Ring of Shield - price

[Morphie]

Hello guys,
So, our group had a big discussion over this: One player has decided he wanted to get a ring that would give him the benefict of the Shield spell 3 times per day. So, using the the table on Dmg he got one for 1080 gp.

When I looked up his sheet (we have an online google sheet we use to display our inventory and to calculate our average wealth) and saw that, I spoke to the group about it, because I think the price is way off and apparently he didn't talk to the DM before he got the item.

I've talked to some guys in our group and even showed them the line that says in the DMG, page 282: "Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some DM judgment calls. Use good sense when assigning prices, using the items in this book as examples." I've also showed them items that have similar abilities to those he wants - Ring of Force Shield, Brooch of Shielding - and while they are both more expensive and less powerful (the ring gives only +2 shield bonus and the brooch can only absorb 101 points of damage from magic missiles) he still thinks the price for the item is correct, the others must be underpriced or something.

Discussion ensued and some guys blame the thing on the amount of books we allowed for this campaign - even though this is in the DMG - and others simply ignored the whole problem and said "let him have it, I don't care". Well, I do care, so that's why I wanted to ask you how can I show them that the item is really underpriced and I also wanted to know what price do you think it should have.
We took a break from D&D after this to clear the air but I know we're going to talk about this again, so I want to use this time to gather some arguments to prove this was a bad move from the player.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

First off, those rules are guidelines. He pretty much has to explicitly ask the DM every time he wants such an item, and the DM is fully in his rights within the RAW, without using rule zero, to say that this item doesn't exist. Second, why is this item so powerful? It kinda looks like he's getting a minor boost to AC for three minutes every day, and he needs to spend a standard action each combat to get use out of it. The thing seems remarkably action inefficient, and pretty low impact to boot. I'm not seeing the issue with this.

[Rubik]

An eternal wand of Shield costs a mere 840 gp for Shield 2/day, meaning 3/day wouldn't cost much more than that: 1260 gp. However, wands don't take up an item slot, meaning a slotted item would cost less, comparatively.

I think it's fine, especially since AC is generally severely overcosted anyway, the item requires an action to trigger, and it doesn't last very long.

[Thiyr]

Well, what he essentially has is an eternal wand of shield. There are a few differences (it takes up a body slot instead of a hand, it doesn't have the requirement of UMD/arcane caster level, one extra charge), but in terms of most boiled-down functionality, it's the same thing. As the price he got assumes caster level 1 for said shield effect, he will ultimately have 3 minutes of shield per day. Honestly, that isn't terribly bad. In exchange for a ring slot (which actually has some nice things it could be used for) and 260 gp, he's getting an extra charge compared to said eternal wand. Overpowered? Almost certainly not, in my opinion. Useful, perhaps. That the brooch of shielding and ring of force shield are worse is more a function of both of those being kinda bad items more than said custom item being too good, and even then they both have upsides by comparison (namely, brooch requires no action and is on all the time, and the ring doesn't have the 3/d with 1 minute duration limit).

Now, if it was a continuous item of shield, that would be a lot worse (depending on how you interpret said table that is. it could go for either 4000gp, which is far too cheap IMO for said continuous shield, or it could go for 16000+, which is in line with other things that would give such a bonus, with the added bonus of the magic missile blockage). All in all, nothing too terrible as he did it tho.

[Doug Lampert]

First off, those rules are guidelines. He pretty much has to explicitly ask the DM every time he wants such an item, and the DM is fully in his rights within the RAW, without using rule zero, to say that this item doesn't exist. Second, why is this item so powerful? It kinda looks like he's getting a minor boost to AC for three minutes every day, and he needs to spend a standard action each combat to get use out of it. The thing seems remarkably action inefficient, and pretty low impact to boot. I'm not seeing the issue with this.

Agreed on both points.

Adding an item like that without explicit GM permission is flat out a violation of the game rules. That table isn't rules, and it says it isn't rules in the accompanying text.

But this item isn't seriously overpowered, at 24/7 for circa 4,000 GP it would be, but at 1,200 GP for 3 1 minute uses that you have to activate isn't all that great assuming he actually pays the action cost to activate.

Limited use per day versions of items are almost never a serious problem.

[NoACWarrior]

For a wondrous magic item which emulates the 1st level shield spell with a command word it is 1800 for 5 daily uses with no universal charge limit. For 3 uses it will be 1080.

However ring slots may be more expensive / less expensive than other wondrous magic item slots.
Otherwise it is a fair price to pay (considering there are a few better ring choices than shield).

If you are comparing it to other items such as the brooch of shielding - those items have specific abilities and some of those abilities are always on. Action economy values always on buffs, and a standard action taken to turn on shield for 1 min means a loss of 10% of the players standard actions. Further more, always on buffs can get pretty pricey, with round based buffs costing 4 times more than a hourly based buff.

As a guideline I'd say the DM should review custom magic items which emulate a specific spell, and outlaw player created custom magic items which give a totally new and unrelated benefit other than the spell used.

[Morphie]

Thanks for your thoughts so far, I have another question:

Shouldn't he have used the formula for "Use-activated or continuous" items since the effect has a duration other than instantaneous? Looking at the example item given on the same line, I read "command word activated" items as the items that have an instantaneous effect after you activate them - such as the cape of the mountebank. And the "Use- activated or continuous items" have a multiplier to the cost based on the duration of the spell it emulates, which makes some sense as well.
I also gave another example of an item that replicates a arcane spell of 1st level: The gloves of Starry Sky (MIC) have a price of 1.100 gp and allow the wielder to activate a light effect continuously and also trade one of his prepared spells /spell slots of 1st level to cast a magic missile with its own caster level.
This item costs more and the wielder has to spend a spell to cast it. Is this a valid comparison to the ring?

The adventure we're playing is different than the rest of the ones we have played so far in the sense that everyone in the group will be the DM at some part, so that's why I've talked to everyone about this and not just the DM. I don't have anything against the player in question, but the fact that he did this behind our backs annoyed me greatly. Nevertheless I'm trying really hard to stick to the facts and present a strong argument that at least makes the group think about the subject before giving their inputs.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)"
Also found in the DMG Errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a).
Forge Ring requires a caster level of 12, so the minimum caster level of a custom magic ring is 12, regardless of its effect. That means his item should have a minimum price of 12,960 gp.

[NoACWarrior]

Thanks for your thoughts so far, I have another question:

Shouldn't he have used the formula for "Use-activated or continuous" items since the effect has a duration other than instantaneous? Looking at the example item given on the same line, I read "command word activated" items as the items that have an instantaneous effect after you activate them - such as the cape of the mountebank. And the "Use- activated or continuous items" have a multiplier to the cost based on the duration of the spell it emulates, which makes some sense as well.
I also gave another example of an item that replicates a arcane spell of 1st level: The gloves of Starry Sky (MIC) have a price of 1.100 gp and allow the wielder to activate a light effect continuously and also trade one of his prepared spells /spell slots of 1st level to cast a magic missile with its own caster level.
This item costs more and the wielder has to spend a spell to cast it. Is this a valid comparison to the ring?


Items from MiC have carefully considered values which do not readily resort to spell emulation costs. I would say that the MiC is not a valid source to make custom magic items which emulate spell effects. Simply use the tables provided in the DMG to make custom magic items to keep things fair. Specific items created from the DMG or MiC are supposedly balanced with thier effects and costs, so you can craft them with the appropriate prerequisites.

Back to the shield spell emulating ring - he could use either the command word or use activated crafting. The cost adjustment for duration only comes into play when you have a continuous magic item not requiring an action to activate. Use activated uses a standard action - but doesn't require a keyword or phrase, and doesn't require the user to speak. Command word uses a standard action and is cheaper than use activated - but requires a keyword or phrase, and requires the user to be able to speak.

- - - Updated - - -


"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)"
Also found in the DMG Errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a).
Forge Ring requires a caster level of 12, so the minimum caster level of a custom magic ring is 12, regardless of its effect. That means his item should have a minimum price of 12,960 gp.

That, good sir, would also cause the ring of featherfall to cost more than 10k... which it doesn't.
I personally try to stay away from making custom rings anyways because its a huge headache with the item creation feats. If anything I'd say make a Belt or Necklace of shield instead - rings are troublesome to make in that the caster needs to be 12 level.

[Rubik]

"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)"
Also found in the DMG Errata (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a).
Forge Ring requires a caster level of 12, so the minimum caster level of a custom magic ring is 12, regardless of its effect. That means his item should have a minimum price of 12,960 gp.Psions can use Craft Universal Item for rings, but then again, as noted above, rings with low level spells don't seem to hold with that paradigm.

[eggynack]

Shouldn't he have used the formula for "Use-activated or continuous" items since the effect has a duration other than instantaneous? Looking at the example item given on the same line, I read "command word activated" items as the items that have an instantaneous effect after you activate them - such as the cape of the mountebank. And the "Use- activated or continuous items" have a multiplier to the cost based on the duration of the spell it emulates, which makes some sense as well.
I don't think so, no. The multiplier based on initial duration is because you're changing the duration to all day, regardless of the initial duration. The duration of spells is already pretty much already balanced into their slot cost.

I also gave another example of an item that replicates a arcane spell of 1st level: The gloves of Starry Sky (MIC) have a price of 1.100 gp and allow the wielder to activate a light effect continuously and also trade one of his prepared spells /spell slots of 1st level to cast a magic missile with its own caster level.
This item costs more and the wielder has to spend a spell to cast it. Is this a valid comparison to the ring?
Not really. That item has a lot of things that are different from your item. There's the continuous effect, the collection benefit, and the fact that this item does its thing at your caster level.

The adventure we're playing is different than the rest of the ones we have played so far in the sense that everyone in the group will be the DM at some part, so that's why I've talked to everyone about this and not just the DM. I don't have anything against the player in question, but the fact that he did this behind our backs annoyed me greatly. Nevertheless I'm trying really hard to stick to the facts and present a strong argument that at least makes the group think about the subject before giving their inputs.
The argument you should make should likely be the same one I made. These are guidelines, not set in stone rules, and that necessitates not going behind backs. The rule set doesn't even make sense if that's done. The player has broken the rules, and the only thing for it is to have the DM decide whether the item exists or not, and acting on that decision. It's really as simple as that, I think. It would be entirely reasonable for this item to exist, because it's not at all broken, but that's not up to me.

[Big Fau]

That, good sir, would also cause the ring of featherfall to cost more than 10k... which it doesn't.
I personally try to stay away from making custom rings anyways because its a huge headache with the item creation feats. If anything I'd say make a Belt or Necklace of shield instead - rings are troublesome to make in that the caster needs to be 12 level.

Actually the prerequisites for a Ring of Feather Fall supersede the rules for Forge Ring, as it's a case of specific trumps general. The Ring of Shield the OP describes, however, would be subjected to the rules in Forge Ring since it doesn't have a specific override.

[NoACWarrior]

Actually the prerequisites for a Ring of Feather Fall supersede the rules for Forge Ring, as it's a case of specific trumps general. The Ring of Shield the OP describes, however, would be subjected to the rules in Forge Ring since it doesn't have a specific override.

Thats the cruix of the argument for lvl 1 spell emulation requiring a set caster level of 3 causing a command word wand of cure light wounds costing 5400 gp instead of 1800 gp.

The feat requires you to be of a certain caster level to qualify for the feat, but it doesn't likewise peg the caster level of the spell emulation effect which specifically is priced off of the spell's caster level. Also wording regarding the pricing for specific magic item creation does not apply to spell emulation custom magic item creation, for which that description is taken from. But all of that aside, the only level we face in contention is spell emulations of level 1 for wondrous magic items.

With the above said though, I say again, I probably wouldn't allow a custom ring emulating a spell anyways. Just keep spell emulation to wondrous magic items, and make sure to apply the correct caster level for lvl 1 spells.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Thats the cruix of the argument for lvl 1 spell emulation requiring a set caster level of 3 causing a command word wand of cure light wounds costing 5400 gp instead of 1800 gp.

The feat requires you to be of a certain caster level to qualify for the feat, but it doesn't likewise peg the caster level of the spell emulation effect which specifically is priced off of the spell's caster level. Also wording regarding the pricing for specific magic item creation does not apply to spell emulation custom magic item creation, for which that description is taken from. But all of that aside, the only level we face in contention is spell emulations of level 1 for wondrous magic items.

With the above said though, I say again, I probably wouldn't allow a custom ring emulating a spell anyways. Just keep spell emulation to wondrous magic items, and make sure to apply the correct caster level for lvl 1 spells.

It doesn't apply to potions, scrolls, or wands, only items of other types:
"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."

If a PC creates a Ring of Feather Falling, then its caster level would be whatever he wants it to be, up to his current caster level, with a minimum caster level of that which is required for him to meet all of its prerequisites. Note that the printed base price of a Ring of Feather Falling is not variable, it will always have the same base price regardless of whether it's at a caster level of 1st or 20th.

[NoACWarrior]

It doesn't apply to potions, scrolls, or wands, only items of other types:
"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."


That's the point of contention - that is regarding specific magic item creation and is held in the "making magic items" section. It applies to specific magic items which have set caster levels.

But then again we can argue exactly how that text applies and doesn't apply. Its just like the form argument for change shape - when clarified with the use of "natural" it becomes a whole different application.

When making a custom magic item which emulates a spell you use the estimating magic item gold piece values table. You may be required to be 3rd level to use the feat, but it doesn't stop custom wondrous magic item which emulates a spell level of 1st to be priced differently from the table so long as the caster level of the spell instilled is of adequate level to cast the spell (lesser restoration CL2 from a paladin ect).

[Adverb]

The price is a thing that's worthy of haggling over. Acting in bad faith, making up rules when the text clearly says "consult your DM", and then arguing when you get caught... that's bad behavior and you deserve better at your table.

[Sewercop]

The price is a thing that's worthy of haggling over. Acting in bad faith, making up rules when the text clearly says "consult your DM", and then arguing when you get caught... that's bad behavior and you deserve better at your table.

Bad faith huh?
Who was the person inspecting the character sheet?
Of course he says he does it because everyone is gonna dm the campaign, moral and all that stuff. But wait.. If all is gonna dm in this campaign? That just means the dm found the item generation rules ok.. Because you know, he is the gm too.

So who is the bad person now? the person following the rules?
Or the snoop that looks at other players sheets ?
You tell me.

The item is underwhelming, and im more annoyed with the fact no one calls out the snoop. What business does he have looking at other players sheets when he is not the gm?
Because if he is the gm, so is the player he accuses of cheating too. And by default that makes him the gm too.

meh..
Do you guys like people picking up your sheet and reading it?

get off your high horse and quit whining. It reminds me off my old group. Always a couple of jealous people that never understood the rules, never botherd to read the rules,etc. But always complained and whined when others had better mechanical characters after investing time in the game. Was horrible to gm

[Zanos]

Do you guys like people picking up your sheet and reading it?
People who I play with usually have a copy have my sheet so that someone else can play my character if I miss a session. I have no problem with people reading my character sheets unless I'm in a PvP campaign for some reason or there was some weird twist on my character sheet I didn't want the other players to know about.

The item seems fine to me though. I do remember using the rules to create a continuous item of the shield spell though, and that would need to be priced differently.

[eggynack]

Bad faith huh?
Who was the person inspecting the character sheet?
Of course he says he does it because everyone is gonna dm the campaign, moral and all that stuff. But wait.. If all is gonna dm in this campaign? That just means the dm found the item generation rules ok.. Because you know, he is the gm too.

So who is the bad person now? the person following the rules?
Or the snoop that looks at other players sheets ?
You tell me.

The item is underwhelming, and im more annoyed with the fact no one calls out the snoop. What business does he have looking at other players sheets when he is not the gm?
Because if he is the gm, so is the player he accuses of cheating too. And by default that makes him the gm too.

meh..
Do you guys like people picking up your sheet and reading it?

get off your high horse and quit whining. It reminds me off my old group. Always a couple of jealous people that never understood the rules, never botherd to read the rules,etc. But always complained and whined when others had better mechanical characters after investing time in the game. Was horrible to gm
This doesn't feel much like snooping, given that everyone put their character sheets up online for group perusal, particularly with reference to item stuff. As for jealous people complaining about the rules, this doesn't feel like that either, given that this player is effectively breaking the rules through his actions. So, in conclusion, I believe that you are mistaken on all counts. Except the part about the item being underwhelming, because it is.

[icefractal]

I feel like you're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but also the wrong reasons. And to unpack that:

1) It's true, you can't just blindly follow the standard formula, it sometimes produces very unbalanced results.

2) However, this is not one of those times. The item is on the underwhelming side, if anything. And ...
3) In general, the X/day case is one of the "safer" ones, for any spell that doesn't allow you to stockpile it in downtime. It's not something I would generally bat an eye at while GMing.

4) Most importantly, I feel like the way you brought this up is unnecessarily adversarial. Making a big deal of it, trying to build up a case, getting angry he "went behind your back". In future, I recommend just bringing up concerns in a low-key manner, not assuming people are "up to something" and need to be policed, and getting some second opinions if you think something is problematic.

[Ansem]

DMG has rules for creating custom items. It'd probably be around 4k

[Telonius]

If we're talking about continuous items?

A +2 Mithral Ghost Touch heavy shield would give 4AC, protect from incorporeal attacks, and cost 26,170. It would have a very similar in-game effect as a Ring of Shield. A Ring of Shield would be strictly better, as it has 0% spell failure, as opposed to 5% for the magic shield; and it grants immunity to Magic Missile, while the Ghost Touch shield doesn't. I wouldn't allow the item to be priced below 27,000.



meh..
Do you guys like people picking up your sheet and reading it?


Every group I've ever played in has compared character sheets. It helps the newer people learn how to build better characters, helps the more experienced players figure out where the holes in the party are, and helps catch mistakes before they see play.

[Psyren]

An eternal wand of Shield costs a mere 840 gp for Shield 2/day, meaning 3/day wouldn't cost much more than that: 1260 gp. However, wands don't take up an item slot, meaning a slotted item would cost less, comparatively.

The counterpoint to that is that the ring doesn't take up his hand, i.e. it can be used while also holding a weapon, staff or shield. So the slot thing is a wash. He also doesn't have to waste actions drawing something that he can wear, it can't be sundered or disarmed, it doesn't need spell trigger activation (so someone with no spellcasting ability can use the ring) etc.

[Sewercop]

Perhaps we play a bit more cutthroat sometimes.
Every group we play in are pvp if the situation arise in gameplay.
It is up to yourself if you want neutral,evil,good.

Picking up someones sheet here and going over it is basicly a privacy breach and gets you kicked out of group. That is for the gm and thats it. Perhaps we are a bit competetiv compared to other groups.

If i want your fighter to die when you are turned to stone, but the game are non pvp. I really don`t want you to know I got stone to flesh on a scroll. So stay away from my char sheet

[Thiyr]

The counterpoint to that is that the ring doesn't take up his hand, i.e. it can be used while also holding a weapon, staff or shield. So the slot thing is a wash. He also doesn't have to waste actions drawing something that he can wear, it can't be sundered or disarmed, it doesn't need spell trigger activation (so someone with no spellcasting ability can use the ring) etc.

Can't say I agree. It is still sunderable, as a minor pedantic correction, and while it cuts out the draw cost and the activation prereqs, that ring slot can get pretty big. A lot of it depends on ECL of the game and a few other meta constructs, I admit, but overall if you can spare the action but have enough time that the single minute duration won't be an issue, the eternal wand would do about as well, and can be shoved in a wand bracer/chamber for most of the benefits of the ring, while other things could be providing another benefit in the same slot (and while yes, that adds to total cost, it also provides a more fluid benefit than just the wand itself, so I'd argue against that being tallied up for purposes of this discussion)

It especially starts losing value compared to other rings when combat encounters run long (admittedly, I don't expect that to ever happen, but for the sake of argument), or when there are false starts on said encounters, or if there are more than 3 in a day (or all of the above). Using that slot feels like a lot bigger of a loss to me overall. Though at low enough ELC, that matters a whole lot less anyway.

[Psyren]

Can't say I agree. It is still sunderable, as a minor pedantic correction, and while it cuts out the draw cost and the activation prereqs, that ring slot can get pretty big. A lot of it depends on ECL of the game and a few other meta constructs, I admit, but overall if you can spare the action but have enough time that the single minute duration won't be an issue, the eternal wand would do about as well, and can be shoved in a wand bracer/chamber for most of the benefits of the ring, while other things could be providing another benefit in the same slot (and while yes, that adds to total cost, it also provides a more fluid benefit than just the wand itself, so I'd argue against that being tallied up for purposes of this discussion)

It especially starts losing value compared to other rings when combat encounters run long (admittedly, I don't expect that to ever happen, but for the sake of argument), or when there are false starts on said encounters, or if there are more than 3 in a day (or all of the above). Using that slot feels like a lot bigger of a loss to me overall. Though at low enough ELC, that matters a whole lot less anyway.

I'm not saying it's better or worse than a wand - just that you can't simply take the two, put them side by side and say "a wand is slotless while a ring is not, so the ring should be cheaper based solely on that fact."

For example, yes you can sunder a worn ring by the rules (as silly as that is to envision without taking off the target's finger), but the wand is easier to hit. And the ring still can't be disarmed while the wand can.

[Keneth]

A +2 Mithral Ghost Touch heavy shield would give 4AC, protect from incorporeal attacks, and cost 26,170. It would have a very similar in-game effect as a Ring of Shield. A Ring of Shield would be strictly better, as it has 0% spell failure, as opposed to 5% for the magic shield; and it grants immunity to Magic Missile, while the Ghost Touch shield doesn't. I wouldn't allow the item to be priced below 27,000.

That... is just ridiculous. It's the ghost touch ability that is horribly overpriced, not the other way around. :smallconfused:

[Telonius]

That... is just ridiculous. It's the ghost touch ability that is horribly overpriced, not the other way around. :smallconfused:

FWIW, I agree - if Ghost Touch were +1 (and I think it ought to be), I'd lower the price to match it. But giving equal bonuses at much reduced prices is just asking for trouble.

[Zubrowka74]

I personally try to stay away from making custom rings anyways because its a huge headache with the item creation feats. If anything I'd say make a Belt or Necklace of shield instead - rings are troublesome to make in that the caster needs to be 12 level.

And we all know where this led Sauron, I might add.

[ericgrau]

There's a hidden cost you are missing. A standard action is extremely expensive. 1080 gp is fine. In fact I would rather get a 1/day item for 360 gp and only use it when I have an extra buff round with nothing else to do. Even at 360 gp it's not that great of an item, and could be a trap if you use it round 1 of every single fight instead of assaulting the enemy. A ring of force shield that doesn't eat an action is far far better since, outside the lost gold, there's no risk of it actually making your character worse instead of better.

A ring of quickened shield 1/day would cost 16,200 gp. Or 48,600 gp for 3/day.

You do have to be careful with custom items, but mainly it's the at-will, always-on and cost-mitigated items. X/day spells are almost always totally fine.

[Rubik]

The counterpoint to that is that the ring doesn't take up his hand, i.e. it can be used while also holding a weapon, staff or shield. So the slot thing is a wash. He also doesn't have to waste actions drawing something that he can wear, it can't be sundered or disarmed, it doesn't need spell trigger activation (so someone with no spellcasting ability can use the ring) etc.But wand bracers and wand chambers are a thing. No action required for drawing them, and no body slot is needed to hold them, making them essentially slotless items.

[Psyren]

But wand bracers and wand chambers are a thing. No action required for drawing them, and no body slot is needed to hold them, making them essentially slotless items.

But those cost money too, so at the very least you'd have to factor that cost into your analysis.

In addition, the OP mentioned "allowed books" so they may not, in fact, be a thing in this case.

[Morphie]

Bad faith huh?
Who was the person inspecting the character sheet?
Of course he says he does it because everyone is gonna dm the campaign, moral and all that stuff. But wait.. If all is gonna dm in this campaign? That just means the dm found the item generation rules ok.. Because you know, he is the gm too.

So who is the bad person now? the person following the rules?
Or the snoop that looks at other players sheets ?
You tell me.

The item is underwhelming, and im more annoyed with the fact no one calls out the snoop. What business does he have looking at other players sheets when he is not the gm?
Because if he is the gm, so is the player he accuses of cheating too. And by default that makes him the gm too.

meh..
Do you guys like people picking up your sheet and reading it?

get off your high horse and quit whining. It reminds me off my old group. Always a couple of jealous people that never understood the rules, never botherd to read the rules,etc. But always complained and whined when others had better mechanical characters after investing time in the game. Was horrible to gm

Hello. We have the sheets online to ascertain the average wealth of the group so the player that was the DM can equip his character to match up the rest of the party when he reenters as a PC. This was one of those cases, as we changed DMs and had some downtime between campaign modules to buy stuff. Usually we talk about equipment and even write in each other's sheets some suggestions if we think it may help the PC and indirectly the group. Yes, we act as a group, we've been playing together for over 13+ years and we trust each other, so - as you put it - "snooping around" is a completely normal thing to do in our case, especially in this adventure where we plan to take the party to epic levels.

The DM has the final say for everything concerning the module he's running, but for the rest of stuff that will carry along several modules (e.g. the equipment, spells used and some house-rules) everyone should at least be informed and give their opinion about it. Communication is key here, and that was something that fell short here.
There's no whining or high horses to come down from here, I just addressed the issue to the group asking their opinion about the item, nothing else. I don't agree with it - both the pricing and the fact that he broke the rules by not talking to everyone before: the DMs - but if the group has a different opinion I'll respect it and move on. I just want them to think about it and give an informed opinion instead of just dismissing stuff that doesn't concern their character.
Don't be so quick to judge people you don't know.


I feel like you're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but also the wrong reasons. And to unpack that:

1) It's true, you can't just blindly follow the standard formula, it sometimes produces very unbalanced results.

2) However, this is not one of those times. The item is on the underwhelming side, if anything. And ...
3) In general, the X/day case is one of the "safer" ones, for any spell that doesn't allow you to stockpile it in downtime. It's not something I would generally bat an eye at while GMing.

4) Most importantly, I feel like the way you brought this up is unnecessarily adversarial. Making a big deal of it, trying to build up a case, getting angry he "went behind your back". In future, I recommend just bringing up concerns in a low-key manner, not assuming people are "up to something" and need to be policed, and getting some second opinions if you think something is problematic.

I respect your opinion and you might be right about most of the things. However, I disagree about your reason 4). I won't copy the e-mail I sent here (it's in my native language and it is too much work to translate it :smalltongue:), but I can assure you I just addressed the issue by saying he bought a custom item without telling everyone and asking what price should this item have. The "big deal" came from the player, and he just started shooting in every direction about unbalanced classes, tiers and power levels and other stuff, just pointing to the magic item creation table without mentioning the "DM has the final say" clause. That was one of the reasons we paused D&D to clear the air and it annoyed me, I won't lie to you.
I care about the rules, but I'm not looking for ways to win this or to convince anyone - as I said, I just want the group to think about the subject and weigh the pros and cons before giving their input on the matter. I want their second opinion, that was the purpose of the e-mail I sent them. If most of the group decides to keep the item priced as it is, I'll respect that even if I don't agree.

Thanks for all your opinions :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

I'm not entirely sure why it is you wouldn't agree. Instead of considering this item through large quantities of comparative analysis with vaguely similar items, ask yourself what this item actually does. Break down its actual power level in your mind, figuring out how it impacts combats and encounters, and perhaps even asking yourself if this is an item your character would buy, if given the opportunity. I think you will find that the item is actually pretty bad. I've run the form of analysis you're running now with various things, and it's logic that has served me well a number of times, but I think it's placed you too close to the problem, as has the DMG guideline thing. I would start by assuming this as an actual item that exists within the game, and judging its power from that perspective.

[Morphie]

I'm not entirely sure why it is you wouldn't agree. Instead of considering this item through large quantities of comparative analysis with vaguely similar items, ask yourself what this item actually does. Break down its actual power level in your mind, figuring out how it impacts combats and encounters, and perhaps even asking yourself if this is an item your character would buy, if given the opportunity. I think you will find that the item is actually pretty bad. I've run the form of analysis you're running now with various things, and it's logic that has served me well a number of times, but I think it's placed you too close to the problem, as has the DMG guideline thing. I would start by assuming this as an actual item that exists within the game, and judging its power from that perspective.

Oh, I would totally get this item if I could: it has a low price, so I can combine the item with other powerful rings later without paying much; the fact that I could add a shield bonus to my druid wearing a monk's belt, freeing up both my hands to attack/cast spells all the while cancelling any magic missiles that might hit me during a minute is a great deal. And it's rare to get more than 3 encounters a day on our adventures, most of them don't last a whole minute.
I agree that I may be overthinking this, but I may be doing this because others in the group didn't think about it at all and I feel I need to explain them so they can reach their own conclusions. I don't want this role, I know they might be dismissive about it because they have busy lives and when Friday comes they just want to play, but d&d isn't a simple game, there are some times where we need to stop and think about stuff.

[icefractal]

I won't copy the e-mail I sent here (it's in my native language and it is too much work to translate it ), but I can assure you I just addressed the issue by saying he bought a custom item without telling everyone and asking what price should this item have. The "big deal" came from the player, and he just started shooting in every direction about unbalanced classes, tiers and power levels and other stuff, just pointing to the magic item creation table without mentioning the "DM has the final say" clause.Ah; I think I mixed up some of the responses other people were saying with your, my mistake.

With that comment though, I think I get why the argument. Is he playing a low-tier class, by any chance? If so, then someone who's playing a Druid questioning his items might feel unfair. Now - I'm not saying you're planning to abuse it, but the Druid does have a lot of raw power. From his perspective, it might seem like you're a king sitting on a throne surrounded by piles of diamonds, pointing at someone with a moderately nice coat and saying "Hey, that's a pretty fancy coat, are you sure it's fair for you to have a coat that good?" To use a somewhat silly metaphor. :smallbiggrin:

To be honest, I sort of do this too. When I GM, I boost the classes that need it, to the extent I can do so without writing a whole new game system. And when I'm playing, I get kind of annoyed that people don't do the same, at least on the level of interpreting things in a more generous way. I probably should just stick to classes that I don't feel need any help, but eh, sometimes I like a change.

[Slipperychicken]

There's a hidden cost you are missing. A standard action is extremely expensive. 1080 gp is fine. In fact I would rather get a 1/day item for 360 gp and only use it when I have an extra buff round with nothing else to do. Even at 360 gp it's not that great of an item, and could be a trap if you use it round 1 of every single fight instead of assaulting the enemy. A ring of force shield that doesn't eat an action is far far better since, outside the lost gold, there's no risk of it actually making your character worse instead of better.

This more or less summarizes my opinion on the matter. The user still needs to spend both an item slot and a standard action to get the Shield effect. It's basically only going to be useful if he knows a fight is coming.

[Morphie]

Ah; I think I mixed up some of the responses other people were saying with your, my mistake.

With that comment though, I think I get why the argument. Is he playing a low-tier class, by any chance? If so, then someone who's playing a Druid questioning his items might feel unfair. Now - I'm not saying you're planning to abuse it, but the Druid does have a lot of raw power. From his perspective, it might seem like you're a king sitting on a throne surrounded by piles of diamonds, pointing at someone with a moderately nice coat and saying "Hey, that's a pretty fancy coat, are you sure it's fair for you to have a coat that good?" To use a somewhat silly metaphor. :smallbiggrin:

To be honest, I sort of do this too. When I GM, I boost the classes that need it, to the extent I can do so without writing a whole new game system. And when I'm playing, I get kind of annoyed that people don't do the same, at least on the level of interpreting things in a more generous way. I probably should just stick to classes that I don't feel need any help, but eh, sometimes I like a change.

Lol, that's a nice metaphor :smallsmile:
He's indeed playing a duskblade, but I'm trying to detach this thing from the whole tier question. We've been playing before even acknowledging that tiers exist and to encourage that topic to justify allowing the item would imply that different classes must be treated differently by the DM regarding the rules, and since no one is ever forced to play a certain class I don't think that makes sense. We know the game is unbalanced and that there are classes way more powerful than others, but everyone tries to use their good sense to keep from outshining the other players. We want to have fun playing d&d and not just use it as an excuse for ego trips. If, however, the DM sees that a certain player could use some help to keep from getting left behind it is ok to build an encounter that's more suitable to his strong points or even put a special item in the loot that helps him specially.
From what I've been reading here, the item seems to be considered fairly priced. There are really great arguments presented on each side and that's really interesting, thanks a lot, guys :) I'll probably e-mail them the link to this so they can reach a well-supported opinion.

Any other insights will be greatly appreciated. :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

Oh, I would totally get this item if I could: it has a low price, so I can combine the item with other powerful rings later without paying much; the fact that I could add a shield bonus to my druid wearing a monk's belt, freeing up both my hands to attack/cast spells all the while cancelling any magic missiles that might hit me during a minute is a great deal. And it's rare to get more than 3 encounters a day on our adventures, most of them don't last a whole minute.
However, for a druid, a standard action means doing actual things. In a given round, you could lock down the battlefield, summon a creature (especially if you have something to reduce it to a standard), knock someone out of combat, or gain +4 AC. If you could just get the +4 AC for that quantity of money, that'd be pretty powerful, but the situation is rare in which this is the best you could do with an action.

Even in this price range, I'd much rather pick up something like a chronocharm of the uncaring archmage, a pearl of speech, a wand of lesser vigor, or a dispelling cord. This ring looks like it has a low cost, because there isn't much GP you're sacrificing, but the action cost is immense compared to what you're getting. The only time I could ever imagine actually using the thing on a druid is if I've already reasonably locked down the encounter, and I'm just trying to use minimal resources while pressing the advantage. In other words, this is an item that's only useful in fights you've already won. I suppose you could use the thing prior to combat, but then you have the element of surprise on your side, and once again, you're in a fight you've likely already won.