PDA

View Full Version : Making an item that gives continuous shield



ken-do-nim
2007-01-14, 04:07 PM
I'd really like my monk to acquire an item that gives her the shield spell continously. A +4 shield bonus to her ac - something that she couldn't get any other way that I know of - plus immunity to magic missiles sounds like a great addition to any monk's defenses.

So I looked at the formula on page 285 of the DMG:
Use-activated or continous: spell level x caster level x 2000, doubled since shields is minutes/level. Well gee, it is a first level spell, so that seems to come out to 4000.
No space limitation: multiply entire cost by 2.
Great, so it seems that my monk could requisition a pin of shielding for a mere 8000 gp and stick it on her cloak. Or maybe her shoe.

But that really doesn't seem right. A ring of force shield - an item a monk can't even use since it still requires shield proficiency - only grants a +2 shield bonus, doesn't help with magic missiles, occupies a body slot, and is a whopping 8500 gp.

There's also the brooch of shielding, which has the absorbs magic missiles part, but is ruined after absorbing 101 damage of it for 1500 gp.

So could somebody here help me correctly come up with a cost?

Jack_Simth
2007-01-14, 04:13 PM
Compare to a Continuous Mage Armor Effect; priced as a continuous Spell Effect it's 2,000 gp for +4 AC slotted, 4,000 gp for +4 AC unslotted. But the existing Bracers of Armor cost 16k for slotted AC.

If you look above the spell guidelines at the bonus guidelines, AC bonus (Other) is Bonus squared * 2,500 gp. So a continuous Shield effect (+4 Shield) should run at 40,000 gp when slotted. The price is high enough that countering Magic Missle doesn't matter too much.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-14, 04:13 PM
As per RAW, that is the correct cost. However, one should probably price it closer to Bracers of Armor +4.

Arbitrarity
2007-01-14, 04:22 PM
Yeah... having an item of continuous shield will make your DM smite you. A lot. Redundantly, assuming you use the standard item creation rules, without comparing pricing. Actually, it's priced more along the lines of a ring of protection +4 I think, as the ring of Force Shield is about the same as ring of protection +2, and gives +2 AC.

Jack_Simth
2007-01-14, 04:25 PM
Does the term RAW preoperly apply to the new magic item pricing Guidelines?

Fax Celestis
2007-01-14, 04:26 PM
Oh damn, I totally forgot about that squaring thing. Jack's got it right, ignore my pedantry.

Neo
2007-01-14, 05:44 PM
From PCGen's custom item thing a brooch with continuous Shield costs 4000

ken-do-nim
2007-01-14, 05:49 PM
As per RAW, that is the correct cost. However, one should probably price it closer to Bracers of Armor +4.

Agreed. It seems that when dealing with spells that give armor class bonuses, you use the first chart on that page, not the second for spells. So a brooch of full shielding, if you will, would be 16000 for the +4 shield bonus (treating shield bonus on par with armor), and perhaps another 4000 for unlimited magic missile warding for 20000. Problem is, monks need that amulet slot for other things, so I'll have to find another slot for it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 05:51 PM
No, no--when dealing with spells, you use the spell rules there, period. You can use the AC guidelines if it makes you more comfortable with the price, but theoretically, you had it right in the first post.

Really, the person to talk to about Proper Price would be your DM.

NullAshton
2007-01-14, 07:57 PM
No, no--when dealing with spells, you use the spell rules there, period. You can use the AC guidelines if it makes you more comfortable with the price, but theoretically, you had it right in the first post.

Really, the person to talk to about Proper Price would be your DM.

Wrong... When dealing with spells, you use the spell guidelines ONLY IF there isn't another guideline. Which is why ring of true strikes do not work, even using the guidelines strictly.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-14, 08:06 PM
They never say that, they say you should first compare it against existing items ... but the DMG makes no mention of one part of the table having priority over any other.

In the end it's irrelevant though, the DM sets the price however he wants.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 08:06 PM
Wrong... When dealing with spells, you use the spell guidelines ONLY IF there isn't another guideline. Which is why ring of true strikes do not work, even using the guidelines strictly.

Mm-hmm. And you're getting that from... where?

If an item gives an AC bonus, you use the AC bonus rule. If an item has a continuous spell, it's not giving an AC bonus, it's casting a spell. The fact that the spell happens to give an AC bonus is irrelevant.

NullAshton
2007-01-14, 08:09 PM
"Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Price Values (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#tableEstimatingMagicItemGol dPieceValues)."

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 08:13 PM
Yeah, that doesn't say anything remotely approximating what you said. That just means that if there's a similar existing item, it's easiest to just base it on that.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-14, 08:22 PM
BTW, one thing to keep in mind when thinking this OMG overpowered ... a twilight mithral heavy shield only costs 5K and gives +3 AC (and can be enhanced further or have magic vestment cast on it, unlike the item in question).

NullAshton
2007-01-14, 08:23 PM
Bracers of Armor are based off of the AC bonus guidelines, not continuous mage armor. Even the +4 bracers of armor.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-14, 08:28 PM
Personally I would allow the item using the guidelines, although not slot-less and I'd add an extra multiplier for the spell being personal range. Making this thing expensive just pushes the gishes and casters farther ahead of the pack ... if my DM made these kind of things too expensive I'd just say "to hell with it, Ill play an enlightened fist instead".

PS. low end bracers of armor are way overpriced, what's the point with mage armor and greater mage armor around with 1 hour durations? Sure it can get dispelled ... but with the money you get to spend on other things it's worth the oppurtunity cost. IMO bracers of armor are actually the poster child of why you should use spell based pricing for items, otherwise you just end up with trash items which will be avoided in favor of access to the actual spell (they are generally still worn because they drop from treasure).

PPS. ring of invisibility is another great example, WotC use it as an example of why you sometimes should make an item more expensive than the spell guidelines suggest ... and they are insane for doing so. You can quaff a huge number of potions for that kind of money, and you don't have to utter a betraying command word to do it either. If you can use wands (with UMD for instance) it's price becomes even more ludicrous.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 08:28 PM
Bracers of Armor are based off of the AC bonus guidelines, not continuous mage armor. Even the +4 bracers of armor.

That's because the Bracers of Armor are giving an armor bonus to AC, not producing the continuous effects of a spell.

NullAshton
2007-01-14, 08:44 PM
That's because the Bracers of Armor are giving an armor bonus to AC, not producing the continuous effects of a spell.

...and the difference between Bracers of Armor +4 and continuous Mage Armor is... what exactly?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 08:55 PM
Why do I need to say this *again*? One gives you a +4 Armor bonus to AC, directly. The other maintaines the Mage Armor spell on you as long as you're wearing it. Yes, the end result is the same; that doesn't make them the same thing. There are mechanical differences:
If you had a class ability that would let you get more AC from Mage Armor when it was cast on you, you would get more AC from the Mage Armor item. If you, say, entered the area of a spell such as Suppressing Field (Complete Mage), set to suppress conjurations, you'd lose the AC from the continuous Mage Armor, but not Bracers of Armor. If someone cast Reaving Dispel on you, they'd be able to steal the Mage Armor, but not the AC from the bracers. And so on.

They're similar. That doesn't actually make them the same thing.

Stephen_E
2007-01-14, 09:15 PM
Mm-hmm. And you're getting that from... where?

If an item gives an AC bonus, you use the AC bonus rule. If an item has a continuous spell, it's not giving an AC bonus, it's casting a spell. The fact that the spell happens to give an AC bonus is irrelevant.

Try every Wizards article I''ve ever seen on item construction.
The DMG does say RAW that Wonderous item prices are difficult to formulise and that these are guidelines. If you wish to have an excess of broken items, then yes, you should always avoid using the "effect" cost where possible. Don't expect any sympathy when your game goes power munchkin. The articles take the view that "effect" costing should be used where possible, as does most people who've used the rules to any degree (some people just love power boosting to much).

The best way to use the guidelines IMHO is always apply the most expensive/resticted interpretation that you can make a reasonable argument for. Thus continous items can only be done on spells with a actual duration, in fact you can easily argue that the duration must be at least "rounds", i.e. more than 1 round, so a spell witha flat duration of 1 round couldn't be made continous, although an Extended version (more expensive) could be. Always use effects for costing, unless the spell costs are higher. Use/day items should either be 1/day or 5+/day. Anything between should probably be either disallowed or penalised in game (so you've used both your uses of that item today. What a pity that another encounter where you'd like to use it has just occurred. Gosh, shucks, who would've guessed - see handling Psionics).

Stephen

Jack_Simth
2007-01-14, 09:16 PM
BTW, one thing to keep in mind when thinking this OMG overpowered ... a twilight mithral heavy shield only costs 5K and gives +3 AC (and can be enhanced further or have magic vestment cast on it, unlike the item in question).
A +1 Twilight Mithral Chain shirt also costs (roughly) 5k and gives +5 AC, and can be further enhanced with Magic Vestments, unlike Bracers of Armor +5. Meanwhile, the existing +5 Bracers of Armor (same AC bonus) cost 25k.

But the mithral armor/shield violates a Druid's "no metal armor/shield" restriction and the Monk's "no armor/shield" restriction, while the Bracers and theoretical widget of Shield don't.

Generally, when a player is requesting an item with a particular type of bonus to a particular category, it's because they player has essentially exhausted every other type of bonus they can reasonably get to that particular category.

The AC bonus portion of the guidelines list four types with three prices:
Armor (bonus squared * 1,000), Deflection (bonus squared * 2,000), Natural Armor Enhancement (bonus squared *2,000) and Other (bonus squared * 2,500; with a footnote listing "such as luck, insight, sacred, or profane bonus").

If you'll note, the OP is requesting the item for his Monk, and dislikes the Ring of Force Shield because of the proficiency aspect (which probably means because the DM says the Monk can't use it effectively).

A Ring of Force Shield costs 8,500 gp for +2 Shield AC. Guidelines, +2 Natural Armor to AC would cost 8,000 gp; +2 Other to AC would cost 10,000 gp (and that's for if it's slotted approprietly - Protection, usually, possibly Combat as the Bracers of Armor; check with the DM). But it has some restrictions in that, while it is active, it takes up the hand as a shield would, and a monk can't use it effectively (depending on the DM). Assuming for the moment that the restrictions are worth a 15% price break, the Ring of Force Shield works out as a +2 Other AC approprietly-slotted item.

Now, the OP didn't want the Ring of Force Shield because OP's monk can't use it; but it is the closest existing item to what the OP is asking for. At first glance, a Ring of Force Shield appears to be priced as a slotted +Other to AC item with a price break for some restrictions. With that in mind, as a DM, I'd stand by the 40,000 gp pricetag for the +4 shield if I permitted it at all.


Why do I need to say this *again*? One gives you a +4 Armor bonus to AC, directly. The other maintaines the Mage Armor spell on you as long as you're wearing it. Yes, the end result is the same; that doesn't make them the same thing. There are mechanical differences:
If you had a class ability that would let you get more AC from Mage Armor when it was cast on you, you would get more AC from the Mage Armor item. If you, say, entered the area of a spell such as Suppressing Field (Complete Mage), set to suppress conjurations, you'd lose the AC from the continuous Mage Armor, but not Bracers of Armor. If someone cast Reaving Dispel on you, they'd be able to steal the Mage Armor, but not the AC from the bracers. And so on.

They're similar. That doesn't actually make them the same thing.
So... a cost difference of 14,000 gp (700% up from Continuous Mage Armor or 87.5% down from +4 Bracers of Armor) is due to a handful of non-core effects interacting with it mildly differently?

A Mace of Blood (core cursed item) requires that it be coated in blood every day, and forces the posesser to make a daily Will save to avoid becoming CE. And it costs 16k, while a normal +3 Heavy Mace would cost 18,312 gp; the Mace of Blood gets a price break of 2,312 gp; about a 13% price break.

A Backbiter Spear (again, core cursed item) is a +2 Shortspear normally; on a nat-1, it hits the user instead; a difference that only applies 5% of the time, and it's valued at 7,500 gp. A normal +2 Shortspear is valued at 8,302 gp. This one in twenty chance that hurts when it happens gives a price break of 802 gp; about 10%.

Given those Core examples of things that get price breaks for mechanical differences, balance-wise, how much of a mechanical difference should be required for an 87.5% price break (using the existing Bracers of Armor +4 as a starting point, comparing to an approprietly slotted item of Continuous Mage Armor)? In terms of game balance, are you really sure that the mechanical differences between a caster level 1 continuous widget of Mage Armor and a set of +4 Bracers of armor qualify?

Stephen_E
2007-01-14, 09:21 PM
Why do I need to say this *again*? One gives you a +4 Armor bonus to AC, directly. The other maintaines the Mage Armor spell on you as long as you're wearing it. Yes, the end result is the same; that doesn't make them the same thing. There are mechanical differences:
If you had a class ability that would let you get more AC from Mage Armor when it was cast on you, you would get more AC from the Mage Armor item. If you, say, entered the area of a spell such as Suppressing Field (Complete Mage), set to suppress conjurations, you'd lose the AC from the continuous Mage Armor, but not Bracers of Armor. If someone cast Reaving Dispel on you, they'd be able to steal the Mage Armor, but not the AC from the bracers. And so on.

They're similar. That doesn't actually make them the same thing.

Have you noticed that Bracers of AC requires casting Mage Armour (and only Mage Armour) into the item. I don't have Comp Mage, but I can't help suspecting that Bracers will be knocked out by something that suppresses conjuration as well.

Stephen

TheOOB
2007-01-14, 09:26 PM
Allowing a slotted item of continueous shield to cost less then 16,000gp (the price of an equivelent bracers of armor +4) is a bad move on the DMs part. Allowing a type bonus to AC that is better then armor (more people where armor then shields, thus more people could benefit from an item with a shield bonus to AC) cost less then an armor bonus makes no sense what so ever. Heck, making it cost 4,000 makes it cost less then getting a shield with a +4 total bonus to AC. Just because you can abuse the rules doesn't mean you should.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-14, 09:30 PM
Have you noticed that Bracers of AC requires casting Mage Armour (and only Mage Armour) into the item. I don't have Comp Mage, but I can't help suspecting that Bracers will be knocked out by something that suppresses conjuration as well.

Stephen

The spell suppresses spells, not items. The Bracers involved the Mage Armor spell, but now they're an item, not a spell. There's a difference.


OOB--nobody was suggesting allowing a continuous Shield item for 8k (although it won't exactly break your game or anything), just that that's the default price.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-14, 10:07 PM
Allowing a slotted item of continueous shield to cost less then 16,000gp (the price of an equivelent bracers of armor +4) is a bad move on the DMs part.
Bull. The casters can just use an actual shield which is cheaper than that (as explained above) and which can be enhanced further if they don't want to rely on the spell, or alternatively they can simply cast the first level spell itself. Yet the non casters have to pay through the nose for an effect which can be gained with a first level spell?

These kinds of spells are why playing a gish is so much more powerful than playing a non caster ... allowing items according to the guidelines is a good way to balance things out (or find overpowered spells to fix, if you would rather take away power from the casters than give it to others).

Jack_Simth
2007-01-14, 10:24 PM
Bull. The casters can just use an actual shield which is cheaper than that (as explained above) and which can be enhanced further if they don't want to rely on the spell, or alternatively they can simply cast the first level spell itself. Yet the non casters have to pay through the nose for an effect which can be gained with a first level spell?

These kinds of spells are why playing a gish is so much more powerful than playing a non caster ... allowing items according to the guidelines is a good way to balance things out (or find overpowered spells to fix, if you would rather take away power from the casters than give it to others).
Shield lasts 1 minute per level. Until about 5th or 10th, this basically means the pure caster casting it has to use an action on it in combat (which is very valuable), unless most/all battles are known in advance with time to prepare.

Stephen_E
2007-01-15, 07:55 AM
The spell suppresses spells, not items. The Bracers involved the Mage Armor spell, but now they're an item, not a spell. There's a difference.


OOB--nobody was suggesting allowing a continuous Shield item for 8k (although it won't exactly break your game or anything), just that that's the default price.

But it's an iten continously casting the spell "Shield" so something that suppresses the spell, but not the item will have no effect. The spell will still continue to operate because as fast as it is shutdown the item refreshes it. :-)

So I guess it will keep running the same as Bracers.

Stephen

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-15, 07:57 AM
I'm not so sure; you might have to remove the item and put it back on (since presumably it activates when someone puts it on). Still, even if you're right--the spell will go away, it'll just come back instantaneously. There is a difference between the two, is my point. :)

Stephen_E
2007-01-15, 09:31 AM
I'm not so sure; you might have to remove the item and put it back on (since presumably it activates when someone puts it on). Still, even if you're right--the spell will go away, it'll just come back instantaneously. There is a difference between the two, is my point. :)

Actually rereading the stuff on making a magic item, magic items don't cast the spells put in them. They "duplicate the effect". Therefore a item with continous Shield isn't casting the spell Shield, but is instead duplicating the effect.

So back to the point re: Bracers of AC 4, and an item with continous Mage Armour, they are exactly the same. An item that duplicates the effect of the Mage Armour spell. It just that if you use the continous spell costing it's cheaper.

I'd aslo note that your suppressor spell (as you described it) probably wouldn't work on either item.

Stephen