Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shades of eternity 09-18-04, 09:45 PM	Is it just me or is Mage armor pretty much blow shield out of the water right now. With its longer duration, it is a much more useful spell, seeing as they provide a similar bonus? The only thing that comes to mind is it's use as a magic missile shield, but am I missing something, besides the fact that both are stackable?
MattD121 09-18-04, 09:59 PM	Yea I'd defainitly take mage armor before I took shield but mage armor is one of those classic spells, like magic missle, it owns for its level.
shades of eternity 09-18-04, 10:10 PM	yeah back in 3.0, shield had a +7 plus the bonus which made it a serious contender as an alternative to mage armor. Heck, I saw more shield amulets then any other item during this period.
Lina_Inverse 09-18-04, 10:33 PM	shield gives a shield bonus.which incase youll note,no item except SHIELDS will give you.its called stacking!
Edymnion 09-18-04, 11:04 PM	shield gives a shield bonus.which incase youll note,no item except SHIELDS will give you.its called stacking!Yes, but if you're a classic wizard that isn't wearing armor, and is trying to decide between one or the other, the type of bonus it gives doesn't really matter, as the effects are the same.
edsonaoki 09-19-04, 12:58 AM	well, guess mage armor is defintely better for wizards who don't wear armor, and shield becomes more useful when you are high level enough to have it quickened. in the other hand, if your character is a fightr/mage type and uses armor, then mage armor is useless, and shield is half-useful until you can quicken it.
Warspite 09-19-04, 01:59 AM	You take mage armor first then back it up with sheild for those special occasions when you want to be something besides a target. Warspite
meabolex 09-19-04, 02:26 AM	While shield has some uses as a buff spell in the later levels, it's a complete waste of time to spend a combat round casting it in any level where 3rd level or higher spells can be cast. It may have some use as a quickened spell -- but I'd rather quicken ray of enfeeblement or true strike.
Kaminton 09-19-04, 04:59 AM	Well, at higher levels you may want to wear bracers of armor, which essentially duplicates mage armor continuously - at this point, you can cast shield and get the extra AC if you need it. The other reason to cast shield is to get immunity to magic missiles (from one side, anyway). Mage armor doesn't help. It's not uncommon for high level wizards to pack a wand of level 9 magic missiles in case they need to deal damage right away (remember, magic missile is auto-hit, no saves), and/or they've either run out of combat spells or want to conserve them for later. Considering that mages typically have low HP, a couple of volleys from a level 9 magic missile could be enough to kill them (the average damage of a magic missile is the same as the average hp of a wizard with 12 Con).
MetalGemini 09-19-04, 11:01 AM	Well, at higher levels you may want to wear bracers of armor, which essentially duplicates mage armor continuously - at this point, you can cast shield and get the extra AC if you need it. I have yet to meet a wizard that didn't want bracers of armor. And with Mage Armor, the bonuses don't stack. So Shield might have the shorter duration, but it stacks with the bracers + negates magic missile. I'm also in the minority that prefers Sorcerer to Wizard. So the sorcerer could just recast Shield if the encounter is long enough for it to run out. The UA Battle Sorcerer variant works great with Shield as well, since Battle Sorc allows casting in light armor without penalties. Mage Armor, no stack.
Methos of Aundair 09-19-04, 11:11 AM	As a wizard I always take Mage Armor than take the Extend Spell feat at 3rd level so I can cast an extended Mage Armor. Shield is an iffy, at least at the lower levels. During the lower levels the wizard typically doesn’t have very many spell slots per level so taking up another slot for shield seems wasteful. If anything I create several scrolls of shield and then carry them in the scroll organizer (FRCS). At higher levels shield can be more beneficial depending on the encounter. At that point there’s a lot more ranged combat and ranged spells so shield is a lot more beneficial. Again, if you don’t want to use up a slot use a scroll (caster level 1) since typical battles don’t go over 10 rounds. You’re talking of a cost of 12.5 gp and 1 xp. Once you are at the point where you have plenty of spell slots available memorize it instead. Recall also that shield lasts 1 min/level so pretty much it’s a one combat spell. This is another reason I typically cast it from scrolls rather than memorize it. I also don’t use shield that much. Scrolls are great to have on hand especially defense and utility spells. BTW I typically don’t play a sorcerer so I’m not for sure on whether it would be worth taking both spells as spells known since the sorcerer doesn’t get that many spells.
Ipsissimus 09-19-04, 11:17 AM	I like them both, for different reasons but i'm glad they are both available to mages at 1st lvl. You already have a decent AC when you cast both, plus any other items or abilities you might have. As a fighter/mage it's nice as mentioned for the purpose of shield, but for a monk/mage it's even greater. +8 AC? That's good enough to spend a round or two to buff up. Shield has other purposes, some as a necessary spell to make certain magical items. I would say it wouldn't be as good if it didn't block magic missiles, which were the bane of my rogue for many many levels until I got a wand of shield. In the end, it's another option for a mage to boost their AC and add alittle extra protection from seeminly unavoidable damage from the dreaded magic missile. In UE they have a spell called, Imp Mage Armor. Check it out.
HomebrewedMonster 09-19-04, 11:40 AM	As a wizard I would walk around with an extended mage armor spell and if an enemy spell caster comes along, shield goes up if I don't have a brooch of shielding.
Iku Rex 09-19-04, 12:58 PM	Well, at higher levels you may want to wear bracers of armor, which essentially duplicates mage armor continuously - at this point, you can cast shield and get the extra AC if you need it.Except that a high level wizard is likely to have a magical mithral buckler...
Razorblade Smile 09-19-04, 01:12 PM	Except that a high level wizard is likely to have a magical mithral buckler... Yep. Because as we all know Wizards and Bucklers go together like bread and butter. Mmhmm.
Iku Rex 09-19-04, 01:17 PM	Yep. Because as we all know Wizards and Bucklers go together like bread and butter. Mmhmm.Exactly.
meabolex 09-19-04, 01:28 PM	The other reason to cast shield is to get immunity to magic missiles (from one side, anyway). 3.5 shield doesn't have a facing system -- you're just immune to magic missile if you are under the effect of a shield spell. I personally like the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability at level 7+ -- even quickened at the later levels. The ability to become immune to fireballs and scorching rays is a very good ability at level 10-11 (when fireball and scorching ray are at their height of power). Even at later levels, Maximized/Empowered fireball/scorching ray can be extremely good to avoid.
Kaminton 09-19-04, 04:45 PM	3.5 shield doesn't have a facing system -- you're just immune to magic missile if you are under the effect of a shield spell. I personally like the Lesser Globe of Invulnerability at level 7+ -- even quickened at the later levels. The ability to become immune to fireballs and scorching rays is a very good ability at level 10-11 (when fireball and scorching ray are at their height of power). Even at later levels, Maximized/Empowered fireball/scorching ray can be extremely good to avoid. I'd say that removing the facing rules helps to compensate for the reduced AC bonus. It was a pain constantly moving that shield around as combat shifted. And the globes of invulnerability are nice, but they're immobile - if you want their protection, you cannot move - and that can be deadly for a mage. Nothing's stopping you from moving out of the globe and coming back in later, though.
Razorblade Smile 09-19-04, 05:07 PM	Considering that for 4,000gp (by creating a wondrous item with a use-activated shield) you get the equivalence of a ghost touch animated buckler +3 that protects you from magic missiles and has no arcane spell failure is quite the bargain. Especially since a similar item, made of mithral, would cost 65,015gp, and that doesn't count the immunity to magic missiles or the invisibility of the shield.
d_nychus 09-19-04, 06:07 PM	Considering that for 4,000gp (by creating a wondrous item with a use-activated shield) you get the equivalence of a ghost touch animated buckler +3 that protects you from magic missiles and has no arcane spell failure is quite the bargain. Especially since a similar item, made of mithral, would cost 65,015gp, and that doesn't count the immunity to magic missiles or the invisibility of the shield. Well, you forgot about needing to break a number of item creation rules, but I'm sure that's okay by your DM. Who needs to actually price magic items right, anyways?
d_nychus 09-19-04, 06:10 PM	Personally, I find shield to be a little weak, too, so I made in an immediate action to cast, and it gives a +1 to Reflex saves. I think that helps out greatly.
Edymnion 09-19-04, 07:12 PM	I have yet to meet a wizard that didn't want bracers of armor.Um, hi. I play a Sorcerer, and I've already passed up on Bracers of Armor, gave them to the bard. From a purely mechanical standpoint, BoA are just stupid to get. Compare the price of the Bracers to even simple Padded Armor. BoA simply cost way too much character wealth for what they do. Magical Padded Armor is FAR FAR FAR cheaper than equivolent BoA, and have a whopping 5% ASF. I'm currently playing a Sorcerer in a mithril shirt with 10% ASF, and in all the time I've played them (over a year now), I have lost *one* spell due to ASF. Padded Armor Leather Armor MW Studded Armor Mithril Chain Shirt All of these are hands down better than Bracers of Armor.
Razorblade Smile 09-19-04, 07:38 PM	Well, you forgot about needing to break a number of item creation rules, but I'm sure that's okay by your DM. Who needs to actually price magic items right, anyways? And exactly what item creation rules did I break? 1st level arcane spell x caster level 1 x 2,000gp for use-activated item x 2 for 1 minute duration x 1 for correct body slot affinity (choice of cloak, cape, mantle, amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapth, scarab, robe, or bracers) = 4,000gp. That's two days of work, 2,000gp, and 160xp. For twice those numbers you can have a version of the item that doesn't take up any slots. Even at 16 times the cost, it's still cheaper than the animated shield version that still doesn't come close to duplicating its abilities. Or are you going to come up with the "it provides an armor bonus so you have to use the +4 armor cost, too?" Feel free to throw that in, too. Make the price 36,000gp. It's still half the price and comes with better features.
d_nychus 09-19-04, 09:36 PM	Close. I think you are starting to get on the right track of how magic items are really supposed to be made. A) It is a SHIELD, not a wondrous item. You are using it FOR a shield. Hence, it needs to be treated as an armor. B) The spell produces a listed effect, an AC bonus, which takes precedence. The base price for just the armor bonus is 4 squared x 1,000. That's 16,000 alone for just the enhancement to the shield. C) The animated and ghost touch abilities already have listed prices. You can't just arbitrarily ignore them. That's like me saying "Hey, I made a version of vorpal that is only a +1 ability. It is exactly the same as vorpal, but it only is a +1 because I choose to ignore the written vorpal." That makes it at least +8. 64k right there. D) If you want it to block magic missiles, it costs extra. I would say just an extra 4,000 because it really is only one spell it grants immunity to. I look forward to seeing your sword of true striking for 4,325 gps, too.
Razorblade Smile 09-19-04, 09:49 PM	A) It is a SHIELD, not a wondrous item. You are using it FOR a shield. Hence, it needs to be treated as an armor. By that asinine statement, bracers of armor can't possibly exist. Nor can robes of the archmagi, or any other wondrous item that provides an armor bonus. Not to mention items like rings of protection or rings of force shields. :rolleyes: B) The spell produces a listed effect, an AC bonus, which takes precedence. The base price for just the armor bonus is 4 squared x 1,000. That's 16,000 alone for just the enhancement to the shield. Gosh golly gee, really? Gee whiz, pa, I didn't know that. I guess that last cost I gave above came from absolutely nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up. <thumbs up> C) The animated and ghost touch abilities already have listed prices. You can't just arbitrarily ignore them. That's like me saying "Hey, I made a version of vorpal that is only a +1 ability. It is exactly the same as vorpal, but it only is a +1 because I choose to ignore the written vorpal." That makes it at least +8. 64k right there. BZZT. Sorry, cap'n, but you're wrong again. 1) It's not an actual shield, it's just a spell called shield. 2) It's not actually an animated shield, but the animated shield property is the closest you can come to simulatingthe effect on a magic shield. Ditto for the ghost touch property. 3) To restate the point, those are properties for shields, not wondrous items, of which this item is. D) If you want it to block magic missiles, it costs extra. I would say just an extra 4,000 because it really is only one spell it grants immunity to. Say whatever your little heart desires. <pats your head gently>
tmagann 09-19-04, 11:18 PM	By that asinine statement, bracers of armor can't possibly exist. Nor can robes of the archmagi, or any other wondrous item that provides an armor bonus. Not to mention items like rings of protection or rings of force shields. Um, Bracers of Armor follow his pattern: square the protection value and multiply by 1000. That's 16K for a permanent Mage Armor. Not actual armor, just a spell CALLED armor that acts as armor. But then, he realized something you don't: Use activated and 1 minute duration are exclusive. The Rings of Protection and Ring of Force Shields (not actual Shield, but a spell that acts as a shield) both cost TWICE as much per AC point (a tad more for the force ring, actually). That's a Wondrous Item and a couple of rings. No shields. Spells with the names that imply their purpose, but not the actual armor or shields. Now, if you still insist on slavishly following the charted prices, then you haven't read the sidebar on DMG page 282, specifically the first and last paragraphs: COmpare and price according to other existing items, apply good sense second, use the charts LAST. A wondrous item conferring +4 armor (16k as +4 bracers) and immunity to a first level spell. the closest item is the brooch of shielding at 1500 as a charged item. unlimited use is double a charged item cost (for a 50 charge item, the brooch handles 28 missiles, so let's triple), so another (4500). That's 20500. The shield doesn't need to be animated, it's mithral, same effect (no spell failure), much cheaper. 37k for the shield. The difference? The wondrous item has to be doubled in cost to free up a space: 41K. You stop Magic Missiles, he doesn't, but he can afford 2-3 brooches with the difference. 1 may be enough for a lifetime. The prices on the items, when done following the guidelines as well as the charts, come out pretty close to identical for identical affects. Oh, and a mithral buckler has no spell failure chance (as mentioned above), making it a pretty standard tool of many wizards and sorcerers from early on. I generally prefer heavy fortification for mine. And yes, I think immunity to crits and sneak attacks is worth the 37k.
Sancus 09-20-04, 12:27 AM	And the globes of invulnerability are nice, but they're immobile - if you want their protection, you cannot move - and that can be deadly for a mage. I'm very confused as to how a 10-ft radius _emanation_ centered on _you_ is immobile, when "An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell." The origin moves, then so does the emanation. And exactly what item creation rules did I break? That statement right there breaks the rules, because there are no such thing as "item creation rules". There are guidelines for estimating magic item prices, that must be approved by your DM. By the core rules, no items except the items specifically listed in the DMG are legal. In this case, you're making an item that is far too good for the price -- Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000gp. You're getting a +4 bonus from this Shield item, and it is at _least_ worth the same as an armor bonus, so you're talking 16,000gp base. Then you also need to account for the immunity to magic missile. Using those formulas is the method of last resort. First, you are supposed to compare your item to other items in the core rules to determine its power level. In this case, those formulas do not work, and you should not be using them anyway because you did not try to price your item using the first method. The estimating guidelines are just that - estimating guidelines. They're not rules that you can abuse to get bonuses for free.
Razorblade Smile 09-20-04, 12:32 AM	Um, Bracers of Armor follow his pattern No, "his pattern" states: It is a SHIELD, not a wondrous item. 'Nuff said. In this case, you're making an item that is far too good for the price -- Bracers of Armor +4 cost 16,000gp. You're getting a +4 bonus from this Shield item, and it is at _least_ worth the same as an armor bonus, so you're talking 16,000gp base. Then you also need to account for the immunity to magic missile. Did you bother to read the rest of the post you quoted, or are you just skipping along merrily whistling an ignorant little tune? Here, let me quote myself: Or are you going to come up with the "it provides an armor bonus so you have to use the +4 armor cost, too?" Feel free to throw that in, too. Make the price 36,000gp. :rolleyes:
tmagann 09-20-04, 12:56 AM	No, "his pattern" states: 'Nuff said. Obviously not, as you didnt' seem to get it: His pattern wasn't for armor, but for an armor BONUS, which both shields and armor give, as stated in the PHB. His pattern was AC BONUS squared times 1000. If you read the DMG under Bracers of Armor that is EXACTLY the pattern it follows. Which is all *I* said. Yes, it's both shield in effect and wonderous item in construction. but that doesn't matter, Bracers ARE Wonderous Items **AND** follow his pattern. I commented on his pattern only. You need to spend less time trying to come up with condescending little wittiscisms and more time reading the rules and posts you're misquoting.
Kaminton 09-20-04, 02:06 AM	I'm very confused as to how a 10-ft radius _emanation_ centered on _you_ is immobile, when "An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell." The origin moves, then so does the emanation. Read the spell description. Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser Abjuration Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 10 ft. Area: 10-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on you Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty. Note that spell effects are not disrupted unless their effects enter the globe, and even then they are merely suppressed, not dispelled. If a given spell has more than one level depending on which character class is casting it, use the level appropriate to the caster to determine whether lesser globe of invulnerability stops it. Material Component: A glass or crystal bead that shatters at the expiration of the spell. The bolded text clearly indicates that the globe is stationary, and does not move with the caster. The area entry is simply the affected area when you cast the spell. A similar example would be Prismatic Sphere. Prismatic Sphere Abjuration Level: Protection 9, Sor/Wiz 9, Sun 9 Components: V Range: 10 ft. Effect: 10-ft.-radius sphere centered on you This spell functions like prismatic wall, except you conjure up an immobile, opaque globe of shimmering, multicolored light that surrounds you and protects you from all forms of attack. The sphere flashes in all colors of the visible spectrum. The sphere’s blindness effect on creatures with less than 8 HD lasts 2d4x10 minutes. You can pass into and out of the prismatic sphere and remain near it without harm. However, when you’re inside it, the sphere blocks any attempt to project something through the sphere (including spells). Other creatures that attempt to attack you or pass through suffer the effects of each color, one at a time. Typically, only the upper hemisphere of the globe will exist, since you are at the center of the sphere, so the lower half is usually excluded by the floor surface you are standing on. The colors of the sphere have the same effects as the colors of a prismatic wall. Prismatic sphere can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Razorblade Smile 09-20-04, 08:31 AM	Obviously not, as you didnt' seem to get it: His pattern wasn't for armor, but for an armor BONUS, which both shields and armor give, as stated in the PHB. You need to go read his post again. Especially points A and C. You know, the ones where he says it needs to be treated as ARMOR. And then that you have to use the ARMOR properties with it. Not an armor bonus, but ARMOR itself. You know, as in that heavy metal stuff you strap to your body. Yes, it's both shield in effect and wonderous item in construction. but that doesn't matter, Bracers ARE Wonderous Items **AND** follow his pattern. I commented on his pattern only. Yes, they are wondrous items. No, they do not follow his pattern. Once again bracers of armor are neither armor nor do they use armor properties. They simply provide an armor bonus, just like mage armor and shield spells. For the love of God, he wanted to apply the friggin' animated armor property to a wondrous item! You need to spend less time trying to come up with condescending little wittiscisms and more time reading the rules and posts you're misquoting. And you need to learn to read what people are saying before wasting your breath trying to chastise others for actually reading and responding to people in a conversation you're not even part of.
meabolex 09-20-04, 09:19 AM	Yes, lesser globe of invulnerability is immobile. But in my experience, the mage usually is the target of ranged attacks over distances since (usually) the front line can hold off melee attacks. These ranged attacks from mages usually take the form of fireball, scorching ray, magic missile, etc. So the globe is still very useful. . . if it were any better, any mage I played would take it instantly.
Tevandel Surefacet 09-20-04, 09:47 AM	Yes, lesser globe of invulnerability is immobile. But in my experience, the mage usually is the target of ranged attacks over distances since (usually) the front line can hold off melee attacks. These ranged attacks from mages usually take the form of fireball, scorching ray, magic missile, etc. So the globe is still very useful. . . if it were any better, any mage I played would take it instantly. The problem I have always had with all of the globe of invulnerablility spells is that they cancel most of the physical defense spells - great I am immune to fireball but my AC is now 10-12 so the archers blast me. I never really got the point to spending a round casting a spell that effectivly canceled your own spells. I would rather spend that round killing the opposing mage - they can't fireball you if they are dead.
Sacrusha 09-20-04, 10:24 AM	Cast the other defensive spells first, that will help. "Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast."
Razorblade Smile 09-20-04, 10:52 AM	[deleted] Cripes, I totally missed Sacrusha's response. :)
tmagann 09-20-04, 11:05 AM	You need to go read his post again. Especially points A and C. You know, the ones where he says it needs to be treated as ARMOR. And then that you have to use the ARMOR properties with it. Not an armor bonus, but ARMOR itself. You know, as in that heavy metal stuff you strap to your body. Yes, they are wondrous items. No, they do not follow his pattern. Once again bracers of armor are neither armor nor do they use armor properties. They simply provide an armor bonus, just like mage armor and shield spells. For the love of God, he wanted to apply the friggin' animated armor property to a wondrous item! And you need to look up the word PATTERN. The PATTERN he described for cost was for an armor bonus (and yes, he did say ARMOR BONUS for the cost). The cost pattern Bracers follow is EXACTLY this PATTERN (not item type, cost pattern. a difference you keep ignoring). As to the animated enhancement, YOU turned the mithal buckler (with no need for animationto overcome spellfailure) into an animted shield when you compared prices. YOU brought it up, YOU used it to needlessly boost the buckler price. So, of course he added it into a discussion of price comparisons. YOU made it a needless issue. Not him. Now, whether or not Braces confer gjost tuch is a matter or the DM. I think they do, but it does't specifiy in the DMG, as it does for a force shield ring, for instance. Applying an extra cost for that is a judgement call, and I disagree withhim that it was necessary, but that's pure opinion. He could be right. And you need to learn to read what people are saying before wasting your breath trying to chastise others for actually reading and responding to people in a conversation you're not even part of. Um, I think I just demonstrated that *I* was reading what people are saying. As to being part of the conversation, I THOUGHT this was a public board open to anyone..... After all, you didnt' become part of it until the 15th post, when you became part of somoene else's conversation to amke a witticism about wizards and bucklers. An idea who's ramifications you apparently didn't fully consider. You need to follow your own advice a bit more. But, you're right, I am probablyw asting my breath. You are arguing about things that are so blatantly not true (such as that pattern above, and you're own nclusion f the animated ability) that it's become obvious that you're here for the argument, and the facts are immaterial. You'll have to play with yourself from here on out.
Tevandel Surefacet 09-20-04, 11:16 AM	Cast the other defensive spells first, that will help. "Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast." Really...aah, a quick check of the SRD later...so it is wow I've been playing that one wrong. Thanks - makes it a much better spell!
Razorblade Smile 09-20-04, 11:32 AM	And you need to look up the word PATTERN. The PATTERN he described for cost was for an armor bonus (and yes, he did say ARMOR BONUS for the cost). The cost pattern Bracers follow is EXACTLY this PATTERN (not item type, cost pattern. a difference you keep ignoring). He mentioned it in passing (even though I had already used the variable) and then completely ignored it. He was saying that it *can't* be a wondrous item, that it *had* to be armor. As to the animated enhancement, YOU turned the mithal buckler (with no need for animationto overcome spellfailure) into an animted shield when you compared prices. YOU brought it up, YOU used it to needlessly boost the buckler price. So, of course he added it into a discussion of price comparisons. YOU made it a needless issue. Not him. Yes, I did mention the animated buckler as the next closest comparison to what a wondrous shield item could do. It's not a needless boost; a shield isn't worn in any way, shape, or form. To simulate that as a magic shield, you have to have the animated property. Now, whether or not Braces confer gjost tuch is a matter or the DM. I think they do, but it does't specifiy in the DMG, as it does for a force shield ring, for instance. Applying an extra cost for that is a judgement call, and I disagree withhim that it was necessary, but that's pure opinion. He could be right. No, bracers of armor most certainly do not grant the ghost touch property by canon. Don't even try to pretend that it does. Of course a DM can say that it does, but that's a house rule. But the shield spell does provide half the benefit of a ghost touch item in that it affects ethereal beings; the only difference is that they can't take it and use it themselves, unlike a ghost touch shield. Um, I think I just demonstrated that *I* was reading what people are saying. Only what you wanted to read, ignoring everything else. After all, you didnt' become part of it until the 15th post, when you became part of somoene else's conversation to amke a witticism about wizards and bucklers. An idea who's ramifications you apparently didn't fully consider. No, I fully considered it. Bucklers are not a common sight amongst wizards. Only munchkins, rules lawyers, and unimaginative twits will have a dedicated wizard walking around with one just because they don't suffer any penalties when doing so; players who give their wizards a mithral buckler are taking advantage of a loophole in the rules in most cases. It's thematically antithesis to the concept in general. That's why they don't have any shield proficiencies by default.
amethal 09-20-04, 12:05 PM	Magical Padded Armor is FAR FAR FAR cheaper than equivolent BoA, and have a whopping 5% ASF. I'm currently playing a Sorcerer in a mithril shirt with 10% ASF, and in all the time I've played them (over a year now), I have lost *one* spell due to ASF. You seem to have been very lucky with the arcane spell failure rolls then - maybe in your campaign world 1 in 10 chances happen roughly 1 time out of every thousand? Its certainly worth considering, as sorcerers have so many spells, but I find it extremely annoying to fail an arcane spell failure check - and in some circumstances it can be fatal. I don't know if this is covered by the rules, but I don't see why you can't enchant ordinary clothing - no arcane spell failure chance, no encumbrance or armour check penalties, and still cheaper than bracers.
amethal 09-20-04, 12:13 PM	Now, if you still insist on slavishly following the charted prices, then you haven't read the sidebar on DMG page 282, specifically the first and last paragraphs: Compare and price according to other existing items, apply good sense second, use the charts LAST. I seem to remember Monte Cook saying that if he could only change 1 thing in the 3.0 DMG it would be the table on magic item prices, either remove it or at least add the word "suggested". If you use the table, who needs wondrous items which cast shield on demand? (or swords of true strike, as was also suggested). Just have everyone in the party equipped with 900 gp items which cast cure light wounds whenever you say the command word. (This is the example on Monte Cook's website - I am not intending plagiarism!)
ORC_Tuhteth 09-20-04, 08:42 PM	Guys, this discussion is getting a little too heated. Be polite and constructive. Don't be snide or condescending. Any further problems on this will result in disciplinary action.
smrtgmp 09-20-04, 10:32 PM	No, I fully considered it. Bucklers are not a common sight amongst wizards. Only munchkins, rules lawyers, and unimaginative twits will have a dedicated wizard walking around with one just because they don't suffer any penalties when doing so; players who give their wizards a mithral buckler are taking advantage of a loophole in the rules in most cases. It's thematically antithesis to the concept in general. That's why they don't have any shield proficiencies by default. I disagree with this. Wizards are exceedingly intelligent. With intelligence often comes practicallity. If you could defend yourself in such a manner, why wouldnt you? The only reason for a wizard to not have a mithral buckler is if he is too pridful to do so. Otherwise it just makes good sense, and has nothing to do with being a munchkin. If you are playing a wizard with a high intelligence who doesnt take advantage of a practical defensive item, then you arent playing your intelligence very well IMO.
Mage_Hand 09-20-04, 10:43 PM	Except that a high level wizard is likely to have a magical mithral buckler... im not sure if you noticed but mithral cannot bring spell failure below 5%.
d_nychus 09-20-04, 11:06 PM	By that asinine statement, bracers of armor can't possibly exist. Nor can robes of the archmagi, or any other wondrous item that provides an armor bonus. Not to mention items like rings of protection or rings of force shields. :rolleyes:] No, what you made is expressly listed as a SHIELD. Maybe you should reread your own posting. Considering that for 4,000gp (by creating a wondrous item with a use-activated shield) you get the equivalence of a ghost touch animated buckler +3 that protects you from magic missiles and has no arcane spell failure is quite the bargain. Especially since a similar item, made of mithral, would cost 65,015gp, and that doesn't count the immunity to magic missiles or the invisibility of the shield. A buckler is a type of shield. If it operates as a shield, then it is a shield. Now, if you wanted a wondrous item that gives a +4 shield bonus to AC, you should have said so. But that is not what you said. However, even if it WAS a wondrous item, that does not alter the price for set bonuses and abilities. In otherwords, a +4 AC Shield Bonus (rather than an enhancement) would cost 40,000 for a non-shield wondrous item, and that is not even figuring the other abilities you decided to add in. Looks cheaper already just to make it a shield, which it really is. Gosh golly gee, really? Gee whiz, pa, I didn't know that. I guess that last cost I gave above came from absolutely nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up. <thumbs up>] It came from poor understanding of the rules. You bypassed a huge section that listed the prices for specific bonuses, and went straight to the price for a spell that does not give a listed bonus. That is not how you make a magic item. BZZT. Sorry, cap'n, but you're wrong again. ] Odd, 'cause I haven't been wrong yet. 1) It's not an actual shield, it's just a spell called shield. But you are USING the item as a shield, a buckler, specifically, so therefore it is a shield. Now, if you want to make a straight wondrous item without the AC bonus being an enhancement, you'll have to pay through the teeth, as I showed above. 2) It's not actually an animated shield, but the animated shield property is the closest you can come to simulatingthe effect on a magic shield. Ditto for the ghost touch property. Then by the rules, that is how much it should cost. 3) To restate the point, those are properties for shields, not wondrous items, of which this item is. That does not mean that they are free. Bracers are wondrous items that can have armor enhancements added to them, and the cost is the same as if the bracers were normal armor. So why should your little toy be any different? Seriously, using that just that one line in the DMG alone leads to some serious problems. That is what you go to if NOTHING ELSE in the table fits the item's effects, and even then, it is a DM judgement call. There is a reason that swords of true strike do not cost only 4,000. And, frankly, if you want to use that item in your campaign, fine. Just letting you know that it is made in the wrong way, is a game breaking addition, and is a bad way to consider the impact of a spell in the game.
Edymnion 09-20-04, 11:52 PM	He mentioned it in passing (even though I had already used the variable) and then completely ignored it. He was saying that it *can't* be a wondrous item, that it *had* to be armor.I think you're missunderstanding here. An item that grants an AC bonus is ALWAYS treated as being an item that grants an AC bonus. As in, they are always enchanted by using the formula you use for armor. You do not count them as "wonderous items" in the sense that its Spell Lvl * Caster Lvl * Activation Cost = Price of item. For example, an always on True Strike ability would be priced as +20 to hit, not as an always on first level spell.No, bracers of armor most certainly do not grant the ghost touch property by canon. Don't even try to pretend that it does. Of course a DM can say that it does, but that's a house rule. But the shield spell does provide half the benefit of a ghost touch item in that it affects ethereal beings; the only difference is that they can't take it and use it themselves, unlike a ghost touch shield.Actually, yes, in a way, they do. Bracers of Armor are a force effect. All force effects work on incoporeal creatures. A ghost would be affected exactly the same as a living being. For all intents and purposes, it replicates Ghost Touch.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-21-04, 01:15 AM	I disagree with this. Wizards are exceedingly intelligent. With intelligence often comes practicallity. If you could defend yourself in such a manner, why wouldnt you? The only reason for a wizard to not have a mithral buckler is if he is too pridful to do so. Otherwise it just makes good sense, and has nothing to do with being a munchkin. If you are playing a wizard with a high intelligence who doesnt take advantage of a practical defensive item, then you arent playing your intelligence very well IMO. Not really. Look at it this way. Wizards aren't even proficient in using shields. The only reason you're using one is because you've looked in the rulebook, and saw it brings you no disadvantage to do so. But your character wouldn't know that. He's a wizard, not a warrior, he's never picked up a shield or learned how to use one effectively, so why is he all of a sudden going to find a mithril shield out of the blue and decide to use one with no training? It's purely metagame.
smrtgmp 09-21-04, 02:14 AM	Yes, because we all know wizards have never heard of mithral. Just out of curiosity, who do you think is making all those nifty magical weapons and armors? Fighters, right?
Deep Blue 9000 09-21-04, 02:27 AM	im not sure if you noticed but mithral cannot bring spell failure below 5%. Are you sure? It doesn't say that in the mithral description in the DMG.
Ryll 09-21-04, 03:21 AM	Actually, yes, in a way, they do. Bracers of Armor are a force effect. All force effects work on incoporeal creatures. A ghost would be affected exactly the same as a living being. For all intents and purposes, it replicates Ghost Touch. Thank you, I was going to reply to this as well. Bracers of Armor do indeed count against incorporeal creatures.
Iku Rex 09-21-04, 11:26 AM	im not sure if you noticed but mithral cannot bring spell failure below 5%.I didn't notice. Probably because there's no such rule.
Iku Rex 09-21-04, 12:04 PM	Not really. Look at it this way. Wizards aren't even proficient in using shields. The only reason you're using one is because you've looked in the rulebook, and saw it brings you no disadvantage to do so. But your character wouldn't know that.My character would know that the (by far) most popular way to avoid death and dismemberment in battle is armor and shields. He'd also know that different armors and shields interfere differently with arcane casting ability. Finally he'd probably (being intelligent and well-read) know that mithral makes armor and shields lighter and easier to use. 2+2=? Of course, what my character knows "on his own" is beside the point if I play on one of those whacky, consistent campaigns. A DnD campaign should be based on the DnD rules, and since using a mithral buckler is a good idea for a wizard based on the DnD rules, it should see widespread use among wizards in most DnD campaigns. He's a wizard, not a warrior, he's never picked up a shield or learned how to use one effectively, so why is he all of a sudden going to find a mithril shield out of the blue and decide to use one with no training? It's purely metagame. You wish to disregard the character's reality (as defined by the rules) in favor of your (the player's) opinion on what a fantasy wizard ought to look like? Sounds like metagaming to me...
The Steve 09-21-04, 02:08 PM	I don't know if this is covered by the rules, but I don't see why you can't enchant ordinary clothing - no arcane spell failure chance, no encumbrance or armour check penalties, and still cheaper than bracers. This is exactly what the bracers of armor are - clothing (bracers) enchanted with an armor enhancement. The cost to ceate them is exactly the same as the cost to enchant armor as well (enhancement bonus squared x 1000gp). There's no reason at all not to create robes of armor or a cloak of armor for the same cost. Anyting else would cost more as the space limitation changed however. The bracers cost the same as a suit of enchanted armor minus masterwork armor cost. My personal take on making a continuous shield item (assuming it's in a 'protective' slot) by the RAW would be as follows: AC bonus (other): 4 x 4 x 2,500 = 40,000 Continuous item (shield spell): 1 x 1 x 2,000 x 2 = 4,000 (could argue far multiplying the 40k by 2, but I don't think it's justified) Total = 44,000 gp, available at level 10 upwards (or created lvl 6/7). My own wizard preferred to take the persistent spell feat and sacrifice a 5th level spell slot to cast shield every morning, he also wears bracers of armor, and an amulet of natural armor amking him pretty tough to hit (though still far from keen on wading into battle.) I would like to know if the poster who originally suggested the very low price (4k ish I think) still believes that is valid under the RAW, or RAI, or balance of the game. (No criticism intended here, I am genuinely interested in his/her opinion).
The Steve 09-21-04, 02:08 PM	Duplicate post - my apologies
CaptainDrew 09-23-04, 03:42 AM	One of the best things about ver. 3.0/3.5 is that I CAN make a mage that can be a semi-warrior also. Battle Mages are a good thing! Besides, to throw in an entirely different dimension, Gandalf seemed to kick some major butt with his sword. Why not just let mages in 3.0/3.5 use a shield too? Elminster, I believe is very multiclassed, at least according to the novel based on him! :)
pres_man 09-23-04, 10:25 AM	The biggest advantage mage armor has over shield is that you can cast it on others.
Drakos 10-06-04, 12:05 PM	I'm also in the minority that prefers Sorcerer to Wizard. I guess I part of the minority as well.
Drakos 10-06-04, 12:30 PM	C) The animated and ghost touch abilities already have listed prices. You can't just arbitrarily ignore them. That's like me saying "Hey, I made a version of vorpal that is only a +1 ability. It is exactly the same as vorpal, but it only is a +1 because I choose to ignore the written vorpal." That makes it at least +8. 64k right there. I disagree, none of these effects are actually being cast, theses would be required if building a item to emulate a Shield Spell, but this isn't emulating the spell it IS the spell and the item gains these properties inherently. D) If you want it to block magic missiles, it costs extra. I would say just an extra 4,000 because it really is only one spell it grants immunity to. Again this is granted by the spell. I look forward to seeing your sword of true striking for 4,325 gps, too. As with anything the stated formulas are mearly guidelines and the DM will need to modify the end result for ballance reasons. In this case I'd likely look at items that give similar bonuses and adjust from there.
Kyy'Dakh 10-06-04, 12:58 PM	If we're talking about following the prices of other items as a guideline: Bracers of Armor (Armor): Bonus squared * 1,000, max +8 Amulet of Natural Armor (N.A.): Bonus squared * 2,000, max +5 Ring of Protection (Deflection): Bonus squared * 2,000, max +5 One of the Ioun stones (Insight) Bonus squared (1*1) * 2,500 * 2 (for no slot). It seems perfectly reasonable to me to price a shield bonus wonderous item as Bonus squared * 2,000 or 2,500, with a maximum of +5. Therefore a wonderous item that duplicated shield would cost 32,000 or 40,000 (+4 shield bonus) plus whatever the magic missile blocking effect would cost. It's that simple. Existing items that give AC bonuses follow those formulae, so a new item that would give a new type of AC bonus would follow a similar one.
MoonWizard 10-06-04, 05:22 PM	A Wand of Shield is an optimal equipment choice for Rogues. It costs only 750 GP, for 50 charges if it's new, and has a nice 10 min duration if it's done by a 10th lvl caster. Pass it to the Wiz or Sorc and he'll have the same bonus. It's definitely not a Rd 1 manuever but the 1 min/lvl duration has worked well for dungeon crawl settings where battles are expected in many rooms.
Archtyrant Terevoth 10-06-04, 05:56 PM	My character would know that the (by far) most popular way to avoid death and dismemberment in battle is armor and shields. He'd also know that different armors and shields interfere differently with arcane casting ability. Finally he'd probably (being intelligent and well-read) know that mithral makes armor and shields lighter and easier to use. 2+2=? But he wouldn't necessarily know that you dont' need proficiency to cast with a shield, as he's never used one before. If he isn't using a normal buckler, chances are he won't pick up a mithril one either. Of course, what my character knows "on his own" is beside the point if I play on one of those whacky, consistent campaigns. A DnD campaign should be based on the DnD rules, and since using a mithral buckler is a good idea for a wizard based on the DnD rules, it should see widespread use among wizards in most DnD campaigns. Yeah, cause it makes perfect sense everyone is going to use a shield they've never actually been trained in. Fighter mages I could see using them, but certainly not normal wizards. You wish to disregard the character's reality (as defined by the rules) in favor of your (the player's) opinion on what a fantasy wizard ought to look like? Sounds like metagaming to me... See this is what annoys me. Just because the rules define the PCs reality doesn't mean they automatically know them all. There are loads of laws of physics which define our reality here on Earth that you don't know or aren't aware of. You couldn't tell someone the percentages for a given person hitting another person in a fight. there are rules, yes... but this is not to say that everyone automatically knows them. Your character does not have a copy of the player's handbook in his back pocket. He knows only what he's told and what he's experienced. Since wizards aren't trained in the use of bucklers, it's highly unlikely he decides to pick one up for the hell of it, especialyl going out of his way to buy a mithral one. And besides, for all you know the DM could have rule zeroed it so that mithral bucklers still have the 5% chance. And your character wouldn't know that, but if you as a player knew that then you wouldn't use a mithral buckler for your character, now would you? If a small rule zero change can drastically affect what you'd do then you're playing as a player not as your character. You're reacting based off of what you read in the PHB, not off of what your character has personally experienced. That's what we call metagaming. Next you might as well pull out some scientific textbooks and have your character suddenly know how to make a machine gun. After all, the laws of physics exist in D&D too, so shouldn't your character have flawless knowledge of those too?
Kyy'Dakh 10-06-04, 06:15 PM	I think I share Terevoth's view. If you had a multiclassed fighter/mage, I wouldn't argue, but a straight mage probably shouldn't be carrying around a shield, technical advantages be... darned. I've seen one fairly reasonable solution that does have the same results, however, if you're willing to get/give non-core, non-WotC equipment: Armored Sleeves from Mongoose Publishing's Ultimate Equipment Guide. Essentially the same as a buckler, IIRC, treated as a shield, and it's a bit more plausible for a mage to have... though you might want to pick up light armor proficiency for a metagame excuse to be able to use it. My sorc recently did with multiclassing, and the talk of mythril has gotten me thinking about getting a set.
JohnnyShotMe 10-07-04, 10:29 AM	I've always been under the impression that arcane spell failure was a result of the armor impeding somantic gestures and such. If so, I could see a wizard picking up a mithril buckler, saying to himself "Hmm....this doesn't look like it will impede my fingerwiggling", and putting it on. Any arguement saying the wizard doesn't have a PHB to see he can use it with no penatly is easily countered saying he doesn't know the stats of a differently shaped hat either. Would he never try a different hat? I think it would work right along the lines of a rogue. Any rogue can look at full plate and say "Man, it sure would be hard to climb in that". Any rogue can look at a full helm and say "Wow, I would hardly be able to hear anything through a door with that on." I think it is conceivable a wizard could look at a little shield and tell it will not interrupt his spellcasting.
Worloch 10-07-04, 11:27 AM	A mage using a mithril buckler is perfectly reasonable. The mage would not know, without extensive testing, the arcane spell failure chance that we know as players. However, why wouldn't a mage, at some point, give it a try? Say a fighter/wizard used one, because he is trained in shields. It works out well and he turns to his mage friend and says, "Hey, this thing is great. It doesn't interfere with my spellcasting at all." Wizards says ok, and trys it out and finds that despite his lack of training, the mithril buckler doesn't impede him at all. So at the next spellcaster social held at the local guild or wizard's tower, the mage tells his buddies about this great shield he's been using. Some of them try it and so forth .... 50 years later, every mage knows that he can use a mithril buckler without any problems. Your game world has to be evolved from the rule set as written, or it won't be internally consistent. As far as the wonderous item that provides a shield spells is concerned, I don't think you guys are factoring the standard action it would take to activate it, the duration, or the fact that it can be dispelled. None of those apply to bracers of armor, magic shields and so forth. It sounds to me more like a wand, that trades charges for uses per day (even unlimited uses per day) and takes body slot. It could be a much more constructive conversation if we trying to figure the appropriate cost for such an item, rather than arguing about the chart. And to return to the original topic, I like shield because I do play a fighter/mage, and I need free hand to cast spells. I have a weapon in one hand, so I can't use a regular shield (plus the arcane spell failure chance). Mage Armor is nice for Mages and Monks. Real Armor is generally better for everyone else, and then Shield comes in to it's own.
Tevandel Surefacet 10-07-04, 11:47 AM	A Wand of Shield is an optimal equipment choice for Rogues. It costs only 750 GP, for 50 charges if it's new, and has a nice 10 min duration if it's done by a 10th lvl caster. Pass it to the Wiz or Sorc and he'll have the same bonus. It's definitely not a Rd 1 manuever but the 1 min/lvl duration has worked well for dungeon crawl settings where battles are expected in many rooms. Um, it only costs 750 with a level 1 caster. The cost for wands is 750*<spell level>*<caster level> so for a caster level 10 wand of shield it costs 7500gp and it still takes a standard action to activate and only lasts 1 combat. Either way you loose a round at the start of combat unless you have time to prep.
meabolex 10-07-04, 11:56 AM	Standard equipment for any would-be bard, rogue, cleric, wizard, or sorcerer is a +1 mithral buckler of full-fortification. With this little ditty, you become immune to critical hits, sneak attack, and all other precision-based damage and effects (like from the swashbuckler). For 37,000 gp, it's worth every copper piece.