Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Veii 06-16-05, 01:40 PM	Was hoping to have someone confirm these costs for items I'm thinking of creating. Playing a warlock, using scrolls to supply the necessary spells. Item #1 Vest of Shielding Effect = +4 shield bonus (as shield spell) to AC. Continually active So, I figure it should be Spell level(1) x Caster Level(1) x 2,000gp = 2,000gp Then, 2,000 x 2 for continuous effect = 4,000gp market price(2,000gp to create) Is this correct? Item #2 Headband of Protection from Evil Effect = Protection from evil, continually active Should be the same price as the vest of shielding. Are these numbers correct? Thanks.
Nephlite 06-16-05, 01:56 PM	Was hoping to have someone confirm these costs for items I'm thinking of creating. Playing a warlock, using scrolls to supply the necessary spells. Item #1 Vest of Shielding Effect = +4 shield bonus (as shield spell) to AC. Continually active So, I figure it should be Spell level(1) x Caster Level(1) x 2,000gp = 2,000gp Then, 2,000 x 2 for continuous effect = 4,000gp market price(2,000gp to create) Is this correct? Correct. 4k sounds fine for cost. Item #2 Headband of Protection from Evil Effect = Protection from evil, continually active Should be the same price as the vest of shielding. Are these numbers correct? Thanks. Nope, it was agreed before on the forums that because this has multiple benefits it costs more. Remember it 1) grants a delection/save bonus versus evil creatures. 2) Prevents being mind controlled or dominion controlled while spell is active (still affected but not controlled till over) 3) Summon monster protection 12k would probably be more appropraite for all that.
bave 06-16-05, 02:19 PM	Item #1 Vest of Shielding Effect = +4 shield bonus (as shield spell) to AC. Continually active So, I figure it should be Spell level(1) x Caster Level(1) x 2,000gp = 2,000gp Then, 2,000 x 2 for continuous effect = 4,000gp market price(2,000gp to create) Is this correct? Very wrong. Usually the spell level/duration method is your last resort. In this case you are effectively provided a continuous +4 armor/shield bonus, which is 16,000gp.
Veii 06-16-05, 02:26 PM	Very wrong. Usually the spell level/duration method is your last resort. In this case you are effectively provided a continuous +4 armor/shield bonus, which is 16,000gp. What other methods are there and where can they be found?
Jaid 06-16-05, 02:38 PM	they are found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. probably right next to where you got the rules for the spell level * caster level thing. the main thing is to remember that you only use SL * CL if nothing else fits, and even then it depends on the spell... that's more of a guideline than anything really. generally speaking, as a rule of thumb, if something is too good to be true, or if it is so good that everyone would have to take it for that price, then the price probably needs to be increased. for example, a +1 shield would give a +3 shield bonus to AC, and 2 of that is from the shield, having nothing to do with the magic... but the enchantment would cost 1,000 gp (plus MW and shield cost). a +2 shield (which gives the same bonus as your vest) would cost 4,000 gp. and 2 of that is from the shield, with no enchantment. that should tell you there's something a little fishy with the price...
Dragonsblood 06-16-05, 03:07 PM	IMO, a Vest of Shield should be very expensive. Not only does it give a 4 sheild bonus to AC, it blocks magic missile indefinately. If you were just doing a vest of mage armor, the price should be around the same as bracers of armor +4, which is 16,000. The best method for pricing is campairing items with already existing items.
-Defiler of Souls- 06-16-05, 03:38 PM	personally, i disagree that continuos effect items should only be used when nothing else fits, and heres why: they don't so much as give you the bonus associated with them as much as save you a standard action(most of them you only need to cast once and it will last you most of the fight....it just doesn't seem right to me that a wizard already capable of casting shield should hav eto pay at least 16k gold just to save him a standard action and 1st level spell slot... however this starts getting a ltittle messy when say a fighter is using the same item....which is why i have the house rule that you may only use custom made continous effect items if you are capable of casting the spell. also like all custom magic items i make it nigh impossible to find continous effect items on the open market, so players must make them themselves.
Aracor 06-16-05, 04:30 PM	they don't so much as give you the bonus associated with them as much as save you a standard action(most of them you only need to cast once and it will last you most of the fight....it just doesn't seem right to me that a wizard already capable of casting shield should hav eto pay at least 16k gold just to save him a standard action and 1st level spell slot...Untrue. If that was true, I would probably agree with you at least to a limited extent. However, that's patently false, and here's why. Yes, you're saving yourself a standard action, but that's not all you're saving. Casting shield as a quickened spell saves that as well. However, this is even better than a quickened spell. Why's that, you ask? Because it's on all the time. If you're ambushed, it's on. If you're napping under a tree with your 'vest of shield on', you're shielded. Even if someone casts a greater dispelling on you, that won't drop the bonuses granted from a magic item. So it's still on. If you're disjoined and make your will save, it's still on. If it was just a spell, even a persistant spell, which is a metamagic feat which costs a +6 slot-level adjustment, it can still be dispelled. That means that this vest is apparently better than a level 7 spell. So price it as a spell at least 7 levels higher than the actual spell, and then you're ending up about right for value in that case. Either that, or in this case there's a much easier way. The item gives a +4 shield bonus to your AC, so calculate it based on that fact. I agree, 16000 gold pieces for that, plus a bit more for being immune to magic missiles if you want to include that. A brooch of shielding is 1500 and that will absorb 101 points of damage from magic missiles, which unless you're being pummeled by magic missiles almost constantly is going to hold for several battles, so I'd say somewhere between 2000 and 4000; depending on the DM. I'd prefer to err on the side of more expensive, so a vest that grants a +4 shield bonus to AC and immunity to magic missiles in my game would cost 20,000 gp. And by the way, I know a lot of wizards who would HAPPILY pay 16,000 gold pieces not to save themselves a spell slot, but to help protect themselves all the time rather than just when they know trouble is coming and have the spell cast. ~Aracor
bave 06-16-05, 04:38 PM	Forgot all about the Magic Missle rule. Thats worth alot in itself since MM is brutal when combined with certain metamagic feats.
Veii 06-16-05, 05:09 PM	Alright, so assuming that continuous use is out. Should I use the chart for pricing in regards to making a similiar item (vest of shielding) but with only a limited number of uses a day? Say three?
bave 06-16-05, 05:16 PM	Alright, so assuming that continuous use is out. Should I use the chart for pricing in regards to making a similiar item (vest of shielding) but with only a limited number of uses a day? Say three? The formula is in there for calculating number of uses per day and relation to cost. I believe its X/5, so 3/5 would be 60% of the cost etc..
tarkin 06-16-05, 05:20 PM	If you are making something 3/day, then you still use the 16,000 price / 5 * 3. Basically, the problem is you are trying to use the Spell level x caster level. That is the WORST, MOST INNACCURATE pricing method around. It routinely creates problems, especially with 0 and 1st level spells. Armor is already fairly priced. AC * AC * 1,000 for Armor or Shield enchantments AC * AC * 2,000 for Deflection AC * AC * 2,500 for anything else. If you want to use a spell level x caster level method than your best bet is to make it a one use or charged item. For those things, spell level x caster level makes sense and is fair. Typically things usable by non spell casters (potions), go for twice the regular cost (scrolls). Wands and Staves get a reasonable discount for bulk, and staves are supposed to increase the price by including secondary powers to account for the improved Caster level you can use.
-Defiler of Souls- 06-16-05, 05:22 PM	Untrue. If that was true, I would probably agree with you at least to a limited extent. However, that's patently false, and here's why. Yes, you're saving yourself a standard action, but that's not all you're saving. Casting shield as a quickened spell saves that as well. However, this is even better than a quickened spell. Why's that, you ask? Because it's on all the time. If you're ambushed, it's on. If you're napping under a tree with your 'vest of shield on', you're shielded. AC and immunity to magic missiles in my game would cost 20,000 gp. when an enemy surprises you they get a single standard action before you get to roll initiative....i hardly think 1 standard action here and there that you wpuld be otherwise unbuffed against justifies multiplying the price by 5... if you are "napping" your considered helpless and even with the bonus the enemy will have no trouble hitting you... also keep in mind your not going to be running around with high level buffs on persistant effect, they are just too expensive to be practicle, so at most your going to start combat with a 1st or second, maybe 3rd level spell on you Even if someone casts a greater dispelling on you, that won't drop the bonuses granted from a magic item. So it's still on. If you're disjoined and make your will save, it's still on. If it was just a spell, even a persistant spell, which is a metamagic feat which costs a +6 slot-level adjustment, it can still be dispelled. That means that this vest is apparently better than a level 7 spell. So price it as a spell at least 7 levels higher than the actual spell, and then you're ending up about right for value in that case. dispel magic does however supresse the effect, albiet not for very long. I will admit this is a benefit, but also keep in mind in many campaigns spellcaster enemies don't appear in every encounter and when they do they are often more absorbed with trying to heal thier allies or launch big ol' firey balls of death they with dispelling one player's 1st level buff spell(and even if they do, it won't neccassarily be you they try to dispel, especially if there are 5 or more member in the party, which if there is a cleric in the party will likely all be buffed, many with buffs far more potent then shield). Also relevant in some campaigns is that some DMS allow the improvement of magic items(aka pay the market price difference to increase glove fo dex +2 to gloves of dex +4), and since this item is a persistant magic effect and not a static bonus, said items can't be improved....this is by far the least important downside of continuose effect items, but it's still worth mentioning anyway point is i think that continouse effect items are perfectly fair, viable options, provided you restrict thier use to spellcasters whom are capable of casting the spell.
tarkin 06-16-05, 05:28 PM	Restricting to spell casters is not the problem. It in no way affects what is reasonable. The problem is the pricing must be fair, and the 2,000 price for +4 Mage Armor is totally unfair, and munchkin, considering normally it goes for 16,000 gp. Magic items is not the same as casting spells. They are different things. There is a fair way to counter the "I am a mage and want to be able to cast shield many times" and think Bracers +4 is overpriced. That is by letting them make a WAND of Shield. Price is reasonable for that kind of item.
-Defiler of Souls- 06-16-05, 05:48 PM	first off its 4k not 2k, but thats irelevant. I didn't sugegst restricting it to spellcaster to balance it, i merely believe that it is unbalanced for those who don't ordinarily have access to the spell to use such items. But i guesse it's inrelevent, you have your opinions and i have mine...and I have the feeling that neither side is going to convince the other no matter how long the argument goes on. And quite frankly i've given all my arguments and opinions and if you don't accept them me repeating them won't make a difference(and i'm sure to some degree the same applys to you). So personally i'm done with this argument and wish the rest of you the best of luck in discussing the matter.
Veii 06-16-05, 06:05 PM	Hmm....but why would a shield item cost the same as a Mage Armor item? Mage armor has sixty times the duration. If they are continuous use, maybe. But I don't see a three times per day item being 16,000/3 if the spell in question is shield. That 16,000 is the price for +4 bracers of armor.
Aracor 06-16-05, 06:53 PM	Hmm....but why would a shield item cost the same as a Mage Armor item? Mage armor has sixty times the duration.Here's your problem. You're focusing way too much on the spells. This goes back to what tarkin said. Magic items and spells are completely different. Spells are specific effects. Each spell does a specific thing. Magic items, on the other hand, are variable. But their cost is based upon power. A +1 armor or shield bonus is 1,000 gold pieces. A +2 bonus is 4,000 gold pieces. To be perfectly honest, the spell it's based on is simply flavor. You could just as easily base a vest that gives a +4 shield bonus to AC magical vestments as the shield spell. But either way, the price is based on the numerical bonuses in this case, rather than the specific spell effect. Anything that actually has a numerical bonus should be calculated based on numbers rather than spell effects. That's exactly why a spell that grants a continuous true strike spell would cost significantly more than the spell level * caster level method would suggest. Because otherwise it would be too powerful for its cost. So basically, forget which spell it's from. That doesn't matter. Figure out what the item does, calculate a baseline cost, then compare it against the cost of similar items. If it's less expensive than similar items (like comparing a 4,000 gold piece set of 'bracers of mage armor' to bracers of armor +4 which cost 16,000 gold pieces), then there's something wrong with the calculation, and it needs to be adjusted. ~Aracor
Scifione 06-17-05, 06:03 AM	An item that is similar to what you are talking about is ring of force shield. It gives a +2 shield bonus and cost 8,500 with a minimum caster level of 9th. I think the formula for it is bonus squared x 1,000 x 2.125. The other function of the item you are talking about is similar to the spell, spell immunity . I would say the formula for an item that granted immunity to a spell would be caster level in increments of 4 x spell level of spell immunity or spell immunity, greater x 2,000 x 1.5 divided by the number of spells you could be immune to at that caster level. This formula yields 48,000 GP for spells 4th or lower and yields 96,000 GP for spells 8th or lower. Impose a limit of it not stacking with spell immunity and it could work. I would also enforce a minimum of 12th caster level like +4 armor. 4 x 4 x 1,000 x 2.125 x 1.5 for 2nd feature + 48,000 = 99,000 GP This is fairly priced considering it is continuous, grants +4 shield bonus without penalties, and blocks the most powerful 1st level spell. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternatively you could say spell level x 12,000 GP for spell immunity. Impose a 8th level cape. This reflects being immune to lower level spells is less effective that being immune to higher level spells. Impose a limit of it not stacking with spell immunity and it could work. (4 x 4 x 1,000 x 2.125) + (1 x 12,000 x 1.5 for 2nd feature) = 52,000 GP I think I like this formula the best for effect vs cost vs usefulness. :dancin: :mage: :w00t: or you could just steal Elmenster's pipe :plotting: