on the shield facing rule please? I don't believe I am familiar with that one.
|
Wow, I seriously can't believe how many people are discounting the value of a standard action vs. a continuous item. There's a HUGE issue there with the action economy, and I can't imagine using a standard action to activate a first level spell past level 5 (if that.) Put me down for 1080, although I doubt I'd waste time on an item this week.
How can people even compare this to a Ring of Protection, another constantly active item? At least people seem to be leaving out the Magic Missile protection now (how often does one see that in a game? Is it really enough to validate a price increase?) The AC bonus here is being massively overvalued, and seeing people argue this as a 5 digit price just seem ludacris.
10-16, have no doubt.
Since this is 3/day shield, and 3*cloak of the hedge wizard is 7500 and provides those benefits as well as 3/day Endure Elements and at will Resistance and Prestidigitation, why would anyone ever pay more than 7500 gp for the ring (that's considering they don't see any use at all in endure elements and resistance and prest. and prefer a ring just for convenience).
Unless the fights are longer than 10 rounds there is really no benefit at all to the ring compared to three cloaks.EDIT: At low levels, AC is very important, and I can see this ring being about as powerful as a RoP +2 due to stacking and the higher bonus. At 3rd level a two-handed fighter with this would be a force to be reckoned with, having the offense of a two-hander but the defense of a sword & boarder. At higher levels the bonus quickly gets neglible though, as action economy becomes more scarce and the +4 bonus starts to lose comparative value to using the slot for a RoP +3 or +4.
Also how can a continuous item only be used three times per day? Isn't that pretty self-contradictory?
Interesting reading! Can you elaborate on the shield facing rule please? I don't believe I am familiar with that one.Lol @ this thread...
Pricing this thing is so simple, it's ridiculous.
Compare a "Ring of Shield" (continuous) vs a +4 Ring of Protection.
Following the suggestions given by the RAW, both should be 16,000gp because that is the cost of the +4 RoP and the Shield ring is very similar.
Then, apply the "only usable 3 times per day" math by multiplying 16,000 by 0.6 (3/5) to get a purchase value of 9,600gp.(Personally, as a GM I would bump the "Ring of Shield" to 18,500 or so instead of 16,000 because a Shield spell is significantly better than a plain ol' +4 enhancement bonus to AC - one because it's a much less common type of bonus, two because it completely negates magic missile damage, and three because it works against incorporeal attacks. I would suggest making it even higher, but to be fair it does only work in the direction you are facing.)
Done.
This didn't need 6 pages.
It's in the wording of the Shield spell. Mage Armor surrounds you completely - Shield is a barrier of force in front of you. ;)
The point Kudaku is trying to make is that the game does not have facing rules. 'In front of you', in game terms, is every direction at the same time.Interesting reading! Can you elaborate on the shield facing rule please? I don't believe I am familiar with that one.It's in the wording of the Shield spell. Mage Armor surrounds you completely - Shield is a barrier of force in front of you. ;)
That's simply not true. Any GM who rules that way is coddling you so hard. (Flanking rules, cover rules, line-of-sight rules, all work against this idea.)
That's simply not true. Any GM who rules that way is coddling you so hard. (Flanking rules, cover rules, line-of-sight rules, all work against this idea.)The point Kudaku is trying to make is that the game does not have facing rules. 'In front of you', in game terms, is every direction at the same time.Interesting reading! Can you elaborate on the shield facing rule please? I don't believe I am familiar with that one.It's in the wording of the Shield spell. Mage Armor surrounds you completely - Shield is a barrier of force in front of you. ;)
Pathfinder has no facing rules, neither does the game it is based off of. the last version of this game to have facing rules was 3.0
The standard d20 combat rules intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight.
Just to make sure we are all super clear
Unlike creatures, most vehicles have a forward facing.
So when your combat vehicle takes a rank of wizard and learns to cast spell this may get interesting, but as long as objects don't gain XP we should all be fine.
edit: ninja'd
Only because you took the time to look up the links - I'll delete my post in deference to your superior editing :)
10-16, have no doubt.Since this is 3/day shield, and 3*cloak of the hedge wizard is 7500 and provides those benefits as well as 3/day Endure Elements and at will Resistance and Prestidigitation, why would anyone ever pay more than 7500 gp for the ring (that's considering they don't see any use at all in endure elements and resistance and prest. and prefer a ring just for convenience).
Unless the fights are longer than 10 rounds there is really no benefit at all to the ring compared to three cloaks.EDIT: At low levels, AC is very important, and I can see this ring being about as powerful as a RoP +2 due to stacking and the higher bonus. At 3rd level a two-handed fighter with this would be a force to be reckoned with, having the offense of a two-hander but the defense of a sword & boarder. At higher levels the bonus quickly gets neglible though, as action economy becomes more scarce and the +4 bonus starts to lose comparative value to using the slot for a RoP +3 or +4.
Ilja - I've asked this questions repeatedly, and so far there's been deafening silence.
I was very impressed with Kudaku and MagiMaster compiling everyone's costs. I certainly didn't have the patience to do that. Although, I'm uncertain if the costs were to craft or to purchase the item. For example, I think the 12k quoted by Aerylinth was to craft. The 1080 from me is the cost to purchase.
I believe all of the prices I posted were purchase prices, and would be reduced by 50% for crafting - at least I didn't notice anyone specifically stating their price was for crafting (if so I would have adjusted up the price accordingly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also assumed everyone was talking about purchase price.
I imagine a lot of the disconnect here is down to gameplay assumptions. If your group never fights more than one encounter per day, always manages to know about and prepare for the encounter and always manages to finish that one encounter in less than 10 rounds, then yeah, one casting of shield might as well be continuous. Or if your players are all ubermunchkins who'll take every opportunity to squeeze the system for all it's worth then you would probably be hesitant to give them any slack in anything. Or if you only play low magic games where any magic item should be something precious then you might not want any magical trinkets. Etc, etc.
I'm exaggerating here. I'm not saying that anyone's group or game is that bad, but campaign assumptions, which are often left unstated, can drastically affect how you'd price certain items. I've already said my game is a high magic game (and how I'd price the item in a low magic game), but when you're pricing an item for general consumption you need to either state your assumptions or do your best to eliminate them in your prices.
I believe all of the prices I posted were purchase prices, and would be reduced by 50% for crafting - at least I didn't notice anyone specifically stating their price was for crafting (if so I would have adjusted up the price accordingly).
I think there was some confusion related to the fact that Cloak of the Hedge wizard was being quoted at 2500, when it is 5000. This was further compounded when it was claimed that 3 could be purchased for less than 12,000. I am fairly certain that Aerylinth was quoting purchase price not craft price.
Edit for clarity: 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard could not be purchased for less than Aerylinth was suggesting. 3 cloaks would cost 15000 and Aerylinth was suggesting 12000, not 24000.
Good night Bone, and the same to you - I just want to state that you're one of the people I really enjoyed discussing this with. It's very refreshing to meet someone who keeps a cool head and an open mind when entering an internet discussion forum :)I think it is time to go to bed.
@ Kudaku
It's all good. I think this thread has run its course. Look forward to seeing you in other forums.
Thanks, and likewise.
I believe all of the prices I posted were purchase prices, and would be reduced by 50% for crafting - at least I didn't notice anyone specifically stating their price was for crafting (if so I would have adjusted up the price accordingly).I think there was some confusion related to the fact that Cloak of the Hedge wizard was being quoted at 2500, when it is 5000. This was further compounded when it was claimed that 3 could be purchased for less than 12,000. I am fairly certain that Aerylinth was quoting purchase price not craft price.
Edit for clarity: 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard could not be purchased for less than Aerylinth was suggesting. 3 cloaks would cost 15000 and Aerylinth was suggesting 12000, not 24000.
Looking at my copy of UE, PFSRD and PRD all list the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard at 2500 gp - the crafting cost is 1250. Are you sure you didn't get your numbers mixed up?
As near as I can tell 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard would come to 7500 GP if you buy them over the counter - you could actually buy 4 (10k) and almost 5 (12.5k) before hitting Aerylinth's price estimate.
Edit: Why is it that every time I preview my post I get the url tags right and every time I skip it I use [link] instead? Edited post to clean up my links xD
I believe all of the prices I posted were purchase prices, and would be reduced by 50% for crafting - at least I didn't notice anyone specifically stating their price was for crafting (if so I would have adjusted up the price accordingly).I think there was some confusion related to the fact that Cloak of the Hedge wizard was being quoted at 2500, when it is 5000. This was further compounded when it was claimed that 3 could be purchased for less than 12,000. I am fairly certain that Aerylinth was quoting purchase price not craft price.
Edit for clarity: 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard could not be purchased for less than Aerylinth was suggesting. 3 cloaks would cost 15000 and Aerylinth was suggesting 12000, not 24000.
Looking at my copy of UE, PFSRD and PRD all list the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard at 2500 gp - the crafting cost is 1250. Are you sure you didn't get your numbers mixed up?
As near as I can tell 3 cloaks of the hedge wizard would come to 7500 GP if you buy them over the counter - you could actually buy 4 (10k) and almost 5 (12.5k) before hitting Aerylinth's price estimate.
Edit: Why is it that every time I preview my post I get the url tags right and every time I skip it I use [link] instead? Edited post to clean up my links xD
I really should just stop coming back here. Clearly, you are right.
I really should just stop coming back here. Clearly, you are right.
Actually, against casters magic missile is nice for goons. While a caster with martial goons is the classic, having a martial BBEG with a bunch of low-level caster goons can be just as effective. Two 3rd level wizards readying actions to cast magic missiles when the party caster casts a spell can be really annoying. For a 7th level caster, especially someone who isn't extremely SAD (say a combat oracle or a bard), making 4 concentration checks of DC's 12+SL-15+SL can be really annoying!
On the other hand, those that magic missile is useful for can generally just use a wand of shield or cast the spell themselves...
An army of 1st level Kobold sorcerers each with a wand of magic missile could cause anyone to think twice about whether or not protection from that spell is useful.
I see the 'poo-pooing' of the +4 bonus to AC going on. This is an attempt to denigrate the value of the bonus provided in order to justify a cheaper cost.
By that logic, +4 armor, +4 Nat Armor, and +4 Deflection are all minor AC bonuses, and not having them won't be missed as you level. Oh, wait.
Uh-huh. a +4 AC bonus, especially at low levels, and especially a bonus you cannot have in normal circumstances, is a game changer. It makes certain builds far more viable, and shores up their defenses. If you were being hit on a 12, you are now being hit on a 16...your damage taken is going to be cut in half.
Your offense is going to go up. You can now use 2h weapons and get more AC then a shield bearer until level 8. You will do the damage and have the AC...what's not to love?
And don't forget, this shield bonus is usable against Incorporeals. A normal shield bonus is not.
In comparison to the RoP, a Shield bonus is an Other AC bonus, which uses a 2500 multiplier instead of 2000. Thus, the basis for a +4 bonus is 20k, and 3/5 uses is 12k, slightly higher then a RoP.
A Ring does not have to be drawn or stowed or drunk, unlike a potion or wand.
It can be used by anyone capable of wearing a Ring, not someone who has the spell on their list, invests a lot into UMD, or pays double price for being a potion per use.
It's being priced at the min-max point, where cost is cheapest and duration is 'just enough'.
The 'action cost' to activate it is absolutely minimal for the benefit it provides. If priced properly, activation can be a free action. There's no discount in the pricing for taking a standard action.
5 times a day is effectively continuous as far as combat goes. The spell will be up for the duration of any and all fights if you want it to be. If you have any forewarning, you can choose to put it up.
Pricing it low means it is dirt cheap to stack onto another item for +50% to the cost. You would be silly not to stack this onto your Ring of Protection.
As for how to compare a continuous item to a charges/day item: The charges/day item is based on base price. The base price assumes 5 charges a day.
A Continuous item is also a 'base price'
Since both are base prices, they are comparable in nature. An AC item usable 5t/day is basically worth as much to the character as a continuous item. Indeed, if you apply the rule to long duration spells, it may then be worth MORE, since cumulative durations might be more then a day.
Lastly, the SL x CL paradigm DOES NOT WORK for AC items. Period. End of story. The exact same pricing applied to Shield of Faith gets you identical duration, but half the effect. The exact same method applied to Mage Armor gets you the same AC, but it lasts 60 times as long, and costs twice as much. The exact same method applied to Barkskin lasts ten times as long, but costs 6 times as much.
You can't price AC items on the SL x CL paradigm. It's way too uneven and it just doesn't work.
You simply take the charged item and apply the standard bonus/benefits by level, and scale them in cost just like every other AC item out there.
You might even have miscounted the one poster who said he didn't have any problem with a 1080 gp Shield item...that granted a +1 AC, which is pretty appropriate for the level and the cost.
But a +4 AC benefit? For next to nothing? I'd just buy 3-4 of the rings and swap them out, exactly like people are saying to do with the cloaks. It's abused pricing, it has all the earmarks, and the benefits are so sweet that people are trying to poo them just so they can justify having them, completely ignoring comparable benefits and spells.
Eh, not buying it. You're not buying a Ring, you're buying usage of shield spells for 360 gp/charge. If you waste a charge, you'll just put on another Ring.
-------
By way of comparison for pricing shenanigans, I present to you the DISMAL Ring.
This Ring provides a Deflection, Insight, Sacred, Morale And Luck bonus to AC, +1 to each.
Following the pricing guidelines for continuous items, this ring costs 2500 + 3000+ 3750+ 3750 +3750, or 16,750 gp for a +5 bonus to AC. All touch AC. You're basically modifying a standard Ring of Protection.
The price for a +2 DISMAL RIng is in the area of 60k for a +10 Bonus to AC.
==Aelryinth
Well, I legitimately had no idea about the total lack of facing rules, and I think that's totally dumb. It essentially makes spell descriptions totally meaningless (as Shield can attest to).
That said, 1080 is still ridiculously low and cannot possibly be the correct math for the price of this item in question.
•Too many people are getting caught up on protection from MM being less than stellar - So what? AC doesn't stop MM, but this does. It might not be an impressive bonus, but it does exist as a bonus you cannot get from many other sources. Also, that's not the real kicker - it's the fact that it applies to incorporeal attacks that really matters here.
•Also, too many people are getting caught up on the "3/day means it should be super-cheap." No. Just no. If you think that 1080 is the correct price, then you also think that 1800 is the correct price for the same ring, minus the limited number of times per day. And at that point, why would you ever spend 16,000 on a Ring of Protection when you can just throw chump change for a Ring of always-active Shield?
Bad math is bad, and you should feel bad.
OR, more directly, why spend 8k for a Ring of Prot+2 when a Ring of Shield of Faith, CL1, is also 1800 gp?
Fixed benefit low level spells that start high and scale unevenly are always priced low. THat's why you buy 2 CLW wands, CL 1, instead of a level 5 CLW wand. More healing for 2/5th the price.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think that 1080 is the correct price, then you also think that 1800 is the correct price for the same ring, minus the limited number of times per day. And at that point, why would you ever spend 16,000 on a Ring of Protection when you can just throw chump change for a Ring of always-active Shield?
Bad math is bad, and you should feel bad.
This has been repeated and repeatedly shot down. There is a huge difference between "spend 1 standard action to get a bonus for a single minute" and "get a bonus, period." So far the only thing everyone agrees on is that a continuous bonus should use the bonus squared pricing.
Let me put that in big bold letters since it keeps coming up so often: . So can we stop repeating that point?
Now, the argument is what kind of a discount having your shield only available for 3 minutes every day and having to spend a standard action for each of those 3 minutes is worth. There's also the side effect of making it much more susceptible to dispelling, although that's a somewhat campaign dependent issue, but then so are all of these issues.
Most people (according to a recent survey of posts in this thread) would put in the four digits, although there's not a huge amount of agreement on where in that range it should be.
There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.
Let me repeat this question that so far only one person has answered.
There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.
I value that ability about half as good as a necklace of adaptation, so 4500gp
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.
I would value this about 9/10ths as good as the first ring because it will not "automatically" protect against the similar airless environments the spell describes. So roughly 4000gp.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.
In game I would rate that equally useful as the second ring, 4000gp.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.
This item removes need to speak (which would be difficult while underwater). Also, combat choices while underwater are pretty poor, so the loss of standard action here doesn't seem as big a problem. 2500gp
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.
This item evenly represents the situations a caster would face when casting the spell. Also, air bubble is a range "touch" spell, so I believe the SPxCL formula is appropriate to use here. 1100gp.
I don't see how this has bearing on the question at hand though. Also I would disagree that "everyone" agrees about bonus squared method for pricing AC bonus items. There are some loud voices NOT in favor of that method. In fact everyone in favor of a 1080 price is specifically not using that pricing scheme.
A Ring does not have to be drawn or stowed or drunk, unlike a potion or wand.
A wand or potion can be carried in one hand, used at the start of the battle, and dropped immediately as a free action. And doesn't use up one of your ring slots.
There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.I value that ability about half as good as a necklace of adaptation, so 4500gp
The magic item price chart gives 4000 gp for the continuous version, so that's actually pretty close.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.I would value this about 9/10ths as good as the first ring because it will not "automatically" protect against the similar airless environments the spell describes. So roughly 4000gp.
Seriously? 5 minutes is all the swimming any player will want to do in one day? (BTW, if you're basing this off of the 5 uses per day = continuous thing, that's only true for effects with hours of duration.)
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.In game I would rate that equally useful as the second ring, 4000gp.
So 3 minutes or 5 minutes, no one needs to hold their breath any longer than that? There's no difference in usefulness here? What about 1 minute? Or 1 round?
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.This item removes need to speak (which would be difficult while underwater). Also, combat choices while underwater are pretty poor, so the loss of standard action here doesn't seem as big a problem. 2500gp
Not much to say here compared to the other ones.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.This item evenly represents the situations a caster would face when casting the spell. Also, air bubble is a range "touch" spell, so I believe the SPxCL formula is appropriate to use here. 1100gp.
Why is needing to say the words worth so much of a discount over the previous version? That's really the only difference between the two.
I don't see how this has bearing on the question at hand though. Also I would disagree that "everyone" agrees about bonus squared method for pricing AC bonus items. There are some loud voices NOT in favor of that method. In fact everyone in favor of a 1080 price is specifically not using that pricing scheme.
I did specify that everyone agrees about a continuous shield item. And so far, no one has disagreed with that. That includes myself and I favor the 1080 gp price (or at least that range) for the command word 3/day version. I just think there's a huge difference between the two versions.
As for how my question pertains to the item at hand, there are two (if not more) overlapping arguments here. There's whether or not shield is too good if you let non-casters use it. And there's whether or not going from a continuous item to a uses per day item is worth much of a discount.
Well, I legitimately had no idea about the total lack of facing rules, and I think that's totally dumb. It essentially makes spell descriptions totally meaningless (as Shield can attest to).
The problem with reading spell descriptions is that the spell and the description does not always match up.
•Too many people are getting caught up on protection from MM being less than stellar - So what? AC doesn't stop MM, but this does. It might not be an impressive bonus, but it does exist as a bonus you cannot get from many other sources. Also, that's not the real kicker - it's the fact that it applies to incorporeal attacks that really matters here.
•Also, too many people are getting caught up on the "3/day means it should be super-cheap." No. Just no. If you think that 1080 is the correct price, then you also think that 1800 is the correct price for the same ring, minus the limited number of times per day. And at that point, why would you ever spend 16,000 on a Ring of Protection when you can just throw chump change for a Ring of always-active Shield?
Bad math is bad, and you should feel bad.
First of all that's a logical fallacy - the magic item price guidelines are just that, guidelines. Applying the formula to one item does not mean you have to apply the formula without discrimination to all items.
For the record I have not seen a single post throughout the six pages of posts that has stated that 4000 GP (which is the price you reach if you apply the formula indiscriminately) is a good price for an item that gives continuous shield.
However, the item in question is NOT always-active!
It's a command word ring with three charges of CL 1 shield per day. It takes a standard action to activate (similar to casting a spell from a wand or drinking a potion) and it has a maximum duration of 3 minutes per day, which means it will only be activated in combat.
Looking at spellcasting items with the limitations, a wand of shield would cost 750 gp and give you 50 charges, a theoretical potion of shield (Shield is personal-range only and so not distillable into a potion) would have cost 50gp. Please note that both the wand, the ring, and the theoretical potion have duration so short that they'd have to be used in the first round of combat - you can't prebuff Shield. That means you lose out on your first standard action in each round. There is a player in this thread who actually has experience with similar items, and he found that the price should be closer to 5000 GP.
Personally I price this item somewhere between 1000 and 4000 GP depending on the campaign and the players in question, with the sweet spot probably around 2500 gp. For the same price a character with shield on their spell list or a decent UMD skill would be able to buy 3 wands, or 150 charges, (2150 GP) with some change left over. If said character uses one wand charge per encounter, those wands would carry him from roughly level 1 to level 12. While I personally would prefer 3 wands over a ring with a fixed amount of charges (the wands don't have per day limitations and can be used whether you have one encounter a day or 12), I do think the fact that the ring does not require a spell list to function is a factor. I do however not think that factor is enough to price the item at 10-20k, 20k, 16-20k, 25800 GP. I believe I can safely say that the majority of posters agree with me in that assessment.
That said, 1080 is still ridiculously low and cannot possibly be the correct math for the price of this item in question.
What would you consider a fair price?
OR, more directly, why spend 8k for a Ring of Prot+2 when a Ring of Shield of Faith, CL1, is also 1800 gp?
Fixed benefit low level spells that start high and scale unevenly are always priced low. THat's why you buy 2 CLW wands, CL 1, instead of a level 5 CLW wand. More healing for 2/5th the price.
==Aelryinth
Because Shield of Faith is not continuous (unlike RoP), because it requires a standard action to be cast (unlike RoP), and because the duration is so low that you'd only be able to cast it in combat (unlike RoP). Really, you should know this by now.
Also, would you call your players minmaxing or gaming the system if they decided to buy a wand of CLW at CL 1 instead of CL 5?
A Ring does not have to be drawn or stowed or drunk, unlike a potion or wand.A wand or potion can be carried in one hand, used at the start of the battle, and dropped immediately as a free action. And doesn't use up one of your ring slots.
This is actually a downside to the command word Ring of Shield, not an advantage.
Like Matthew stated, you can carry a potion or wand in one hand and your 2h bow/ melee weapon/staff/whatever in the other. When an encounter starts you drink the potion/cast spell with the wand, then drop it.
However, you only have two ring slots. Wearing this ring means that you miss out on another ring, preferably one with a continuous effect - like a ring of protection.
Each of Aelryinth's his price estimates (24k, then 12k) are all fundamentally and strictly structured on the magic item guideline prices (in my opinion you apply them incorrectly, but that's a different argument), showing no ability to recognize the fact that this item might be overpriced at those prices. When you changed your price from 24 to 12k - literally cutting the price in half, it was not because you thought 24k might be too expensive, but because someone pointed out you made an error in your use of the formula. To me that says that you're not actually pricing the item according to what you think is a reasonable price, but according to what you think the guidelines tell you.
The majority of people posting here are not actually basing their price estimate strictly on the guidelines - they look at the formula, look at the item, compare it to similar items, and then eyeball a price.
Aelryinth, if you completely disregard the formulas and consider this item purely on its own merits (+4 Shield AC, otherwise a hard AC bonus to get without sacrificing a hand) and limitations (command word to activate, duration short enough that it needs to be cast in combat, limited to three encounters per day), what do you think is a fair price? Gut feeling, common sense, rough estimate. Anything you got.
Also, too many people are getting caught up on the "3/day means it should be super-cheap." No. Just no. If you think that 1080 is the correct price, then you also think that 1800 is the correct price for the same ring, minus the limited number of times per day. And at that point, why would you ever spend 16,000 on a Ring of Protection when you can just throw chump change for a Ring of always-active Shield?
Bad math is bad, and you should feel bad.
As has been stated time and time again on this thread, do one is trying to price a continuous shield item. This statement is disingenuous. Just because I accept premise A, does not mean accept premise B.
OR, more directly, why spend 8k for a Ring of Prot+2 when a Ring of Shield of Faith, CL1, is also 1800 gp?
Fixed benefit low level spells that start high and scale unevenly are always priced low. THat's why you buy 2 CLW wands, CL 1, instead of a level 5 CLW wand. More healing for 2/5th the price.
Aelryinth - you keep beating the same drum. Again, you are basically saying that a command word activated item, usable 3/day, for one minute at a time, that can be easily dispelled, is basically as useful as a permanent item. You keep siting examples from the rulebook that specifically reference abusing the item crafting formulas to create continuous or use activated spells. NO ONE is trying to do this. EVERYONE is in agreement that using the CL*SL formula would be wrong to create an always on item that grants a +4 to AC. You fail to recognize that everyone's opinions are as valid as your own. As I have stated before, the guidelines are just that - guidelines, not rules. You are free to price this item as you wish. Lastly, you fail to recognize that there is already an item, the cloak of the hedge wizard, that does exactly (and more) what this item does, which would seem to support the SL*CL formula to determine the pricing for this item or even an item that grants mage armor a number of times per day. Most people who posted don't seem to think the cloak is underpriced. Paizo has not stated that they are planning to re-price the item. So you are conveniently ignoring a precedent that is part of the game. Frankly, I'm finding your posts rude and condescending.
OK, OP, why does this thread exist then? Oh yea, you asked for advice in the advice forum...
As I have stated before, the guidelines are just that - guidelines, not rules.
the cloak of the hedge wizard
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
Let me repeat this question that so far only one person has answered.There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.Definitely no more than 4k for the continuous Air Bubble. Pearl of the Sirens has no slot costs about 8k and allows you to act and cast freely underwater and grants a swim speed. So that would be about 4k for a slotted item. The Necklace of Adaption is 4.5k.
Given that the Air Bubble is quite a bit worse, I have to say it should be priced lower. I'd probably lean to maybe 2-3k, so I might average it out 2.5k. It largely just lets you breath underwater, which is a pretty weak and rare effect.
So I'd say 2k for 5 minutes/day and that the other ones are not worth bothering over. Why so close in price for 5 minutes/day? Because 95% of the time it is going to be just as good by preventing surprise drowning attacks and the like.
I'd drop the others out because they are too similar and limited to be bother even having. If really pressed for some reason I'd allow the standard action ones at probably half the price -- the standard action eats up 1/10 of the duration, pretty much.
To me this is an example where the standard guidelines would...
I assume your prices are for creation, not purchase because you put necklace of adaptation at 4500. If that is true I pretty much agree with you.
OK, OP, why does this thread exist then? Oh yea, you asked for advice in the advice forum...
As I have stated before, the guidelines are just that - guidelines, not rules.
I did ask for advice. I received advice. I thanked everyone for offering their advice. I was looking to price the item fairly and am now convinced I know what the fair market price is. What Aerylinth is doing is disregarding all opinions and interpretations of the guidelines to create a custom item but his own. He seems to think only his interpretation is correct and presents it as "intent" or "rules" or both.
Maybe I'm just reading too much tone in this thread when I really shouldn't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for those curious as to why I've broken down my post into various spoilers, I'm partial to monster posts, that people tend to only half read, so I'm making it easier for people than the wall of text approach.
Other Shield AC providing items brought up in the discussion, the Ring of Force Shield, the Shield Cloak, and the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard.
Bark Skin, and the item made from it, the Amulet of Natural Armour.
Mage Armour, and the item made from it, the Bracers of Armour.
Shield of Faith, and the item made from it, the Ring of Protection.
The Magic Item Creation Guidelines and the relevant, supporting section in Ultimate Campaign.
The Ring of Blinking, which comes up later.
GM : Ah, cool. Custom items can be funky and fun, though they need to be carefully managed to maintain balance. What item would you like to make?
Player : A Ring of Shield. It's a level 1 spell that lasts one minute per level. As such, I would like to price it using (spell level * caster level * 1,800gp), divided by (5/number of charges per day), namely 3.
GM : Oh, okay. But what does Shield do?
Player : It provides +4 Shield AC, protection from Magic Missiles, and the Shield AC applies against Incorporeal Touch Attacks.
GM : Oh. Right. Any negatives?
Player : Nope, unlike mundane Shield AC providing items, or even other magic items that provide Shield AC, it does not take a hand, apply a penalty to attacks, restrict class features, need proficiency, apply ACP, ASF, or any penalty at all really. It's just all good.
GM : Right. Well. Hmm. I think, being a + AC bonus, it should be priced like the Ring of Protection.
Player : But it's only a level 1 spell.
GM : And so is Mage Armour, and True Strike, and Shield of Faith. The book specifically calls them out as being too powerful to use the formulas in the book.
Player : But it's only a level 1 spell.
GM : Didn't I just deal with that?
Player : But it's only a level 1 spell.
GM : ಠ_ಠ
Player : Okay, okay. How about (selection of items with bonuses that are not AC bonuses, but provided various other bonuses, some better, some worse, than the item described, with varying prices)? Given them, surely a cheaper rate than the Ring of Protection would be valid?
GM : Well, no, actually. Much like the Ring of Protection, Bracers of Armour, and Amulet of Natural Armour, AC items need to be priced based on the AC basis, not the other possible bases. The same arguments could be applied to any of those items, but they're not. The ROP, AONA and BOA have been the same since the CRB, no errata, no FAQ, no amendments made. I can only assume, on that basis, that their prices are correct. And, on that basis, any other AC giving item should be priced the same.
Player : But it makes it too expensive... How about the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard? It does let you cast Shield, and uses the spell level basis.
GM : Hmm, let's see it... Okay, an item added after the table was made does seem to disagree with the AC basis. It could be that the AC basis shouldn't be applied. It could be that enough thought wasn't given to the cloak. However, even later still, Ultimate Campaign restates that an item that provides an AC bonus should be based on the AC rules, not the spell level ones.
Player : But it specifies Mage Armour.
GM : A level 1 spell that provides +4 AC. You can't see how that applies to Shield?
Player : No.
GM : What part of it doesn't apply?
Player : Well, obviously, the core concept. j/k, cool your grills. No, the difference is the duration. Mage Armour is 1 hour, Shield is 1 minute.
GM : Which, according to the guidelines, makes no difference to command activated items, only continuous. Are you making a continuous item?
Player : No.
GM : Then, clearly, there's no difference in the guidelines, there's no difference in my prices.
Player : But it only lasts for one minute, not one hour. That's hardly fair.
GM : You're right, but considering that there's no rules for AC items with charges anyways, you're lucky it's even an option on the table. By the looks of the chart, AC items are never meant to be anything other than permanent, which means the charges per day modifier never comes into play.
Player : But I don't want a continuous AC item, I only want a level 1 spell.
GM : Which gives AC.
Player : But it's only a level 1 spell.
Repeat Ad Nauseam
Step 1 : Price a continuous +4 Shield AC item. You need a starting point, to apply the rest of the modifiers to, and this is the appropriate one, because the item we're working back from is one that provides +4 Shield AC. So, being Shield AC, it falls under AC Other category, which is bonus squared by 2,500gp. Or 40,000gp.
Now, a Brooch of Shielding provides limited resistance to Magic Missiles. 101 points worth. And it's 1,500gp. So, adding that in, at 1,500gp + 50% for being an extra, different ability, we get an extra 2,250gp for magic missile immunity.
Step 2 : Now that we have the price of a continuous +4 Shield AC with Magic Missile immunity item, we can modify it within the guidelines. Firstly, this item is not continuous, but command word activated. The difference between the two in the guidelines is 10%. That's what Paizo, Pathfinder, The Developers and Designers, price your standard action at. Just look at Command Word activated and Continuous to see the support for this argument. Multiplied by 1,800gp instead of 2,000gp. 10%. That's all. So, reduce the price by 10%, to 38,025gp. That's the difference between an infinite use command word activated item and a continuous one.
Step 3 : The Charges modifier. We want three charges per day, so that's /5/3, or 60%. That further reduces the price to 22,815gp. Simple. Or is it?!
What's the duration? Well, we used the AC basis, which doesn't care about duration. Which also means it doesn't allow for duration per charge. All the AC items are made with different spells with different durations, but it doesn't make an effect on their price. That's because they were never meant to be broken up into charges. But let's be generous here, and take a look at how normal continuous items deal with duration of spells. Namely, "If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in ... 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2...". So, let's divide the cost by 2, seeing as it was reduced from continuous to minutes per level per charge. That's 11,407.5gp.
How long is each charge though? Depends on the caster level, right? So, being a +4 AC item, it needs a minimum caster level of bonus * 3. That means caster level 12, which means each charge lasts 12 minutes.
What if you want it with less duration? Make it lower caster level? Shield provides +4 AC regardless of caster level, but the AC guidelines for items does provide guides for levels of AC. I'd let you make an item with a lower caster level, by lowering the AC provided, to keep it in line with the AC guidelines. Otherwise, you're bum out of luck.
This pricing takes full advantage of all the guidelines to get a price in line with other AC providing items, and represents a reduction from 42,250gp to 11,407.5gp, an overall reduction of 73%, representing all of the limitations put on the item as opposed to a continuous AC providing item. This Ring of Shield will provide +4 Shield AC and immunity to Magic Missiles three times per day, for 12 minutes each casting.
On that note, I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. I'm loving this discussion, and all your opinions. So, please, keep it up. I will continue to read every post, and will respond when new arguments that I haven't already dealt with here are presented.
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.
You're right, no one ever buys the +4 RoP (32,000gp), +4 AoNA (32,000gp), or the +4 BoA (16,000gp). Everyone, always, buys the Ring of Blinking (27,000gp) instead. That's why it's one of the Big Six, and not any of them.
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.
So, Barbarians, who don't have UMD on their skill list, usually dump CHA, and are best two handing or with natural weapons.
Fighters, who don't have UMD on their skill list, usually dump CHA, and usually use TWF, THW, unarmed fighting, some kind of ranged combat, and have terrible amounts of skill points per level.
Clerics, who don't have UMD on their skill list, have terrible amounts of skill points per level, can be known to THW, use range combat or want to cast while fighting.
Druids, who... do I seriously need to keep going? How many classes, apart from the CHA casters, don't usually dump CHA? How many classes have UMD on their skill list, that aren't CHA casters? A buckler gives no AC if you're using the arm it's on, so that's no TWF, no THW, no flurry of blows, no archery, no spell-casting. Even if you're not benefiting from the AC, it still applies a -1 to all attacks. It can be made mithral to offset the weight, ACP, ASF, and enhanced magically to bolster the AC to the stage where it matches the spell's, but it still provides no AC while you're using your second hand, and applies the -1 to all attacks.
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?
1. Based on usefulness primarily.
2. Based on its usefulness, I'd start with an item of a similar use. I'm no Designer or Developer, to figure out how they balance and value usefulness, I'd need to look at how they price a similar item. From that, I'd start with the Ring of Protection, being a CRB item, and then apply the calculations I did in the above spoiler. So, 11,407.5gp.3. The comments in the CRB and Ultimate Campaign relating to the Mage Armour and True Strike items.
Let me ask a question, for everyone: what kind of level increase would you apply to a metamagic feat that let you use personal range spells as touch spells (or maybe at close range if you think there's some broken combo with touch spells and various touch-spell-specific abilities)?
I wouldn't allow it at all. No matter what restrictions you put on it. Making up new meta-magic feats? One, that's a question for the Home Brew Forum, not the Rules Questions forum. Keep it there. Two, there are no guidelines, suggestions or basis for such a feat at all. Reach is the closest one, and it specifically excludes personal. I couldn't even begin to try and figure out all the things it would affect or how it could be abused. I just plain wouldn't allow it.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
- A ring that grants a continuous air bubble effect.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 5 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble automatically when you enter the water for up to a total of 3 minutes per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when you rotate it thrice (a standard action) up to 3 times per day.
- A ring that activates air bubble for 1 minute when the proper command word is spoken up to 3 times per day.
In short, I'd apply the formulas as they exist in the book. If someone provided an argument that had support or basis in either RAW or RAI, I would then consider further alterations but I would, first and foremost, use the guidelines, as it does not involve a bonus covered by the other sections of the Magic Item Creation Guidelines.
The magic item price chart gives 4000 gp for the continuous version, so that's actually pretty close.
That's cool, I went with the very first guideline in the book, which is to compare. This actually saved a huge headache, because I didn't have to sideways engineer the necklace price into a "life bubble" spell so I could reuse the same formula for air bubble. I just looked at the items and made the call.
Seriously? 5 minutes is all the swimming any player will want to do in one day? (BTW, if you're basing this off of the 5 uses per day = continuous thing, that's only true for effects with hours of duration.)
The point of this ring is to save your life, not let you pretend to be a Jedi and swim with the Gungans. Admittedly, there is the extremely rare circumstance when a character might want to swim with the Gungans, so some function is lost over the first item. But it boils down to that this ring is just as good at saving your life in a dungeon as the previous one.
So 3 minutes or 5 minutes, no one needs to hold their breath any longer than that? There's no difference in usefulness here? What about 1 minute? Or 1 round?
In my entire time playing DnD, I have never seen nor inflicted more than 3 water or vacuum based traps on characters on the same day. The difference here is arbitrary by function of usefulness.
Why is needing to say the words worth so much of a discount over the previous version? That's really the only difference between the two.
It really isn't a discount so much as the other got bumped to reflect what the ring was doing. The other ring (twist to activate) was getting around a really important aspect of what it is designed to save you from. Meaning, you are in a vacuum or underwater so it is really hard to talk. Ah, but my ring that saves me from airless conditions doesn't require me to talk in order to activate! That is basically a use-activated item. I did decrease the price to account for the loss of action, but really it is use activated. The last one poses the same challenges that a caster would face in that situation and doesn't provide a static bonus, but rather removes a condition or status effect, and has a range of touch so it got priced via the slxcl method. It was the only item in the list to get priced that way because it was the only item that met those criteria.
LordSynos - if you think the cloak of the hedge wizard is a balanced item, do you really see a significant advantage to having three charges of shield per day vs. having three cloaks and changing between combats? As I've said, I could see paying a slight premium for the convenience of having three charges per day in one item vs. three items with one charge per day each, but I don't think its worth dramatically more.
|
|
I did ask for advice. I received advice. I thanked everyone for offering their advice. I was looking to price the item fairly and am now convinced I know what the fair market price is. What Aerylinth is doing is disregarding all opinions and interpretations of the guidelines to create a custom item but his own. He seems to think only his interpretation is correct and presents it as "intent" or "rules" or both.
Maybe I'm just reading too much tone in this thread when I really shouldn't.
You want to know why this is still going?
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.
When a challenge like that is issued, would you really just stand down? I know I wouldn't, and clearly Aelryinth didn't either. XD Both Aelryinth and Kudaku are determined to have the last word, so that the very first thread that shows when searching for custom item pricing rules, shows their opinion as the last one, the "conclusion" of the argument. If one of them posts, the other has to, so that the casual observer goes "Ah, they won the argument, and were, in fact, correct. Otherwise, the other guy would have responded again." I'm pretty happy with it, to be honest. Keeps a really interesting discussion going. :)
Lord Synos - if you think the cloak of the hedge wizard is a balanced item, do you really see a significant advantage to having three charges if shield per day vs. Having three cloaks and changing between combats? As I've said, I would pay a slight premium for the convenience of having three charges per day in one item vs. three items with one charge per day each, but I don't think its worth a dramatically more.
I'm not really sure if I'd call it balanced. I mean, look at the 8 versions. If one option would always be bought, regardless of circumstances, then that one option is not balanced. And I think you'll agree that there are versions of the cloak that blow others out of the water. However, it is RAW, so I'd hardly stop someone from buying an item in the book. It's just when the custom item crafting comes into play that I need to audit, and that leads to the guidelines, and my other pricing.
I mean, I see where you're coming from. The 3 times per day item I provided is 12 minutes duration. If we took three cloaks, 7,500gp, then added in a modifier for the fact that it's just one item you don't need to switch between and that it lasts for 12 minutes instead of 1, is my 11,470.5gp really that outrageous? I'm wary of deviating from the guidelines because I can no longer be certain if it's balanced if I do. At least if I follow them, I have the guidelines the Developers and Designers themselves made backing me up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting reading, Synos! I'll try to answer in section in order:
I agree with you that Aelryinth probably would get better traction for his posts if he wrote them in a less judging manner. To me personally he also comes across as condescending and judgmental, though to be fair that might be in part because of the general level of frustration discussing this topic with him causes me.
While I still don't agree with your overall assessment, I think you make a polite and well articulated argument for why you have reached the price you decided on.
The main reason why I still think your value estimate is a bit too high is because I find that it increases the value of having access to spell lists and/or Use Magic Device significantly - I dislike the result that casters get massive discounts on an effect such as this while everyone else has to 'shop at the premium store'. Since the activation time is the same for the wand and the ring and the wand doesn't take up a slot (use it on your first turn, then drop it), it seems unreasonable to me that the ring is an order of a magnitude more expensive than the equivalent price in wands.
If you look at the price guidelines they price a custom single-charge wondrous item that casts a spell, without requiring the ability to cast that spell, they are valued on the same level as a potion, or twice the cost of a scroll: cl * sl * 50.
I think we should try to keep that ratio in mind when we design items that allow noncasters to use limited spell effects.
If you were to take your calculation (I believe you assumed CL 12 for a +4 AC bonus?) and apply that to the spell itself instead of the custom item, I'd most likely have less objections since then everyone would pay the cost equally - a wand of shield would cost a spellcaster 750 * 12 = 9000 GP, while the ring of shield (using your formula) would cost a non-caster 11 000 GP.
For what it's worth I'm not crazy about the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard either, though for a different reason... The Conjuration version lets you cast Mage Armor (duration 1h) and Unseen Servant once per day. In my opinion Mage Armor is significantly more useful than Shield as a charge/day spell since the duration is long enough that you can put on the cloak, cast Mage Armor, and then replace the cloak with your regular cloak of resistance or what have you, and have the Mage Armor effect active for multiple encounters.
If the OP had been asking for a price estimate for a ring that cast Mage Armor at CL 1 three times per day I probably would have suggested a different, and higher, price estimate.
Finally, I think you should also add a link to the wand pricing rules to the other relevant links, as I feel they are relevant to the topic at hand.