Honestly, to me it being a 1st level spell has no relevance at all. Zero, zilch. What has relevance is that it takes a standard action to activate and lasts a single minute, and that there are plenty of similar items in terms of activation and duration to compare with (scroll of shield, wand of shield, cloak of the hedge wizard).
I haven't seen anyone else use "it's just a 1st level spell" as a central part of their argument either - it's been used as a quick way to generalize a bit, but those who think it should be a quite cheap item focus a lot more on duration and action economy (and to some extent the weakness against dispel) than the level designation.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
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.
I assume this is sarcastic, correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless, I compared it to the ring of blinking because they where closer in price than the +4 ROP. That said, don't you think (this is not a rethorical question) part of the reason why the ring of blinking, which provides 50% miss chance and a +2 bonus to hit against anyone that can't see invisible and 20% miss chance against anyone who can, is less popular AND cheaper than the ring that usually provides around 20% miss chance assuming average AC, is because the Ring of Blinking takes a standard action to activate and only lasts for little less than a minute? Don't you think if they cost equal but the ring of blinking was a constant 24/7 item it would be more popular for anything but AC-focusing tanks?Isn't that something relevant to take into consideration?
What build would pay 14k for a ring like this?So *list of classes*
I didn't ask what classes, I asked what builds. Could you make an example build where this would be the wisest thing to put the money and slot towards?
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.
While a Mage Armor item sounds more powerful in isolation, in reality it's only giving you something you could get pretty easily anyway:
Potion of Mage ArmorFriendly wizard casting Mage Armor
Buying Wand of Mage Armor, getting friendly wizard to use it on you
Chain Shirt
That is entirely true.
I guess my point is that when I look at the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard it's not the shield effect that worries me.
That is entirely true.
I guess my point is that when I look at the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard it's not the shield effect that worries me.
I'm actually less concerned about the Mage armor version because that bonus will not stack with regular armor, so for the most part, anyone who doesn't regularly have access to that spell also won't benefit from that spell. This may be an important distinction. I think that most of us who are in the higher price camp see a game design connection in the shield spell between the "other" AC bonus and the fact that it is personal range, rather than seeing them as seperate aspects of the spell.
I'm actually less concerned about the Mage armor version because that bonus will not stack with regular armor, so for the most part, anyone who doesn't regularly have access to that spell also won't benefit from that spell. This may be an important distinction. I think that most of us who are in the higher price camp see a game design connection in the shield spell between the "other" AC bonus and the fact that it is personal range, rather than seeing them as seperate aspects of the spell.
While it is true that Mage Armor does not stack with armor, there are several classes in the game that do not easily get armor bonuses - kensai/bladed scarf magi, most arcane casters, monks and a multitude of archetypes.
For a kensai for instance, the conjuration version of the cloak is indisputably better than the abjuration version - both provide an armor class (as in AC) bonus of +4, but one lasts for an hour and one for a minute. Furthermore, he has Shield (but not Mage Armor) on his spell list already so he can simply prepare Shield or cast Shield from a wand if he deems it necessary.
I agree that Shield is a personal-range spell is a distinction that many fail to notice. However since it's still freely available from a wand... I don't necessarily see it as a big problem.
I'm actually less concerned about the Mage armor version because that bonus will not stack with regular armor, so for the most part, anyone who doesn't regularly have access to that spell also won't benefit from that spell. This may be an important distinction. I think that most of us who are in the higher price camp see a game design connection in the shield spell between the "other" AC bonus and the fact that it is personal range, rather than seeing them as seperate aspects of the spell.While it is true that Mage Armor does not stack with armor, there are several classes in the game that do not easily get armor bonuses - kensai/bladed scarf magi, most arcane casters, monks and a multitude of archetypes.
For a kensai for instance, the conjuration version of the cloak is indisputably better than the abjuration version - both provide an armor class (as in AC) bonus of +4, but one lasts for an hour and one for a minute. Furthermore, he has Shield (but not Mage Armor) on his spell list already so he can simply prepare Shield or cast Shield from a wand if he deems it necessary.
I agree that Shield is a personal-range spell is a distinction that many fail to notice. However since it's still freely available from a wand... I don't necessarily see it as a big problem.
The particular archetypes for the magus and the monk would definitely get a bigger benefit but the other non-armored arcanists get Mage armor anyway so replicating it for them is no big deal.
Overall I find the wand argument to be lacking because the useablility of a wand goes hand in hand with the personal range restriction. Ie. the people who can use the wand are usually valid targets for the spell anyway. The other option would be to invest in UMD which generally won't pay off for several levels and carrys a 5% risk of not working all day.
I get that you feel this places the spell list classes at an advantage but I feel that is offset by things like BAB, hd, weapon and armor proficiencies, skills, and other assorted class features. Personal range spells are one of those things that casters get and are supposed to be difficult to replicate outside the class. Those spells are balanced differently per level than other spells, that makes them poor choices for slxcl price modeling.
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.
You're making some fairly large campaign specific assumptions here. Specifically, you're assuming that the only water is from traps. What about a flooded room (more of a hazard than a trap), or a ship-based campaign, or a campaign at a port city or an island?
I've mentioned this before, but certain items are drastically more or less effective in different types of campaigns but you can't give a general price when you're only thinking of a specific campaign.
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.
Well, this is the Advice forum although I'm surprised it hasn't been moved to the Home Brew forum since the mods stance has typically been that any and all custom items no matter how they're price are home brew.
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.You're making some fairly large campaign specific assumptions here. Specifically, you're assuming that the only water is from traps. What about a flooded room (more of a hazard than a trap), or a ship-based campaign, or a campaign at a port city or an island?
I've mentioned this before, but certain items are drastically more or less effective in different types of campaigns but you can't give a general price when you're only thinking of a specific campaign.
Right, that means you must price items in generic game terms. +1 Holy Flaming Longsword is far more effective in a realm of Profane creatures with fire vulnerability and DR/Slashing. But the game doesn't price the item under those assumptions.
I think the more important note to take from that is the discounting of an item because in certain campaigns certain restrictions make it less useful is folly.
<Hyperbole Begin>
Sample Item -> This item allows you to win the game, unless you are in a Varisian Wagon Train.
How should we price this item? Well it should cost about 100,000,000gp, however because we sometimes play in Varisia this item should be reduced in price because it wouldn't be as useful as I would like it to be in that setting. Sooo, I think 1080gp would be good.
</Hyperbole>
But in all seriousness, hazards like that rarely come up more than 3 times a day either. And swimming =/= must hold breath. In fact if the game requires you to frequently be able to swim underwater to the point where this item would make the difference between the group being able to accomplish their mission or not, then something has gone terribly wrong much further up the development tree than the pricing of this ring.
Worst case, imho, Personal Range spells should double the price. You still end up with something pretty low, which is fine with me when you are tossing a standard action onto something to make it work.Overall I find the wand argument to be lacking because the useablility of a wand goes hand in hand with the personal range restriction. Ie. the people who can use the wand are usually valid targets for the spell anyway. The other option would be to invest in UMD which generally won't pay off for several levels and carrys a 5% risk of not working all day.
I get that you feel this places the spell list classes at an advantage but I feel that is offset by things like BAB, hd, weapon and armor...
Honestly, after this thread I am leaning more and more toward the idea that permanent items that exactly replicate spell effects of personal range spells should not be allowed at all. But, that's just me.
I think the closest thing I would allow to this item in my game would be a scaled version of the ring of force shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How much for a ring of permanent Time Stop?
The particular archetypes for the magus and the monk would definitely get a bigger benefit but the other non-armored arcanists get Mage armor anyway so replicating it for them is no big deal.
Overall I find the wand argument to be lacking because the useablility of a wand goes hand in hand with the personal range restriction. Ie. the people who can use the wand are usually valid targets for the spell anyway. The other option would be to invest in UMD which generally won't pay off for several levels and carrys a 5% risk of not working all day.
I get that you feel this places the spell list classes at an advantage but I feel that is offset by things like BAB, hd, weapon and armor proficiencies, skills, and other assorted class features. Personal range spells are one of those things that casters get and are supposed to be difficult to replicate outside the class. Those spells are balanced differently per level than other spells, that makes them poor choices for slxcl price modeling.
I agree with you on Range: Personal affecting the price - part of the reason why my my price estimate differs from the formula price is because Shield has a range of Personal, actually. That said, if the item in question would cast Mage Armor instead of Shield I'd probably still have priced it higher.
That said, I took the liberty to look up spells with Range: Personal and I'm conflicted. There are certainly some spells that need to be limited (as in not allowed as a potion) in this way or else they'd be incredibly broken, but others could have target: touch and be absolutely fine.
True Strike is a perfect example of a spell that should only have range: personal, or else you could potentially have conga lines of wand users pumping the fighter with TS for each swing he takes.
However, there are numerous other spells that have Range: Personal that I personally have a hard time believing will be overpowered if allowed in a custom item or potion form. I compiled a short list of 1st level spells, most of which appear on multiple spell lists:
comprehend languages (understand, but not speak, any language for 10 minutes/level)
Disguise Self (+10 on disguise checks, make yourself appear as someone else)
Entropic Shield (like blur but ranged attacks only)
Innocence (+10 on bluff checks only to "convince others of your innocence")
Read Weather (accurately predict weather for next 48 hours)
Know the Enemy (+10 on knowledge check regarding creature type - not on the bard list for some reason O.o)
I can't help but feel that the "personal range spells cannot be made into potions" ruling was added to avoid some potentially gamebreaking potions, but they threw the baby out with the bathwater by banning ALL the spells with range: personal.
A potion of Disguise Self for instance is a classic item and most classes that don't have Disguise on their class list is going to keenly miss the ability to use that spell at one point or another.
A potion of Detect Invisibility? Won't find that at your local alchemist.
I do not think a blanket "price modifier" should be added to items that replicate spells because the spell in question has range: Personal.
However, the range should absolutely be factored in when you price an item that casts a spell - if it has Range: Personal then that is something that you need to take into account when deciding on a final price.
Worst case, imho, Personal Range spells should double the price. You still end up with something pretty low, which is fine with me when you are tossing a standard action onto something to make it work.Overall I find the wand argument to be lacking because the useablility of a wand goes hand in hand with the personal range restriction. Ie. the people who can use the wand are usually valid targets for the spell anyway. The other option would be to invest in UMD which generally won't pay off for several levels and carrys a 5% risk of not working all day.
I get that you feel this places the spell list classes at an advantage but I feel that is offset by things like BAB, hd, weapon and armor...
Honestly, after this thread I am leaning more and more toward the idea that permanent items that exactly replicate spell effects of personal range spells should not be allowed at all. But, that's just me.
I think the closest thing I would allow to this item in my game would be a scaled version of the ring of force shield.
Well, I don't think anyone has proposed making a permanent one. What's actually under discussion by the OP takes a standard action to use and has just 3 uses/day.
I think there's certainly a fair price for a permanent Shield spell. Probably pretty expensive though. Hmm, perhaps something like an improved animated that's a +3 version, then a mithril bucker +3 would be a +6 shield. 36,000 is a pretty high price here, bump it to 49,000 for a reasonable ghost touch price (the book price on ghost touch armor is really crazy, imho). That said, 36,000 for a ring would be the price of a slotted item, whereas an "superior" animated bucker +3 would take up no slots once loosed.
For comparison a Minor Cloak of Displacement is 24k and Major is 50k. A rare +4 bonus to AC is 40k and deflection is 32k.
Eh, so if anything I'd say 36k might be too much.
Game terms do blend together easily especially when their meanings are not obviously discernible, but permanent does not mean the same as constant. Constant means "always on" while permanent means "not charged/charges replenish". A ring of XYZ Ability 3/times a day is a permanent item in that you never use it up and throw it away.
There's another consideration that's being entirely missed in regards to Personal Spells and allowing them in magic item form:
Spells are a class feature.
Some spells are designed to be "shared with the group" because buffing your friends is a fun part of gameplay. However, giving anyone easy access to spells that are normally unsharable should be seriously taken into consideration.
Consider the cost of a Ring of Evasion: If you can't make your save, it does literally nothing. If you can make your save, you weren't taking that much damage to begin with, making it a rather unimpressive ability to be handing out (Improved Evasion would make for a great item - you'll notice that ring doesn't exist in the RAW...), yet you're still paying 25,000gp to get it.
There's another consideration that's being entirely missed in regards to Personal Spells and allowing them in magic item form:
Spells are a class feature.
Some spells are designed to be "shared with the group" because buffing your friends is a fun part of gameplay. However, giving anyone easy access to spells that are normally unsharable should be seriously taken into consideration.
Consider the cost of a Ring of Evasion: If you can't make your save, it does literally nothing. If you can make your save, you weren't taking that much damage to begin with, making it a rather unimpressive ability to be handing out (Improved Evasion would make for a great item - you'll notice that ring doesn't exist in the RAW...), yet you're still paying 25,000gp to get it.
This is not an unfair comment, however, since there is a pricing formula to craft items using spell effects, the counter argument is that the game already takes into account the fact that spells (including personal spells) can be duplicated and usable by other classes through magical items. You'll note that there is no cost or formula for adding class features to a magical item.
Although spells are a class feature, they are also very different in the context of the game from pretty much any other class feature.
To clarify, I'm not saying it shouldn't be possible - I'm saying it should be taken into consideration when pricing said item.
There's another consideration that's being entirely missed in regards to Personal Spells and allowing them in magic item form:
Spells are a class feature.
Some spells are designed to be "shared with the group" because buffing your friends is a fun part of gameplay. However, giving anyone easy access to spells that are normally unsharable should be seriously taken into consideration.
Consider the cost of a Ring of Evasion: If you can't make your save, it does literally nothing. If you can make your save, you weren't taking that much damage to begin with, making it a rather unimpressive ability to be handing out (Improved Evasion would make for a great item - you'll notice that ring doesn't exist in the RAW...), yet you're still paying 25,000gp to get it.
That hasn't been overlooked. It's been brought up at least once already. Also, a high attack bonus is a class feature, but wizards get true strike.
There have been several attempts to deal with the personal range issue that still don't come out to 5 digits. (Bump shield up 1 level and the price becomes 6480, for example.)
Besides that, define easy. 1080 isn't exactly chump change until level 5 or so. It's unlikely that anyone would get something at that price until at least level 3.
So let me ask you a different question, what level would your barbarian need to be before you'd consider it fair for them to have the effect, setting price aside for the moment?
Level 8+ seems fair, IMO.
People have been attacking the "value" of this kind of AC bonus for anything larger than small amounts of cash, but getting a +4 Shield bonus that works on incorporeal attacks without taking up an entire hand is quite significant. (Let's be real - every 2HW character would fall over themselves to get a +4 bonus to AC that stacks with their armor and helps against incorporeal attacks, use-activation or not.)
Also considering that the 2nd ring slot isn't necessarily as valuable as the first really shouldn't be ignored (ie: Ring of Protection is huge - your other ring is going to vary wildly between characters).
Also, let's be realistic - 3/day, even at caster level 1, is probably going to be enough to cover daily combat situations. Each "charge" is going to last 10 rounds, and 3 combat scenarios a day is pretty well-rounded for an adventuring day.
But let's make another item comparison: A Broach of Shielding is, in all ways, inferior to the proposed Ring. Sure it doesn't require activation, but it's effect is only (the bad) part of the Shield spell and it has a finite life (ie: once it burns out, it's gone forever). It still costs 1500gp - 420gp more than the proposed 1080 for the Ring of Shield.
If that doesn't tell you that 1080 is too low, nothing will.
(Also, saying "a high attack bonus is a class feature" is disingenuous at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Every class gets an attack bonus.
Besides, the spells that actually replicate a Full BAB, like the older version of Divine Power, are 'range: personal.')
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's realistic to assume that 3 minutes of combat covers it for a wide enough set of campaign types, and it's those days where it doesn't cover it where the difference is going to be especially important too.
As for divine power, so it's ok for a wizard to get other peoples class abilities, but not the other way around? Also, I said a high attack bonus. I do know everyone gets at least some attack bonus.
Can we please stop calling it "3 minutes?" While that is technically correct, it's incredibly misleading.
10 rounds is a long time, and 10 rounds 3 times a day is a lot more than you're making it out to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it really isn't, at least not for many styles of play. I suppose if enemies never regroup, attack in waves, use guerrilla tactics, summon stuff to slow the party down, etc. it might be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my experience, if we pre-buff 50% of the time, we're doing well. We tend to have more than three combats in a day. And while 30 rounds may seem like a lot, it is not the right way to look at it. Its not like you can use those 30 rounds of shield as you see fit. Its really 3 uses a day for 10 rounds per use, which can cover three combats. Its highly unlikely one use will cover multiple combats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warning: spoilers ahead for the Rise of the Runelords-AP.
At the moment I'm running two campaigns in Rise of the Runelords (one at level 2 and one at level 9), playing in a CotCT game (level 4), while also looking over the Kingmaker AP in preparation for a future game.
The RotRL party I'll be using as an example went from level 7 to 9 over the spread of encounters listed (paladin, ninja, wizard, magus, inquisitor, fighter/rogue), and just cleared out Fort Rannick.
The day before they visited the Graul Farm, where they cleared seven encounters - not counting numerous (5+) traps.
A few weeks before that they cleared the Shadow Clock Tower, where they had four encounters.
The evening before that they cleared the Mill of the Seven, where they had five encounters.
Looking ahead, their next day will only have two encounters (nightbelly boa and Big Magga), and the next set of encounters will be the Skull's Watch dam where there are five encounters.
After that they'll head to Skull Mountain, where there are six encounters.
The storyline in RotRL has a sense of urgency which I've tried to impart on my players, and I feel they take that very seriously - they push hard to get each section done in as little in-game time as possible, only resting when they genuinely feel the need. The party prepares accordingly by using consumables (primarily wands of healing, but also scrolls and the occasional potion) to keep themselves going and saving their resources for when they really need them. At the end of the Keep the wizard was running on fumes, but he had also been making solid contributions the entire time and I can honestly say the party would have had to pull out earlier (or even wiped) if he had not been there.
Kingmaker is different. Most of the encounters you'll have in Kingmaker are either random (which are rolled for infrequently as the party explore the Stolen Lands) or whenever the players find an area of interest while exploring - these are typically one or two more encounters. There are exceptions, but on the whole this AP seems a lot more friendly to the "15 minute adventuring day".
In CotCT I don't have access to the AP itself so I can't count exact encounters, but the last two areas (butcher's shop and the dead warrens) had at least six encounters each, probably more. There was a single event in between but that was a chase scene, so Shield wouldn't actually bring anything to the table.
You are certainly allowed to play however you want, but the fewer encounters in the adventuring day, the more the classes with use-limited class abilities (which are pretty much all of them, except the fighter and the rogue) benefit. Furthermore, the more a class relies on use-limited class abilities (such as spells), the more they benefit from a short day.
A fighter doesn't really have an "all out" mode in the first place - the difference between a fighter expending all his resources and a fighter playing conservatively is limited primarily things like "fighting defensively" or using consumables. As long as he has access to cheap consumables (ie wand of CLW/infernal healing), the fighter is the Duracell bunny.
A paladin has a limited amount of Smites and Lay on Hands per day, but he is still a full bab class with heavy armor proficiency at the end of the day. A paladin going "all out" will be getting significant benefits from Smite Evil and Lay On Hands, but isn't fundamentally all that different from a paladin playing conservatively.
A wizard pretty much only has spells. When he's out of spells, he's in a world of hurt. Consumables such as wands and scrolls can help close the gap somewhat, but they quickly become very expensive indeed if he wants to approach the effectiveness of his own spells. Conversely, if a wizard has no reason to save spells, he can put down a world of hurt on other people.
This is why many GMs have stated some concern for spellcasting classes in Kingmaker - since players can be fairly sure that it's unlikely that they need to run many encounters in a day before being able to rest, they are able to go "nova" - expending many spells to end a single encounter.
What this tells me is that the ring in question fluctuates in power and value depending on the campaign and the pace your GM is setting. In CotCT and especially in RotRL, 3 charges of one minute per day translates to 'three encounters per day', which is not going to cover your adventuring day. It probably wouldn't even cover half of it. From what I've read of Kingmaker, 3 charges will be enough to get you through the day a decent amount of the time.
I think assuming that only three encounters in an adventuring day is the norm is an error. However, if you do run or play in a campaign like that then it makes sense that you consider the ring more valuable.
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the 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: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
Example: Rob's cleric wants to create a heavy mace with a continuous true strike ability, granting its wielder a +20 insight bonus on attack rolls. The formula for a continuous spell effect is spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp, for a total of 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica, the GM, points out that a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon costs 50,000 gp, and the +20 bonus from true strike is much better than the +5 bonus from standard weapon enhancement, and suggests a price of 200,000 gp for the mace. Rob agrees that using the formula in this way is unreasonable and decides to craft a +1 heavy mace using the standard weapon pricing rules instead.
Example: Patrick's wizard wants to create bracers with a continuous mage armor ability, granting the wearer a +4 armor bonus to AC. The formula indicates this would cost 2,000 gp (spell level 1, caster level 1). Jessica reminds him that bracers of armor +4 are priced at 16,000 gp and Patrick's bracers should have that price as well. Patrick agrees, and because he only has 2,000 gp to spend, he decides to spend 1,000 gp of that to craft bracers of armor +1 using the standard bracer prices.
Bolded for emphasis.
So, like I said with my very first post in this topic, you compare said item to an item that is similar in effect (RoP +4), and then you do the math to reduce that price based on the fact that it has limited charges instead of being a continuous effect.
9600gp.
Also, why are we assuming said ring would be a Standard action to activate?
Command Word items only require you to speak the command word to activate, and speaking a word is a free action.
Well, there has been some movement - you previously stated 18 500 GP and now you're down to 9600.
However, you really should read some other lines in that text as well:
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.
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: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
Please note that both examples listed use the "continuous" formula to create items that provide always-on benefits - a continuous true strike mace, and a continuous mage armor bracer.
Continuous has two advantages over a charges/day item. The first is that it's always active, unlike the command word item which needs to be activated with a standard action. The second is that it's always active, unlike the charges/day item which has (in this case significant) downtime.
No one here is arguing that a continuous shield ring should be priced at 4000 GP.
I'm really growing tired of stating this, but the closest item to the ring in question (barring the cloak of the hedge wizard) is a wand with the same spell - they have the same duration and the same activation time.
That said, the wand is not a perfect match.
You can argue the value of being able to use spell trigger items vs custom items that do not require the spell on your list (the formula prices this at approximately two to one if you consider potions vs scrolls), how many charges the custom item uses vs wands with finite amount of charges, and finally what kind of additional cost the fact that Shield is a personal range spell is.
However I still honestly believe the cloak and barring that the wand is a better comparison baseline than an item that starts off by giving you a continuous AC bonus.
Also, why are we assuming said ring would be a Standard action to activate?
Command Word items only require you to speak the command word to activate, and speaking a word is a free action.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
My bolding.
If you compare that with:
Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action (unless the spell in question has a longer casting time) that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
My parenthesis, added for clarity.
You really need to reread my post if you think 18500 was my number for a 3/day item.
Also, again, command word items require speaking a word to activate. It does NOT require a standard action; a free action will suffice.
You really need to reread my post if you think 18500 was my number for a 3/day item.
Also, again, command word items require speaking a word to activate. It does NOT require a standard action; a free action will suffice.
(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.)
Upon reading the post closer I now see that you were referring to the Shield of continuous Shield that has no relevance to this thread. My apologies.
Out of curiosity, how would you price the item now that you've been brought up to speed on "facing" and "command words are free actions"?
So RAW states that Command Word activation requires a standard action...
In that case, I'm just gonna bow out of this (maybe all?) conversation. That's just dumb. The raw specifically says speaking a word is a free action, yet speaking a special word is a standard action?
I'd have to houserule too much for my opinion to be at all valid.
(As for my price, noting that 'facing' doesn't exist? 19500gp for the Continuous version, 11700gp for the 3/day version. No one, that I've seen anyway, has disputed that it would be practically an auto-purchase for 2HW characters. That kind of item power shouldn't come cheap.)
I'm a little surprised you'd increase the price of the item after realizing that it requires a standard action to activate instead of a free action. However I can't really put a value on the lack of 'facing' since I haven't played with that rule in play for a few years, so whatever you feel comfortable with I guess :)
RAW makes a distinction between "speaking" and "command word" because it helps balance items that are free action to activate and items that require an action to activate. For what it's worth, RAW also states that
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
As a fluff justification... Maybe all command word are long and/or hard to pronounce exactly as required?
I think it's a shame for you to leave the forums entirely over this discussion - the more the merrier in any debate and I for one appreciate your thoughts and your view on this item even if I don't agree with it.
Finally, I apologize if you feel I've been hard on you here, but I took
"Pricing this thing is so simple, it's ridiculous."
a bit personally :)
It's the internet: My skin is thick. ;)
No, nothing anyone has said has frustrated me personally. The RAW, however, is seriously pushing my buttons at the moment. :P
(And no, the very same thing you posted already mentions that Command Words can be common words, but you run the risk of accidentally setting said item off if you do that - so no fluff justification :( )
If an item that requires activation should take any significant amount of time to activate (ie: a standard action), there is "Use-Activated" to cover that. A command word is literally just speaking a single word.
I don't mean I'm leaving the forums - I mean I can't honestly argue a point when I utterly disagree with the RAW.
That's entirely fair, thank you for your input - I'll follow your other thread with interest :)
(As for my price, noting that 'facing' doesn't exist? 19500gp for the Continuous version, 11700gp for the 3/day version. No one, that I've seen anyway, has disputed that it would be practically an auto-purchase for 2HW characters. That kind of item power shouldn't come cheap.)
I dispute that it would be an auto-purchase for a 2HW character and has asked twice for anyone to post a build where this (though priced at 14k but feel free to use 11k) would be the most meaningful thing to buy for the money.
Feel free to post one. I tried to calculate it before (for a price of 14k) and IIRC, it wasn't until level 12 or so it would ever even be considered.
EDIT: Also, on command word, don't think of it as necessarily just speaking a single word - it is probably a very specific word, possibly with some additional gestures. Use-activated does not work if it isn't activated by using the item in it's normally intended manner; if you want a sword that cast blindness if you hold it in the air and say "hopscotch" it's a command word item; a use-activated one would cast blindness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
An excellent summation of all the major points.
The 10% price adjustment for free action or continuous vs command word is also another point being ignored, and prominent.
I tend to handwave the magic missile thing, since MM is nowhere near as prevalent in PF as it was in 1E.
Overemphasizing the 1 min duration 'is a bad thing' is making my eyes roll. Most fights only last a minute/10 rounds, or less. You only WANT a one minute duration. A 2 minute duration doubles the price and wastes a minute of duration you are unlikely to use. The fact that the duration of the properly priced +4 item is 12 minutes is being almost completely ignored because it is mostly irrelevant in real fights, unless you are hurrying between fights. Likewise, a 'cheap' +1 Shield bonus item at the proper pricing would be CL 3, 1350 gp, for 3 minutes of protection. Wouldn't you rather have +3 protection for one minute, instead? That's what is trying to pass here.
Likewise, being forced to price a +1 Shield bonus at CL 3 would triple the price and quarter the benefit vs the proposed item, and THAT doesn't sit well with the price-aggressive, either.
Kudaku makes an excellent point about campaign style...a game with multiple combats per day will treat the ring very differently then one with limited.
However, given the power of the item, what that simply means is that the players will either buy more of the cheap rings OR increase charges/day. You know, like you buy more CLW when you need more healing. Hit points are also a finite resource.
Likewise, I will posit that you simply cannot price an item based on 'all-day'. This is because PF is based on consumable resources, namely hit points and spells. When you run out of one or the other, you are done. Aggressive players turn this into a 15 minute adventuring day if their consumables are limited. Non-aggressive just have less overlap of buffs.
The standard way to get around inability to do multiple encounters is to use longer lasting buffs, OR to use multiple cheap items. An AC item that you can activate multiple times a day, and cheap enough to own several, is definitely one of those items. It benefits those with consumable resources, i.e. spellcasters, at the expense of those classes who do not need such resources.
The comparison in pricing with mage armor is somewhat ill-advised. 1, an armor bonus is very easy for anyone to get with Bracers, and 2) the benefit of Mage Armor equals a chain shirt, Ghost Touch for the most part, and standard plate armor provides twice the normal AC benefit. A shield spell equals a Buckler +3 Ghost Touch. Any and everyone can get an Armor bonus. Not everyone can get a shield bonus even with shenanigans, and certainly not one for +4.
Someone posted asking about a feat that turns Personal Range spells to Touch. Such a feat exists in 3.5, and is considered one of the most broken feats in the game on the Optimization Boards, to the extent it simply isn't allowed as obviously broken 3rd party junk.
The rule is simply this: You don't know what new spells are coming out. Not all of them may be balanced. Feats and the like get broken when new spells come out, and are unable to take all the possible combinations of existing rules into account for their effects.
That kind of thing creates Locate City Bombs, and the like...rules interacting in unforeseen ways.
In summary, this is an AC boosting item, and should be priced as one. Command words and standard actions and the like to activate it are unimportant in the light of the substantial AC provided, especially to those who really desire some Shield AC.
The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is literally ignoring the developers own rules on pricing AC item, and is obviously an error, giving away a high fixed bonus for low cost. It even fails to address the difference in duration between Mage Armor and Shield, and how would it price the AC difference of a Shield of Faith? It is inconsistent and obviously an editing error.
==Aelryinth
(As for my price, noting that 'facing' doesn't exist? 19500gp for the Continuous version, 11700gp for the 3/day version. No one, that I've seen anyway, has disputed that it would be practically an auto-purchase for 2HW characters. That kind of item power shouldn't come cheap.)
I dispute that it would be an auto-purchase for a 2HW character and has asked twice for anyone to post a build where this (though priced at 14k but feel free to use 11k) would be the most meaningful thing to buy for the money.
Feel free to post one. I tried to calculate it before (for a price of 14k) and IIRC, it wasn't until level 12 or so it would ever even be considered.
EDIT: Also, on command word, don't think of it as necessarily just speaking a single word - it is probably a very specific word, possibly with some additional gestures. Use-activated does not work if it isn't activated by using the item in it's normally intended manner; if you want a sword that cast blindness if you hold it in the air and say "hopscotch" it's a command word item; a use-activated one would cast blindness.
Wait, what?
He's not considering getting an item that gives him a +4 Other AC bonus until level 12? Which is exactly when he should be getting such a thing?When would he consider getting a 750 gp +1 Shield Bonus Ring, usable 3t a day for 3 minutes each time? That's a freaking steal.
A 3000 gp +2 Shield Bonus Ring, duration 6 min/use?
A 6750 gp +3 Shield Bonus ring, duration 9 min/use?
And the 12k for a +4 shield bonus, duration 12 min/use, 3 uses/day is at 12th level.
You absolutely correct...before 12th level no character should reasonably expect to spend that much money for a +4 AC bonus. He is RIGHT ON TARGET for wanting the ring at that level.
==Aelryinth
When would he consider getting a 750 gp +1 Shield Bonus Ring, usable 3t a day for 3 minutes each time? That's a freaking steal!
I don't mean to cut and run here, but do you really think a 750gp ring that gives you a +1 shield bonus at the cost of a standard action, useable 3 times a day, for 3 minutes each time, is a good deal?
Or 3000 GP for a ring that works similarly, but at +2 for 6 minutes each time?
I'm asking to make sure I understand you correctly - it can be hard to pick up sarcasm in written form.
It's 1/3 the price of a ring of protection, lasts for a full combat and gives you a bonus you don't normally get.
Tell me exactly you deserve to get an outsize +4 bonus for that low cost?
And the standard action is a price reduction of 10%, not 90%.
By the rules you keep wanting your ring of shield by, ALL AC producing items are inferior.
Stay with balance and price in line with other AC items, kudaku. If you don't like the bonus, get a wand or cast the spell yourself.
==Aelryinth
I'm still waiting for that build where a 14k ring of shield 3/day (CL1) is the best thing to put your money and slot towards.
It's 1/3 the price of a ring of protection, lasts for a full combat and gives you a bonus you don't normally get.
And there's totally no downsides to using it when compared to a RoP. I can't think of a single one. Oh, wait...
Tell me exactly you deserve to get an outsize +4 bonus for that low cost?
Tell me exactly how 4000 gp for a +4 bonus for 3 minutes a day with a standard action to activate is low?
By the rules you keep wanting your ring of shield by, ALL AC producing items are inferior.
Think about what that entails exactly - A typical character has at least an armor bonus (bracers of mage armor / actual armor), a deflection bonus (RoP), and a natural armor bonus (AoNA).
How about instead of that he buys bracers, a ring and an amulet. Each requires a standard action to activate, each lasts 1 minute.So after only three rounds of combat spent activating his buffs, that character would be good to go!
I don't know about your table but in my games that character would get heckled. Hard.
Action Economy Matters. More than you value it at - which is shown by the majority of posters in this very thread disagreeing with your price estimate.
Stay with balance and price in line with other AC items, kudaku. If you don't like the bonus, get a wand or cast the spell yourself.
==Aelryinth
Because it's totally unfair for people to get a reasonable item at a reasonable price, unless that player is a caster - then it's fine. I didn't realize spellcasters got tax breaks.
Actually I'll stay with balance by applying the first rule of magic item pricing: price in line with similar items, in this case wands and CotHW. Somewhere between 1000 and 4000 GP is in my opinion a reasonable price, depending on the campaign and the GM.
The item needs to be priced consistently. If you price it at 12k because you think Shield is overpowered as a 1st level spell (which I believe you do) that's fine, but then you should also rewrite Shield so that the wand cost increases a similar amount. Balancing the item casting Shield and not the Shield spell itself gives spellcasters an advantage and causes further discrepancies between casters and non-casters.
Shield is fine as a 1st level spell, for arcane casters to use on themselves. Like many class mechanics the problem lies when you give them to other classes. Take smite evil for instance, its cool on a paladin and gives them an edge, but when they get AOE smite and give it to the Ranger who also has favored enemy it can create issues in the game system. The system tends to strain when numbers get really big and smite + favored enemy (or fighter abilities or rage) pushes the numbers into that realm.
I have a Paladin in my game that wields a 2handed sword and gets his AC up to around 35 (non smite) because he has an archetype which gives him a cleric domain and he took defense which gives him Shield at 1st level and Barkskin at 2nd. It makes a huge difference in his AC, but the fact that he has a higher CL also plays into this as his Shield spell lasts several minutes and he has several pearls of power so he can keep it up all the time.
If the Wand of Shield is such a great option, why is the player bothering trying to make this ring? The reason is it is not a good option, because with a wand you have to take it out have it in your hand and then use it and heavily invest in UMD to reliably be able to activate it. By your own valuation of action economy the ring is far superior to the wand.
That being said I think a price in the 4k to 8k range is about where the ring should be for CL 1 so that it is likely to take up an action in combat which helps to offset the power boost of the Shield spell on a non arcane caster.
Shield is one of those spells that is powerful in the hands of a non arcane caster, but it can work as long as you make sure to keep some checks on it. The key is to keep raising the price until it is a good option but not a must have. At 1k this is a must have item for all martial characters that do not use a shield and would be a high priority to get ASAP. Between 4k and 8k it takes more WBL than a low level character is likely able to spend on it.
By the time a character can easily afford 4k to 8k on a single item there are spells which can negate the effect of the ring (though not necessarily common place). Making it a ring keeps it from being crafted easily as rings have a higher CL requirement for the feat than a wondrous item so that is another balancing factor.
If my GM told me that this item was going to be more than a couple thousand, I'd tell them to shove off and just buy a wand or potions.
If my GM told me that this item was going to be more than a couple thousand, I'd tell them to shove off and just buy a wand or potions.
You can't get a potion of shield as it is a personal spell and wands have their own additional costs over this ring, but I agree that anything in the 5 digit area is too much.
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 GPPeet 1080 A
Don't put me in this group. The fact that you did means that you didn't read my post.
I am OK with the idea of a 3/day shield item costing this much if it works like a wand. This means that characters other than arcane casters must make a DC20 UMD check to use it. You would, of course, have to use this in over 50 encounters to get more out of it than you could a wand that cost 750 gp.
Alternately I would be okay redefining the shield spell to only grant a +1 to non-arcane casters, instead of having a range of personal (which normally prevents non-arcane casters from using it at all).
That is a lot different than a ring of force shield, which anyone can use.
If you want an item that works like a ring of force shield but provides a +4 bonus instead of +2, I would follow the armor/weapon rules of enhancement. Basically under those rules a +1 costs 1 x the base cost, a +2 costs 4 x the base cost, a +3 costs 9 x base, and a +4 costs 16 x base.
Since the ring of force shield has a +2, and costs 8,000, it would seem the base cost is 2000 gp (like bracers of armor, ring of protection, or a magic weapon). So a +4 ring of force shield would cost 16 x 2000 gp, or 32,000 gp. A +5 would cost 50,000 gp. In fact, I think the ring of force shield ought to have been designed to grant "pluses" in this way instead of having it only be a +2 item, but that's me.
Mind you, the ring of force shield still needs to be wielded as a shield and isn't much use for two weapon fighters, who I think are the main ones trying to get these items. However, since an actual +1 mythral bucker shield would only cost 2,005 and would also provide a +2 shield bonus, and has no armor check penalty or arcane failure chance, I would be inclined to say the shield created by the ring of force shield doesn't need to be wielded, since otherwise an ordinary magic shield provides a the same advantage with no drawbacks and for 1/4 the price.
So if you want an item that provides a continuous shield that can be used by non-casters I would say it ought to cost 32,000 gp; the same as a ring of protection +4 or bracers of armor +4.
Peet
Sure, but no one is talking about a ring of continuous shield. The thread is about a ring of command word shield, CL 1, 3/day.
@Peet I did read your post, specifically this one. However I misread the following statements:
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.
A +1 shield bonus for 1 minute 3 times per day? Yeah you can have that for 1080 gp.
to mean that you meant the original item should be priced at 1080 gp - I'm sorry I misrepresented your opinion. All I can say was that I was trying to gather data from about 25 different users making multiple posts, I misunderstood your comparison with wands, and I must have misread the +1 for a +4. I was quite tired that evening >__<.
I agree that if you were to upgrade the force ring shield it should be priced according to the magical armor guidelines, and it would be nice if the item actually had that process outlined. However...
There are significant differences between the Ring of Force Shield and the ring in question - the duration is one, the action economy is another. RoFS is continuous while the Shield spell has a sharply limited duration, RoFS is a free action to activate and deactivate, which means it can be used freely by THFers with minimal downsides, while the Shield Spell requires a standard action to activate.
While it should be noted that the RoFS states the wearer has to "wield" it, RAW it requires a free hand and so it would not work with Two-weapon fighting. However it would work for a THF. A TWF would need to use one of the various ways to get a 3rd grasping appendage - like the alchemist's arm or the witch hair hex.
Finally, I really wish posters would stop buying into the smoke cloud effect and realize we're talking about a ring that casts a sharply limited duration and charge-based version of Shield, NOT continuous Shield. The pricing of a continuous shield-item is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.