Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BlaineTog 10-21-03, 03:11 AM	*Gloves of Magic Missle* As the spell as CL 5, use-activated, unlimited number of times per day. Base Price: [i]10,000 gp!!!!!!!!!![/1] (Cl:5*SL:1*2000) Think about that: That's 5k gp, 10 days, and 400XP to create, which makes an ammo-less ranged weapon that launches [i]a gaurunteed 8-32 points of damage fourty feet longer than the distance of an arrow from a longbow!!!![/1] Not to mention that since it's in a pair of gloves, you never have to draw them (saving an action at the beginning of battle). Oh yeah: it also affects more creatures than an arrow would (like skeletons). :OMG! :OMG! :OMG! :OMG! :OMG! This can be made by any Arcane Spellcaster at level 5. Think about that: at level five, the Spellcaster (who probably put his/her lowest ability score into strength) is gaurenteed to do more damage than the fighter in the group (unless, of course, the fighter has a +3 Greatsword, rolls max damage, and gets a critical hit, in which case (s)he gets a whoping 4 points more than is possible for the Sourcerer at thiry times the distance away!)! I noticeded this when i was researching how much a True Strike amulet would cost (for those times when it's statistically impossible, barring natural 20s, to even HIT the thing), and I gotta tell ya: It's crazy. Please tell me that no DM would alow this. Pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease!
sanishiver 10-21-03, 03:37 AM	I can't tell you no DM would allow this, but I can say I wouldn't. There really aren't any wondrous items that give unlimited magic attack spells to the user, AFAIK. Attack spells are left to Wands and Staves, which are limited by charges. I very basic (and so far as I know unmentioned) idea to keep in mind when creating items. :whatsthis
ManTimeForgot 10-21-03, 03:39 AM	Um... How does a 5th level caster do 8-32 when he only gets 3 magic missiles? Shouldn't it be 6-15 damage? 1d4+1 nets a max of 5 damage right? With only three magic missiles shouldn't that only be a max of 15 damage? How did you even get a maximum even damage for magic missile to begin with? 5 magic missiles (the maximum) deals 10-25 damage for a 9th level caster. So no, I don't think a wand of magic missiles is broken. I think the math is broken; what ever math that was. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Shatteredtower 10-21-03, 03:55 AM	Also, there's the matter that the range on the magic missile spell for a 5th level caster is 150 feet, as noted in the original post, but there's an error in comparing it to longbow range. The spell has no range increment. The longbow, on the other hand, suffers a -2 on attack rolls vs. targets between 100' and 200' away, but can be used against a target as far away as 1000' (at -18 to hit, admittedly), or 1500' (ten times the range of the spell example) for those with the Far Shot feat. True, the gloves should easily outperform a crossbow for damage, but not for range, and any thrown weapon for range and damage (even with the Far Shot feat). However, for the sake of accuracy, one should note that an archer with a composite longbow geared to a 14 Strength is more than capable of destroying a wizard relying on the gauntlets, even when protection from arrows is a factor (and since that spell grants DR/magic, it might not be a factor all that often for higher level groups).
Draco Argentum 10-21-03, 04:50 AM	I'd be suprised if the average damage of this could compete with an archer useing similar rescources. At level 5 that item is very expensive. If you try to defray that cost by positing a higher level character the archer's attack bonus will increase and reduce the benefit of your automatic hit. Plus the archer will have two attacks at level six. I wouldn't say this is the most effective way to prove the item priceing formulas are not perfect.
Seeker95 10-21-03, 05:22 AM	Couple of changes to the pricing: 1. Gloves have an affinity for quickness (3.5 DMG p.288). This is not a quickness effect. Increase total price by 50%. New price: 15,000 gp 2. Using a wondrous item is a standard action. Just because you have these on does not mean you gain any additional actions in the round. 3. The return diminishes as you get higher in level, since you are foregoing the benefits of a full-attack action 4. At CL 5th level, you get three missiles at 1d4+1 each. Damage range to a single target: 6-15 total (average damage 10.5 per round) 5. Max distance: 150 feet. This is not nearly so powerful as you might think. Especially when you consider maximum wealth by level. If the DM uses this (3.5 DMG p.135), then you couldn't afford this item until you are 7th level (9th if you use the "no more than 50% of your welath in a single item guideline). By that time, dealing an average of 10.5 points of damage a round is making you the butt of many in-party jokes.
DemonMonkeyBoy 10-21-03, 06:34 AM	:b:Also so lets not forget this part. From tthe SRD 2 If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. :b: even if you didn't use the body affinity part, your price just jumped to 40,000.
Gadodel 10-21-03, 06:44 AM	I wonder if anyone can help me make a pair of "Underwear of Magic Missile"?
Ertai Planeswalker 10-21-03, 06:45 AM	Since when does MM have a duration?
Oilam Sence 10-21-03, 07:07 AM	Now think of a 5-th level wizard with such a gloves and Levitation He probably will be able to deal about 500 dmdg to any number of noneflying monsters This doesn't include that he is able lo cast more levitations and maybe protection from arrows to be more secure By level 5 if he spends his 3-d level slots on this spells he should be able to cast about 5 2-nd lewel spells Yes i think it is a little bit overpowered
kreynolds 10-21-03, 07:57 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower The longbow, on the other hand, suffers a -2 on attack rolls vs. targets between 100' and 200' away... Between 100' and 199', actually. At 200', your range penalty increases to -4. Originally posted by Shatteredtower ...but can be used against a target as far away as 1000' (at -18 to hit, admittedly)... -20. At a -2 penalty per increment, and shooting 10 increments away, your penalty is -20.
sacremon 10-21-03, 10:05 AM	Originally posted by Oilam Sence Now think of a 5-th level wizard with such a gloves and Levitation He probably will be able to deal about 500 dmdg to any number of noneflying monsters This doesn't include that he is able lo cast more levitations and maybe protection from arrows to be more secure By level 5 if he spends his 3-d level slots on this spells he should be able to cast about 5 2-nd lewel spells Yes i think it is a little bit overpowered Levitation now only works on willing targets, so no picking up unwilling targets and dropping them. You need Telekinesis for that. There really aren't any wondrous items that give unlimited magic attack spells to the user, AFAIK. Attack spells are left to Wands and Staves, which are limited by charges. Eyes of Charming, Eyes of Doom and Harp of Charming don't have restrictions on the number of times that they can be used in a day, and while they are not damaging, I would consider them to be magic attacks. Pipes of Pain can cause damage, and it is not restricted in the number of uses per day.
Oilam Sence 10-21-03, 11:14 AM	>Levitation now only works on willing targets, so no picking up >unwilling targets and dropping them. You need Telekinesis for >that. I meant casting scrying on yourself to get out of reach
Darklion 10-21-03, 11:16 AM	Since when does MM have a duration?It doesn't. Of course, it doesn't matter, since this item would be command word activated and not continous, and therefore would not be priced with duration modifiers.
Rabe 10-21-03, 11:26 AM	I would not allow unlimited attack spells like MM in a wondrous item, as it is a pretty obvious attempt to get around the limitations of wands and staves. But besides it is not that big a deal...given the cost you have to have a Monty Haul DM to make it at low level, and at medium to high level it is simply too weak. Casting 3 magic missiles at CL 5 at any monster with SR instead of your own Charm Monster at CL 8 is not the best thing to do...and if you are not a caster, you should better do what you are good at, like swinging that axe or backstabbing it. Rabe
TheGogmagog 10-21-03, 11:26 AM	Originally posted by sanishiver I can't tell you no DM would allow this, but I can say I wouldn't. There really aren't any wondrous items that give unlimited magic attack spells to the user, AFAIK. Attack spells are left to Wands and Staves, which are limited by charges. I very basic (and so far as I know unmentioned) idea to keep in mind when creating items. :whatsthis Sanishiver hit the nail on the head here, the first method of pricing an item is to compare it to items with similar effects. If there are no similar effects, perhaps you should wonder why. Seeker95 also points out some other valid points in pricing and effect that make the item not quite as impressive.
Lago AM3P 10-21-03, 12:35 PM	By the time you could afford these things, they wouldn't affect combat in any meaningful way, unless you stuck them on your commoner cohort and shuffled him to the back ranks. I mean, combat lasts for 3-5 rounds, usually. You think that 3d4+3 damage is going to faze the opposition, or are they going to laugh at your character for wasting his time and resources?
BlaineTog 10-21-03, 04:21 PM	Yeah, this is what happens why I try to do basic math at 1AM. ::hides under a rock in shame::
Seeker95 10-21-03, 07:33 PM	Yeah. Math is definitely a 9 to 5 job!
Shatteredtower 10-22-03, 03:12 AM	Originally posted by kreynolds Between 100' and 199', actually. At 200', your range penalty increases to -4. -20. At a -2 penalty per increment, and shooting 10 increments away, your penalty is -20. Ah, yes. The rules do say that now. What an ansinine, counterintuitive way to read range. Is a spell with a 150' range only good to 149'? No. It's like halfling sized spellbooks again. Okay, this one gets houseruled. Thanks for pointing it out. Honestly! A -20 to hit, but only for a shot of exactly one thousand feet! Yeah, that's useful. :nonono:
kreynolds 10-22-03, 07:27 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower Ah, yes. The rules do say that now. It was like that in 3.0 as well. Nothing has changed. See page 97 of the 3.0 PH, Range Increment, first sentence...
Thelon Fairblade 10-22-03, 09:51 AM	Another thing to keep in mind is that Magic Missile is a benchmark spell, i.e. one of the most powerful for its level. Now, an alternate way to look at this is "Continuous" should only apply to things with a duration. "5 per day" has exactly the same pricing. So perhaps these Gloves are just fine, at 5/day. Also, this is using up your Glove slot, which could be Gloves of Storing, Bracers of Armor, Gauntlets of Strength, etc...
Lago AM3P 10-22-03, 12:26 PM	Honestly! A -20 to hit, but only for a shot of exactly one thousand feet! Yeah, that's useful. Ask Deepwood Snipers and Clerical Archers what they think of that.
Seeker95 10-22-03, 03:21 PM	Range increments make perfect sense, and are not counter-intuitive. Increments and feet correspond to the beginning of the increment and penalties. At range of 0', the increment is 0 (no increment penalties kick in) At range of 100', the increment is 1 (the penalty is -2) At range of 1000', the increment is 10 (the penalty is -20) The 1000' away represents the absolute maximum distance the weapon can send an arrow. At its absolute maximum distance, your range penalty is -20. If you were to take a 5'-step first, your shot would be under the absolute maximim, and your range penalty will be -18 instead. Suddenly the 5'-step becomes quite useful!
Kkat 10-22-03, 05:49 PM	Actually, as a DM, I have allowed something like this. A crossbow that fires a single MM bolt rather than a normal bolt. This bolt still requires an attack roll, but has no range penalties. Three times a day, it can fire a 3 bolt MM as par the spell. No attack roll required. It hasn't been in the slightest overpowered. And yes, you can indeed put an attack spell into a wondrous item. There is no requirement to put attack spells into something with charges. That is simply a cheaper way of creating a magic item with attack spells. --Kkat
Ryll 10-22-03, 11:58 PM	This is really not that over powered, as many have stated already. Add to this, the gloves will be at a static level, so as you gain levels you will be fighting things with so many hitpoints, or such a high SR that these will be fairly useless. Nice for when you are out of spells, or trying to conserve spells, but not THAT awesome. My wizard has a set of these at 9th level (5 missiles), but I will be 18th in the next month or two, and will take innate MM, so the gloves will not be needed by me. Since a feat and a 9th level spell can give you this ability innately, that casts at your level (for SR, etc), spending XPS and cash for a lower level, non-increasing version of this, that can be stolen, destroyed or dispelled is not too overburdened... and I still do significantly less in a battle with these then melee classes dishing TONS of damage per round. Yeah, Wizards are overpowered in 3.0 .... not.
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 04:33 AM	It was like that in 3.0 as well. Nothing has changed. See page 97 of the 3.0 PH, Range Increment, first sentence... Actually, something has changed - according to the rules for Cover and Concealment in 3.5, ranged attacks originate from a corner, not from the centre, of a square. So, while a melee attack against a creature two squares away is a distance of 10 feet, a ranged attack against the same creature is a distance of 7.9 feet. A ranged attack against a creature 30 squares away is 147.52ish feet... which is a -4 penalty for a weapon with a 50 foot range increment (not the -6 it would be in 3E, at 150 feet). -Hyp.
ManTimeForgot 10-23-03, 04:38 AM	Who/what decides which corner? That sounds like a stupid rule to have, especially if there are no facing rules in D&D. The corner the ranged attack originates from could affect cover pretty easily. Likewise the corner which the attack originates from could make the distance longer rather than shorter, if it were fired from the far corner instead of the close one. Is it actually in the core rules that "firing from the corner" actually affects the distance? If that were so, then would firing a ranged from a corner which is 7 from someone (but still technically in the square which is 5 feet from a melee combatant) make the archer immune to an AoO because they are outside of the 5 foot "range" of melee attacks which do not possess a 10ft. range? I'll take the magic missiles now for $200 Alex. This ranged weapon confusion is not worth the extra damage. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 04:46 AM	Who/what decides which corner? The person making the attack. The corner the ranged attack originates from could affect cover pretty easily. That's exactly the point. Is it actually in the core rules that "firing from the corner" actually affects the distance? It doesn't state it directly. But if a line from the centre of your square would provide the defender with cover, and the calculation of cover by the rules (pick a corner, draw a line) yields no cover, then obviously the shot can't be originating from the centre of the square. If that were so, then would firing a ranged from a corner which is 7 from someone (but still technically in the square which is 5 feet from a melee combatant) make the archer immune to an AoO because they are outside of the 5 foot "range" of melee attacks which do not possess a 10ft. range? No - because while the attack originates from the corner of the square, the attacker is still considered to be "in" his square. Even though the attack travels 8 feet to reach the target, the attacker is still within the 5' reach of the opponent. -Hyp.
kreynolds 10-23-03, 08:12 AM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf Actually, something has changed - according to the rules for Cover and Concealment in 3.5, ranged attacks originate from a corner, not from the centre, of a square. So, while a melee attack against a creature two squares away is a distance of 10 feet, a ranged attack against the same creature is a distance of 7.9 feet. You don't actually expect me to take this post seriously, do you? :mymy:
split infinitude 10-23-03, 02:22 PM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf Actually, something has changed - according to the rules for Cover and Concealment in 3.5, ranged attacks originate from a corner, not from the centre, of a square. . . . -Hyp. That rule specifically and only applies to determining cover. It can't be used to determine distance and range. The only rules for distance are given in the movement section, and hasn't changed - you measure from the edge of the square. The same cover rules also apply to reach melee weapons. If you could measure from closest corner to closest corner for reach weapon length, a melee attack with a reach weapon would actually follow different rules than a melee attack with a non-reach weapon. So, the cover rules aren't to be used to determine distance.
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 04:15 PM	The only rules for distance are given in the movement section, and hasn't changed - you measure from the edge of the square. From the edge? Where do you get that? That would mean that two people in adjacent squares are 0 feet apart, and that a Tiny creature could threaten someone in an adjacent square... -Hyp.
ThorvaldHafgrimsson 10-23-03, 04:25 PM	Originally posted by Ertai Planeswalker Since when does MM have a duration? Since the ruless started listing the duration of Magic Missile as Instantaneous.
Jagyr Ebonwood 10-23-03, 04:47 PM	Waaaagh.....crazy 3.5 rules...I feel dizzy now...gonna go sit down. Wait, I am already... I think I need a nap:twitch:
split infinitude 10-23-03, 05:08 PM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf From the edge? Where do you get that? That would mean that two people in adjacent squares are 0 feet apart, and that a Tiny creature could threaten someone in an adjacent square... -Hyp. I think the rule is from the center, but I'd have to check. Shorthand, from the edge, which unfortunately is what I say in general. :( For movement, it doesn't matter. For distance, from the center. Playing more on-line than with maps these days, I don't think in map terms as much. Regardless, you can't measure distance from the nearest corners. That would let a person with a longspear hit a guy when two sqaures separate them. That rule is just for cover.
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 05:19 PM	Regardless, you can't measure distance from the nearest corners. That would let a person with a longspear hit a guy when two sqaures separate them. No, it wouldn't - the distance corner-to-center in that case is over ten feet. -Hyp.
split infinitude 10-23-03, 05:24 PM	Originally posted by Hypersmurf No, it wouldn't - the distance corner-to-center in that case is over ten feet. -Hyp. Corner-to-center is irrelevant. To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square . . . So, if the rules for cover determine distance, then a reach weapon actually can hit somebody separated from the attacker by 2 squares. So, the cover rules cannot determine distance.
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 05:27 PM	So, if the rules for cover determine distance, then a reach weapon actually can hit somebody separated from the attacker by 2 squares. You check for cover from one corner of your square to all four corners of the opponent's square. So you can't consider the distance to just the nearest corner of the opponent's square, but to his square as a whole... which is represented by the centre. But the attack originates from a specific corner of your square. Thus - corner to centre. -Hyp.
split infinitude 10-23-03, 05:34 PM	Falling back on the ol' "if you're everywhere in a square you're in the middle" rule, eh? :) But if you're using the cover rule as the basic distance rule, than that doesn't follow. The cover rule measures from any corner of one square to any corner of the other. Under the cover rules, the victim is not considered in the center of the square, but is treated differently, as anywhere that could be hit by a line traced between corners. I'll pick the two closest corners. Unless we need to debate whether a square includes the lines, or just the area inside the lines (a debate I've had, btw). :rolleyes: Ignoring the second half of the rule and substituting "center" is a houserule.
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 06:11 PM	But if you're using the cover rule as the basic distance rule, than that doesn't follow. The cover rule measures from any corner of one square to any corner of the other. Read it again. You pick one corner of your square, and then you check each corner of the opponent's square. It's not "If a line from your corner to any corner of their square doesn't pass through etc, they don't have cover"... it's if a line drawn to any corner of their square does pass through etc, they do have cover. If you can draw a clear line from the corner of your square that you pick, to three corners of their square... but the line to the fourth corner is not clear... then they have cover. You pick one corner of your square... you check all four corners of the opponent's square. So no "nearest-to-nearest"... it's "nearest-to-all"... and that's why they're in the centre of their square. -Hyp.
split infinitude 10-23-03, 06:21 PM	Semantics. I read it the opposite of you. You pick any corner of one square, check any corner of the other, and if it crosses, you have cover. "Any" is one of those weird words that could be either plural or singular or both. You read it plural, I read it singular. Potato, Potahto. The cover rule simply doesn't work for measuring distance between two creatures. What's the problem with counting squares?
Hypersmurf 10-23-03, 06:38 PM	Semantics. I read it the opposite of you. You pick any corner of one square, check any corner of the other, and if it crosses, you have cover. "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)." Note - if any line from this corner. Not if "a line", but if "any line". As in, draw all the possible lines from this-corner-to-any-corner, and check if any of them pass through etc. If it said "If a line from this corner to any corner of the target's square", you'd be exactly right - you could pick the corner of the target's square you drew the line to. But it says "if any line", which means you need to check all four. -Hyp.
startide 10-23-03, 06:53 PM	for fun you should try using a tape measure instead of a grid for one session, i have used this meathod and it works quite nicely. 1 inch = 5 feet. actually use the grid for reference, but try using the tape measure for distances and position. it's pretty cool when you don't have to stand exactly in ONE square, plus you can charge a straight line inbetween cardinal directions. i am not saying change to this style, but just give it a try. several people i know like it.
split infinitude 10-23-03, 07:11 PM	Well, that is the only way to be accurate, but it slows the game down too much. That's how we play warhammer (or did, when we did), but frankly I don't care enough in D&D to worry. Hyp, we disagree on the language. You get the same meaning from that sentence reading "any" as plural or singular. It means "if you can draw one line from corner to corner" as much as it means "you draw all lines from a corner to all corners." Also, you don't draw all possible lines, even under your reading, b/c once you find one that works, you're done drawing lines. But that's kind of silly, and doesn't really matter much to your point. Kind of wonder why I brought it up . . . In any event, the more I think about it the more I think both of us are wrong. Diagonals are now a problem. Or maybe not - maybe I do them wrong. But I think that if one diagonal square is between two creatures, they are within a 10' range increment (I'd say they were 7.5 feet apart, but that's just me - I perhaps wrongly count form edge to edge). If you measure from corner to middle, they are now 7.5+3.75, or 11.25 apart. Out of 1st range increment. If you measure from center to center they are now 15 apart, and also out.