Just say no. GM makes the rules. It's that simple.
this is a great way to lose players. the players are also participants in the experience, and they probably want to have fun too. if you just say no "because you can", you're being a jerk.
I'd likely add an extra 20% to the total cost to account for that shift, however.
i'm genuinely curious and not just trying to be argumentative, but how do you not see this as a badwrongfun tax? if you agree that the slot is thematically appropriate and they're not actually gaining more slots or somehow stacking bonuses that they couldn't normally stack in this way (like if they were making a bunch of dodge bonus magic items) why would you charge them extra?
Normally, the addition is +50% if you're adding an ability to a different slot than it's normally in. What it basically comes down to is that certain slots are intended for certain types of powers, both in terms of what can be done and how powerful that is. The intention is for players to have to make tough decisions for better items.
For example, getting a Shield Bonus to AC is normally a "Ring" power (as in the Ring of Force Shield). If you use that power in a slot which normally isn't used much, like the Wrists slot, then you're also giving the player the ability to equip a third ring-type power. The extra GP cost here is, basically, making them pay for the advantage they're getting... which is quite fair. Characters shouldn't get to equip more of a powerful item type at no cost to themselves - that's not how the system was designed.
It's also letting them cheat the feat cost if you allow them to use the feat for the slot they're crafting for instead of the feat the ability is normally in. In our example here, using Craft Wondrous Item instead of Forge Ring means they're getting a power normally restricted to one feat with another, making the feat they've gotten more powerful. And Craft Wondrous Item is already pretty darn powerful. That's why it's a good rule of thumb to require that they have both the feat the power is normally associated with and the feat for the type of item they're actually making.
eh... i don't agree with paizo's overall balancing philosophy so...
also, i prefer to use a BiP system so magic items can do cool things instead of providing necessary stat increases. makes a lot of the above irrelevant. i do get what you're saying though.
Slot Affinity is actually gone from the rules. There's a brief mention of it somewhere (I think) but only about not letting players change slots to avoid the cost increase on certain items (so no +2 Str Belt and +2 Dex Gloves, you have to use a +2/+2 item). Shield bonuses pretty much always go in the "shield" slot, so every wondrous item is going to be the "wrong slot", which is the same as none being "wrong". No reason to mark it up for that.
So 40,000 for the shield bonus (not attached to a physical shield) and 3-5k for the immunity to magic missiles seems about right. I'm absolutely positive the player can't afford that, and most likely doesn't want it at that price.
40k for a +4 shield bonus is way too high. You can get a deflection bonus for less than that, and that works against touch AC as well and is overall a better AC bonus.
A shield bonus should be ~1500 x bonus^2, so 24k base. You can add a bit for it being a force effect and the magic missile immunity, but it shouldn't go much above 30-32k.
Finally, if you price a magic item so high that no player would want it at the price, that should be a pretty good hint that you've overpriced it.
40k for a +4 shield bonus is way too high. You can get a deflection bonus for less than that, and that works against touch AC as well and is overall a better AC bonus.
A shield bonus should be ~1500 x bonus^2, so 24k base. You can add a bit for it being a force effect and the magic missile immunity, but it shouldn't go much above 30-32k.
Finally, if you price a magic item so high that no player would want it at the price, that should be a pretty good hint that you've overpriced it.
It's a shield bonus that does not tie up an arm. And gives magic missle immunity.
40k for a +4 shield bonus is way too high. You can get a deflection bonus for less than that, and that works against touch AC as well and is overall a better AC bonus.
A shield bonus should be ~1500 x bonus^2, so 24k base. You can add a bit for it being a force effect and the magic missile immunity, but it shouldn't go much above 30-32k.
Finally, if you price a magic item so high that no player would want it at the price, that should be a pretty good hint that you've overpriced it.
It's a shield bonus that does not tie up an arm. And gives magic missle immunity.
A deflection bonus also doesn't tie up an arm and works against touch attacks. That's going to be more valuable than magic missile immunity 9 times out of 10.
A ring of deflection is worth more than the exact same price amulet of natural armor. Does this mean one is overpriced or underpriced? ...actually, probably yeah. That all being said, a shield bonus for a class that cannot use shields (monk) has to be worth at least as much as an amulet of natural armor (works in the same situations as a shield). Items have to be priced based on the "best case" use, and the best case for a no shield +4 shield is someone who can't use a shield. That means an even higher price, as it's a bonus they cannot otherwise get (and doesn't take a hand, etc.).
I never said no one would buy it. I would probably buy it on a tanky monk or a two-handed weapon user. Buying the +2 version (10k) would be about the same as upgrading any of the others from +3 to +4. I said the player who suggested it probably wouldn't want it if it actually cost what it was worth, instead of being ridiculously cheap.
Slot Affinity is actually gone from the rules. There's a brief mention of it somewhere (I think) but only about not letting players change slots to avoid the cost increase on certain items (so no +2 Str Belt and +2 Dex Gloves, you have to use a +2/+2 item).
Slot affinity is most definitely not gone from the rules. You may find it hard to reference it, but it definitely can be found in the existing items. Take boots of teleportation (49,000 gp) and a helm of teleportation (73,500 gp) Exactly 1.5 times more. It most definitely is there.
Gloves typically aren't defense items (not primarily, they could allow a Deflect Arrow or raise Dex which could subsequently help with defense) but usually you're going with rings or bracers or a vest for protection. This is also the problem with letting a player make gloves of shielding. Because then they can wear bracers of armor and also stack a shield bonus with gloves of shielding. That doesn't seem like a huge deal to some, but in actuality what it's doing is taking away a prime restriction/decision about what to put in a certain slot.
Whearas if both defense items were bracers, a player would have to decide does he want armor (and possibly armor benefits and powers) or does he want shield bonus (and immunity to magic missiles). Allowing the choice to place one power in a different slot does in fact have an impact on magic item power, decisions, and player effectiveness game-wise. Restrictions on slots and such may seem draconian or harsh at times, but they are there for a reason, just like stacking bonuses of the same type or other such balancing features.
So a glove of shielding should cost more than an equivalent bracer of armor (immunity to missiles not withstanding) by about 1.5 times. My opinion, of course.
While this is definitely NOT the point of your post, there is a footnote for use-activated or continuous use items that alters the price based on duration. Since shield is minute/level duration, you technically multiply the price by 2 which puts it at 4000g. This is still wildly underpriced and falls into the loophole category, but I thought I'd remind everyone of those very important footnotes for custom magic item creation. =)
You must always price items based on their numerical bonus.
We've all pretty much agreed there.
You should always look at preexisting items to get a base for what you're thinking of.
Ring of Force Shield is definitely more expensive, and it eats up a much more valuable slot, and it is itself a completely different kind of magic item.
These two factors mean you gotta look at what the player really wants.
Cheap AC and stats is usually never the way to go.
If you want to look at the pricing for a wondrous item of the spell shield, remember that bracers of armor specifically cannot stack with real armor in any way shape or form, plus they eat up your arms slot. That's two magic item slots gone, for an item that scales up to the equivalent of a +5 studded leather, but at an exponentially exacerbated price.
To make a shield like this, it has to eat up one of your hands... as in no shield or weapon can go in that hand. No THW, no TWF.
32k isn't cheap. 1k is, which is the original price they were trying to get it at.
Slot Affinity is not in the rules. It's grandfathered in by magic items brought over from 3.5, where Slot Affinity was a thing. You won't find any rules telling you to do it now though.
It doesn't matter that a +3 buckler is the same numerical bonus. It's -1 to attack with that arm, turns off if you use that arm, and completely shuts off a monk's AC bonus, fast movement, and flurry of blows. That's most emphatically not the same thing as the proposed item. How much is Flurry of Blows (effectively full BAB and two-weapon fighting for free), Wis to AC, +5 AC, and +60 feet of movement speed worth? At least 30k? More? Much, much more?
Yes, for specific situations, a magic buckler is far less valuable than a constant shield item. That's why it's 9k and not 32k.
How much is a wand of shield and a wand key ring? 3750gp.
How much more valuable is a constant shield effect compared to an activated effect? 28k? That extra money would buy a lot more items for that monk.
A constant shield effect versus a wand is worth about 2/3rds a standard action more (rough guess). As in, if you cast shield every combat, unless you can see the combat coming, your first standard action is spent casting shield. I'm willing to negotiate on the numbers, I just took a wild guess. If it were an at-will or unlimited in some way shield I'd agree with you, but with only 50 charges and lasting one minute it's never lasting more than one battle and you would need to carefully choose when you use it. And if you try to keep it up all the time, you'll definitely be blowing charges when there's no battle. One wand wouldn't even last an hour. How often do you use it? How many charges are you willing to waste?
So how much is an extra standard action worth? An extra standard action every X battles? I'd say quite a bit, action economy is king. Will that 28k buy a free standard action? Will any price?
After 50 battles, you're high enough level that a wand of shield is pocket change. You can blow through them like skittles.
Standard actions aren't any good if you're dead from poison, or hey, you could spend that extra money and become immune to poison.
That's the point, you get to spend that extra 28k to make yourself more powerful. Is that worth sometimes losing a standard action? It very well could be. Heck, boots of speed are less than half the money you saved, and now you get an extra attack that you otherwise wouldn't have. Quick runner's shirt? Extra move action. So yeah, I think that 28k more than makes up for losing a standard action occasionally.
If you don't agree, then you would likely buy the 32k item rather than the 4k item.
32k isn't cheap. 1k is, which is the original price they were trying to get it at.
Slot Affinity is not in the rules. It's grandfathered in by magic items brought over from 3.5, where Slot Affinity was a thing. You won't find any rules telling you to do it now though.
It doesn't matter that a +3 buckler is the same numerical bonus. It's -1 to attack with that arm, turns off if you use that arm, and completely shuts off a monk's AC bonus, fast movement, and flurry of blows. That's most emphatically not the same thing as the proposed item. How much is Flurry of Blows (effectively full BAB and two-weapon fighting for free), Wis to AC, +5 AC, and +60 feet of movement speed worth? At least 30k? More? Much, much more?
It may not be a hard rule but it's a heavy suggestion.
Ultimate Campaign, pg 172 wrote:
Not All Item Slots Have Equal Value: This is true, even though it isn't expressed monetarily in the rules. Some item slots are very common and are shared by many useful items (boots, belts, rings, and amulets in particular), while some slots are used by only a few items (such as body, chest, and eyes). Allowing a character to alter or craft an item for one of these underused slots is allowing the character to bypass built-in choices between popular items.
Some Abilities Are Assigned to Certain Slots: Some of the magic items in the Core Rulebook are deliberately assigned to specific magic item slots for balance purposes, so that you have to make hard choices about what items to wear. In particular, the magic belts and circlets that give enhancement bonuses to ability scores are in this category—characters who want to enhance multiple physical or mental ability scores must pay extra for combination items like a belt of physical might or headband of mental prowess.
If there is a trend of all Core Rulebook items of a particular type using a particular slot (such as items that grant physical ability score bonuses being belts or items that grant movement bonuses being boots), GMs should be hesitant to allow you to move those abilities to other slots; otherwise, they ignore these deliberate restrictions by cheaply spreading out these items over unused slots.
Classes Value Some Slots More Than Others: This is a combination of the two previous warnings. Because most belts enhance physical abilities, wizards rarely have need for standard belt items. This means a wizard can change an item that's useful to wizards into a belt and not have to worry about a future slot conflict by discovering a wizardly magic belt in a treasure hoard. Likewise, fighters have little use for most standard head items, so altering an existing fighter item to use the head slot means it has little risk of competition from found head slot items. GMs should consider carefully before allowing you to bypass these intentional, built-in item slot restrictions.
Reading this, there's some clear intent to have some themes. Remember that in 3.x, the stat items were spread around instead of concentrated on belts for physical stats, and headbands for mental.
After 50 battles, you're high enough level that a wand of shield is pocket change. You can blow through them like skittles.
Standard actions aren't any good if you're dead from poison, or hey, you could spend that extra money and become immune to poison.
That's the point, you get to spend that extra 28k to make yourself more powerful. Is that worth sometimes losing a standard action? It very well could be. Heck, boots of speed are less than half the money you saved, and now you get an extra attack that you otherwise wouldn't have. Quick runner's shirt? Extra move action. So yeah, I think that 28k more than makes up for losing a standard action occasionally.
If you don't agree, then you would likely buy the 32k item rather than the 4k item.
Sure... and that's completely, utterly irrelevant to the point we're talking about, which is the price of a continuous +4 shield bonus item. In order to properly compare it to a wand we need to know what a magic item which grants a standard action would cost, to make up for the standard action that needs to be spent to use the wand. It's not an insignificant cost. As I've already said, I would use the item on a tanky monk (who needs their standard action for fighting defensively) or two-handed weapon user (who wants their full attack or standard action attack). Both would benefit significantly from not having to pull out and activate a wand. The question is exactly how much they would benefit (in gp).
Let's assume for a second you could make a wand of quickened shield (you can't, but we're just estimating here). It would cost 33,750. That means trading a standard for a swift (for shield) is worth 33k. Swift to a free is probably a little more but it shouldn't be significantly more (many classes don't use their swift at all).
So I'm sticking by my 40k number. Every presented alternative comes with a whole bunch of other baggage with even less guidelines for how to price out ignoring that baggage. Most of them would probably cost even more. It's simplest just to use the "other" bonus.
I'll tell you what. Your character spends 40k on that item, my character will spend 4k on a wand with a wand key ring, and then 36k on OTHER magic items, and we'll see who comes out ahead, like say a +4 deflection bonus. Or maybe a +3 armor bonus and a +3 deflection bonus.
So now, I have just as much AC as you do (if not already 2 higher) unless I use a standard action to get +4 more. Or maybe I'll spring for boots of haste, so while you are up one standard action on me, the extra attacks I get for the next 4 or 5 combat rounds more than makes up for it...and I have still over 20k to burn on other stuff.
So no, it's not utterly irrelevant to the point, the balance of cost vs. power IS the entire point of the pricing system, and when you price a +4 shield bonus at 40k, you're not balancing it correctly. A character would be foolish to spend that much, assuming their GM was adhering to WBL. It would severely lower their effectiveness from the opportunity cost.
You spend your standard action activating a wand and your move doing, whatever. I spend my full-round action pouncing. I have killed an enemy, you have done literally nothing. Maybe you provided flanking. Over the lifetime of the character, mine will attack more and deal more damage. They will likely also prevent more damage to the party by proactively removing enemies. Your character will prevent damage only to themselves. You can make the story say whatever you want as long as you ignore the actual details. If you let your character take a standard action for free, that's what you're doing.
Other magic items are disingenuous. By the time I'd spend 40k on a shield bonus, I'd already have bought boots of haste, armor +5, a ring of deflection +5, amulet of natural armor +4, a cloak of resistance +5, etc. A +4 shield item is a late-game purchase, something like 16th level (13% of WBL). Even by your 30-32k number (about an amulet of natural armor or ring of deflection +4). It's not something you buy if you still need a ring of deflection +3. Assuming I blow my entire WBL on one item so you can give yourself a half dozen is just dishonest. What can an extra 36k buy you at level 16 that's worth a free full attack at the start of every battle?
I see nothing that would stop him making it a command word activated item instead, the monk would have to use a standard action each fight to get the bonus, but it would fulfill the purpose all the same.
You spend your standard action activating a wand and your move doing, whatever. I spend my full-round action pouncing. I have killed an enemy, you have done literally nothing. Maybe you provided flanking. Over the lifetime of the character, mine will attack more and deal more damage. They will likely also prevent more damage to the party by proactively removing enemies. Your character will prevent damage only to themselves. You can make the story say whatever you want as long as you ignore the actual details. If you let your character take a standard action for free, that's what you're doing.
Other magic items are disingenuous. By the time I'd spend 40k on a shield bonus, I'd already have bought boots of haste, armor +5, a ring of deflection +5, amulet of natural armor +4, a cloak of resistance +5, etc. A +4 shield item is a late-game purchase, something like 16th level (13% of WBL). Even by your 30-32k number (about an amulet of natural armor or ring of deflection +4). It's not something you buy if you still need a ring of deflection +3. Assuming I blow my entire WBL on one item so you can give yourself a half dozen is just dishonest. What can an extra 36k buy you at level 16 that's worth a free full attack at the start of every battle?
Dude, other magic items are not disingenuous, the opportunity cost of spending 40k IS THE POINT. If there was no such thing as WBL, and you had unlimited funds, OBVIOUSLY a constant shield effect is better and a no brainer.
However, that isn't how pathfinder works. So, while you just pounced and killed a guy while I spent an action getting up shield, you get hit twice as much in the remaining rounds because my AC is now +6 better from the shield, +3 armor bonus and +3 deflection bonus, plus I get a free move action with my quick runners shirt, and I get an extra attack for the next 10 rounds from my boots of haste. So I end up killing more mobs, get hit less, and have more mobility.
That's the point. When you spend 40k on item X, that's 40k you don't have to spend on items W, Y, and Z. Not only that, what are you doing until 11-12th level when you can conceivably afford your item? Meanwhile, I've been rocking a wand of shield since level 3, and added the key ring by level 5.
Granted, if you throw out WBL, the argument changes.
Animated mithral buckler seems like ghee best choice, unless you're not an arcane caster.
Weirdly enough, that doesn't seem to prevent monks from losing all of their special abilities:
Quote:
A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.
Other magic items are disingenuous. By the time I'd spend 40k on a shield bonus, I'd already have bought boots of haste, armor +5, a ring of deflection +5, amulet of natural armor +4, a cloak of resistance +5, etc. A +4 shield item is a late-game purchase, something like 16th level (13% of WBL). Even by your 30-32k number (about an amulet of natural armor or ring of deflection +4). It's not something you buy if you still need a ring of deflection +3. Assuming I blow my entire WBL on one item so you can give yourself a half dozen is just dishonest. What can an extra 36k buy you at level 16 that's worth a free full attack at the start of every battle?
Dude, other magic items are not disingenuous, the opportunity cost of spending 40k IS THE POINT. If there was no such thing as WBL, and you had unlimited funds, OBVIOUSLY a constant shield effect is better and a no brainer.
However, that isn't how pathfinder works. So, while you just pounced and killed a guy while I spent an action getting up shield, you get hit twice as much in the remaining rounds because my AC is now +6 better from the shield, +3 armor bonus and +3 deflection bonus, plus I get a free move action with my quick runners shirt, and I get an extra attack for the next 10 rounds from my boots of haste. So I end up killing more mobs, get hit less, and have more mobility.
That's the point. When you spend 40k on item X, that's 40k you don't have to spend on items W, Y, and Z. Not only that, what are you doing until 11-12th level when you can conceivably afford your item? Meanwhile, I've been rocking a wand of shield since level 3, and added the key ring by level 5.
Granted, if you throw out WBL, the argument changes.
You cannot divorce the costs from the circumstances surrounding them. If I'm buying a +4 shield item for 40k, I already have a +5 ring of deflection and +5 armor (unless I don't use them). So do you. You don't get an additional +3 deflection bonus because you can't buy a +8 ring (plus it would cost 78,000 to do that). It's not "throwing out WBL" to assume that I'm not buying a 40k magical item at level 10, when that's 2/3rds of everything I own.
These are not naked characters in a vacuum. That's not how you compare things, especially things that scale exponentially. When you look at upgrading your weapon from +4 to +5 you don't say "Or I could buy +3 armor and a +3 shield". You should already have those (if you use them). You might upgrade your armor and shield from +4 to +5, but that's 2 AC, not 6. It is disingenuous to pretend the characters have no other items so you can boost your numbers. 36k at level 16 might buy you specific magic items (but if they're significantly cheaper, there's no reason I wouldn't have bought them), it would let you add +2 special abilities to your armor (medium fort to heavy fort?), it would let you improve your belt and your headband from +4 to +6, maybe add a different +4 to an existing belt or headband. It would not let you gain +3 deflection and +3 armor unless you hadn't bought them yet, in which case my character would still have +2 armor and +2 deflection over you (since they have the +5 version).
Let us go back to your example. Your character buys the ring, wand, and whatever else. My characters buys that same whatever else. You spend your standard every battle to get shield. My character attacks. My character will attack more, deal more damage, and prevent more party damage. Your character might eventually prevent more party damage, but only by preventing damage to themselves (and only damage which targets AC). They could even use literally the same character build. And my character will have 4k more gold to spend and an extra ring slot. So now your character is worse than mine. What exactly does this prove?
