Malachi Silverclaw wrote: 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!'
Yup, simple.
Aelryinth wrote:
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. Wrong. That refers specifically to a continuous mage armor item, not an X/day mage armor item, which is the type of item under discussion.
Quote: 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.
Yup, +1 Shield of Faith ring 5/day: 1 * 1 * 1800 * 5/5 = 1800gp
Quote: 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. Wrong again. They shot down a continuous mage armor item, not a 5/day item.
Quote: 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. Wrong again, 2 * 3 * 5/5 * 1800 = 10800k, which is 2800k higher than a constant amulet of natural armor +2. The amulet of natural armor would be better in most cases here.
Quote: 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. Wrong again. Shield AC bonuses are priced the same as armor, which is why a +3 shield costs the same as a +3 breastplate (not including underlying item costs).
Quote: 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. Wrong again. Command word activated items have no such language associated with them. You are talking about constant effect items.
Quote: The pricing of wands for cost/benefit is not the same as permanent items. About the only thing you got right, and I happen to agree.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from the "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" lines of Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
=================================
Kindly note that last sentence. Because you're stereotyping exactly what it means.
The only difference between continuous and x/day is 5 charges. It's the ONLY difference in price. A 5 charge/day item is priced exactly as if continuous, even if it is 'command word activated'. Remove command word, and the only difference in treatment is a 200 gp multiplier in the price.
The only variable here is the fact you are trying to juice the formula for minmaxing. By using command word, you're trying to remove yourself from the comparison which is ruling this whole example by making the error that it removes you from the same paradigm.
Sorry, ozy, but you still have to play within the rules, you don't get to suddenly throw them out the door.
And I was going from memory on the Nat Armor Amulet, but thank you for making my point for me. It's suddenly not cost-effective to do it your way, so you're going to use a cheaper way.
There IS NO CHEAPER WAY. There's exactly one way. The system doesn't mix and match between different methods for the same thing, you don't get to use loopholes to juice the system.
Especially when dealing with AC boosting items.
Your 'command word' is no different then the two examples above - you compare first for an item of similar power. You divide by charges/day. You maybe take off 10% for requiring a command word.
They are all part of the same ruleset, and you're loopholing. It's that plain.
==Aelryinth
Command word is not a cost reducer as per rules.
5x per day is the same cost as a continuous, which is why "charges per day" is a "special" category modifying the "spell effect table". You could have a "command word" "continuous" but it would still cost actions to activate (thus the 1800 modifier as opposed to 2k).
However, this still place the shield bracers within the realm of armor bonus items that already exist, however requires additional cost as it also acts as a brooch of shielding. I'd let slide the ghost touch property-as that's a weapon/armor quality and thus, not priced for miscellaneous items (in this case).
The rules work that you-when creating magic items-use the most costly of formulas, as a way of mitigating the fact that the items will be custom created to your needs. It's acheck/balance system that is not meant to be abused and if it is being exploited for cheaper costs, it should be removed from play, as the abuses can get..well.. rather extreme.
As far as this goes, it's a mild abuse, but it's the intent that counts. In this case, it's an intentional abuse of rules that are already particularly lenient.
(truthfully, you want something cheap use the standard magic item reducers: item requires class/skill/alignment-that way it's all legal and takes some of the pressure off the already far too strained WBL. Still cheesy, but since it's rules legal, it ends up less "cheatery".)
A wondrous item that can be activated with a command word to cast shield as a 1st level caster five times per day would cost 1800gp, take a standard action to activate and last for one minute per activation, for a total of five minutes per day (using five standard actions).
If you wanted to get a permanent/continuous shield effect, you're out of luck. The best you could do is use the spell as a base for crafting +4 Bracers of Armour for 16000gp, which would give you the standard abilities of that item. No magic missile-proofing.
The reason you can't make shield a permanent magic item is that there is already a similar item and you must use that formula, not the formula for a continuous spell effect.
The authority for this is both in the various rules for creating magic items and the authority and responsibility of the DM to run a fair game.
Just. Say. No.
Aelryinth wrote:
Kindly note that last sentence. Because you're stereotyping exactly what it means.
Apparently you need to kindly note it, I'll highlight the important part:
Quote: Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from the "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" lines of Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values. Unlimited uses per day, exactly the opposite of the items under discussion.
Quote:
The only difference between continuous and x/day is 5 charges. It's the ONLY difference in price. A 5 charge/day item is priced exactly as if continuous, even if it is 'command word activated'. Remove command word, and the only difference in treatment is a 200 gp multiplier in the price.
So what if the price ends up the same in the table? That doesn't mean you treat 5/day items exactly the same as continuous items, that's only in your head. According to the table, 10/day items are twice as expensive as constant items, does that mean they are twice as good?
Quote:
The only variable here is the fact you are trying to juice the formula for minmaxing. By using command word, you're trying to remove yourself from the comparison which is ruling this whole example by making the error that it removes you from the same paradigm.
Sorry, ozy, but you still have to play within the rules, you don't get to suddenly throw them out the door.
And I was going from memory on the Nat Armor Amulet, but thank you for making my point for me. It's suddenly not cost-effective to do it your way, so you're going to use a cheaper way.
There IS NO CHEAPER WAY. There's exactly one way. The system doesn't mix and match...
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not making custom items for my characters, I'm talking about the rules. I have no interest in 'minmaxing' as you put it because my characters are arcane casters and can use wands as needed.
The fact that the amulet of natural armor is a bit cheaper isn't what makes it better in most cases, it's the fact that it is continuous that makes it better than a 5/day barkskin. Heck, I would say it's better than a 10/day barkskin because of action economy even if the 10/day barkskin item is 20k.
How about instead of inventing motivations for my arguments, you actually address the fact that you were wrong about just about every single 'fact' you posted in the previous comment?
Actually, you could make a continuous item of shield-it would just cost the price of adding the brooch of shielding to bracers of armor +4, then maybe an equivalent enhancement bonus equivalent to ghost touch armor (I think it's a +1?).
It can be done*, but hella expensive.
*technically, it's not so much a continuous single spell effect as adding the cost of multiple items with single effects together (double cost for each beyond the first most expensive), but merely requiring shield as a spell for the creation isn't a long stretch, nor is renaming them to bracers of shield.
**to be even more accurate you'd need to price up a +4 for armor bonus (other), ghost touch(x2), and brooch of shielding(x2), and require it to have shield as a required spell for creation.
(remember ghost touch can be added to bracers of armor and amulet of mighty fists-so it gives a reasonable precedent)
Like I said: Expensive.
You could, at that point, reduce it to once a day from *that* price, or render it slotless (x2 cost again), but honestly, it`s not really worth it for the price.
So many magic items, so little wealth and time.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
