About Continuous Magic Items


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

x/day item are priced as if they were continuous, 5 uses/day = continuous, price by % of that number.

==Aelryinth

And yet, wands have a fixed price, and if you use a wand as a 1/day item, then it lasts for 50 days.
For wands you are already capable to cast the spell (or at least have it on your spell list) or you have to invest pretty heavily in use magic device, And, as an added benefit, if you are using UMD, if you roll a natural 1 the wand would cease to function for you for 24 hours, regardless of the level your UMD skill.
Use Magic Device, Try Again wrote:
Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

(bolding mine)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Tarantula wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

which is not, as you know, a continuous magic item, so is moot?

Pricing for charged items and permanents is always different, and low level spells are often priced EXTREMELY favorably compared to their higher level counterparts.

i.e. there's a reason why CLW wands are the cheapest healing in the game.

==Aelryinth

You brought up X/day items which are also not continuous. You said it was broken to get shield 1/day for under 1,000gp. Yet, you can get shield 1/day for 50 days for 750gp via a wand. Neither has the enormous benefit that continuous items have, and there is no reason someone would want to make a 1/day shield item over a wand of shield.

Tarantula, x/day items are priced exactly like continuous items. This is because 4-5 uses a day is basically 'all day' or 'every encounter' for all practical purposes (or, at least that's what I'm guessing).

So, your point is moot. x/day IS treated like a continuous item, because it doesn't wear out, and there's little difference between an x/day item you can use in every single fight, and an item that gives you the same benefit constantly. The only time the benefit is important is IN the fight, so if you can get it off, it's just as good.

And yes, people have been trying to game this system for a LONG time.

And yes, wands are cheaper, but they have other drawbacks, as noted above.

--------------------
Ozy, pricing an item of shield at 720 gp is maximizing exploitation of the pricing rules. It is NO different then a level 1 infinite use CLW item, a continuous mage armor item, etc. Technically, it's more powerful, since a +4 shield bonus that works against incorps and magic missiles is considerably rarer then a +4 Armor bonus.

So, no, I think the pricing for a 3/day item worked out to about 12k, applying all the rules and mods fairly.

One of the things that people get sidetracked on with Shield and Mage armor is the benefit is fixed, regardless of caster level, so they go with minimal caster level for the sole reason of minimizing pricing. Since it's level 1, and wondrous items explicitly rely on caster level as a balance point, that's HUGE cost savings.

You can't DO that with magic items. You first go for similar items, that's the rule. And a +4 Shield Bonus + more is definitely not 720 gp. If you want that cheap, use a wand.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

It hasn't been pointed out recently, but wands require the spell on your class spell list or a high UMD check to use. These requirements are the reason they have a lower cost.


Aelryinth wrote:


Ozy, pricing an item of shield at 720 gp is maximizing exploitation of the pricing rules. It is NO different then a level 1 infinite use CLW item, a continuous mage armor item, etc. Technically, it's more powerful, since a +4 shield bonus that works against incorps and magic missiles is considerably rarer then a +4 Armor bonus.

So, no, I think the pricing for a 3/day item worked out to about 12k, applying all the rules and mods fairly.

One of the things that people get sidetracked on with Shield and Mage armor is the benefit is fixed, regardless of caster level, so they go with minimal...

I've played enough pathfinder to know that a 1 min. shield 1/day magic item for 720gp is not going to break any campaign. It's not anything like an infinite CLW item or a continuous mage armor item because it's once a day.

I would price a 1/day CLW or 1/day mage armor item exactly the same as the 1/day shield. And no, the benefit is not 'fixed', especially with mage armor the duration matters. Trigger the item 1 hour or more before you need it and you're out of luck for the day. Combat lasts more than 10 rounds? Shield is gone.

Two encounters in one day, and you're out of luck especially compared to a wand. If I were an arcane gish type, I would always choose a wand over any of those 1/day items, so why should they be priced 5x higher? Avoiding UMD checks ain't worth 5x the cost, especially for CLW/mage armor which where wands could be used by other party members out of combat to gain the useful effects.

People need to get over their fear of non-wand magic items. However, if you're really concerned about the number of activations, just multiple the single activation cost by the square of the activations. 2 times per day = 4x cost, 3x day = 9x cost, 5x day (or continuous) = 25x cost.

Now, your 720gp 1/day mage armor turns into 25*760 = 18k 5/day mage armor, 2k more than +4 bracers of armor. Happy?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Iammars wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

x/day item are priced as if they were continuous, 5 uses/day = continuous, price by % of that number.

==Aelryinth

And yet, wands have a fixed price, and if you use a wand as a 1/day item, then it lasts for 50 days.
For wands you are already capable to cast the spell (or at least have it on your spell list) or you have to invest pretty heavily in use magic device, And, as an added benefit, if you are using UMD, if you roll a natural 1 the wand would cease to function for you for 24 hours, regardless of the level your UMD skill.
Use Magic Device, Try Again wrote:
Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.
(bolding mine)

True, it require you to fail, I mis remembered that. On the other hand you can't take 10 on this skill, so you need a +19 to the skill check to succeed. Not easy to achieve unless it is a class skill and you have a charisma as one of your good characteristics.


If it's continuous shield item, then it should be more compared to the price of adding a brooch of shielding x 1.5 (as the cheaper item) folded into a pair of bracers of armor +4 (see rules for multiple effects-yes it's one spell, but both effects are reproduced by seperate pre existing items).

If it's once a day-that changes things significantly, more specifically, having a DM who has you have more than one encounter (or a long drawn out one) can pretty much overcome the bonus (why it's generally so cheap).

Wands are priced accordingly, allowing for the fact that you effectively have fifty uses of that, spaced out however you like. So if you do have multiple encounters you can expend enough charges to easily get yourself through a full day of encounters (most likely much much more), but eventually you *will* run out.

Pricing for custom items should always be relegated to players you can trust not to abuse the system, or DMs who have the time to cross reference to make sure someone isn't destroying the system with continuous items of truestrike and the like.

There's a reason most DMs without regular tables hate custom items and won't allow it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

_Ozy_ wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


Ozy, pricing an item of shield at 720 gp is maximizing exploitation of the pricing rules. It is NO different then a level 1 infinite use CLW item, a continuous mage armor item, etc. Technically, it's more powerful, since a +4 shield bonus that works against incorps and magic missiles is considerably rarer then a +4 Armor bonus.

So, no, I think the pricing for a 3/day item worked out to about 12k, applying all the rules and mods fairly.

One of the things that people get sidetracked on with Shield and Mage armor is the benefit is fixed, regardless of caster level, so they go with minimal...

I've played enough pathfinder to know that a 1 min. shield 1/day magic item for 720gp is not going to break any campaign. It's not anything like an infinite CLW item or a continuous mage armor item because it's once a day.

I would price a 1/day CLW or 1/day mage armor item exactly the same as the 1/day shield. And no, the benefit is not 'fixed', especially with mage armor the duration matters. Trigger the item 1 hour or more before you need it and you're out of luck for the day. Combat lasts more than 10 rounds? Shield is gone.

Two encounters in one day, and you're out of luck especially compared to a wand. If I were an arcane gish type, I would always choose a wand over any of those 1/day items, so why should they be priced 5x higher? Avoiding UMD checks ain't worth 5x the cost, especially for CLW/mage armor which where wands could be used by other party members out of combat to gain the useful effects.

People need to get over their fear of non-wand magic items. However, if you're really concerned about the number of activations, just multiple the single activation cost by the square of the activations. 2 times per day = 4x cost, 3x day = 9x cost, 5x day (or continuous) = 25x cost.

Now, your 720gp 1/day mage armor turns into 25*760 = 18k 5/day mage armor, 2k more than +4 bracers of armor. Happy?

This is again minmaxing the pricing rules.

Here you are trying to downplay the duration against the fact it's permanent, and uses/day as an escalating price point.

By that logic, a wand of cure light wounds should be priced as 50 uses/day, which would be in the, what, 125,000 gp range?

No, the reason you price permanent items as continuous is that they don't run out of charges, period.

The reason you price similar items first is because fixed benefits are all out of line with scaling benefits, and Shield is one of the most problematic in this regard. Spells are also notoriously uneven in the benefits they provide (Compare Shield, the best, to Mage Armor, the next best, to Barkskin, the third best, to Shield of Faith, the worst, and yet all of them are level 1-2 spells).

It quite literally does NOT matter if you think a 1/day Shield is balanced. If I do it for that, then I do it for everything. A better way of looking at is a free shield for 1 encounter/day, up to 5 encounters (or more) per day, which basically means for every single encounter. The idea you 'might' use it too early before you need it is irrelevant...you CAN use it when required and desired.

So, squaring the uses/day for pricing is just bad pricing design.

The fact of the matter is that pricing wands by spell level is highly abusable and uneven in price vs benefit, and that is where the problem is. Comparing to charged items is a very, very bad idea for magic items of all sorts that operate on more even comparisons. The reason why items use benefit comparisons vs spell level comparisons exclusively is because of this unevenness in spells.

==Aelryinth


Free? 720gp is not free. It costs about the same as a wand of the same spell. Furthermore it wastes one of your standard actions to activate, another penalty compared to a continuous effect. Furthermore, any non-trivial combat that lasts for more than 10 rounds, *poof* gone.

However, I didn't price it by comparing it to wands, I priced it using the chart. The fact that a 1/day shield magic item happens to be priced about the same as a wand of shield (though inferior for many classes) is just a coincidence.

If you think a 1/day 10 round shield is a problem, then you must think a wand of shield is positively broken.

I grant you that if a DM is only throwing 1 encounter per day at a group, making sure they get one or more prep rounds so they can use actions to activate their items before combat, and having each combat last less than 10 rounds, then yes, a 1/day shield item will be more valuable than its cost reflects.

I would submit to you that in such a campaign, a 1/day shield is the least of the problems.

Quote:
By that logic, a wand of cure light wounds should be priced as 50 uses/day, which would be in the, what, 125,000 gp range?

Um, no, a CLW wand is well defined at 750gp; those charges run out.

A 50 charge per day CLW magic item that doesn't run out? Sure, price it at 125k gp if you wish. Personally, I would probably lean closer to 20k, considering WBL guidelines would put that around 10th level or so. Do you really think a 50 CLW/day item is that much more powerful than the equivalent cost of ~25 wands?

Quote:
The reason why items use benefit comparisons vs spell level comparisons exclusively is because of this unevenness in spells.

Except that I never actually see a proper benefit _and_ penalty comparison. True strike is a good example. An infinite true strike effect isn't _anywhere_ close to a +20 weapon that it often is compared to. Why?

Standard action to activate instead of always on.
Only works on 1 attack instead of full attack sequence.
Only applies to hit instead of both hit and damage.
Doesn't count for DR.

So, someone who priced an infinite true strike weapon as a +20 weapon would be overpricing it by at least a factor of 10.

This is the same thing I see with, for example, items of mage armor. An item that can cast a 1 hour mage armor 1/day is simply not worth the same as a constant effect +4 bracers of armor. I doubt that anyone with the bracers would be happy if one was substituted for the other.

This isn't 'min-maxing', it's trying to come up with a reasonable pricing estimate for custom magic items that relates wealth by level to expected player CRs and combat effectiveness.

Quote:
So, squaring the uses/day for pricing is just bad pricing design.

Why would you say that? Using the 25x multiplier for 5/day/continuous effects gets you very close to the cost of items like bracers of armor and whatnot that you are attempting to compare to.

I mean, other than handing out munchkin swords of instant decapitation, have you really had problems with items like these disrupting campaigns? Compared to, well I don't know, a RAW wizard or summoner?


if you have already allowed him to craft the shurikens at the illegally low price he paid for them, and you regret this decision, turn it into some sort of story hook. either make the item cursed, or have some devil approach him claiming to have worked behind the scenes on his behalf for the creation of this item, supplying the neccessary materials for the item creation in secret, and now he's come for his shuriken, or your soul.

there are tonnes of interesting ways you could retroactively fix this.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Aelryinth wrote:
This is again minmaxing the pricing rules....

Aelryinth, I'm using your quote because it's cool.

A key rule to the item creation rules is that they can not be minmaxed. Since you use other items for pricing, if you find a cheaper way you can't use it. ;-)


Aelryinth wrote:

The reason you price similar items first is because fixed benefits are all out of line with scaling benefits, and Shield is one of the most problematic in this regard. Spells are also notoriously uneven in the benefits they provide (Compare Shield, the best, to Mage Armor, the next best, to Barkskin, the third best, to Shield of Faith, the worst, and yet all of them are level 1-2 spells).

It quite literally does NOT matter if you think a 1/day Shield is balanced. If I do it for that, then I do it for everything. A better way of looking at is a free shield for 1 encounter/day, up to 5 encounters (or more) per day, which basically means for every single encounter. The idea you 'might' use it too early before you need it is irrelevant...you CAN use it when required and desired.

You said a lot of stuff in your post, and right now I'm not sure what to make of most of it because it's early and I'm not focused....but the one thing I did notice is that you place Shield above Mage Armor. And I would have to slightly disagree. If only because Mage Armor last hours per level, so you can always have it up while shield last minutes per level but has better AC coverage. The numerical bonus is equal, but the Shield bonus applied against more things.

In any event, I agree there is a huge price break for using wands. If you are a class capable of using wands without UMD it can make your character significantly stronger because wondrous items are incredibly more expensive than using a wand or spell slot. An 8th level caster can have mage armor for the whole adventuring day. Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000 gp. There is a discrepncy, but I'm not sure there is much to be done about it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

_Ozy_ wrote:

Free? 720gp is not free. It costs about the same as a wand of the same spell. Furthermore it wastes one of your standard actions to activate, another penalty compared to a continuous effect. Furthermore, any non-trivial combat that lasts for more than 10 rounds, *poof* gone.

However, I didn't price it by comparing it to wands, I priced it using the chart. The fact that a 1/day shield magic item happens to be priced about the same as a wand of shield (though inferior for many classes) is just a coincidence.

If you think a 1/day 10 round shield is a problem, then you must think a wand of shield is positively broken.

I grant you that if a DM is only throwing 1 encounter per day at a group, making sure they get one or more prep rounds so they can use actions to activate their items before combat, and having each combat last less than 10 rounds, then yes, a 1/day shield item will be more valuable than its cost reflects.

I would submit to you that in such a campaign, a 1/day shield is the least of the problems.

Quote:
By that logic, a wand of cure light wounds should be priced as 50 uses/day, which would be in the, what, 125,000 gp range?

Um, no, a CLW wand is well defined at 750gp; those charges run out.

A 50 charge per day CLW magic item that doesn't run out? Sure, price it at 125k gp if you wish. Personally, I would probably lean closer to 20k, considering WBL guidelines would put that around 10th level or so. Do you really think a 50 CLW/day item is that much more powerful than the equivalent cost of ~25 wands?

Quote:
The reason why items use benefit comparisons vs spell level comparisons exclusively is because of this unevenness in spells.

Except that I never actually see a proper benefit _and_ penalty comparison. True strike is a good example. An infinite true strike effect isn't _anywhere_ close to a +20 weapon that it often is compared to. Why?

Standard action to activate instead of always on.
Only works on 1 attack instead of full attack sequence.
Only applies...

720 gp for a +3 Ghost Touch Magic Missile deflecting shield is dirt, dirt cheap.

As for actions spent...it's a buff. Buffs take actions. it's a VERY GOOD buff. Gives you an AC you aren't likely to have, works against incorps, and it's SUBSTANTIAL. The equivalent on a shield is a +6 Enhancement equivalent, and it requires no hands! 2h'ers, love it!

Your 'unbalancing the campaign' is an emotional appeal, not a factual appeal. The Facts are that the pricing rules need to be consistent.

The factors applying here are:
You price a Shield by AC granted, not by duration, spell level, or caster level. This is both 'similar item' and 'AC bonus pricing'. This also neatly snips off the 'high bonus, low caster level, low level spell' technique of min-maxing pricing.
5 uses/day = a permanent item. So, 1/day is 20% of the permanent item cost.
A spell that is normally expressed in durations of rounds costs generally double when made permanent.
Permanent items don't require spells to be on spell lists or UMD, and so are broadly more useful to more characters then wands.

Your 'True Strike' sword is leaving out several key points.
There actually is a True Strike bow on the books, from the original 3E sword and Fist. halflings only, worked exactly as you say, priced about 6000 gp as I recall.

BUt 'True Strike sword' attempts to use the rule for 'use-activated' weapons, not 'standard action to activate'. i.e. you swing the sword, you get a True Strike.
So, the price for a True Strike sword is spot on. You're using the wrong rules for comparison.

50 uses a day is moot...you'd price it as a continuous item once you hit 5.
The problem is that a continuous CLW item means you can heal 5 hp/rd, every round, all day. That's effectively 5x better then a Ring of Regeneration, although you need to devote an action to it...but you can also heal OTHERS.
So the MINIMUM pricing of such a thing would be 90k gp, and likely five times that. It's enough unlimited healing that by itself it could mend an entire army, every day, all day, without problem.

And no, the fact they put in a set of boots that do the same thing and totally screwed up the pricing on those is not a defense.

==Aelryinth


Ugh, just found the other nearly identical thread you participated in where you ignore both the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, and completely ignore the value of action economy.

No thanks, no desire to bang my head against an obvious brick wall.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Claxon wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The reason you price similar items first is because fixed benefits are all out of line with scaling benefits, and Shield is one of the most problematic in this regard. Spells are also notoriously uneven in the benefits they provide (Compare Shield, the best, to Mage Armor, the next best, to Barkskin, the third best, to Shield of Faith, the worst, and yet all of them are level 1-2 spells).

It quite literally does NOT matter if you think a 1/day Shield is balanced. If I do it for that, then I do it for everything. A better way of looking at is a free shield for 1 encounter/day, up to 5 encounters (or more) per day, which basically means for every single encounter. The idea you 'might' use it too early before you need it is irrelevant...you CAN use it when required and desired.

You said a lot of stuff in your post, and right now I'm not sure what to make of most of it because it's early and I'm not focused....but the one thing I did notice is that you place Shield above Mage Armor. And I would have to slightly disagree. If only because Mage Armor last hours per level, so you can always have it up while shield last minutes per level but has better AC coverage. The numerical bonus is equal, but the Shield bonus applied against more things.

In any event, I agree there is a huge price break for using wands. If you are a class capable of using wands without UMD it can make your character significantly stronger because wondrous items are incredibly more expensive than using a wand or spell slot. An 8th level caster can have mage armor for the whole adventuring day. Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000 gp. There is a discrepncy, but I'm not sure there is much to be done about it.

Compare the price of a wand of shield with the price of 1 or 2 pearls of power.

That is the opportunity cost for a class that can use the wand without the need to use UMD.
Low level the wand win, but it last only 1 minute, if you want a wand with a higher caster level you have to pay more. When you get to a level where the UMD check is almost automatic for a charisma based class a spell cast from a spell slot last 7+ minutes, enough for a couple of fights. So at that point 1 pearl of power is the equivalent of 2 uses of the wand. In the long run a pearl of power is a better investment if you can cast the spell. If you can't the wand is a good investment, but it require spending points in UM and being a charisma based class or spending a trait to use intelligence instead of charisma.
Costly.


Aelryinth wrote:
A spell that is normally expressed in durations of rounds costs generally double when made permanent.
Quote:
2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

Rounds is x4. Minutes is x2. Shield is minutes. Your price is right but your memory was off.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Hey, I'm a grognard. Rounds WERE minutes, back in the day!

And Ozy, the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is an outlier that breaks their own rules, much like Bracers of Falcon's Aspect is/does. Letting it serve as the example is not wise. It's a minor enough item that they didn't bother to errata it, but as soon as someone starts building multi-use cloaks, they won't have a choice, or their own pricing guidelines go out the window.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Hey, I'm a grognard. Rounds WERE minutes, back in the day!

And Ozy, the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is an outlier that breaks their own rules, much like Bracers of Falcon's Aspect is/does. Letting it serve as the example is not wise.

==Aelryinth

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'll say the same thing about Boots of the Earth.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Tarantula wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Hey, I'm a grognard. Rounds WERE minutes, back in the day!

And Ozy, the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is an outlier that breaks their own rules, much like Bracers of Falcon's Aspect is/does. Letting it serve as the example is not wise.

==Aelryinth

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you'll say the same thing about Boots of the Earth.

Indeed. Are the things banned in PFS yet? That's usually a good indicator of 'ooops, we screwed up.'

Compare the Boots to a Ring of Regen. No language in there to restrict the healing ability, you just have to remain in place. And you can swap between people. 90k vs 5k? Simply grants fast healing? Dovetails with fast healer feat.

Ugh. Those are 'the rules', too. It doesn't mean they didn't screw up, Ozy. All you do is start comparing against core rules and their own item guidelines and it's apparent they are priced out of whack.

==Aelryinth


Unless the cloak is errata'd or FAQ'd, by definition it IS the rules, despite what you say. I know PFS has issues with the bracers, do you see any similar or official word on the cloak?


Hmm, cloak of the hedge wizard. At will 2 0-level (prestidigitation and the cantrip for the school), and 1/day of 2 1st levels. All CL 1.

For the cantrips: Use activated: Level 0.5 x 1 x 2,000. Or 1,000 each. 2,000.
1st level spells: 1 x 1 x 2,000 = 2,000 each. 4,000 total. /5 for 1 charge/day = 800. We're up to 2800. Its price, 2500. Not much different, and for what it is, definitely not seriously underpriced.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Yeah, the problem with the cloak is it violates all the pricing AC guidelines. Note that shield, mage armor and shield of faith are all AC granting effects at level 1 and priced identically by that formula, although their benefits are all different.

--Aelryinth

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The magic item creation rules explicitly say you cannot create custom items to cheat the system.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ah, but official magic items that cheat the system are perfectly legal and thus a guideline for other items that cheat the system, right?

No offense, Ozy, but that's basically what your arguments are sounding like.

==Aelryinth


And as I said, 1/day shield is not nearly as useful as continuous shield. 1/day mage armor is less useful than continuous mage armor. There should be a price difference between 1/day shield for 1 minute, and continuous shield.

Continuous should be as the bracers, of 4^2x1000=16,000gp for 1,440 minutes of shield a day.

1/day should be Use-activated 1x1x2,000x2 minutes=4,000/5=800gp for 1 minute of shield a day. There is a HUGE difference between +4 shield for 1 minute, and +4 shield for 1,440 minutes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

ah, but official magic items that cheat the system are perfectly legal and thus a guideline for other items that cheat the system, right?

No offense, Ozy, but that's basically what your arguments are sounding like.

==Aelryinth

To you, I'm sure that's exactly what I sound like.

Your problem, as I already stated, is that you're blinded by the +4 AC and ignore the effects of action economy, duration, being surprised, dispelling, and multiple encounters. These disadvantages have no value in your mind. I think reasonable people can disagree about that.

Another variation:

cracked violet ioun stone for 1 spell level of storing = 2000gp

+

wand of shield = 750gp

As long as you have an arcane caster in your party or someone with high UMD use, voila, instant shield for every combat (not just once a day), for the low price of 2750gp. Furthermore, this combo is even more versatile since you can add a mage armor wand, enlarge person wand, or any other 1st level spell and swap out as desired.

Another official 'cheat'?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2000 gp is actually right about the price of a 1/day shield item...and has your full action economy cost to it, too! Not only do you have to put the spell into the item, but you have to waste an action to get it back out, and it won't be done in combat, that's for sure! There's other problems with spell storing devices, too...

I'm not blinded or ignorant of action costs or overvalued AC. You're ignoring the fact it's a buff, and buffs are routinely cast before combat. Once in combat, there might be a problem...but that's only in an ambush scenario. The fact is, for 1 fight a day, you can buff and get a +4 Shield AC at level 1...a huge AC boost that doesn't occupy a hand.

The other 1400 minutes a day you are not in combat are irrelevant. In other words, if someone is shooting at you, having +4 AC is important. If they aren't, it's not.

That's why 5/day items are priced as continuous. For 5 encounters a day, you can buff up and have the AC for that fight. It's effectively just as good as being continuous save for all but a few special circumstances (like being on a battlefield).

My counter to you is simple...why aren't you arguing this for Shield of Faith? For Mage Armor? For Barkskin?

It's because you're trying to juice the system for maximum AC, minimum cost.

Mage Armor lasts an hour per level. It's REALLY cheap, lasts for multiple encounters, cast it once from a spell, it goes all day. It's also easily subbed for by (wait for it) wearing ARMOR! So, eh. Also, it unfortunately has direct examples to be priced like bracers of armor, NOT the per level pricing schema. Oh noze!

Shield of Faith lasts a long time...but it's only +1 AC!!! Why would you make an item that only grants you a +1 AC bonus when you could get +4 for the same money? That's just dumb. And unfortunately it's a deflection bonus, which is is also strictly priced by AC and ignores the per level/spell pricing schema. Phew, dodged that one!

Barskin starts at +2 AC...but egads, it's 2nd level. 3x the cost for half the benefit! Ugh! Oh, and Nat AC is priced according to the AC tables, too, not the price/level table!!!

No, no, you want Shield. Because the short duration means you don't want to waste a caster slot on it, because the low level/high benefit means it's hugely cheap for what it does; and because it benefits casters and 2h wielding goons equally well. It's the absolute BEST Spell to do this with. And, you know, it's a Shield bonus, and we'll just ignore that it's a supplemental Armor bonus and try to wheedle our way around to minmax the system!

So the problem is that the spell is too good for the level and the cost, and so people are trying to find any way they can to get it for next to nothing...because, after all, it's first level and won't unbalance anything.

Except it is, and it does, and you have to avoid this. That's why it's so obvious the system is being gamed...Shield is the best thing to game it with!

===Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Tarantula wrote:

And as I said, 1/day shield is not nearly as useful as continuous shield. 1/day mage armor is less useful than continuous mage armor. There should be a price difference between 1/day shield for 1 minute, and continuous shield.

Continuous should be as the bracers, of 4^2x1000=16,000gp for 1,440 minutes of shield a day.

1/day should be Use-activated 1x1x2,000x2 minutes=4,000/5=800gp for 1 minute of shield a day. There is a HUGE difference between +4 shield for 1 minute, and +4 shield for 1,440 minutes.

If you only have one encounter in a day...they are exactly as valuable.

That's why 5 use items = continuous...they are expected to be usable in every normal encounter during a day.

Start deviating from that, and you're now into minmaxing costs because 'situational explanation'.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

And as I said, 1/day shield is not nearly as useful as continuous shield. 1/day mage armor is less useful than continuous mage armor. There should be a price difference between 1/day shield for 1 minute, and continuous shield.

Continuous should be as the bracers, of 4^2x1000=16,000gp for 1,440 minutes of shield a day.

1/day should be Use-activated 1x1x2,000x2 minutes=4,000/5=800gp for 1 minute of shield a day. There is a HUGE difference between +4 shield for 1 minute, and +4 shield for 1,440 minutes.

If you only have one encounter in a day...they are exactly as valuable.

That's why 5 use items = continuous...they are expected to be usable in every normal encounter during a day.

Start deviating from that, and you're now into minmaxing costs because 'situational explanation'.

==Aelryinth

Good thing its on the GM to approve custom magic items. If you only have 1 encounter a day, maybe 1/day should be priced as continuous.

Or, if your daily encounters don't follow the generally guidelines provided, then your magic item prices also shouldn't follow the general guidelines provided. GM Fiat for everything!


The determination of how many encounters happen per day is squarely in the hands of the DM.

If the DM has only one encounter per day and feels abused by the players as a result, they can quite easily insert more encounters until they feel that their game is more "balanced".

The rules exist as a standard of play, it is neither reasonable nor practical to expect to redo rules for every possible DMing style, nor to even have your table remember all of them. You're much better off simply saying you won't allowing crafting by PCs.

If you still feel that's inappropriate, then have your players submit their formulas before they make an item.

<spell> x <level it is acting as> x <modifier>= <price>

<description of what the item does>

Then you can compare and decide. A PC crafter has to do all of these steps regardless.

And I reiterate: never let players you don't trust get into custom crafting, unless you're looking to have fun with it and have confidence in your ability to adapt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
2000 gp is actually right about the price of a 1/day shield item...and has your full action economy cost to it, too! Not only do you have to put the spell into the item, but you have to waste an action to get it back out, and it won't be done in combat, that's for sure! There's other problems with spell storing devices, too...

? I'm starting to wonder if you know how some of these things work.

The ioun stone + wand is not a '1/day' effect, it's a 'as many times as you want to burn charges from your wand' effect.

1 encounter/day, you will have a charge in your stone ready to go.

10 encounters/day, you will have a charge in your stone ready to go.

The spell is put into the item during non-combat time, so no action cost. The activation is a standard action, just like the 1/day shield item discussed previously. The only difference between this combo and the 1/day shield item is that this combo is good for as many encounters as you have wand charges for. Well that, and you can use a mage armor wand in the exact same way.

However, it sounds like you only play in games with 1 encounter per day where you get ample time to buff before combat, in which case just about every non-continuous magic item will be overpriced for the benefit it provides. For those of us who play in games with anywhere from 3-6 combats per day, many of them with either a surprise round or at most a round of pre-combat buffing, action economy and charges per day matter a hell of a lot more.

I would submit that your outlier combat and campaign properties are not a good way to judge the general effectiveness of magic items for the rest of us.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:


Another variation:

cracked violet ioun stone for 1 spell level of storing = 2000gp

_Ozy_ wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
2000 gp is actually right about the price of a 1/day shield item...and has your full action economy cost to it, too! Not only do you have to put the spell into the item, but you have to waste an action to get it back out, and it won't be done in combat, that's for sure! There's other problems with spell storing devices, too...

? I'm starting to wonder if you know how some of these things work.

The ioun stone + wand is not a '1/day' effect, it's a 'as many times as you want to burn charges from your wand' effect.

1 encounter/day, you will have a charge in your stone ready to go.

10 encounters/day, you will have a charge in your stone ready to go.

The spell is put into the item during non-combat time, so no action cost. The activation is a standard action, just like the 1/day shield item discussed previously. The only difference between this combo and the 1/day shield item is that this combo is good for as many encounters as you have wand charges for. Well that, and you can use a mage armor wand in the exact same way.

However, it sounds like you only play in games with 1 encounter per day where you get ample time to buff before combat, in which case just about every non-continuous magic item will be overpriced for the benefit it provides. For those of us who play in games with anywhere from 3-6 combats per day, many of them with either a surprise round or at most a round of pre-combat buffing, action economy and charges per day matter a hell of a lot more.

I would submit that your outlier combat and campaign properties are not a good way to judge the general effectiveness of magic items for the rest of us.

AFAIK the onli violet ioun stone is the "Thorny Violet: +2 competence bonus on grapple attempts." and its variant.

I suppose you mean the "Vibrant Purple Prism (Ioun Stone) - Cracked: This stone stores one spell level, as a ring of spell storing (minor). Price: 2,000 gp."

It work as a ring of spell storing:

PRD wrote:

Ring of Spell Storing, Minor

Aura faint evocation; CL 5th

Slot ring; Price 18,000 gp; Weight —

Description

A minor ring of spell storing contains up to three levels of spells (either divine or arcane, or even a mix of both spell types) that the wearer can cast. Each spell has a caster level equal to the minimum level needed to cast that spell. The user need not provide any material components or focus to cast the spell, and there is no arcane spell failure chance for wearing armor (because the ring wearer need not gesture). The activation time for the ring is the same as the casting time for the relevant spell, with a minimum of 1 standard action.

For a randomly generated ring, treat it as a scroll to determine what spells are stored in it. If you roll a spell that would put the ring over the three-level limit, ignore that roll; the ring has no more spells in it.

A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring, so long as the total spell levels do not add up to more than three. Metamagic versions of spells take up storage space equal to their spell level modified by the metamagic feat. A spellcaster can use a scroll to put a spell into the minor ring of spell storing.

The ring magically imparts to the wearer the names of all spells currently stored within it.

"A spellcaster", not a wand. I doubt you can charge it with a wand. Actually I am fairly sure you can't.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

And it's a spell storing device. You base the cost on the cost of the spell going into it.

And no, you don't always have the spell to go into it. What if you have a long combat? Spell wears out, no extras, oh noze.
Then there's the fact it is always stored at lowest caster level.

Ozy, your argument here is basically an extension of your wand argument, which was already revealed as a bad thing. All you did is shift the action cost and UMD requirement for universal usage to some other character. It's still the same argument.
--------------

Really, Ozy, it comes down to this:
Similar Item is #1.
There are 3 separate tables in the magic item tables for pricing items that grant AC.
There are rules for continuous items, and rules for uses/day items that interact.
And there are rules for spell level x caster level for other effects.

Instead of using Bracers of Armor, Amulets of Nat Armor and Rings of Protection as your baseline for armor granting stuff, along with a book on magic item construction that shot down an effect very similar to what you want to do with Mage Armor, you're saying that a magic item that was published in a splat book outside core and clearly does NOT follow these guidelines, (along with several other items over the years) and instead follows the one that you should be LEAST likely to employ, is the one you want to follow.

Shield is by far the BEST of the armor-granting spells at low to mid levels. And you're trying to argue that it should be the cheapest.

It just doesn't wash, Ozy. And bringing in spell-storing and wands isn't going to help your position on this point for permanent items. Wands are already wonky and have their own pricing that has nothing to do with permanent items. CLW vs CLW perm item will have the same kind of misaligned interaction.

Now, if you want to House Rule that having SHield spells usable this way is perfectly okay, and watch the value of actual magical shields get further devalued as you do this, that's your prerogative as a DM, and go right ahead if you have your reasons.

But for reasons of balance and solidarity across the pricing rules, you shouldn't. And that's pretty much all there is to say about it.

==Aelryinth


Pretty sure you can charge it with a wand. A wand is a spell trigger object, which means that the spell is actually 'cast'.

From the rules:

Quote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

So clearly the user is 'casting a spell', which can then be put into a spell trigger item as you quoted.

Also, since you can explicitly use wands/scrolls to supply the spells during magic item creation, this would tend to support the idea that they function as a 'cast spell'.

And, of course while not at all definitive, out of the 4 or so threads on the forum that have mentioned charging spell storing items you're the first one that I've found to have objected.

And yeah, it was the cracked purple prism.


Aelryinth wrote:
And it's a spell storing device. You base the cost on the cost of the spell going into it.

o_O

What does this even mean?!

Quote:


And no, you don't always have the spell to go into it. What if you have a long combat? Spell wears out, no extras, oh noze.
Then there's the fact it is always stored at lowest caster level.

Uh yeah, that's why 2750gp isn't overpriced. That's my entire argument that you somehow seem to be now agreeing with.

Quote:


Ozy, your argument here is basically an extension of your wand argument, which was already revealed as a bad thing. All you did is shift the action cost and UMD requirement for universal usage to some other character. It's still the same argument.

Um, not even close. Using a caster or a high UMD character to recharge your spell storing item out of combat is significantly different than forcing a fighter to make a UMD check to get a shield up during combat.

Quote:


--------------

Really, Ozy, it comes down to this:
Similar Item is #1.
There are 3 separate tables in the magic item tables for pricing items that grant AC.
There are rules for continuous items, and rules for uses/day items that interact.
And there are rules for spell level x caster level for other effects.

For continuous items, you follow the AC granting rules. For a spell used X/day, you use the spell x caster level table.

In ALL cases you adjust as necessary.

And, of course, you're blatantly ignoring 'similar item is #1' by disregarding the cloak of the hedge wizard, which is pretty darn hypocritical don't you think?

Quote:


Instead of using Bracers of Armor, Amulets of Nat Armor and Rings of Protection as your baseline for armor granting stuff, along with a book on magic item construction that shot down an effect very similar to what you want to do with Mage Armor, you're saying that a magic item that was published in a splat book outside core and clearly does NOT follow these guidelines, (along with several other items over the years) and instead follows the one that you should be LEAST likely to employ, is the one you want to follow.

Shield is by far the BEST of the armor-granting spells at low to mid levels. And you're trying to argue that it should be the cheapest.

It just doesn't wash, Ozy. And bringing in spell-storing and wands isn't going to help your position on this point for permanent items. Wands are already wonky and have their own pricing that has nothing to do with permanent items. CLW vs CLW perm item will have the same kind of misaligned interaction.

Now, if you want to House Rule that having SHield spells usable this way is perfectly okay, and watch the value of actual magical shields get further devalued as you do this, that's your prerogative as a DM, and go...

Wand of shield: 750gp

Cracked purple stone: 2000gp

result: 10 rounds of shield every single combat of the day for 2750gp

Core rules, no 'splat books' needed. Deal with it.

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you think I'm advocating for a constant, continuous shield spell magic item for like 2k or 4k or something...otherwise your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Hint: I never was.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is the outlier not following the rules. See, Bracers of Falcon's Aspect for an absolutely identical example that is ALSO not valid.
So, you are being hypocritical, not I. Citing a clear irregularity as proof of the law is self-defeating.

The spell-storing wand combo argument is a wand argument. Deal with it. It has no bearing.

X/day items are priced as continuous items if they fall under the paradigm. An AC granting device falls under the AC granting device paradigm. x/day items cost from 1/5 to 100% of a continuous item depending on how many uses they have. Period.

This is absolutely identical to the "Mage Armor casting device = Bracers of Armor" in Ultimate Equipment that you BLATANTLY IGNORING. Where the munchkin wanted to make a continuous mage armor device for a fraction of the cost of the bracers using the spell level x caster level rule.

Yet you are selectively ignoring all applicable precedents that override your view because you are salivating over a cheap bonus for a good deal of AC that you don't want to buy a wand for, invest in UMD, and spend actions on.

Dude, I'm not the one being hypocritical. I'm the one using Core Rules, and you're grasping for splatbook examples and acknowledged outliers that don't follow the core rules.

By YOUR LOGIC, I should be able to up the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard to 5 uses/day, declare it the price of a continuous effect, and make a permanent Cloak of Shield for like 10k.

Your pricing attempts are illogical, don't follow the core rules, and violate both the spirit and intent of balance and item creation.

Come ON, man. Give it up. If you were making the argument for Mage Armor, it would be the same on my end. Shield of Faith, ditto. The only reason you're using it for Shield is because there's no Cloak of Shield+5 out there, so you feel free to reinterpret stuff as if 'this AC bonus is different.'

It's not working. It's clearly 'any other AC bonus', which puts it up equal to Deflection, 2500 gp x bonus squared. Then adjust for uses/day, double for short term spell, and you've got your item.

===Aelryinth


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Core rules, no 'splat books' needed. Deal with it.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find cracked Ioun stones in the CRB (hey, I'll be generous, anywhere in the entire Rulebook line).

Good luck.

This message will self destruct...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Pretty sure you can charge it with a wand. A wand is a spell trigger object, which means that the spell is actually 'cast'.

From the rules:

Quote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

So clearly the user is 'casting a spell', which can then be put into a spell trigger item as you quoted.

Also, since you can explicitly use wands/scrolls to supply the spells during magic item creation, this would tend to support the idea that they function as a 'cast spell'.

And, of course while not at all definitive, out of the 4 or so threads on the forum that have mentioned charging spell storing items you're the first one that I've found to have objected.

And yeah, it was the cracked purple prism.

PRD wrote:

Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

The four ways to activate magic items are described below.

Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

always "activating a magic item", never spellcasting.

PRD wrote:

Magic Item Creation

....
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
...
Creating Potions
...
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) Brewing a potion requires 1 day.

I don0't see any requirement that say you have to cast the spell.

You need to have it:
1) prepared or know;
2) the spell slot and prepared spell are expended by the act of brewing the potion or making the item.


Chemlak wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Core rules, no 'splat books' needed. Deal with it.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find cracked Ioun stones in the CRB (hey, I'll be generous, anywhere in the entire Rulebook line).

Good luck.

This message will self destruct...

You're right, my bad, you would have to scale the minor ring of spell storing (3 levels 9k) to 1 level at 1k, and then x2 if you wanted a slotless item.

Or you could just use the core rules for the minor ring, use wands of mage armor, shield, enlarge person to charge it and have

shield
mage armor
enlarge person

available for every combat for the low price of 13.5k and really give Aelryinth apoplexy. ;) That even avoids the +50% cost for stacking enchantments.


Aelryinth wrote:

The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is the outlier not following the rules. See, Bracers of Falcon's Aspect for an absolutely identical example that is ALSO not valid.

So, you are being hypocritical, not I. Citing a clear irregularity as proof of the law is self-defeating.

You are stating, without any support, that the cloak of the hedge wizard isn't following the rules. To try and support this you compare to an item that has been officially banned by PFS.

Has the cloak been banned? No.
Has the cloak been FAQ'd or errata'd otherwise? No.

Any support other than your 'say so' that the cloak is against the rules? None.

Quote:


The spell-storing wand combo argument is a wand argument. Deal with it. It has no bearing.

I don't know what you mean by 'wand argument'. I provided a mechanism and cost for obtaining shield for each combat during the day.

How does this 'have no bearing' since we're talking about how much it should cost to obtain shield during combat?

Quote:


X/day items are priced as continuous items if they fall under the paradigm. An AC granting device falls under the AC granting device paradigm. x/day items cost from 1/5 to 100% of a continuous item depending on how many uses they have. Period.

This is absolutely identical to the "Mage Armor casting device = Bracers of Armor" in Ultimate Equipment that you BLATANTLY IGNORING. Where the munchkin wanted to make a continuous mage armor device for a fraction of the cost of the bracers using the spell level x caster level rule.

If it's continuous, then it isn't an X uses per day item.

Quote:


Yet you are selectively ignoring all applicable precedents that override your view because you are salivating over a cheap bonus for a good deal of AC that you don't want to buy a wand for, invest in UMD, and spend actions on.

I'm what now? I don't have any characters that would require such an item. The only character that would come close is the Magus, and he would just use a wand as normal and perhaps pickup the wand wielder feat to save on action economy. My other chars are a sorc and an alchemist, who already has enough problems with action economy.

This item is best for BDFs and the like, of which I have 0.

And I would absolutely invest in a wand/spell storing item given the added flexibility and multiple uses per day, so I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to avoid that cost.

Again, I think you think I'm making arguments that I'm not making. I've said specifically that shield items that need a standard action to use should be cheaper than continuous AC bonus items.

So not only do you have to "spend actions" on it (not avoid it like you claim I want) but this should make the item cheaper.

So to sum up your claims that I want to:

avoid wand costs: False, one of the suggested combos uses wands

avoid spending actions: Absolutely false, every item I've spec'ed requires a standard action to activate

So what the heck are you talking about?

Quote:


Dude, I'm not the one being hypocritical. I'm the one using Core Rules, and you're grasping for splatbook examples and acknowledged outliers that don't follow the core rules.

By YOUR LOGIC, I should be able to up the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard to 5 uses/day, declare it the price of a continuous effect, and make a permanent Cloak of Shield for like 10k.

A cloak of shield that you use 5 per day for 1 minute each should definitely be less than the 16k for a constant magic item that doesn't use a standard action to activate.

I find it pretty weird that you think they should somehow be the same price.

Quote:


Your pricing attempts are illogical, don't follow the core rules, and violate both the spirit and intent of balance and item creation.

Come ON, man. Give it up. If you were making the argument for Mage Armor, it would be the same on my end. Shield of Faith, ditto. The only reason you're using it for Shield is because there's no Cloak of Shield+5 out there, so you feel free to reinterpret stuff as if 'this AC bonus is different.'

It's not working. It's clearly 'any other AC bonus', which puts it up equal to Deflection, 2500 gp x bonus squared....

o_O What are you smoking?

armor +3 = 9k 1k x bonus^2
shield +3 = 9k 1k x bonus^2

I guess magic shields are all against the rules now?

Just what kind of item do you think I'm arguing for? Most of your arguments seem to be arguing against something else. Seriously man, can you write down explicitly the type of item you think I want, and explicitly what the cost is that you think I want to give it.


Diego Rossi wrote:
always "activating a magic item", never spellcasting.

I already quoted the relevant rule from the section specifically on wands:

Quote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

What does it mean to 'activate' a spell trigger item? Well, we look at the rule quoted and it tells you. It means you are casting a spell.

So yes, what you quoted talked about "activating a magic item" and in the specific rules for wands, as quoted, that means casting a spell with a standard action that doesn't provoke an AoO.

I'm pretty sure there is no relevant difference between 'casting a spell' and 'spellcasting', even for the most picky of rules lawyers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
always "activating a magic item", never spellcasting.

I already quoted the relevant rule from the section specifically on wands:

Quote:
Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

What does it mean to 'activate' a spell trigger item? Well, we look at the rule quoted and it tells you. It means you are casting a spell.

So yes, what you quoted talked about "activating a magic item" and in the specific rules for wands, as quoted, that means casting a spell with a standard action that doesn't provoke an AoO.

I'm pretty sure there is no relevant difference between 'casting a spell' and 'spellcasting', even for the most picky of rules lawyers.

PRD wrote:

Arcane Strike (Combat)

You draw upon your arcane power to enhance your weapons with magical energy.

Prerequisite: Ability to cast arcane spells.

Benefit: As a swift action, you can imbue your weapons with a fraction of your power. For 1 round, your weapons deal +1 damage and are treated as magic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. For every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

So, if I have a wand I can take this feat? Or better, 1 scroll of a cantrip with a CL of 20, so I get a +5 on damage, regardless of my level?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is the outlier not following the rules. See, Bracers of Falcon's Aspect for an absolutely identical example that is ALSO not valid.

So, you are being hypocritical, not I. Citing a clear irregularity as proof of the law is self-defeating.

You are stating, without any support, that the cloak of the hedge wizard isn't following the rules. To try and support this you compare to an item that has been officially banned by PFS.

Has the cloak been banned? No.
Has the cloak been FAQ'd or errata'd otherwise? No.

Any support other than your 'say so' that the cloak is against the rules? None.

Quote:


The spell-storing wand combo argument is a wand argument. Deal with it. It has no bearing.

I don't know what you mean by 'wand argument'. I provided a mechanism and cost for obtaining shield for each combat during the day.

How does this 'have no bearing' since we're talking about how much it should cost to obtain shield during combat?

Quote:


X/day items are priced as continuous items if they fall under the paradigm. An AC granting device falls under the AC granting device paradigm. x/day items cost from 1/5 to 100% of a continuous item depending on how many uses they have. Period.

This is absolutely identical to the "Mage Armor casting device = Bracers of Armor" in Ultimate Equipment that you BLATANTLY IGNORING. Where the munchkin wanted to make a continuous mage armor device for a fraction of the cost of the bracers using the spell level x caster level rule.

If it's continuous, then it isn't an X uses per day item.

Quote:


Yet you are selectively ignoring all applicable precedents that override your view because you are salivating over a cheap bonus for a good deal of AC that you don't want to buy a wand for, invest in UMD, and spend actions on.
I'm what now? I don't have any characters that would require such an item. The only character that would come close is the Magus, and he would just use a wand as...

You really don't see the hollows of your own argument. You are focused myopically on the caster level x spell level and completely ignoring the precedents of pricing.

By your logic:
A +1 Shield of Faith Ring usable 5 times a day should cost less then a +1 Ring of Protection. Same argument as your Shield...except the Shield of Faith isn't as good for what you get out of it.
A Mage Armor Ring usable 5 times a day should cost less then a continuous Mage Armor device. EXCEPT WHEN THIS VERY POINT WAS USED IN ULTIMATE EQUIPMENT AND THEY SHOT IT DOWN.
A +2 Nat Armor Bonus usable 5t/day via Barkskin should cost less then a +2 Amulet of Nat AC. Except this is the same thing as Mage Armor, except the AC isn't fixed.

A Shield bonus is a supplement to an Armor Bonus, but is not listed on the Armor bonus table. Therefore, it's 'another AC type', which goes on the LAST armor table...all other AC bonuses.

X charge per day items are priced as continuous items. It's a fact. You keep choosing to ignore this. Those with short duration spells cost double.

I don't have any problem with wands holding the spells and then shoving them into a rock. The rock still takes an action to use, and the source is still the wand...it's a moot argument. The pricing of wands for cost/benefit is not the same as permanent items.

If you don't like how Pathfinder prices AC items, house rule it, Oyz. But just because something is a first level spell doesn't mean it should be cheap, no matter how much you want it to be.

==Aelryinth


Diego Rossi wrote:


So, if I have a wand I can take this feat? Or better, 1 scroll of a cantrip with a CL of 20, so I get a +5 on damage, regardless of my level?

Are you seriously arguing, despite the words right in front of you where it says activation of a wand is 'casting a spell' that activating a wand is not casting a spell?

Don't argue about feats, don't argue about Arcane Strike or another other argument via consequence fallacy, explain to me why I should look at the words in front of my face that I quoted, and somehow say that 'casting a spell' doesn't mean 'casting a spell'.

Tell me, in the wand section under activation, what do the words 'casting a spell' actually mean if not casting a spell?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So, if I have a wand I can take this feat? Or better, 1 scroll of a cantrip with a CL of 20, so I get a +5 on damage, regardless of my level?

Are you seriously arguing, despite the words right in front of you where it says activation of a wand is 'casting a spell' that activating a wand is not casting a spell?

Don't argue about feats, don't argue about Arcane Strike or another other argument via consequence fallacy, explain to me why I should look at the words in front of my face that I quoted, and somehow say that 'casting a spell' doesn't mean 'casting a spell'.

Tell me, in the wand section under activation, what do the words 'casting a spell' actually mean if not casting a spell?

And you are seriously arguing that if it count as casting a spell for A it don't count as casting a spell for B?

And you argue that "activating a wand to cast a spell" is the same as "A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring,"?

In one instance it is the wand that do the casting, in the other it is the spellcaster.
A magic item isn't a spellcaster.
If a magic item make someone a spellcaster we return to the Arcane Strike feat working for the owner of a scroll.

If you don't like the consequences of your interpretation of the rules you maybe must reconsider it.

Silver Crusade

You can 'cast a spell' from an item, without actually being a 'spellcaster' yourself.

Kind of like being able to fire a bullet from a gun, without actually being a gun yourself.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Malachi,

I'd agree with you in broad instances, but the sentence does specifically cite a spellcaster, not 'A spell can be cast into an item' and leave the source undefined.

They defined the source, that's a restriction. Different language would have opened it up.

And I'm completely open to a Shield bonus using the Armor table, too. The language goes both ways. I would like to see how you price the ability to deflect magic missiles there, however, so clearly the effect of a SHield spell is somewhat more then just an Armor bonus.

==Aelryinth

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If an item cast a shield spell, use the formula:

Spell level x caster level x (whatever: different prices for wands, potions, someone items etc.)

If the idea is to give a wondrous item 5 uses per day, and thus be the same price as continuous, then that doesn't mean it actually is continuous! If you want a continuous bonus, then use the prices for permanent items, like magic shields.

Misusing the rules to get cheap permanent AC bonuses is (and should be) easily prevented by the DM saying 'No!'


Diego Rossi wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So, if I have a wand I can take this feat? Or better, 1 scroll of a cantrip with a CL of 20, so I get a +5 on damage, regardless of my level?

Are you seriously arguing, despite the words right in front of you where it says activation of a wand is 'casting a spell' that activating a wand is not casting a spell?

Don't argue about feats, don't argue about Arcane Strike or another other argument via consequence fallacy, explain to me why I should look at the words in front of my face that I quoted, and somehow say that 'casting a spell' doesn't mean 'casting a spell'.

Tell me, in the wand section under activation, what do the words 'casting a spell' actually mean if not casting a spell?

And you are seriously arguing that if it count as casting a spell for A it don't count as casting a spell for B?

Of course it doesn't count for 'B' because feat prerequisites can't be simply satisfied by temporary effects, which is why you can't cast bull strength and learn power attack.

But that's not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that 'casting a spell' is 'casting a spell', that's it.

Quote:


And you argue that "activating a wand to cast a spell" is the same as "A spellcaster can cast any spells into the ring,"?

In one instance it is the wand that do the casting, in the other it is the spellcaster.
A magic item isn't a spellcaster.
If a magic item make someone a spellcaster we return to the Arcane Strike feat working for the owner of a scroll.

If you don't like the consequences of your interpretation of the rules you maybe must reconsider it.

The wand is the casting the spell?

A wand of shield with range personal doesn't even work?

In all of the spell descriptions, what does the word 'you' refer to if not the spellcaster?

Follow this chain:

Quote:

Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create

an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates.
Quote:

Create Water

School conjuration (creation) [water]; Level cleric 0, druid 0, paladin 1

So, does a wand of create water work? Who is the 'spellcaster' in this instance?

51 to 100 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / About Continuous Magic Items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.