There exists both potions and items that cast Shield of Faith and Barkskin. The reason we're recreating this item using the guidelines is not to find some imaginary loophole, it's because RAW the item doesn't exist - the closest we get is the cloak of the hedge wizard. Oh, and Shield of Faith provides a +2 bonus on level 1, not +1.
As for the rest of it, let's see if I understand your argument correctly:
You take the AC bonus granted by the item (4) , square it (16), multiply by 2500 gp (40k) for a continuous Shield ring. The ring would have a CL of 12, since the creator needs to have three times the AC bonus of the item he is trying to craft. Then you divide by 1,66 since it has three charges (about 24k), then you divide by half by extrapolating the continuous formula in reverse (a continuous spell with a minute duration normally doubles the price), bringing you to 12k GP. That's the price of a ring that casts shield at CL 12 three times a day, and can be activated as a free action.
The difference between Command word and use-activated items is approximately 10%, so a ring that casts Shield via command word (a standard action) at CL 12 three times a day would cost 10 800 GP.
Did I summarize that all right? Did I miss something?
That was a typo on SHield of Faith, and the post locked before I could edit it, hehe.
And that looks to be pretty much correct.
If you want a cheap item that grants Shield AC, it should follow ALL the other AC item guidelines and produce a +1 Shield AC at best. NOte that such an item is about 750 gp...which is about precisely where the balance point on such a thing should be.
That price:
Follows existing formula and rules (summarized nicely above).
Scales precisely with guidelines, every 3 levels.
Is level appropriate, if you alter the AC bonus.
Is very similar to other AC producing items.
Avoids the CL x SL trap and justification.
Can be taken at very low level for the cost and simply increased in uses/day or +AC benefit, and potentially even made constant.
THe CL x SL formula:
Metagames the spell, cost and duration effect for maximum marginal utility.
Exploits a high benefit low level spell...cherry-picking. True Strike is another spell that the same thing happens to.
Doesn't scale...it's awesome from the get go. A high-level effect for low level cost.
Ignores similar AC producing items in favor of comparison to spell-trigger items...an immediate red flag, a favorite tactic of magic item maximizers.
Ignores specific Dev guidelines that say 'don't do that with AC producing effects'.
Specifically picks the single best spell to do this with, and ignores how doing so is basically indefensible if you simply use other spells for a cost/benefit comparison.
Uses another mis-priced spell trigger item as a comparison point, ignoring all other guidelines.
The arguments of standard action vs free action vs continuous are red herrings that simply try to distract from the basically imbalanced design of the item. Simply substitue 'Shield of Faith' for 'Shield', and you quickly realize that it isn't the standard action vs Free Action to activate which is the problem...it's the benefit of the spell you get from it. If Shield wasn't +4, there wouldn't be any argument at all what was worth doing.
Which means everything hinges on that huge +4 benefit, not the standard action. At a level appropriate +1, nobody wants the item.
======================
And as for why the OP asked about the Shield spell in the original post, it's because of reason 2 - He naturally picked the spell he would get the single greatest benefit from. I'm not accusing him of being malicious...he was just using common sense, he wanted the best bang for his buck. Why wouldn't he pick SHield? There's really no other choice TO pick! If I could get away with this, I'd certainly pick Shield, too!
He picked up more AC then a 6th level fighter gets from a shield, gains a bonus he normally can't have, keeps both hands free, and he got it for pocket change.
The error was in the DM letting him have it. The OP knew something was wrong with the pricing...that's why he was asking us. The DM should have caught it and priced it accurately, and instead went with the CL x SL formula that is the last thing he should have used.
=+Aelryinth
Wouldn't the 'level appropriate bonus' at CL 1 be +2 though, similar to shield of faith?
I really do think you underestimate how much of a cost the standard action vs free action impacts this item, but fair enough - clearly we don't agree on that front and that's fair.
I think the main problem I have with the way you present your reasoning isn't how you reached your number (though numerous people, including me, disagree with it) but rather the way you talk about those who disagree with you. Terms like metagame, abuse, minmaxer and so on is an excellent way to get people's back up, and an even better way to make people not take you seriously.
One thing I don't think you've fully considered is that this item is either tremendously useful or woefully underpowered depending entirely upon the game the GM has prepared for.
For instance, in the game I'm currently GMing this item would not be particularly useful since most fights end fast. My players tend to go for the throat and most encounters, for better or worse, end in three rounds or less. If they were told that they could buy a CL12 Shield item with a standard action casting time for 10 800 GP they'd laugh - hard. Hell, they probably wouldn't buy the ring for a third of that because they'd rather be spending their first standard actions working to end the encounter instead of working to prolong it.
Ironically, they'd probably consider 12k a fair price for a free action casting time of Shield since it doesn't impact their action economy. However they'd probably still buy something else with a bigger bang for the same price that's still a free action to activate - like boots of haste. If they were forced to buy defensive items they'd probably focus on miss chance over AC.
Conversely, in a party that plays traditionally (ie cleric heals reactively, wizard uses blasting spells, fighter hits things with his sword) the Shield ring is probably pretty good for a martial type, since he can now go to town with a 2hander or TWF and still have a not completely useless AC.
I'm not arguing that 1080 GP is the correct price for this item. In my opinion 1080 GP is underpriced. However I also think that the custom item you've created (CL12 Shield 3/day for 1080 GP) is honestly so far away from the item the OP was actually asking about that it doesn't really help the thread topic.
Ultimately, my point is that there are many factors at play and many things to consider here, and I think you need to recognize the fact that just because you disagree with someone else's price estimate doesn't mean they're all metagaming, min/maxing or trying to fool their GMs. Their view of the game table might be very different from yours, and they could base their price estimate accordingly.
1) Saying the +1 bonus is too small makes me wonder if all your magic swords, armor, shields, rings of prot and amulets of nat AC start at +2 as well.
No?
Then it's the right starting point. Heck, Bracers of Armor start at +1!
2) the game rewards offense over defense, so Haste is more valuable then Shield...and should be, it's 2 levels higher, grants an AC bonus, move bonus, and extra attack. I'd pick Haste, too.
3) Shield AC is only valuable to people who can't use a shield, and if you aren't going to get attacked, why waste time on defense?
4)Play styles do vary widely between games. Miss chances become much less useful as you level because of the prevalence of extra senses and true seeing enemies. Incorps laugh at standard AC. We still need a baseline.
5) If you can get the Shield up before the fight, it's incredibly useful...a built-in 20% miss chance on its merits. In a surprise situation, not to much. But at 12th level, the duration is long enough that it could easily last for 2 fights, and you can waste a usage before kicking in that first door...meaning no action wastage.
6) Just because your tables uses GMVestment instead of magic armor +3 is no reason to cut the price of magic armor in half. So arguing that 'type of campaign should change the price of magic items' is simply hand-waving disagreements and getting away from a core ruling on price.
==+Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Well, you keep referencing Shield of Faith as a more reasonable example of a spell benefiting AC - Shield of Faith starts with a +2 bonus.
2. Yet they're priced the same as your custom item. Isn't that a red flag?
3. Agreed.
4. Why do we need a baseline? Each custom item should be valued on its own merits - creating another formula instead of giving each item individual consideration is a recipe for abuse.
5. It's not a 20% miss chance unless you've already invested significant amount of WBL in your AC. For a 9th level wizard the difference between 12 and 16 AC is negligible.
6. You're ignoring the first rule of the creating magic item rules again.
bigdaddyjug, go look at Bracers of Armor. Look at the spell used to make them.
Oh, right. Mage Armor. Hey, what's the minimum AC granted by Mage Armor?
Now, you were making some point about the SHield spell I didn't quite understand.
===============
1) Indeed it does. And by the SL x CL calculation it would be priced the same as a Shield Ring. Despite being half as effective.
2) What is 'they are priced the same as'? Boots of Speed usable 10 rds a day?
4) If comparison is the baseline, it's still a baseline. And core rules are the baseline, so you look there for the comparison...other AC making tools.
5) Unless you are always getting hit on a 1, going from getting hit on a 2 to being hit on a 6 is a 20% miss chance increase.
6) No, I'm not. You're saying 'change the price of items because my characters use spells instead of magic items'. You're the one ignoring the baseline and magic item creation rules.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth, would you also rewrite spells that grant AC bonuses to follow the CL/3 AC rule?
Shield of Faith would provide a +1 bonus at CL 1, +2 at CL 6, +3 at CL 9.
Mage Armor would provide a +1 bonus at CL 1, +2 at CL 6, +3 at CL 9.
Barkskin would provide a +1 bonus at CL 3, +2 at CL 6, +3 at CL 9.
etc?
my magus just uses a wand of shield and its awsome!!
at lvl 7 im using a +1 breastplate amulet of natural armor +1 ring of protection +1 and the shield spell most of the time
with 12 dex i get a nice 24AC :-)
all i need to do is pull out my wand and buy me a new one once and a while maybe i wont as ill probably have bought myself pearl's of power enough that i can cast shield every combat !! this is why i took "craft wonderous item"
Ring of Protection
Aura faint abjuration; CL 5th
Slot ring; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5); Weight —
Description
This ring offers continual magical protection in the form of a deflection bonus of +1 to +5 to AC.
Construction Requirements
Forge Ring, shield of faith, caster must be of a level at least three times the bonus of the ring; Cost 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5)
==============================
If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers, plus any requirements of the armor special abilities; Cost 500 gp (+1), 2,000 gp (+2), 4,500 gp (+3), 8,000 gp (+4), 12,500 gp (+5), 18,000 gp (+6), 24,500 gp (+7), 32,000 gp (+8)
etc etc. I don't need to "rewrite" any rules about CL of magic items. They're already there. That's why I was using them!
==============================
If you're asking if I would rewrite all spells to follow these rules, the answer is no. Again, you're looking at balance issues.
A 1st level spell slot coughing up a +8 AC bonus at CL 16 is clearly not desirable under the rules.
The rules would have been MUCH better off if they used a Heightening Effect for such things, instead of Caster level. Yes, you can get a +8 AC bonus for Mage armor, if you blow a 6th level spell slot, or something...not just have a high caster level.
Ditto for Shield of Faith, Barkskin (massively abused by Qinjong monks), Greater magic weapon/vestment.
The Shield bonus for +4 is 'okay' from a caster standpoint because of the short duration. It's the continuous reusability of such a bonus that causes problems. If you choose to keep investing in money and items and actions to keep recasting to get the bonus...that's a fine tradeoff. But multiple pearls of power are much more expensive then a 3/day ring at 1080 gp. Likewise, having to pull a wand in and then stow it takes more action then uttering a word while waving your hand.
I'd personally prefer Shield to be 10 minutes/level and +2, +3 from a 3rd level slot and +4 from a 5th level slot. Likewise, Barkskin +2, +3 from 4th level slot, +4 from 6th and +5 from 8th. This would mean that top tier magic items are the equivalent of top tier spells...instead of the equivalent of low tier spells cast at high CL.
In 3.5, Greater Mage armor at +6 exists as a level 3 spell. That had the right idea. If you don't want to wear items, pay for it in higher spell slots, NOT lower spell slots that are more powerful. Doing so unfairly discriminates against classes which must pay money to get those bonuses, because they don't have any other choice (i.e. non-casters).
==Aelryinth
I'n not talking about bracers of armor or ring of protection, I'm talking about the effect of the spells that are used for making them. Would you alter how the AC bonus of the spells scales (or not) with CL to follow the CL/3 rule?
my magus just uses a wand of shield and its awsome!!
at lvl 7 im using a +1 breastplate amulet of natural armor +1 ring of protection +1 and the shield spell most of the time
with 12 dex i get a nice 24AC :-)
all i need to do is pull out my wand and buy me a new one once and a while maybe i wont as ill probably have bought myself pearl's of power enough that i can cast shield every combat !! this is why i took "craft wonderous item"
Aaaaand experiences like this are why there's very little discount between free action and command word items.
Yes, I know casting a defensive spell on the first round is suboptimal performance, and Darkflame will be chided for not attempting to kill the enemy before they can strike back.
===Aelryinth
I'n not talking about bracers of armor or ring of protection, I'm talking about the effect of the spells that are used for making them. Would you alter how the AC bonus of the spells scales (or not) with CL to follow the CL/3 rule?
Read the second part of the post.
==Aelryinth
If you're asking if I would rewrite all spells to follow these rules, the answer is no. Again, you're looking at balance issues.
A 1st level spell slot coughing up a +8 AC bonus at CL 16 is clearly not desirable under the rules.
The rules would have been MUCH better off if they used a Heightening Effect for such things, instead of Caster level. Yes, you can get a +8 AC bonus for Mage armor, if you blow a 6th level spell slot, or something...not just have a high caster level.Ditto for Shield of Faith, Barkskin (massively abused by Qinjong monks), Greater magic weapon/vestment.
The Shield bonus for +4 is 'okay' from a caster standpoint because of the short duration. It's the continuous reusability of such a bonus that causes problems. If you choose to keep investing in money and items and actions to keep recasting to get the bonus...that's a fine tradeoff. But multiple pearls of power are much more expensive then a 3/day ring at 1080 gp. Likewise, having to pull a wand in and then stow it takes more action then uttering a word while waving your hand.
I'd personally prefer Shield to be 10 minutes/level and +2, +3 from a 3rd level slot and +4 from a 5th level slot. Likewise, Barkskin +2, +3 from 4th level slot, +4 from 6th and +5 from 8th. This would mean that top tier magic items are the equivalent of top tier spells...instead of the equivalent of low tier spells cast at high CL.
In 3.5, Greater Mage armor at +6 exists as a level 3 spell. That had the right idea. If you don't want to wear items, pay for it in higher spell slots, NOT lower spell slots that are more powerful. Doing so unfairly discriminates against classes which must pay money to get those bonuses, because they don't have any other choice (i.e. non-casters).
I'm guessing you edited that post while I posted mine - it was considerably shorter when I read it ^^. I'll take a look.
Edit: Right, let's see: If you honestly think Quinggong are abusing Barkskin I really don't know what to say to you - if anything Quinggong Barkskin saves the monk since it means he can still apply a natural armor bonus while using the amulet of mighty fists. There's a reason Quinggong is considered an excellent option for monks, and it's not because it makes them abusive - more like playable.
I asked if you also planned to rewrite spells because you're creating an, in my opinion, unnecessary and random gap between consumables and items that cast spells. If you'd have altered the spells to scale similarly to how you price items that cast defensive spells (ie AC bonus = CL / 3) at least you're uniform - I still wouldn't have agreed with you but at least then it's a house rule that makes sense - items that cast spells go up in price uniformly.
If I can buy a wand, a potion, and a scroll of Shield of Faith, all at CL 1 - why is CL 6 lowest CL I can get if I want a ring of SoF?
If I can buy a wand or a scroll of Shield at CL 1, why is CL 12 the lowest CL I can get if I want a ring of Shield?
If I can buy a wand, a potion, and a scroll of Barkskin, all at CL 3 - why is CL 6 the lowest CL I can get if I want a ring of Barkskin?
Why is the minimum I need to pay the price equivalent of 14 wands to get an item that casts a simple level 1 spell?
You're giving UMD users and classes with spell lists yet more benefits in order to make your interpretation of the formula work - they really don't need them.
Yes, I know casting a defensive spell on the first round is suboptimal performance, and Darkflame will be chided for not attempting to kill the enemy before they can strike back.
===Aelryinth
I guess we could ask Darkflame?
Darkflame, if you had the option to buy a wand of Shield for 750 GP or a wand of Quickened Shield (ie casting Shield as a swift or free action, whichever is more advantageous) for 825 GP, which option would you rather take? Do you think the 10% markup adequately balances the effect of the quickened spell compared to the price of the original wand?
if you had the option to buy a wand of Shield for 750 GP or a wand of Quickened Shield (ie casting Shield as a swift or free action, whichever is more advantageous) for 825 GP, which option would you rather take? Do you think the 10% markup adequately balances the effect of the quickened spell compared to the price of the original wand?
The question isn't fair, because having the quickened ability lets a player play recklessly and still make use of the item. The question at hand isn't if an item which requires a standard action to activate and is priced fairly is broken if the cost is increased 10%. The question is if we add an activation requirement to a well balanced item should it decrease the price by more than 10%.
So the above point is applied in reverse. Could a cautious player still make 90% use of this item? Yes? Ok, then 10% is the correct amount to reduce it, no more.
Exactly.
And just because you have an item casting Shield of Faith doesn't mean the bonus OR the CL has to exactly mirror the Spell.
I.e. Shield of Faith is the Ring of Protection. Guess what? Has a +1 bonus, and CL of 3. Horrors, that is impossible for a Shield of Faith spell. I guess I'll just make my own IMPROVED RING OF PROT for CL 1, +2 bonus!
And ignore all balance options thereby.
In reality, the AC bonus granted by spells should move in the opposite directions...higher level slots grant higher bonuses, not just higher CL. That would equalize the cost problems being brought up here.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question isn't fair, because having the quickened ability lets a player play recklessly and still make use of the item. The question at hand isn't if an item which requires a standard action to activate and is priced fairly is broken if the cost is increased 10%. The question is if we add an activation requirement to a well balanced item should it decrease the price by more than 10%.
So the above point is applied in reverse. Could a cautious player still make 90% use of this item? Yes? Ok, then 10% is the correct amount to reduce it, no more.
I don't see the problem - according to Aelryinth's interpretation of the formulas the price difference between an item casting a spell at a free action and a standard action is 10% of the total price of the item - the actual utility value change for the item doesn't seem to matter.
An item casting a spell that lasts for a minute (Shield) and an item that casts a spell that lasts for 24 hours (Share Language) seem to pay the same premium for the free action activation (10%). Similarly, if the item has a total pool of charges or is limited to an amount of charges per day isn't relevant to his interpretation.
Spell Duration and combat effectiveness has always had a direct effect on the price of items.
You're using a straw man. A Share Language that casts as a free action would be full price, and one taking a command word would be a 10% discount.
Note that this doesn't need to work in the opposite direction. Your very own example of sleet storms and such means you'd apply the Quickened Spell standard to such a thing instead of the 'naturally quick to standard.' Moving something's actions to be slower is generally not much less powerful, but moving something's action to be FASTER can be imbalanced really quickly.
hence your example of Quickened Shield spells in wands, and politely ignoring the fact it's a 5th level spell in a spell trigger item, can't be found in wands, only in staves, and so is available for a minimum of what, 45k? Which, you know, is about...10% less then a continuous +4 Shield AC item.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hence your example of Quickened Shield spells in wands, and politely ignoring the fact it's a 5th level spell in a spell trigger item, can't be found in wands, only in staves, and so is available for a minimum of what, 45k? Which, you know, is about...10% less then a continuous +4 Shield AC item.
Oh, I'm sorry - you use the spell * CL formula for items that cast spells? But the spell clearly replicates a non-existent AC-granting item and should be priced accordingly :)
Your own argument, the fact that quickened Shield is an order of a magnitude more expensive than a regular shield effect illustrates clearly that the difference between a standard action casting time and a free action casting time should not be 10%.
Spell Duration and combat effectiveness has always had a direct effect on the price of items.
Respectfully, that was not what you said:
Actually, without altering the price, you can make it a swift action to activate, as doing so does not change the price. Actually, I believe you can make it a free action, like the Ring of FOrce Shield, and it won't change the price.
This illustrates clearly what happens you miss the forest for the trees - or the value of an item for the price guidelines. That said, I'm glad you agree with me now :)
I was referring to one specific item...there is no difference between the cost of a continuous AC item and one that is quick/free to activate, as demonstrated by the Ring of Force Shield. The price discount was thus 10% off of that price basis.
Way to look at and quote out of context only the lines you want to and not 'see the forest for the trees you personally picked out'.
And also, way to ignore the point above...taking an activation from free to standard 'may' be worth a 10% discount. Taking an item from standard to free/quick is often worth much, much more.
And you again conveniently ignored the comparable item in the example, which was the Ring of Force Shield, which backed up what I said...and is a basically free action +2 AC item, NOT priced as a CL x SL item, and so is the proper guideline item to use.
So, no, I'm not agreeing with you...I'm once again referencing the existing rules and examples you are strenuously trying to avoid!
==Aelryinth