Actually, it's because continuous AC items are the baseline and standard of what you should price ALL AC items at. It is this charge-based item which is attempting to break the pricing rules.
This ring breaks the standard on multiple levels. It should be relatively inefficient, for the same reason that the spells that normal AC items, when priced the same way, also show them as inefficient.
And Kudaku, your counter-example of all items causing standard actions to cast is amusing, but off base. This is ONE item providing the largest possible AC benefit, which cannot be gained by many character classes and builds, for the cheapest possible price, as has been pointed out numerous times, and you are still ignoring. It breaks all pricing guidelines for AC based items.
And if you don't like the fact costing an action is only worth a 10% discount, I don't have much sympathy.
==Aelryinth
I really did want to bite my tongue, but I'm in shock that this debate and this thread is still going. And still in 100% disagreement with Aerylinth's interpretation of the custom magic item creation guidelines.
Actually, it's because continuous AC items are the baseline and standard of what you should price ALL AC items at.
Really? Where is this stated explicitly? This is your interpretation.
as has been pointed out numerous times, and you are still ignoring. It breaks all pricing guidelines for AC based items.
As has been pointed out numerous time, and you are still ignoring...the cloak of the hedge wizard.
Well, at least Aelryitnh has been stepping down the insults somewhat in the last few posts - that's nice :-)
This thread hasn't seen any new arguments for the past page and a half. Unless someone has some fresh material or insight, I am going to consider this thread played out.
Yeah, with how many claims I've seen that this should cost much it's interesting how noone is willing to post a build to which it is the most useful item given a high price.
@Bigdaddyjug
That is... Brilliant! I really need to read up on the ioun stones, there are so many variants and I keep getting them mixed up.
Yeah, with how many claims I've seen that this should cost much it's interesting how noone is willing to post a build to which it is the most useful item given a high price.
Why should someone waste their time to post a build that wont convince you? Are you chomping at the bit to tell someone their build is no good, or find some item they could have chosen as better?
Aelryitnh has already agreed with your statement that not until level 12 would a character decide to purchase such a thing. Exactly when they should be considering +4 AC bonus items. "Should be" come from the fact that AC bonus items are CL=BonusX3. So for a +4 bonus (shield) X 3 = Caster Level 12. Generally, you don't get caster levels higher than your character level. So 12th level is about right.
Please be happy now, people agree with you. 12th level is the right time to get this item. Just like you said. People agree with you. Life is good now. Appease, appease, appease.
Thing is, that's the only piece of evidence we can actually get. If someone states "24k is a good price, anything lower than that is broken" as aelryinth did (not exact quote but similar things where said time and again over the thread), then a useful way to check if that's true is to take the item, pretend it costs 14k, and show why that would be broken through having it be the most obvious choice for some character build.
'broken' is completely subjective.
'balanced' is what you are shooting for.
And balance points you at all the other magic items that grant AC benefits.
I haven't ignored the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, as D'Andariel obviously hasn't been reading my posts. I think I've referred to them at least a dozen times now. HE is ignoring the fact they are gravely underpriced for what they do, and ignore the advice RIGHT IN THE BOOK on what the devs say to do with people having pricing manipulation fun.
The 'prism of spell storing' is a complete blind. What happens when there isn't a caster around to recharge it for you? Suddenly you've got a useless stone floating around your head you can stick a Continual Flame on and hope people think it's an Ioun Torch.
Let me point out something as far as 'cost efficiency'.
It is cheaper for a wizard to accumulate +5 Ring of Prot, +5 Nat Armor, +6 Dex booster, and minor AC boosters, and cast Mage Armor, then it is to get Bracers +5.
Why? Because Bracers +5 gets a mage +1 AC over Mage Armor, for 25k. It's the single priciest raising of AC you can get.
Which means a Mage Armor cast or item is hugely valuable.
This Shield effect is very similar, except it is a bonus that is much harder to come by, and extremely useful.
Just like Mage Armor, the cast spell is extremely valuable because of the outsized benefit you get for the level.
==Aelryinth
A +5 ring of protection is 50,000 gp. Bracers of armor +5 is 25,000 gp.
'broken' is completely subjective.
'balanced' is what you are shooting for.
I think thread has amply proven that 'balanced' is just as subjective as 'broken'. Which is the way it should be - an item could be perfectly balanced in one game and 'broken' in another. It really depends on the players, the GM, and the overall level of play in the game.
And balance points you at all the other magic items that grant AC benefits.
I haven't ignored the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, as D'Andariel obviously hasn't been reading my posts. I think I've referred to them at least a dozen times now. HE is ignoring the fact they are gravely underpriced for what they do, and ignore the advice RIGHT IN THE BOOK on what the devs say to do with people having pricing manipulation fun.
The 'prism of spell storing' is a complete blind. What happens when there isn't a caster around to recharge it for you? Suddenly you've got a useless stone floating around your head you can stick a Continual Flame on and hope people think it's an Ioun Torch.
That whole "ignoring the advice" thing is getting old - either everyone are ignoring the guidelines, or we're interpreting it differently. For instance I don't see you putting much stock in the "find similar items and price accordingly" since you're repeatedly ignoring wands, potions, and the cloak in question. As for the pricing issue,You've decided that it's underpriced. That does not make it fact. Bigdtbone started a thread on the cloak here and the general consensus is that the item is well balanced and not overpriced. You're free to post in that thread and present your opinion and/or request a FAQ reply - in fact I encourage you to do so.
A wand of Shield can be used by alchemists, magi, sorcerers, wizards, summoners, clerics with the defense subdomain. Via Use Magic Device it is available to bards, rogues, witches, and all characters with a trait (dangerously curious).
Out of curiosity... You've priced (I believe) a custom version of the ring at 12k gp. Would you allow a barbarian to use the ioun stone and shield wand option Bigdaddyjug presented in a party that did have one or more characters able to cast shield? If no, why not?
Let me point out something as far as 'cost efficiency'.
It is cheaper for a wizard to accumulate +5 Ring of Prot, +5 Nat Armor, +6 Dex booster, and minor AC boosters, and cast Mage Armor, then it is to get Bracers +5.
Why? Because Bracers +5 gets a mage +1 AC over Mage Armor, for 25k. It's the single priciest raising of AC you can get.
First of all I'm reasonably certain it's actually not "cheaper", a better word might be "more cost-efficient". You could probably have worded that better. I do believe I get the gist of your argument though - Bracers of Armor are inefficient because Mage Armor provides a similar bonus and takes up one level 1 spell slot. Though it is not as black and white as you present it since you've picked the optimal point of cost-benefit inefficiency of the bracers (consider Bracers of Armor +8 vs Mage Armor for instance), it is largely true. That does not invalidate the bracers though - it is still a viable option for classes that do not have access to mage armor in its various forms. Furthermore, classes that want an armor bonus of MORE than +4 are completely dependent on it.
Which means a Mage Armor cast or item is hugely valuable.
My bolding.
The problem with this argument is that Pathfinder itself disagrees with you. A potion of Mage Armor is 50 gp, and has a 75% chance of being available in any settlement. A wand of Mage Armor, which has no limitations on target, is 750 gp and is again a common item easily available. These are not 'hugely valuable' items - if anything they're extremely affordable.
Just like Mage Armor, the cast spell is extremely valuable because of the outsized benefit you get for the level.
Ah, yes. I believe we are getting at the crux of your problem with this item. You're pricing this item according to the AC granting items instead of the spellcasting items guidelines because you feel that Mage Armor/Shield provides too much benefit compared to the spell and caster level.
The solution to this is to houserule/rewrite the offending spells, not to selectively price items that cast this spell extremely high while letting others (wands and potions) remain underpriced.
Like I've said repeatedly - this is an item that should be balanced while keeping consumable items in mind.
If you think the item is too good for what it provides the solution is to alter the spell so that it is more in line with other spells. A simple fix would be to let the Mage Armor / Shield bonus increase with CL like Shield of Faith, though imho on a faster scale. That way wands, potions, and custom items that cast the spell all increase in value and price equally.
However, that is a house rule. It is not RAW, it is not RAI, and it is not a foundation you can use to tell other people what they should price their items. At best it allows you to give advice on how you handled it, and what you think they should do.
Having the spell get better with caster level would be entirely appropriate.
Note that it's also exactly what I recommended you do if you make an item like this. I even priced it out at various levels of AC for you! (+1 was 750 gp!)
PRicing an item like this while looking at charged items is very much a no-no.
Pricing an item like this without following the AC pricing guidelines is also a no-no, as the devs have stated explicitly. The Cloak violates the Devs' own guidelines...I am not IGNORING the Cloak, I am INVALIDATING it as an example. It does not adhere to the pricing guidelines and the Devs own directions on how to proceed, or the proper pricing of other AC producing permanent (not temporary) magic items.
-------
The AC example comes from a long post I made about increasing AC and in what order you should do it.
Going from a +4 Ring of Prot to a +5 Ring of Prot costs you 14k, the difference between a +4 ring and a +5.
Going from Mage Armor to +5 Bracers is 25k. It's the WORST gold you can spend in terms of raising your AC. You shouldn't do it until all your other options are maxed out.
Then, you bite the bullet and blow 25k gp for your +5 Armor, knowing that the +6k is only 11k away after that. Bracers +5 to +8 are the last AC raising devices a mage should spend money on.
==Aelryinth
Your arguments are getting really jumbled here. Now you're talking about the order mages should buy things in when earlier you were arguing that this is too good of an item for 2H fighters.
Let me turn that around on you, Bigdaddy.
See, a bunch of us think you're wrong and there's not much you can do to change our minds.
You've given us multiple excuses as to why this item should be cheaper then rules balances requires, and we've given you example after example of why those excuses are not valid nor balanced.
Meanwhile, you can only provide us with one example of why a permanent AC granting item should be priced so low, and to be honest, it's a terrible example that violates PF's own pricing rules (like other items in the SAME BOOK), while we've provided multiple examples of other permanent AC granting items that you are simply ignoring (and from the Core Rules, no less).
You are trying to compare an item that grants AC to rules-breaking spell-trigger items, in a manner the devs themselves say not to do, instead of using the rules that are put specifically into the item creation rules for making items that grant AC bonuses. Indeed, the very closest item, a Ring of Force Shield from the Core Rules, you decry as overpriced, despite the fact that it is actually UNDERPRICED by the item creation rules, and compares straight across to a Ring of Prot+2.
Unfortunately for you, this IS an item that grants AC bonuses (and more besides), and is most similar to them, so that is how it should be priced.
Your insistence on x/day pricing convention is a smokescreen to cheese. You cannot validate using the formula with ANY armor bonus-providing spell, because they are so uneven in effect.
The AC pricing rules are in there for a reason. You are ignoring them because they are inconvenient and you believe you should get Shield AC for nothing.
We have no sympathy. You want Shield AC, wield a shield, or spend your wands or skill points. Don't underprice its value. You wouldn't be arguing so hard if you didn't think it was valuable. We DO think it's valuable, and that is why our position has not budged.
==Aelryinth
Your arguments are getting really jumbled here. Now you're talking about the order mages should buy things in when earlier you were arguing that this is too good of an item for 2H fighters.
I'm illustrating the value of AC, and the relative value of the Mage ARmor spell.
That spell is worth a 16k magic item. By itself.A +4 Shield AC should be worth the same or more, because shield bonuses are MUCH harder to get then armor bonuses. Tellingly, it takes at least a Heavy Shield +2 Ghost Touch to replicate the effect of this FIRST LEVEL SPELL.
That means the bonus it provides is VALUABLE.
And the arguments to make it cheap because it is short duration don't hold water. that just means you buy more of them, or put in more uses/day.
The 'standard action to use' is already priced into the rules...and is also being ignored, because 10% isn't low enough.
As I say above, I've no sympathy. Go buy a quick-draw H. Shield +2 Ghost Touch. Use a wand. Invest in UMD. Don't think that because you want this great effect for next to nothing that means it is balanced. It's more valuable then mage armor, and that's 16k. A 3/day use Mage Armor item would cover you for just about every fight, for all the reasons you're trying to use, and be MUCH CHEAPER then 16k.
The devs say specifically NOT to do this. And you're all still trying to.
No sympathy, sorry.
==Aelryinth
I think I'd rather spend 12,000 gp on a 5/day blur item. Or maybe some other 5-per-day/continuous 2nd level spell effect. Or maybe a 2/day 3rd level effect or 1/day 4th level effect.
Also, there don't seem to be a bunch of you. Just you and about 3 other posters who haven't chimed in in quite a while. Check the list of prices given. While not everyone agrees it should be 1080 gp, most people agree it should be cheaper than 12k.
And again you continue to gloss over just how short 3 minutes is, especially when you need to use 3 of those 30 rounds on using the item itself.
Having the spell get better with caster level would be entirely appropriate.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If the Shield spell were written today, for the first time, as part of the pathfinder game, it would scale. The spell works the way it does because of legacy. That is why the flavor text describing facing rules is still in it. The game hasn't had facing rules for over 12 years.
When putting spells that have static bonuses into items it must be done carefully, especially those spells which are legacy carry-overs.
That being said, the personal range goes a long way to fixing the problems this spell could cause in a pathfinder game.
I think I'd rather spend 12,000 gp on a 5/day blur item. Or maybe some other 5-per-day/continuous 2nd level spell effect. Or maybe a 2/day 3rd level effect or 1/day 4th level effect.
Also, there don't seem to be a bunch of you. Just you and about 3 other posters who haven't chimed in in quite a while. Check the list of prices given. While not everyone agrees it should be 1080 gp, most people agree it should be cheaper than 12k.
And again you continue to gloss over just how short 3 minutes is, especially when you need to use 3 of those 30 rounds on using the item itself.
1)Then buy one, those are your choices as a player.
2)Actually at last count there was no majority, let alone consensus. And I counted 16 people in the "higher price" group just a few days ago.
3)There is no gloss over 3 minutes. It isn't short, it is 3 combats. By game design standards 3/5's of your adventuring day. You may play games with more encounters but the game design philosophy is based on 5 encounters/day. Trying to compare 3 minutes to 1440 minutes a day is bs.
Aelryinth, if the item is so valuable, would you mind showing a build where this is clearly the most useful item for it's value? IIRC your stance is that it should cost 12k to craft, 24k to buy - is that correct? In that case would you mind showing a build where it's bought for 14k and is too good for it's price considering what else could have been bought for those 14k?
Also, I agree a minute is plenty of time for in-combat buffs and does not limit it when used in-combat. A combat is usually 3-4 rounds, so yeah, if you activate it in combat nearly always will it last the whole combat.
However, you're also spending 25-33% of your in-combat standard actions to activate it.
Since the duration is quite short for out of combat scenarios, you will usually not have the chance to prebuff it - especially not since if you're given a round or two there's usually better things to buff with (potion of enlarge person etc).
This is different from say mage armor, which with it's one-hour duration can be drunk when entering a dungeon/dangerous situation and have a decent chance to last until at least after the first combat.
Aelryinth, if the item is so valuable, would you mind showing a build where this is clearly the most useful item for it's value? IIRC your stance is that it should cost 12k to craft, 24k to buy - is that correct? In that case would you mind showing a build where it's bought for 14k and is too good for it's price considering what else could have been bought for those 14k?
My understanding is that Aelryinth suggests the item be priced for purchase at ~12kgp. This is right inline for a 12th level character.
Example of 12th level character where the item is priced appropriately to make the decision to buy it interesting but not a "must have"Two Handed Fighter Guy
WBL for 12th - 108,000gp
Big Stick to hit baddies with +4 - 33,000gp
Boots of Speed - 12,000gp
Stat Belt +4 STR - 16,000gp
Cloak of Resistance +3 - 9,000gp
Random Junk/Who cares? - 5,000gp
That leaves about 33,000gp for armor/defenses stuff
Option 1:
Full Plate +4 - 17,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Total AC +17 for 33,650gp
or Option 2:
Full Plate +2 - 5,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Shield Spell (3 combats a day) - 12,000gp
Total AC +15 (+19 3 combats a day) for 33,650gp
THAT is what we call a BALANCED option. Give up a little AC all the time to have a little more some of the time (60%). Also instead of move and one attack, following with a full attack in the 2nd round; now he must activate the ring and move, then full attack on second round.
If this ring was 1080gp it would be in his "Random Junk/Who Cares?" bin and he would have +4 AC 60% of the time for the cost of 1 attack per combat. That item becomes "no brainer" choice and is therefore under-priced.
So there is your sample build that demonstrates the item is priced correctly to provide an interesting option for a 12th level character, which is exactly when characters should be looking at +4 "other AC" permanent items.
This doesn't even take into account the other benefits provided by the shield spell.
I think I'd rather spend 12,000 gp on a 5/day blur item. Or maybe some other 5-per-day/continuous 2nd level spell effect. Or maybe a 2/day 3rd level effect or 1/day 4th level effect.
Also, there don't seem to be a bunch of you. Just you and about 3 other posters who haven't chimed in in quite a while. Check the list of prices given. While not everyone agrees it should be 1080 gp, most people agree it should be cheaper than 12k.
And again you continue to gloss over just how short 3 minutes is, especially when you need to use 3 of those 30 rounds on using the item itself.
1)Then buy one, those are your choices as a player.
2)Actually at last count there was no majority, let alone consensus. And I counted 16 people in the "higher price" group just a few days ago.
3)There is no gloss over 3 minutes. It isn't short, it is 3 combats. By game design standards 3/5's of your adventuring day. You may play games with more encounters but the game design philosophy is based on 5 encounters/day. Trying to compare 3 minutes to 1440 minutes a day is bs.
1) I'm saying that would be my choice as a player. Also, I'd much rather have your build 1 than build 2. For just 2 AC difference, I get my AC all the time.
2) What's your definition of "higher price"? All I said was I only counted about 4 people that were at 12k or higher, not everyone else was saying 1k.
3) I'm not comparing it to 1440 minutes. I'm comparing it to maybe 3-5 hours. If the enemies retreat and regroup, as the enemies in games I run do, that can easily burn through 1 minute.
Last game, my group went to look for some missing engineers. They found bloodstains around the entrance to the cave the engineers were trying to seal. A paranoid player might throw up a buff at this point, but it took them several rounds to descend into the cave before meeting some giant ants. If they buffed at the top of the hole, they might still have a round or two left. If they waited until they found an enemy, that's fine too. That's one use down.
Exploring the cave, they came across a group of kobolds fighting an ochre jelly. Again, a chance to prebuff as the bad guys are kind of busy. The kobolds managed to seal the jelly in a side cave and flee the area down a deep hole. The players followed them hoping to find out where the engineers went. If they suspected a trap or ambush at the bottom they could have buffed for that. Once at the bottom, they saw to one side a stone wall with a wary kobold on watch at the top. Again a chance to buff. Would you have cast shield at any of those opportunities? If you did, that's one charge wasted as none of those lead to any combat.
Following the trail further, they fought some more ants. If you buffed for that fight, that's another charge down, which might be your last.
Finally, they found a giant ant nest. Now, you might or might not have a charge left. They decided not to assault an unknown number of giant ants right then and headed back. Any random encounters on the way out and the ring of shield would probably be of no more use.
Or, you might wait until a fight's certain and then use your ring. Except that wastes a turn you could be doing something else. Are the first set of giant ants worth that turn? What about the second? If you used a charge against the kobolds, they'd likely have retreated and wasted your charge anyway.
On the other hand, 3 mage armors would definitely last the whole trip. Of course, that's 150 gp worth of potions.
Edit: Also, I said I'd charge 1080 in the high magic game I'm currently running, and 6480 in a low magic game. But not 12k in any game.
It's a poor question because the example I give also vastly increases the duration of the buff.
That 12k ring has a duration of 12 minutes, not one minute. I am being very specific and saying you should NOT ALLOW such a 1 minute usable device to EXIST for what it does.
A +2 version of the Ring is a Ring of Force Shield...unlimited use for 8k.
I don't believe in giving out cheap +4 bonuses that a character can't normally get without significant investment. This is double true of something that is devalued because 'any melee character can grab a shield, so I should have shield AC all the time'.
My counter proposal is quite simple. If the Ring was priced at 1080 gp, is there any reason you wouldn't own 3-4 of the rings if you were worried about spending one before a fight for no effect? Because they are so much cheaper then a Pearl of Power or other substitution, of course you'd own multiples of them.
The low duration and action cost is a smokescreen trying to justify the cost. The cost will simply allow you to nullify both factors by buying more of the rings on the cheap. It is the same reason you only buy CLW wands at level 1. Instead of buying a longer duration shield spell effect, I'll just buy more rings!
A +1 Shield to AC ring should cost you 750 gp for 3 minutes of AC, 3/day.
Costs and benefits increase from there as you level. To get the full benefits of a Shield spell, just like getting the full benefits of a mage armor spell, you have to get the +4 version and lay out a significant amount of money (12k). To make it cheap devalues what AC is, devalues those who use shields, and empowers those who cannot get Shield AC by now making it trivial to do so.
No just treating it as a 1st level spell x CL 1. You can't price an AC bonus that way. As I've have also pointed out multiple times, Shield of Faith, Barkskin, and Mage Armor all provide either different AC benefits, or different durations, and the pricing formula can't take any of them into account. The discrepancy between Shield of Faith and Shield is especially imbalanced...you get HALF the AC benefit for the same cost.
That's not how you price AC, sorry.
Therefore, you can't use SL x CL. It simply CANNOT price such spells accurately.
You use the AC item rules, and put everything on equal footing. That is all.
I'd also like to point out that the 5/day blur item is basically a displacer cloak. (And Concealment items get less and less useful as you level, as more and more things can see right through them.)
Your description of choices you have to make is PERFECT. Do I do this or that? Exactly how it is supposed to be. If you don't want to have to make the choice, DON"T BUY THE RING.
==Aelryinth
@Magimaster
"Higher" was anyone in the 5k+ group.
And your example demonstrated that 5 charges should be good for the whole day. This item (at every price suggested) is discounted by 40% to reflect that it only has 3 charges per day.
My understanding is that Aelryinth suggests the item be priced for purchase at ~12kgp. This is right inline for a 12th level character.
Example of 12th level character where the item is priced appropriately to make the decision to buy it interesting but not a "must have"
Ah, then ze's changed the position, at least earlier it was 24k. 12k is much more reasonable, yet...
Two Handed Fighter GuyWBL for 12th - 108,000gp
Big Stick to hit baddies with +4 - 33,000gp
Boots of Speed - 12,000gp
Stat Belt +4 STR - 16,000gp
Cloak of Resistance +3 - 9,000gp
Random Junk/Who cares? - 5,000gpThat leaves about 33,000gp for armor/defenses stuff
Option 1:
Full Plate +4 - 17,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Total AC +17 for 33,650gpor Option 2:
Full Plate +2 - 5,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Shield Spell (3 combats a day) - 12,000gp
Total AC +15 (+19 3 combats a day) for 33,650gp
I'd never ever ever pick option two, not in the least because if we assume four combats per day and four rounds per combat (which is generally good for the shield item in terms of percentual armor bonus), it eats 19% of your standard actions through the day.
Actually, if we include that, it'd be like this instead:
Total AC +17 (free standard action 3/day)
Total AC +15 (+19 3 combats a day)
And yeah, I'd pick option 1 every time.
But, at that level there are also other options!
Option 3:
Full Plate +3 - 9,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
3x Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (3 combats a day) - 7500p
Total AC +16 (+20 3 combats a day) for 33,150gp
All the benefit of option 2 and +1 AC and at will prestidigitation and (not useful) resistance and (circumstantial) endure elements. Still I'd be hard-pressed to take option 3 before option 1 - it depends a lot on the build and how much I wanted AC.
Or option 4:
Full Plate +3 - 9,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Ioun stone (1/day cast 1st level spell) - 2000gp
Headband of intelligence (+2 int, UMD) - 4000 gp
2x Wand of Shield - 1500gp
Total AC +16 (+20 for any number of combats a day) for 33,150gp
With 12+int ranks in UMD, using the wands between combats to recharge the ioun stone should be trivial, and only double 1's will negate the ability (which is 1/400, so pretty rare). Here the benefit is the same as option 2, except AC is +1, it's not limited per day as long as you get average of two out-of-combat rounds between the fights, and you get the whole benefit of having +2 to intelligence and +10 to +13 UMD (depending on build and traits).
This I would seriously consider, though that may be because I like having UMD.
1, 3 and 4 are all stronger options than the shield spell. If you think 1 isn't, we have to agree to disagree, but do you really not think 3 and 4 are clearly a lot stronger than option 2?
BTW thanks for actually putting up a wealth distribution. That makes it much easier to actually compare.
|
Option 1:
Full Plate +4 - 17,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Total AC +17 for 33,650gpOption 2:
Full Plate +2 - 5,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Shield Spell (3 combats a day) - 12,000gp
Total AC +15 (+19 3 combats a day) for 33,650gpOption 3:
Full Plate +3 - 9,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
3x Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (3 combats a day) - 7500p
Total AC +16 (+20 3 combats a day) for 33,150gpOption 4:
Full Plate +3 - 9,650gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 - 8,000gp
Ring of Protection +2 - 8,000gp
Ioun stone (1/day cast 1st level spell) - 2000gp
Headband of intelligence (+2 int, UMD) - 4000 gp
2x Wand of Shield - 1500gp
Total AC +16 (+20 for any number of combats a day) for 33,150gp
Well, let's not forget Option 5, should the item be priced as some people are suggesting.
Full Plate + 4 - 17,650gp
Amulet of Bark Skin (90 minutes per day) * 2 - 12,960gp
Ring of Shield of Faith (3 minutes per day) - 1,080gp
Ring of Shield (3 minutes per day) * 2 - 2,160gp
Total AC +13 (+21 for three combats per day, +19 for 3 other combats per day) for 33,850gp. For an additional 1,080gp, that +21 can be for 6 combats per day.
I mean, we're putting Shield spell into an item, why not Barkskin and Shield of Faith as well, right? And you probably don't need the duplicate Amulet of Barkskin, as it lasts 30 minutes per casting, so that's 6,480gp to spare.
And before you say exactly what I know you're going to say, as pointed out, the Devs have valued your standard action at 10%. i.e. Not a big deal. That's why the difference between a continuous item (requiring no action) and a command word item (requiring a standard action) is the difference between 1,800gp and 2,000gp.
As for the durations, the formulas the guidelines provide show an infinite use command word item to be the same value as a 5 Charges per day command word item. As such, it's reasonable to assume the standard adventuring day consists of 5 encounters, give or take one or two either way. So my above Option 5 covers you for all encounters during the day. Durations covered.
For the current record, the Ring of Shield I worked out in my last post was 11,407.5gp for 12 minutes of +4 Shield AC and immunity to Magic Missiles, 3 times per day. If you have any queries about how I reached that price, feel free to ask, though I feel I was clear in my post.
btw, can anyone provide a link to this Ioun Stone? I can't access the SRD atm, and I can't find it on the PRD.
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.
Yes, I am aware of that. But we are looking for items that do similar things.
The charges per day option essentially works on the basis that an item that has 5 charges per day is the equivalent of a continuous or at-will item that does the same thing.
So an item that has 3 charges per day would have a price equal to 3/5ths of that item. As a result, a ring of force shield that gives a +4 bonus and only works 3 times a day would be worth 32,000 * 3 / 5 or 19,200 gp.
People have brought up the cloak of the hedge wizard as an alternative, but I really don't think the designer of that item though through the ramifications of the item. It seems unlikely that the designer envisioned someone other than a full arcane caster using it and he did not realize that he was opening up a big can of worms by giving easy access to personal-range spells. I would require the use of the cloak of the hedge wizard to require a UMD check as if it were a wand in order to use the personal spells therein.
Peet
Well, let's not forget Option 5, should the item be priced as some people are suggesting.Full Plate + 4 - 17,650gp
Amulet of Bark Skin (90 minutes per day) * 2 - 12,960gp
Ring of Shield of Faith (3 minutes per day) - 1,080gp
Ring of Shield (3 minutes per day) * 2 - 2,160gp
Total AC +13 (+21 for three combats per day, +19 for 3 other combats per day) for 33,850gp. For an additional 1,080gp, that +21 can be for 6 combats per day.
First of, who's talked about amulets of bark skin? And are you seriously going to spend 2 standard actions in combat casting that kind of things? I mean if you're so concerned about defense and care so little about offense, why even build a two-handed weapon fighter? At that point, regular sword and board is far preferable.
But I think it's disingenious to say that "if you accept X you have to accept Y" because the main claim by me and several others is "don't stare yourself blind at the formula, compare to existing items and means to reach a similar effect". You're adding things we've never discussed, very very close to a strawman. We're discussing a command word ring of shield, so stay to that and the items in the books rather than creating other custom items and claiming we accept those.
I mean, we're putting Shield spell into an item, why not Barkskin and Shield of Faith as well, right?
No, saying something should be priced X because that's a balanced price does not mean we should price everything X. Compare to similar items, first and foremost. That said I'd have no issues whatsoever with a ring of shield of faith, at the right price.
But then, even if this was proof that 1080 gp is too low (though I think this is a bad example, I fully believe you could prove 1080 is too low) that doesn't mean the right pricing is 12k. I've never advocated 1080 gp either, I think that's too low for what this item does.
And before you say exactly what I know you're going to say, as pointed out, the Devs have valued your standard action at 10%.
Where is this quote? And does this mean I can get a free action Stinking Cloud scroll for a 10% markup? Hey, why not a wand of free action cure light wounds for 825 gp?
I doubt they've released such a statement. It sounds more like extrapolation from cherry-picking a few items or picking out a single guideline.
i.e. Not a big deal. That's why the difference between a continuous item (requiring no action) and a command word item (requiring a standard action) is the difference between 1,800gp and 2,000gp.
The formula is the last thing that should be used. I compare to similar items, because those exist. I don't know why you think the formula should come before that and set the standard when the guidelines explicitly say the formula is a last resort.
Also note that the difference between a minutes/level command word and minutes/level continuous is 1800gp vs 4000gp, even in the formula. The difference for a 10 minutes/level item is 1800 vs 3000 gp.
As for the durations, the formulas the guidelines provide show an infinite use command word item to be the same value as a 5 Charges per...
Yes, as a _general guideline_. That doesn't mean it's always the balanced approach - cure light wounds being an obvious example of an item where the difference between "at will" and "5/day" is enormous. In the case of Dismissal, the difference is neglible.
The charges per day option essentially works on the basis that an item that has 5 charges per day is the equivalent of a continuous or at-will item that does the same thing.
The guidelines are rough and explicitly are not always correct. Even given that, this is simply incorrect. By the guidelines (which of course are not always correct) a 5/day usage of Greater Invisibility (CL7) is 4*7*1800=50400 while a continuous GI item is 4*7*2000*8=448000.
People have brought up the cloak of the hedge wizard as an alternative, but I really don't think the designer of that item though through the ramifications of the item. It seems unlikely that the designer envisioned someone other than a full arcane caster using it and he did not realize that he was opening up a big can of worms by giving easy access to personal-range spells. I would require the use of the cloak of the hedge wizard to require a UMD check as if it were a wand in order to use the personal spells therein.
That isn't the only method though. The ioun stone for 2000 gp also lets you use it, as long as you can get the spell into it (through a wand used by a friendly caster/UMD'er or any other way).
There is absolutely no reason why this ring should be more expensive just because of the spell it can cast. Any other first level spell that you wanted to cast 3x per day at CL 1 would cost 1080g. There's no reason why the item having Shield or Mage Armor, or Protection from Evil, or Shield of Faith, or any other spell that grants temporary AC should make it more expensive.
For most of those spells I would agree with you. But shield is an exception because the spell's range is personal. Personal spells are restricted from use by non-casters because they provide an advantage that in the hands of martial characters becomes broken.
Giving mage armor to a fighter is no big deal. Odds are it will not increase his AC at all, though it will provide him with some protection against incorporeal creatures, so it's not completely useless.
Shield, on the other hand, grants a bonus that is harder to duplicate. A mundane shield will only grant the same bonus if it is a Tower shield, and regardless of the type or level of enhancement it needs to be wielded. The main group of people who are trying to get access to shield are people playing two-handed martials, who want the extra damage that they get from wielding weapons with both hands (which is about a +50% spike) and still want a shield bonus.
A shield with the animated property is supposed to be the way that you get this, and an animated +2 heavy shield costs 16,170 gp. However, the animated property only animates the shield for 4 rounds at a time. I think as a GM I would be willing to allow a greater animated property that counts as a +3 ability instead of a +2 and animates the shield for a full minute instead of only 24 seconds. So 25,170 gp for that.
Now you want to only animate it for 3 times per day? Okay, the greater animated property in this case is costing 21,000gp, so 3/5ths of that would be 12,600. So add that to the base +2 shield and you get 16,770 gp. This shield would still have an armor check penalty though so to make it equivalent of shield we will make it mithral for an extra 1,000 gp, so the grand total is 17,770 gp. Cheaper than the 3/day ring of force shield +4 (which I calculated above at 19,200 gp), but not by a lot.
Peet
The charges per day option essentially works on the basis that an item that has 5 charges per day is the equivalent of a continuous or at-will item that does the same thing.The guidelines are rough and explicitly are not always correct. Even given that, this is simply incorrect. By the guidelines (which of course are not always correct) a 5/day usage of Greater Invisibility (CL7) is 4*7*1800=50400 while a continuous GI item is 4*7*2000*8=448000.
There are variations certainly. In this case the continuous effect is multiplied substantially because the base spell has such a short duration. But an at will item of greater invisibility will have the same cost as a 5/day item of greater invisibility. A continuous item imposes multipliers on this base cost depending on the original duration.
People have brought up the cloak of the hedge wizard as an alternative, but I really don't think the designer of that item though through the ramifications of the item. It seems unlikely that the designer envisioned someone other than a full arcane caster using it and he did not realize that he was opening up a big can of worms by giving easy access to personal-range spells. I would require the use of the cloak of the hedge wizard to require a UMD check as if it were a wand in order to use the personal spells therein.That isn't the only method though. The ioun stone for 2000 gp also lets you use it, as long as you can get the spell into it (through a wand used by a friendly caster/UMD'er or any other way).
Yep. And my rule would still be the same. You want to use a spell storing item to cast a personal-range spell that is not on your spell list? Fine, make a UMD check.
My rule for my games is always: No personal spells unless you can cast them or can make that UMD check. You really want shield? Take a level of Wizard (actually I would probably pick Magus), or get your UMD up.
Peet
an at will item of greater invisibility will have the same cost as a 5/day item of greater invisibility
No, by the _formulas_ which are the _last resort_ of the item pricing guidelines it would be the same. There's an important difference there. But yes, primarily the difference is due to the duration of the spell - and note that Shield has a low duration so a continuous item of it is not a 12% markup, it's a 122% markup.
Though again, the formulas are a last resort and primarily one should look at already existing items.
My rule for my games is always: No personal spells unless you can cast them or can make that UMD check. You really want shield? Take a level of Wizard (actually I would probably pick Magus), or get your UMD up.
Okay, but isn't advocating setting the price based on house rules on already existing items kinda weird? And doesn't that further the martial/caster disparity, house ruling away items useful for martials?
I mean, you say giving shield is different from giving mage armor because it's hard to get shield - but half of that difficulty is because you've decided to remove the already existing options for getting shield without taking class levels.
For most of those spells I would agree with you. But shield is an exception because the spell's range is personal. Personal spells are restricted from use by non-casters because they provide an advantage that in the hands of martial characters becomes broken.
Oh for Peet's sake ;-)
There's actually nothing in the rules or guidelines indicating that a personal range spell should be any more expensive than any other spell. If a GM wants to make them more expensive, then that's entirely his judgement call. But the fact of the matter is that you're making an argument based on a premise that's not in the game, at least in regards to command word items - which is what we are talking about.
People have brought up the cloak of the hedge wizard as an alternative, but I really don't think the designer of that item though through the ramifications of the item. It seems unlikely that the designer envisioned someone other than a full arcane caster using it and he did not realize that he was opening up a big can of worms by giving easy access to personal-range spells. I would require the use of the cloak of the hedge wizard to require a UMD check as if it were a wand in order to use the personal spells therein.
You're assuming that this is the case, but the fact of the matter is Paizo has not had any retractions or errata regarding this particular item. There was another thread specifically about the cloak of the hedge wizard, and most thought it was priced appropriately. If most people think the item is truly game breaking or priced incorrectly, then I'm sure Paizo will eventually listen to the masses (and hopefully not the vocal minority) and either change the spells associated with the cloak or re-price the item. I also think the cloak was very clearly meant for non-casters, but we are now trying to get into the designer's intent, and there's really no way for either of us to know that at this time.
Anyway, I do think action economy trumps a +4 shield bonus to AC. Just based on personal experience so far, I find that pre-buffing prior to combat is really not possible all the time. If our party pre-buffs 50% of the time, we are doing very well. I think there would be justification for significantly higher costs for this item if it were being activated at all times before combat. I would then agree that there's virtually no difference between always on and 30 rounds of combat a day.
At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say we can all agree to disagree on this one. As Kudaku has pointed out, there's been no new arguments from anyone regarding this item. There's two sides firmly entrenched in their positions, and no one is changing the other's opinions.
|
|
First of, who's talked about amulets of bark skin? And are you seriously going to spend 2 standard actions in combat casting that kind of things? I mean if you're so concerned about defense and care so little about offense, why even build a two-handed weapon fighter? At that point, regular sword and board is far preferable.
But I think it's disingenious to say that "if you accept X you have to accept Y" because the main claim by me and several others is "don't stare yourself blind at the formula, compare to existing items and means to reach a similar effect". You're adding things we've never discussed, very very close to a strawman. We're discussing a command word ring of shield, so stay to that and the items in the books rather than creating other custom items and claiming we accept those.
Oh, come now. You're not seriously suggesting that the Ring of Shield is any different, one iota, than an Amulet of Barkskin, are you? I must assume you're not, because if you are, there's actually no point in having this discussion. They do the EXACT. SAME. THING. They're spells that add AC. Except Shield adds more AC, so it being a Charges per day item is okay and Barkskin is off limits?
No, saying something should be priced X because that's a balanced price does not mean we should price everything X. Compare to similar items, first and foremost. That said I'd have no issues whatsoever with a ring of shield of faith, at the right price.
But then, even if this was proof that 1080 gp is too low (though I think this is a bad example, I fully believe you could prove 1080 is too low) that doesn't mean the right pricing is 12k. I've never advocated 1080 gp either, I think that's too low for what this item does.
No, but we should price everything that does X, Xgp. Barkskin gives you AC. You don't price an item that casts Barkskin, you price AC (Natural), the Amulet of Natural Armour. Shield of Faith gives you AC. You don't price an item that casts Shield of Faith, you price AC (Deflection), the Ring of Protection. Mage Armour gives you AC. You don't price an item that casts Mage Armour, you price AC (Armour), the Bracers of Armour. Shield gives you AC. You want to price an item that casts Shield, you don't want to price AC (Other).
You have a wand, which is a consumable, not a permanent item. People have mentioned potions, which are not permanent items. People are talking scrolls, which are not permanent items. The only, only permanent item comparison you have is the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard. I've got three items to your one. So why is it my price is not based on comparable items but yours apparently is? I'd say it's because both of our estimates, both yours and mine, are based on existing items. I just feel mine has more support.
btw, what is your price, exactly? And how do you calculate it? Because if it's based on the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, you'll come out with 1,080gp. And you just admitted you think that's too low. So I'd really like to see what suggestion, and the back up for said suggestion, you can bring to the discussion. I've got my price, and showed all the assumptions and calculations used to come to it.
Also, I ask again, if someone would be so kind as to provide a PRD link to this Ioun Stone used in your Option 4, that'd be great.
Where is this quote? And does this mean I can get a free action Stinking Cloud scroll for a 10% markup? Hey, why not a wand of free action cure light wounds for 825 gp?
I doubt they've released such a statement. It sounds more like extrapolation from cherry-picking a few items or picking out a single guideline.
The formula is the last thing that should be used. I compare to similar items, because those exist. I don't know why you think the formula should come before that and set the standard when the guidelines explicitly say the formula is a last resort.
Also note that the difference between a minutes/level command word and minutes/level continuous is 1800gp vs 4000gp, even in the formula. The difference for a 10 minutes/level item is 1800 vs 3000 gp.
Wouldn't that be awesome? :D But, alas, no. You're right, I cherry-picked that right out of the guidelines, ignoring all the others. (Kind of like your focus on that cloak, eh?) No, taking into account the other guidelines, there's no guidelines for the command word infinite use item that casts an instantaneous effect being turned into a "continuous" or "use-activated" item. So it's reasonable enough to assume those instantaneous spells can't be made anything shorter than the duration, and casting time, they are.
In all seriousness though, I do believe I'm comparing to similar items that exist, first and foremost. Those items are not ones that cast spells, but ones that increase AC. As I said above, you wouldn't make casting items with the other low level spells that give AC, because they'd be cheaper than the actual magic items that are made using those spells. So I don't see why an item using Shield should be able to avoid that while they can't. After that, there are no similar items that then reduce that bonus AC to X Charges per day. Lacking any actual rules for that, or comparison, I go to the guidelines. I don't think I'd ever buy this item, but that's mostly because I've only played Sword'n'Boarders and characters with Shield on their spell list. But an item's price shouldn't be based on "How useful is this item to me now?", but on a more general "How useful is this item, overall?" Otherwise I could buy a Robe of Arcane Heritage with my Cleric for 1gp, because it's worthless to him, then give it to a Sorcerer friend down the line. :P
I mean, you say giving shield is different from giving mage armor because it's hard to get shield - but half of that difficulty is because you've decided to remove the already existing options for getting shield without taking class levels.
Right, you take one option, more damage, you lose out on another option, having a shield. Like, you take spellcasting, you lose out on martial prowess. It's a game of trade offs. That's balance, right? But you're suggesting the Two Handed Fighter should get Shield bonuses as well. He should have his cake and eat it too. The Sword'n'Boarders just lost out, unless you're giving them an equally cheap item that allows them to fight with the damage of a Two Handed Fighter for 3 fights per day.
You're assuming that this is the case, but the fact of the matter is Paizo has not had any retractions or errata regarding this particular item. There was another thread specifically about the cloak of the hedge wizard, and most thought it was priced appropriately. If most people think the item is truly game breaking or priced incorrectly, then I'm sure Paizo will eventually listen to the masses (and hopefully not the vocal minority) and either change the spells associated with the cloak or re-price the item. I also think the cloak was very clearly meant for non-casters, but we are now trying to get into the designer's intent, and there's really no way for either of us to know that at this time.
There are FAQ's coming out for the CRB still. Just because it hasn't been touched yet, doesn't mean it won't be. And was that thread framed "Is this item broken?" or was it framed "This item exists. Based on this item, people want to do X. Is X broken?" Because those are two very different questions. The second one is what we're discussing here. The first is what that thread was about.
At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say we can all agree to disagree on this one. As Kudaku has pointed out, there's been no new arguments from anyone regarding this item. There's two sides firmly entrenched in their positions, and no one is changing the other's opinions.
I suppose you're right. I think both sides are still going to try to have their opinion shown as the last post though. (Case in point ;D ) It's been fun discussing it with you guys though, lots of interesting points raised. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, come now. You're not seriously suggesting that the Ring of Shield is any different, one iota, than an Amulet of Barkskin, are you? I must assume you're not, because if you are, there's actually no point in having this discussion. They do the EXACT. SAME. THING. They're spells that add AC. Except Shield adds more AC, so it being a Charges per day item is okay and Barkskin is off limits?
I don't have time to make a long post (or indeed read all the new posts) just now, but this one jumped out at me:
The ring of Shield is command word-activated and has a duration of 1 minute per charge. That 1 minute means it'll last for a maximum of one encounter, and it needs to be activated IN that encounter - there is a significant cost (no full attack for you) involved in activating it.
An amulet of Barkskin is also command word-activated, but has a duration of 30 minutes per charge - not 1. Those 30 minutes means it'll last for multiple encounters, and it can be activated before the encounter assuming you know you're actually heading into danger - there is no significant cost involved in activating it since the duration is long enough to keep you going for a while.
90 minutes is enough to clear most dungeons.
3 minutes is not.
Respectfully, there is a significant difference.
Oh for Peet's sake ;-)
:P
There's actually nothing in the rules or guidelines indicating that a personal range spell should be any more expensive than any other spell.
Except that there are items that duplicate the effects of personal spells at a far greater cost than if they just followed the basic formula. This tells me that the game designers generally are very wary of allowing characters unrestricted access to those spells. The biggest guideline is to find similar items and to price accordingly. That rule trumps the specific formulas for magic item creation. The game designers were aware that wondrous items have the widest variation in function.
The problem I have with personal-range spells is that they seem to be the center of a lot of broken combos. And because of the way things scale in terms of cost according to the formulae the level 1 spells are the big draw.
The spell-trigger & Use Magic Device rules seem to me to be the simplest way to resolve the conflict, since they cover that very feature. Potions can be used by anyone, but personal spells cannot be made into potions. Scrolls and wands require casting or UMD, and are the only consumable option for getting a personal spell on yourself. Why should it be different for non-permanent items? Especially for spell-in-a-can items which essentially work like reusable wands.
I am now imagining a metamagic feat called "Impersonal Spell" which takes a spell with a range of personal and turns it into a touch spell. This feat would allow personal spells to be cast on someone other than the caster. The question is what level increase should the feat have? Hard to say but I am thinking +2 would be a safe bet. Would shield be worth casting on your two-handed fighter if it took a 3rd level slot? I am thinking probably yes, often, though possibly not always. If that worked then an item that uses personal spells on non-casters could be built around that feat.
Peet
|
|
I don't have time to make a long post (or indeed read all the new posts) just now, but this one jumped out at me:
The ring of Shield is command word-activated and has a duration of 1 minute per charge. That 1 minute means it'll last for a maximum of one encounter, and it needs to be activated IN that encounter - there is a significant cost (no full attack for you) involved in activating it.
An amulet of Barkskin is also command word-activated, but has a duration of 30 minutes per charge - not 1. Those 30 minutes means it'll last for multiple encounters, and it can be activated before the encounter assuming you know you're actually heading into danger - there is no significant cost involved in activating it since the duration is long enough to keep you going for a while.
90 minutes is enough to clear most dungeons.
3 minutes is not.Respectfully, there is a significant difference.
Oh, very well then. Yes, there is a difference. In principle, they are very similar. They would both be permanent magic items (i.e. not a consumable) with charges per day that give an AC boost for a limited time. The limited time provided by the amulet of barkskin is significantly longer, while its AC boost is lower. The point remains however. An amulet of barkskin, much like bracers of mage armour, stand opposed to the amulet of natural armour, like the bracers of armour. Likewise, a ring of shield of faith stands opposed to a ring of protection. A ring of shield should not slip through the cracks just because it does not currently have an equivalent by default within the system. It should be treated the same as they are.
I am now imagining a metamagic feat called "Impersonal Spell" which takes a spell with a range of personal and turns it into a touch spell. This feat would allow personal spells to be cast on someone other than the caster. The question is what level increase should the feat have? Hard to say but I am thinking +2 would be a safe bet. Would shield be worth casting on your two-handed fighter if it took a 3rd level slot? I am thinking probably yes, often, though possibly not always. If that worked then an item that uses personal spells on non-casters could be built around that feat.
Careful Peet. This very thing came up before, and has been seen in other threads. It is a dangerous, terrible thing, and leads to possible insta-gib moves, mainly due to personal spells having no saving throw or spell resistance, as they were never designed to be used on others. See Skinsend for one particularly disturbing example.
I tried to find the "amulet of barkskin" but couldn't find it on the pfsrd or in Ultimate Equipment.
But looking at it from the basic formula, an amulet of barkskin which simply casts barkskin on command 3 times per day should cost 2 x 3 x 1,800 x 3/5 = 6,480. And it provides a +2 natural armor bonus. So you want a +4 shield bonus for 1/6th the price?
Of course, as kudaku pointed out this amulet has a much longer duration. Would it be reasonable to make barkskin a 1st level spell if its duration was reduced to 1 min/level instead of 10 min/level? Yeah, that would work for me. So your barkskin item would provide only half the bonus for the same price and action economy... but wait! If barkskin could be cast at first level the formula might change because it normally requires a third level caster. The progression is that at 3rd level it gives +2, at 6th it gives +3, at 9th level it gives +4, and so on. By this reading the formula actually is (caster level/3) + 1. So a 1st level version of barkskin cast at 1st level would give you a +1 natural armor bonus.
Remember that not all bonuses are created equal. Armor bonuses are the least valuable because they are easily duplicated through mundane items. Deflection bonuses and Natural Armor enhancement bonuses are more valuable because they stack with the above and have some useful side effects. But these bonuses are also provided by slotted items that don't have to be wielded. Shield bonuses are very class-specific and hinge upon both class abilities and the act of wielding a shield. Giving a class with low AC a spell that increases their shield bonus doesn't break the game, but giving a high AC class the ability to forget about wielding their shield is very powerful, since that second hand can be switched to using weapons.
Peet
I also think the cloak was very clearly meant for non-casters
WHAT?!?!??!!!! You actually think that an item call CLOAK OF THE HEDGE WIZARD was VERY CLEARLY meant for non-casters?!?!
I think it is very clear that your rose glasses have clouded your judgement in this matter.
Rose Glasses
CL 1 Price 1080gp
Aura - Minor Enchantment
These glasses are worn by the OP so they may only see what they wish to see in relation to their question.
Oh, come now. You're not seriously suggesting that the Ring of Shield is any different, one iota, than an Amulet of Barkskin, are you? I must assume you're not, because if you are, there's actually no point in having this discussion. They do the EXACT. SAME. THING. They're spells that add AC. Except Shield adds more AC, so it being a Charges per day item is okay and Barkskin is off limits?I don't have time to make a long post (or indeed read all the new posts) just now, but this one jumped out at me:
The ring of Shield is command word-activated and has a duration of 1 minute per charge. That 1 minute means it'll last for a maximum of one encounter, and it needs to be activated IN that encounter - there is a significant cost (no full attack for you) involved in activating it.
An amulet of Barkskin is also command word-activated, but has a duration of 30 minutes per charge - not 1. Those 30 minutes means it'll last for multiple encounters, and it can be activated before the encounter assuming you know you're actually heading into danger - there is no significant cost involved in activating it since the duration is long enough to keep you going for a while.
90 minutes is enough to clear most dungeons.
3 minutes is not.Respectfully, there is a significant difference.
You are NOT giving up a full attack, you are giving up 1 attack after your first move. Who starts a battle in range of full-attack? Did you fall into a pit of Kobolds and land on your feet? Every combat of everyday?
You give up your first round attack for +4 Shield bonus. So Move, Attack, Full Round Attack becomes Activate, Move, Full Round Attack.
Option 3:
In this option he is giving up his cloak of resistance +3. That is a BIG deal. I cant think of any player that would give up that slot. This is really not a reasonable option, but seeing as how the player is giving up a "Big 6" item to get that Shield bonus I would probably be OK with it. Especially seeing as how he has to keep swapping out his cloaks, carries the greater risk of one of them being stolen/destroyed etc.
Or option 4:
In this option he is giving up another huge character resource, skill points. With his precious 2 skill points (maybe one with a low INT score) he should be buying Perception and Acrobatics. Perception is huge for obvious reasons, being caught in a surprise round is worse than loosing actions. Acrobatics to avoid AoO's while you chase down your enemies. I could see an argument for taking UMD over acrobatics, but with a 7 CHA and no take 10 on UMD, this will take a while to become reliable and will probably cost you a feat. So there's even more of your build you have to give up to get the "option 4 discount"
Oh, come now. You're not seriously suggesting that the Ring of Shield is any different, one iota, than an Amulet of Barkskin, are you?
If they are identical there is no need to include them in the comparison. Obviously they are different, otherwise there'd be no need for the straw man at all.
Mainly the differ in duration, which is a Big Deal in my opinion in this case. Your opinion may vary, but since I've clearly stated I do NOT advocate an amulet of barkskin (that'd be a hole different discussion and considerations I don't care for right now), continuing to use it as an argument is a straw man.I'll make you a deal: You stop using that straw man argument and I'll just simply agree that 1080 is too low. So now we know that 12k makes it not considerable, and 1080 is too cheap. So, we should probably aim somewhere in between.
So, where should we put it? If we put it at, say, 8k, when would it be most wanted then? What other options would there be? I ask you because if I post an example level it could always be met with "well that isn't the optimal level to use it" so it's better that you set the parameters.
You have a wand, which is a consumable, not a permanent item. People have mentioned potions, which are not permanent items. People are talking scrolls, which are not permanent items. The only, only permanent item comparison you have is the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard. I've got three items to your one. So why is it my price is not based on comparable items but yours apparently is?
Potions of shield do not exist. Disregarding wands and scrolls because they are consumables is completely arbitrary and not at all supported by the guidelines. And it's not about numbers, it's about what items are closest in effect. The Ioun Stone+Wand results in being able to get a +4 shield bonus as a standard action unlimited times per day if given a few rounds downtime, at a cost of 2750+15/use beyond first 50. Three cloaks results in being able to gain a +4 shield bonus for one minute as a standard action three times per day. These are all far closer to the "being able to gain a +4 shield bonus for one minute as a standard action three times per day" (in fact, the last one is identical and the first one is pretty close too) than just "you gain a +4 deflection bonus 24/7".
btw, what is your price, exactly? And how do you calculate it?
I think a fair price is somewhere between 3000 and 5000 gp, depending on campaign style etc. In Kingmaker I think it'd be worth around 5000 gp, in RotRL about 3000. I calculate it by comparing it to the cloak of the hedgewizard and ioun stone + wand method, as well as the RoP, and thinking "at what point would my players have a hard time deciding which to buy, presented with the option to buy either of them?". Again, the formulas are just a fallback, it's not that I reverse engineer the cloak - it's "is it a hard choice between 2/day shield and at will prestidigitation plus other minor goodies - and 3/day shield?". If the answer is yes, then a price of 5000 is fair in my opinion.
Wouldn't that be awesome? :D But, alas, no. You're right, I cherry-picked that right out of the guidelines, ignoring all the others. (Kind of like your focus on that cloak, eh?)
The difference being arbitrarily extrapolating from "last resort" formulas while skipping part of them like the duration modifier and claiming "this is what the devs think items are worth" vs taking the only item that does exactly what this intended item does (though more limited times per day + other stuff) and comparing it to this item instead of comparing this item to items that do completely different things.
Just for the record, I'd be okay with a ring of shield of faith too at CL1 3/day. I'd price that at tops 1500 though, due to lower bonus and that it's accessible through cheap potions and wands. Barkskin is too different for me to compare due to the enormous difference in duration.
Option 3:
In this option he is giving up his cloak of resistance +3. That is a BIG deal. I cant think of any player that would give up that slot. This is really not a reasonable option, but seeing as how the player is giving up a "Big 6" item to get that Shield bonus I would probably be OK with it. Especially seeing as how he has to keep swapping out his cloaks, carries the greater risk of one of them being stolen/destroyed etc.
That's very fair, I missed that completely. Ignore option 3 then.
In this option he is giving up another huge character resource, skill points.
Or option 4:
This however is incorrect. Note that I included a headband of intelligence tied to UMD, giving her the ranks for "free". So even with a +7 Cha and no trait for class UMD we're looking at a +10 bonus, or a 50% chance to activate a wand that only needs activating once per down time (and with two wands, risk of natural 0'ing both in the same day are fairly low and in that case I think it's not unfair to assume someone else in the party can just use the wand into the stone instead)
That's basically the main draw of option 4 - apart from gaining +1 AC compared to option 2. It gives +1 to intelligence checks of various kinds (which is pretty marginal) and at least +10 UMD (which is not marginal and can be useful for all kinds of fun stunts including scrolls and wands - of course stuff that casters can do all day, but still far better than not having it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Lordsynos
The reason I personally (and I suspect others as well) use wands, potions and scrolls as examples are because these are items that closely replicate the action economy required to activate the ring - namely a standard action to cast at the start of the round. While comparing the ring to an item that gives a continuous bonus is tempting, it's also ill advised since continuous items saves you the action required to activate the ring, and it gives you 100% uptime while the ring will at times be out of charges.
But wands are consumables and the ring is permanent, you say - yes, this is true. However a wand is a consumable that'll last you 50 encounters. Five wands will last you through 250. We presented some math earlier in the thread that established that a character will go through roughly 250 encounters (assuming no quest or RP xp) from level 1 to 20, so you'll never need more than 5 wands at the most and that's assuming you'll use this spell in every single encounter in your entire adventuring career - and trust me, the Shield spell will stop being useful before you make it to level 20. Five wands of Shield would cost a total of 3750 GP.
If you look at the guidelines in the book you'll see that this is taken into consideration. A wand (x*x*750) costs exactly 2,4 times more than an item that casts the same spell (x*x*1800) 5 times per day. So the designers felt that an item that cast the same spell (but does not require the spell on your spell list) as a wand 5 times a day should be priced at 2,4 times the wand price. A 5 times per day item translates to 2,4 wands - or 120 charges. The ring, if used 5 times per day, would earn itself in in 24 days.
However, the ring in question only has 3 charges per day, so the formula changes - we're now working with a baseline value of 1080 GP. 1080 GP is 1,44 times the price of the same spell in wand shape.
An item that casts shield 3/day is valued at the same level as 1,44 wands, or 72 charges. The ring, if used 3 times per day, would earn itself in in 24 days.
To summarize: Wands are used as a comparison point to the ring in question because the duration, the action economy cost, and the functionality of the ring most closely matches that of a wand. The guidelines appear to have taken the differences between wand costs and permanent items into consideration and have adjusted for this in their formulas.
All that said, you should not blindly trust the formula - magic item pricing is done on a case-by-case basis and generally requires a bit of guess work. A mace with continuous True Strike is different from a mace that can cast True Strike as a standard action once per day, and that difference is not sufficiently accounted for in the formula. This is where common sense and GM adjudication comes in.
The majority of posters took a look at the item, considered both sides of the argument and landed somewhere in the middle - not the 24k initially argued for, and not 1080 GP as posted in the OP. The median was about 4500 GP, and the majority of prices posted were below 8k.
Personally I think 4500 GP is still a bit high after seeing the Vibrant Purple Prism and the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, but I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable price. After all the item in question will be more or less valuable depending on the type of campaign you're running.
P.S. I tried to find the Cracked Vibrant Purple Prism on the PRD but the book it's posted in does not appear to be on the PRD. The ioun stone is published in the Pathfinder Society guidebook and is legal in PFS play. There is a PFSRD link available higher up in the post for your viewing pleasure when your internet is no longer limited.
Well it's worth noting that 250 encounters is assuming the average encounter has EL=APL. If you often have many lesser encounters (or use the slow XP track), there'll be more until you get to level 20. But it shouldn't be enough to affect things remarkably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are NOT giving up a full attack, you are giving up 1 attack after your first move. Who starts a battle in range of full-attack? Did you fall into a pit of Kobolds and land on your feet? Every combat of everyday?
You give up your first round attack for +4 Shield bonus. So Move, Attack, Full Round Attack becomes Activate, Move, Full Round Attack.
You are actually giving up your full attack, since you spend your standard action casting shield. Whether or not you can take advantage of a full attack depends on your build. That said, you seem very focused on melee builds. There are other options, including:
1. any archer or crossbow build
2. Any mount build with mounted skirmisher.
3. Any character that relies on ranged spells to engage. I'm not going to list all of them, but I assure you there are quite a few.
3. Any character that can access Pounce. Barbarians, alchemists, summoners, fighters, druids, magi with force hook charge etc.
4. Any character that is actually adjacent to a target.
5. Any character that has a way to move their speed and still do a full attack. Quick Runner's Shirt is the most popular example here.
@Ilja
That is true, and conversely if you have more encounters that are higher EL than the party then you'd have fewer encounters before you hit 20. I assumed APL=EL because it averages out..
This however is incorrect.
I missed the headband, my apologies. Seeing as you are paying 4k for the UMD headband, 2k for the ioun stone, and 3750 for a life time of wands for a total of 9750 I would say we are getting close to agreeing on a price that is fair for the ring.
You are NOT giving up a full attack, you are giving up 1 attack after your first move. Who starts a battle in range of full-attack? Did you fall into a pit of Kobolds and land on your feet? Every combat of everyday?
You give up your first round attack for +4 Shield bonus. So Move, Attack, Full Round Attack becomes Activate, Move, Full Round Attack.
You are actually giving up your full attack, since you spend your standard action casting shield. Whether or not you can take advantage of a full attack depends on your build. That said, you seem very focused on melee builds. There are other options, including:
1. any archer or crossbow build
2. Any mount build with mounted skirmisher.
3. Any character that relies on ranged spells to engage. I'm not going to list all of them, but I assure you there are quite a few.
3. Any character that can access Pounce. Barbarians, alchemists, summoners, fighters, druids, magi with force hook charge etc.
4. Any character that is actually adjacent to a target.
5. Any character that has a way to move their speed and still do a full attack. Quick Runner's Shirt is the most popular example here.
@Ilja
That is true, and conversely if you have more encounters that are higher EL than the party then you'd have fewer encounters before you hit 20. I assumed APL=EL because it averages out..
I am assuming that a character must move in the first round. This is not an unreasonable assumption. In all the builds you suggest (except for archer/crossbow, and the dude with another one-off magic item) the character is giving up one attack/action. They already didn't have the full-attack option available because you don't start combat adjacent to an enemy.
I missed the headband, my apologies. Seeing as you are paying 4k for the UMD headband, 2k for the ioun stone, and 3750 for a life time of wands for a total of 9750 I would say we are getting close to agreeing on a price that is fair for the ring.
This however is incorrect.
Yeah, I agree we are getting closer.
However, using a life time estimate of worth is a bad idea for several reasons:
- First of it's not going to be used in every encounter you possess it in, because in an encounter where the oppontents aren't mainly targeting your AC you won't waste actions using it.
- Secondly you won't get this at level one - even with the very lowest price estimates it's something that might come in at level 5-7, at which point you've already had 25-30% of the encounters from levels 1-20.
- Thirdly most games don't go to 20; most AP's end at 13-15 for example. While there are of course home games where they end later there's also games where they end earlier.
- Paying a cost later is a great benefit due to the scaling of wealth. If an item costs 1000gp +100gp per charge for some meaningful effect that mean it can be a useful investment from level 7 or so, but a cost of 26000+0/charge means it's going to be a very very late game item.
Then again it should be remembered that while the 3/day use of shield only ever gives that benefit, a headband + ioun stone gives other options at well.
EDIT: On the first round standard action discussion, note that there are other things than attacks that first standard action can be needed for. Sometimes you need to double move, sometimes you really need to make a combat maneuver for defensive reason, or drink a specific buff potion like Fly etc etc.