PDA

View Full Version : Shield Guardian - Worth it?



Jimp
2007-06-09, 02:31 PM
So I was thinking of making a Shield Guardian (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shieldGuardian.htm) for a high level wizard of mine. Is the investment worth it?

Jack_Simth
2007-06-09, 02:47 PM
Don't know... how much is doubling your HP worth? The shield guardian effectively does so.

He also acts much like a lesser ring of spell storing - which can be worthwhile in and of itself.

It can also take on the role of a portable hole/bag of holding (str 22, size large; that's 346 lbs of equipment without encumbering the shield guardian in the least).

As a Large critter, it has reach, and can take AoO's against people attempiting to reach you in melee. Granted, it's mindless, and thus can't do useful things like, say, Trip incoming opponents, but it has a reasonable amount of intimidation factor going for it.

Rincewind
2007-06-09, 02:52 PM
Protip: YES. IT IS WORTH IT.

Seffbasilisk
2007-06-09, 03:05 PM
It CAN trip if ordered to do so, it just can't determine when to do so on it's own without orders.

I think it's a worthwhile investment, get a cleric to cast 'Cure Critical Wounds' into it, and have it set to heal when you get too hurt. So now your HP is doubled, you have a contingent healing, and effectivly another +2 to AC.

Additionally, as stated, you have a pack mule.

Flying Elephant
2007-06-09, 03:10 PM
Are other golems worth it? (I've always just... had something against losing XP in item creation, so I'm wondering what people think.)

Jack_Simth
2007-06-09, 03:14 PM
Are other golems worth it? (I've always just... had something against losing XP in item creation, so I'm wondering what people think.)Beats losing Con.

They can be, especially if you don't have a fighter/barbarian in the party.

However, most golems are Large or larger, and immune to Teleporation into the bargain, so you'll occasionally need to leave them behind.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-09, 03:25 PM
Teleport is SR:No for creatures.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-09, 04:07 PM
Teleport is SR:No for creatures.

Ah, right; so it's just when you find you need to use Plane Shift (SR: Yes), Shadow Walk (SR: Yes), Phantom Steed (size issues), enter a medium dungeon (size issues), and so on.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-09, 04:15 PM
Yeah, Shield Guardians and Golems are worth it.

Another protip: If you get a golem do it with a Golem Manual. You save 36K on an iron golem. You can actually sell the golems you make at a profit that way.

44K for he manual, 10K for the body, you can sell an iron golem for 80K.

NullAshton
2007-06-09, 04:27 PM
Yeah, Shield Guardians and Golems are worth it.

Another protip: If you get a golem do it with a Golem Manual. You save 36K on an iron golem. You can actually sell the golems you make at a profit that way.

44K for he manual, 10K for the body, you can sell an iron golem for 80K.

Of course, what sane DM would allow that?

Jack_Simth
2007-06-09, 04:53 PM
Yeah, Shield Guardians and Golems are worth it.

Another protip: If you get a golem do it with a Golem Manual. You save 36K on an iron golem. You can actually sell the golems you make at a profit that way.

44K for he manual, 10K for the body, you can sell an iron golem for 80K.Something seems off there.

The cost of a golem manual is almost all XP (an Iron Golem manual, per the SRD, has a 35,000 gp market value, costs 3,500 gp and 5,880 xp to craft), but you still need the body at 10,000 gp. So 13,500 gp and 5,880 xp to make the golem.

Crafting an Iron Golem directly costs 80,000 gp materials (for now I'm assuming this includes the 10,000 gp seperated out for the body; so 70,000 gp in "magic supplies" like with any magic item, 10,000 gp for the "masterwork statue" to put it on) and 5,600 xp.

Ah, there it is - the Golem Manual description:


Golem Manual: A golem manual contains information, incantations and magical power that help a character to craft a golem. The instructions therein grant a +5 competence bonus on skill checks made to craft the golem’s body. Each manual also holds the prerequisite spells needed for a specific golem, effectively grants the builder use of the Craft Construct feat during the construction of the golem, and grants the character an increase to her caster level for the purpose of crafting a golem. Any golem built using a golem manual does not cost the creator any XP, since the requisite XP are “contained” in the book and “expended” by the book during the creation process.

The spells included in a golem manual require a spell trigger activation and can be activated only to assist in the construction of a golem. The cost of the book does not include the cost of constructing the golem’s body. Once the golem is finished, the writing in the manual fades and the book is consumed in flames. When the book’s ashes are sprinkled upon the golem, it becomes fully animated.

Clay Golem Manual: The book contains animate objects, bless, commune, and resurrection. The reader may treat her caster level as two levels higher than normal for the purpose of crafting a clay golem. The book supplies 1,540 XP for the creation of a clay golem.

Moderate conjuration, divination, enchantment, and transmutation; CL 11th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 11th, animate objects, commune, resurrection; Price 12,000 gp; Cost 2,150 gp + 1,712 XP; Weight 5 lb.

Flesh Golem Manual: The book contains animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, and limited wish. The reader may treat her caster level as one level higher than normal for the purpose of crafting a flesh golem. The book supplies 780 XP for the creation of a flesh golem.

Moderate enchantment, necromancy [evil], and transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 8th, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish; Price 8,000 gp; Cost 2,050 gp + 944 XP; Weight 5 lb.

Iron Golem Manual: The book contains cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, and polymorph any object. The reader may treat her caster level as four levels higher than normal for the purpose of crafting a iron golem. The book supplies 5,600 XP for the creation of a iron golem.

Strong conjuration, enchantment and transmutation; CL 16th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 16th, cloudkill, geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object; Price 35,000 gp; Cost 3,500 gp + 5,880 XP; Weight 5 lb.

Stone Golem Manual: The book contains geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, and slow. The reader may treat her caster level as three levels higher than normal for the purpose of crafting a stone golem. The book supplies 3,400 XP for the creation of a stone golem.

Strong abjuration and enchantment; CL 14th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 14th, antimagic field, geas/quest, symbol of stunning; Price 22,000 gp; Cost 2,500 gp + 3,600 XP; Weight 5 lb.

Stone Golem Manual, Greater: The book contains geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, and slow. The reader may treat her caster level as three levels higher than normal for the purpose of crafting a stone golem. The book supplies 7,640 XP for the creation of a greater stone golem.

Strong abjuration and enchantment; CL 16th; Craft Construct, creator must be caster level 16th, antimagic field, geas/quest, symbol of stunning; Price 44,000 gp; Cost 2,900 gp + 7,872 XP; Weight 5 lb.

That's the problem.

The book specifies that it doesn't include the cost of making the body - but nor does it specify that it provides any materials at all other than the needed XP (and feats, and spells... but as a Spell Trigger item, not as Command Word - so you still have to have the spells on your class list).

Here's a thought:
It doesn't actually provide the materials needed at all. It saves the XP cost, but in order to Craft your Iron Golem, you'll need 80,000 gp for the body itself and magical supplies.

Valdyr
2007-06-09, 05:16 PM
Then there's the time issue. Does your party (in game) have enough time on its hands to wait around for you to craft it?

Fizban
2007-06-10, 01:28 AM
Magic (spell) immunity is defined as unbeatable spell resistance, and spell resistance can be voluntarily lowered. Therefore, a golem can be ordered to lower it's magic resistance to accept a helpful spell.

Jack Mann
2007-06-10, 01:44 AM
Spell Immunity is described as unbeatable spell resistance. However, there are no creatures that have it. Instead, golems have Immunity to Magic, which is similar, but is not described as functioning like spell resistance. By RAW, it cannot be lowered.

Iku Rex
2007-06-10, 02:04 AM
I don't think it's worth it.

A shield guardian has crappy AC, even crappier saves and not that many hit points. It's far too expensive to take with you on a high level adventure. The only exception is if you can somehow protect it from attacks and just use it as a portable, self-healing damage sink. Risky.

Golems are kind of expensive too IMO, but if you want one as a bodyguard a stone golem would be preferable. No chance of it going berserk, DR, magic immunity and you can heal it with transmute mud to rock.

The most cost effective constructs I am aware of are nimblewrights (MMII, see update booklet) and effigy creatures (CArc). You could use the money you save on a building a cheaper creature to buy armor and some magic items for your creation.

Dhavaer
2007-06-10, 02:11 AM
Also note that you'll need to find some way of casting shield other to build one.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-10, 02:32 AM
Ah, right; so it's just when you find you need to use Plane Shift (SR: Yes), Shadow Walk (SR: Yes), Phantom Steed (size issues), enter a medium dungeon (size issues), and so on.
Planeshift is an issue, those others ... not so much. By the time you can get a shield guardian you can afford teleporting back to him to retrieve him if you have to scout ahead, hell you could put some flight item on him and drag him along behind your phantom steed ;)

PinkysBrain
2007-06-10, 02:33 AM
Also note that you'll need to find some way of casting shield other to build one.
Or another caster to cooperate with you.

PS. Iku Rex ... low AC? After a mithral chain shirt, mithral buckler, dex, NA and deflection items his AC won't be that bad ... with 2 CL16 magic vestments and a little less than 25K of equipment his AC will be 24 + 4 (shirt) + 4 (vestment) + 1 (buckler) + 4 (vestment) + 1 (dex) + 2 (NA) + 2 (deflection) = 42. Quite respectable.

PPS. a bit ridiculous in fact, this is an unfortunate side effect of the inability to give all monsters expensive gear because of wealth issues ... so they gave them NA instead, which in combination with expensive gear translates into ridiculously high AC. Monsters under PC control == trouble.

Iku Rex
2007-06-10, 05:56 AM
PS. Iku Rex ... low AC? After a mithral chain shirt, mithral buckler, dex, NA and deflection items his AC won't be that bad ... with 2 CL16 magic vestments and a little less than 25K of equipment his AC will be 24 + 4 (shirt) + 4 (vestment) + 1 (buckler) + 4 (vestment) + 1 (dex) + 2 (NA) + 2 (deflection) = 42. Quite respectable.Not all high level wizards have friendly neighborhood clerics willing to cast buff spells for them. And while the rules allow it, I don't know if I'd let a mindless creature use a buckler well enough to gain a bonus from it. The buckler will also be useless if the shield guardian attacks with both slam attacks.

Anyway, armor and magic items can certainly improve the guardian's AC, but that increases the total cost. Why would anyone want to invest that kind of money on a critter that may well go down after a single high-level disintegrate spell? And even with AC 42 this construct will be in trouble if a high level melee monster goes after it with a full attack or two, especially if it's already hurt from soaking the wizard's damage.

Zincorium
2007-06-10, 06:29 AM
Not all high level wizards have friendly neighborhood clerics willing to cast buff spells for them.


True...Except we're talking about a group of PCs. Chances are, if they've survived to high levels, they have a cleric or close substitute. As well, buffing is not required for the example items given.



And while the rules allow it, I don't know if I'd let a mindless creature use a buckler well enough to gain a bonus from it. The buckler will also be useless if the shield guardian attacks with both slam attacks.


See, they have this thing called 'shield proficiency' in D&D which determines whether something is smart enough to use something effectively. However, being nonproficient doesn't deny the bonus to AC. And the fact that both the armor and the shield have an armor check penalty of 0 means there are no real disadvantages to being non-proficient.



Anyway, armor and magic items can certainly improve the guardian's AC, but that increases the total cost. Why would anyone want to invest that kind of money on a critter that may well go down after a single high-level disintegrate spell? And even with AC 42 this construct will be in trouble if a high level melee monster goes after it with a full attack or two, especially if it's already hurt from soaking the wizard's damage.

IF the construct is significantly vulnerable, the relatively minor expense of the items given would be a good investment, considering they aren't destroyed most of the time when the shield guardian is, and can therefore be resold or reused.

As far as the "Can't stand toe to toe with high level monsters", did you conveniently forget the the shield guardian has a high level wizard throwing spells at the monster? That will even the odds a lot.

By the time the shield guardian is ineffective in combat, the wizard is only capable of being defeated by a dragon, diety, or another wizard.

PinkysBrain
2007-06-10, 07:20 AM
The buckler will also be useless if the shield guardian attacks with both slam attacks.
You have a point there, make it an animated mithral heavy "steel" shield.

Iku Rex
2007-06-10, 07:26 AM
True...Except we're talking about a group of PCs. Chances are, if they've survived to high levels, they have a cleric or close substitute. As well, buffing is not required for the example items given.It is not at all unheard of for PC parties to survive without clerics willing to cast buffs on the wizards hench..creature.

And yes, buffing is not required. But there's a big difference between AC 34 and AC 42. The next few points of armor and shield bonuses are cheap, but it's still more money.
See, they have this thing called 'shield proficiency' in D&D which determines whether something is smart enough to use something effectively. However, being nonproficient doesn't deny the bonus to AC. And the fact that both the armor and the shield have an armor check penalty of 0 means there are no real disadvantages to being non-proficient.I know that. That's why I started the sentence with "the rules allow it" in the post you quoted...

IF the construct is significantly vulnerable, the relatively minor expense of the items given would be a good investment, considering they aren't destroyed most of the time when the shield guardian is, and can therefore be resold or reused.Of course they're worth it. I suggested armor and magic items for constructs myself in my first post to the thread. The question was if the shield guardian was worth it, and that's another matter entirely. Even high level characters don't have enough gold and XP to toss away 65000 gp and 4600 xp left and right.

There are better options. For example, a stone golem is cheaper, stronger, harder (AC, DR) and immune to magic. I'd say that makes up for the lack of wizard-friendly benefits.

As far as the "Can't stand toe to toe with high level monsters", did you conveniently forget the the shield guardian has a high level wizard throwing spells at the monster? That will even the odds a lot.It's not about beating the monster single-handedly, it's about surviving the battle. Being the wizard's meatshield is one a shield guardian's usual duties. If that job gets the construct killed on a regular basis it's going to get expensive.



By the time the shield guardian is ineffective in combat, the wizard is only capable of being defeated by a dragon, diety, or another wizard.What level might that be?

Zincorium
2007-06-10, 08:12 AM
It is not at all unheard of for PC parties to survive without clerics willing to cast buffs on the wizards hench..creature.


It is also not unheard of for parties to never get hench critters in the first place. The fact that the stated AC requires two third level spells does not make it invalid. At 16th level, third level spell slots are simply not that valuable, especially if they're on the list of two of the most popular domains, and if the wizard responds in kind by buffing the cleric it isn't at all unreasonable.



And yes, buffing is not required. But there's a big difference between AC 34 and AC 42. The next few points of armor and shield bonuses are cheap, but it's still more money.I know that. That's why I started the sentence with "the rules allow it" in the post you quoted...
Of course they're worth it. I suggested armor and magic items for constructs myself in my first post to the thread. The question was if the shield guardian was worth it, and that's another matter entirely. Even high level characters don't have enough gold and XP to toss away 65000 gp and 4600 xp left and right.


Things with 15 HD don't just 'evaporate' in combat. You should only have to replace it after the battle is difficult enough to make you glad you had it.



There are better options. For example, a stone golem is cheaper, stronger, harder (AC, DR) and immune to magic. I'd say that makes up for the lack of wizard-friendly benefits.
It's not about beating the monster single-handedly, it's about surviving the battle. Being the wizard's meatshield is one a shield guardian's usual duties. If that job gets the construct killed on a regular basis it's going to get expensive.


The point of a shield guardian is to reduce any damage the wizard might incidentally incur, and block things from charging the wizard. Anything which would cause it's destruction in a round has a much higher chance of destroying the wizard if it was applied to them. Also, the repair damage spells are on the wizards spell list, whereas healing spells are not. So that 50% of the damage the wizard didn't receive can be repaired by the wizard without anyone else needing to use spells or items.



What level might that be?

I was exaggerating slightly, since this discussion is not about wizards themselves, but around level 8 it starts to get significant. There is very little that will stop a teleport spell from going off, and it only gets worse when the wizard gets higher level spells.

The only things that can truly block teleport or track down the wizard after their escape are other, high level spellcasters like the aforementioned.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-10, 10:53 AM
The point of a shield guardian is to reduce any damage the wizard might incidentally incur, and block things from charging the wizard. Anything which would cause it's destruction in a round has a much higher chance of destroying the wizard if it was applied to them. Also, the repair damage spells are on the wizards spell list, whereas healing spells are not. So that 50% of the damage the wizard didn't receive can be repaired by the wizard without anyone else needing to use spells or items.
A Shield Guardian gets fast healing 5. As long as it isn't fully destroyed, it's back up at full 2 or three minutes later.

If you're making a shield guardian, though, you'll want to spend the money to increase it's HD. It's only an extra 5 days, 2,500 gp, and 200 xp per HD (well, until you hit 10 extra HD, at which point, you need to add another 20 days, 10,000 gp, and 800 xp for the size increase - but there's a lot of nifty benefits from the size increase - increased bonus HP, +8 Strength, +3 natural armor - which mostly offsets the -1 AC/Attack from size, -2 Dex, and the inability to gain Con).

Nomrom
2007-06-10, 01:24 PM
I'm not sure if the MM2 is 3.5 or if you even have access to it, but in it there is a runic guardian which is basically a stronger shield guardian. If you can afford that, and have the book I'd go with that instead.

Fizban
2007-06-10, 01:24 PM
I don't think it's worth it.

A shield guardian has crappy AC, even crappier saves and not that many hit points. It's far too expensive to take with you on a high level adventure. The only exception is if you can somehow protect it from attacks and just use it as a portable, self-healing damage sink. Risky.

Golems are kind of expensive too IMO, but if you want one as a bodyguard a stone golem would be preferable. No chance of it going berserk, DR, magic immunity and you can heal it with transmute mud to rock.

The most cost effective constructs I am aware of are nimblewrights (MMII, see update booklet) and effigy creatures (CArc). You could use the money you save on a building a cheaper creature to buy armor and some magic items for your creation.

Slaughterstone Evicerators from the MMIII have as many hp, a few more AC, and a ton more attack. They only have spell resistance, which can undisputably be lowered to accept buffs, and can actually be crafted by a wizard alone. Additionally, as long as you don't advance it to huge size, it has no problem fighting in a space only large enough for a medium creature. Obviously it won't have the shield other or fast healing, but it can still be healed by the basic construct healing spells. And they only cost about 2k more to make. The best straight construct I've seen anyway.

For extra weirdness, its hexapedal, so it can pack mule even more, and one could theoretically ride it.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-10, 02:22 PM
I too, recommend the Runic guardian. It gets something like 5 spell like abilities per day, of levels below 5, or one of up to 7th level. It's shield other covers 3/4 of damage, it has better fast healing, and an automatic stunning punch (with a save, of course).

Fizban
2007-06-10, 06:56 PM
Additionally, the runic guardian has almost no prerequisites: just craft construct and whatever spells you want to encode on it. The WoTC site has a 3.5 update download for the MMII, and the 3.5 runic guardian costs less than the original, at around 100k to build.

The way it's worded, you could possibly pull off any encoded spells you can't cast by UMD'ing some scrolls.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-10, 07:45 PM
I'm not sure if the MM2 is 3.5 or if you even have access to it, but in it there is a runic guardian which is basically a stronger shield guardian. If you can afford that, and have the book I'd go with that instead.

Slight problem with runic guardians in a party: unlike the shield guardians which are keyed only to the amulet and carry out their last command if the wearer dies, the runic guardians go on a rampage, attacking nearby living creatures, if their master dies--and only stop when destroyed. It could be rendered helpless without being destroyed, but it's still a threat to your party if you die.

Rincewind
2007-06-10, 08:27 PM
Spell Immunity is described as unbeatable spell resistance. However, there are no creatures that have it. Instead, golems have Immunity to Magic, which is similar, but is not described as functioning like spell resistance. By RAW, it cannot be lowered.

He-ey, what happened to your avatar then??

Iku Rex
2007-06-10, 11:38 PM
It is also not unheard of for parties to never get hench critters in the first place. The fact that the stated AC requires two third level spells does not make it invalid. At 16th level, third level spell slots are simply not that valuable, especially if they're on the list of two of the most popular domains, and if the wizard responds in kind by buffing the cleric it isn't at all unreasonable.Who said it makes anything "invalid"? The fact that some parties won't have a cleric, or a cleric willing to use spells for others, is still relevant.

Things with 15 HD don't just 'evaporate' in combat. You should only have to replace it after the battle is difficult enough to make you glad you had it.I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you ever played in a high level campaign? Creatures with 112 hit points can and do "evaporate" when the big hitters come out to play. Like I said, a single high level disintegrate may well kill a shield guardian. A 20d6 area attack might kill it if both wizard and construct fail their saves. Melee damage wise, a single full attack action from a high level melee monster like a frost giant jarl can kill it. (Boost it's AC and it probably won't happen though.)

The point of a shield guardian is to reduce any damage the wizard might incidentally incur, and block things from charging the wizard. Anything which would cause it's destruction in a round has a much higher chance of destroying the wizard if it was applied to them. Not true.

I was exaggerating slightly, since this discussion is not about wizards themselves, but around level 8 it starts to get significant.This you tell me after claiming that most high level threats capable of killing the CR 8 shield guardian in one round is more likely to kill a high level wizard in one round? :smallconfused:

Zincorium
2007-06-11, 01:54 AM
Who said it makes anything "invalid"? The fact that some parties won't have a cleric, or a cleric willing to use spells for others, is still relevant.


Yes, but obviously not in the given situation or the poster would not have included it into the numbers. So the fact that it might not be the case is then irrelevant when it definitely is the case with that particular example.



I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you ever played in a high level campaign? Creatures with 112 hit points can and do "evaporate" when the big hitters come out to play. Like I said, a single high level disintegrate may well kill a shield guardian. A 20d6 area attack might kill it if both wizard and construct fail their saves. Melee damage wise, a single full attack action from a high level melee monster like a frost giant jarl can kill it. (Boost it's AC and it probably won't happen though.)


Well, you're not condescending, but you're arguing tangentially. What I meant by 'evaporate' is that it doesn't go away by itself . Which is what evaporate means. Anything which will destroy it still has to target it in preference to something else. That disintegrate? You've just caused an enemy spellcaster either a quickened spell (which is a fairly high slot) or a standard action to get rid of something you can live without. And with the area attack, a 15th level wizard will have, on average, 39 hit points from dice, a maximum of 60. So without a constitution of 18, that 20d6 could very well kill the wizard outright...unless something that is expendable takes half of it.

Also, that is even more the case for the high level melee monster, which would likewise kill the squishy wizard without, Da Da Da, something else taking it. Unless the wizard is fond of blowing money, they aren't going to send in the shield guardian to melee range unless they themselves are in danger.



Not true.


Wonderful reasoning skills. When all else fails, and I'm including a basic ability to add up hit points, call your opponent a liar and then fail to explain why.




This you tell me after claiming that most high level threats capable of killing the CR 8 shield guardian in one round is more likely to kill a high level wizard in one round? :smallconfused:

Wizards are really good at destroying things in one round, especially after they get something like timestop. They are, however, fragile. The shield guardian is a good way to reduce that last weakness. If something targets it instead of the wizard, then the wizard wins because they won't die, and if it wasn't enough to kill the wizard outright, it won't kill the shield guardian either.

If the wizard does get hit, it only hurts half as much, and unless the shield guardian is taking significant damage (which nothing says it has to, constructs tend to be low priority targets) it will probably last longer than the wizard since it has fast healing.

And if it is destroyed, personally I'd rather spend 65000 on a new one than worrying about getting resurrected and getting my stuff back from some critter's gullet.

Iku Rex
2007-06-11, 04:16 AM
Yes, but obviously not in the given situation or the poster would not have included it into the numbers. So the fact that it might not be the case is then irrelevant when it definitely is the case with that particular example.Huh?

What did you think was the purpose of the example? PinkysBrain was making a (valid) point about a shield guardian's potential AC with a certain additional investments. The topic of the thread is if shield guardians are "worth it". Obviously whether or not said AC increase can be depended on all the time is relevant to the topic of the thread.

Well, you're not condescending, but you're arguing tangentially. What I meant by 'evaporate' is that it doesn't go away by itself . Which is what evaporate means. Right. You wanted to clear up all the confusion regarding whether or not shield guardians spontaneously disappear for no reason in mid-combat. Remind me; in which post was that claim made?

Anything which will destroy it still has to target it in preference to something else. That disintegrate? You've just caused an enemy spellcaster either a quickened spell (which is a fairly high slot) or a standard action to get rid of something you can live without. 120000 gp is not a good price for a single enemy standard action.

But I think I see the problem. You keep arguing as if the choice were between a buffed, well equipped shield guardian or nothing. That's not the case.

The topic of discussion is if a shield guardian is a good buy or if the same gold and/or XP could be better spent elsewhere.

And with the area attack, a 15th level wizard will have, on average, 39 hit points from dice, a maximum of 60. So without a constitution of 18, that 20d6 could very well kill the wizard outright...unless something that is expendable takes half of it. A 15th level wizard is very unlikely to be able to afford a 120000 gp + equipment shield guardian, even if he lowers the gp cost by building it himself. Either way, the wizard in your example wizard needs to stop relying on the series of miracles that has somehow kept him alive so far, and spend some of the money on a +6 Con item. Con is the second most important ability score for a wizard and a high level wizard should at least have a +4 modifier (Con 18). +6, possibly with Imporved Toughness (CWar) thrown in would not be unusual. And then you add some temporary hit points from false life, possibly empowered.

Also, that is even more the case for the high level melee monster, which would likewise kill the squishy wizard without, Da Da Da, something else taking it. Unless the wizard is fond of blowing money, they aren't going to send in the shield guardian to melee range unless they themselves are in danger. Why would it kill the wizard? Properly built and equipped high level wizards are tough as nails. The wizard most likely has more hit points than the construct, good saves, high AC, DR and opponents have a miss chance to hit him. If they can even find the him that is.
Wonderful reasoning skills. When all else fails, and I'm including a basic ability to add up hit points, call your opponent a liar and then fail to explain why.I didn't call you a liar. I think you know that... I did say you were wrong, and that's so obviously true that I didn't see a point in posting the proof. But fine. This was your claim: "Anything which would cause [the shield guardian's] destruction in a round has a much higher chance of destroying the wizard if it was applied to them."

Do you stand by that? If so will you acknowledge that you're a liar (your word, not mine) if I post an example of something that could destroy some shield guardian in one round and yet would be less likely to kill some high level wizard of my design?

If you object to the wording of that question, perhaps you should try to quantify your claims a little more. What kind of wizards are you talking about? What type of attacks? (Anything?) How is the guardian equipped? I can provide examples proving you wrong, but I'm sure you'll just declare that they don't apply for some reason.

Wizards are really good at destroying things in one round, especially after they get something like timestop. They are, however, fragile. The shield guardian is a good way to reduce that last weakness. If something targets it instead of the wizard, then the wizard wins because they won't die, and if it wasn't enough to kill the wizard outright, it won't kill the shield guardian either.Enemy wizard casts a CL 20 disintegrate. Who's more likely to survive - the typical high level (let's say level 18) wizard or a shield guardian?

My experience says that the wizard will have more hit points, be harder to hit and be many times more likely to make his save.

lord_khaine
2007-06-11, 04:30 AM
ill agree on that its simply not worth the massive investment that it takes to build it.
usualy wizards survive because things isnt able to attack them, due to spells like invisibility or fly, but if the monsters cant attack you then there is a risk they will just take their fustration out on your shield guardian instead, causing you a massive monentary loss in the process.

of course, if you shrink it to familiar size, with fx Polymorph any object, then you can get the awesome ½ damage effect, without putting your expensive guardian on the line of fire.

Zincorium
2007-06-11, 04:49 AM
I'm not interested in a blow by blow, but you don't seem to grasp the one, single point I'm arguing. 65000, for a minion which can possibly save the caster's life, does not seem a bad investment. Anything else I've said is only a support of that.


Huh?

What did you think was the purpose of the example? PinkysBrain was making a (valid) point about a shield guardian's potential AC with a certain additional investments. The topic of the thread is if shield guardians are "worth it". Obviously whether or not said AC increase can be depended on all the time is relevant to the topic of the thread.
Right. You wanted to clear up all the confusion regarding whether or not shield guardians spontaneously disappear for no reason in mid-combat. Remind me; in which post was that claim made?


No one made a claim it did, I only made a claim it didn't as a preface to countering your generalization that the shield guardian could not survive combat. Again, arguing tangents. If you can refute my original statement, that the shield guardian does not just evaporate but must be intentionally destroyed, then you have a valid point. Otherwise, you are wasting 1's and 0's.



120000 gp is not a good price for a single enemy standard action.


Nor is it likely that the enemy will be targeting the shield guardian in preference to the wizard, which negates both our arguments. However, like I pointed out, any effect which deals significant damage is better off targeting the construct than the wizard. If the enemy's standard action will kill the wizard outright, 90,000 seems reasonable considering the shield guardian will get plenty of use in the meantime. BTW, 65000 + 25000 for equipment is the price I'm seeing, I don't quite see what the extra 30,000 is going for.



But I think I see the problem. You keep arguing as if the choice were between a buffed, well equipped shield guardian or nothing. That's not the case.

The topic of discussion is if a shield guardian is a good buy or if the same gold and/or XP could be better spent elsewhere.
A 15th level wizard is very unlikely to be able to afford a 120000 gp + equipment shield guardian, even if he lowers the gp cost by building it himself. Either way, the wizard in your example wizard needs to stop relying on the series of miracles that has somehow kept him alive so far, and spend some of the money on a +6 Con item. Con is the second most important ability score for a wizard and a high level wizard should at least have a +4 modifier (Con 18). +6, possibly with Imporved Toughness (CWar) thrown in would not be unusual. And then you add some temporary hit points from false life, possibly empowered.


Right, and nothing stops the wizard from having both. Except possibly a very stingy DM.

If the shield guardian is just kept in the back, it effectively doubles the wizard's hit points by reducing all damage by half. That seems very useful if the caster has a mind to do so.

If you're thinking I'm contending that all wizards should have one, I'm not. But if you want one, it is effective.



Why would it kill the wizard? Properly built and equipped high level wizards are tough as nails. The wizard most likely has more hit points than the construct, good saves, high AC, DR and opponents have a miss chance to hit him. If they can even find the him that is. I didn't call you a liar. I think you know that... I did say you were wrong, and that's so obviously true that I didn't see a point in posting the proof. But fine. This was your claim: "Anything which would cause [the shield guardian's] destruction in a round has a much higher chance of destroying the wizard if it was applied to them."
[quote]

Well, fast healing, immunity to massive damage, and the fact that most people do not roll max on hit points every single level make it fairly even to the typical wizard in my view.

[quote]
Do you stand by that? If so will you acknowledge that you're a liar (your word, not mine) if I post an example of something that could destroy some shield guardian in one round and yet would be less likely to kill some high level wizard of my design?


I acknowledge that a wizard can be built to be more likely to survive. But I also don't think that proves anything. Most people I've seen simply do not build wizards to be survival machines with the highest AC and so on possible. If that's not the case with your experience, then I'll drop it.



If you object to the wording of that question, perhaps you should try to quantify your claims a little more. What kind of wizards are you talking about? What type of attacks? (Anything?) How is the guardian equipped? I can provide examples proving you wrong, but I'm sure you'll just declare that they don't apply for some reason.
Enemy wizard casts a CL 20 disintegrate. Who's more likely to survive - the typical high level (let's say level 18) wizard or a shield guardian?

My experience says that the wizard will have more hit points, be harder to hit and be many times more likely to make his save.

See above. I acknowledge I got a little riled up and made a statement, that while true in the games I've seen, cannot be proven. Neither can you prove that all wizards are tougher than the shield guardian, however.

And really, if you want to latch onto that one sentence and ignore every other argument I have made, feel free. Feel victorious even.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-11, 06:04 AM
Zincorium:
He's getting the 120,000 gp from the market price of the Shield Guardian, not the construction price of 65,000 gp and 4,600 xp. It's a reasonable thing to do on a few counts:
1) Market price is what many (probably most) DM's go by when looking at putting the party back to roughly Wealth By Level.
2) Craft Construct requires three feats to have (two required feats plus Craft Construct itself). Granted, the two required feats (Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item) are very useful in and of themselves, but not every spellcaster will make the feat investment, and so have to buy the thing.
3) Craft Construct is not in the PHB, but the Monster Manual. Sure, it's still Core, but not all DM's let you have all sources available; some will limit you to the PHB.

That, or he's crafting an advanced Shield Guardian - which is a good idea, as extra HD increase its survivability - by a lot (more HP and better saves).

Edit:
Hmm... how much does a maximally advanced Shield Guardian cost, and what's it look like, statistically?

It's 30 extra HD, at +5,000 gp market each, so +150,000 gp market there; it's also a size boost, so an extra 20,000 gp market there. Market price: 290,000 gp. Cost to Craft: 150,000 gp, 11,400 xp.

Advanced SHIELD GUARDIAN
Huge Construct
Hit Dice: 45d10+40 (287 hp)
Initiative: -1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 25 (–2 size, +18 natural, -1 Dex), touch 7, flat-footed 25
Base Attack/Grapple: +33/+51
Attack: Slam +41 melee (1d8+10)
Full Attack: 2 slams +41 melee (1d8+10)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Construct traits, darkvision 60 ft., fast healing 5, find master, guard, low-light vision, shield other, spell storing
Saves: Fort +15, Ref +14, Will +15
Abilities: Str 30, Dex 8, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1
Environment: Any
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 16
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Market price: 290,000 gp. Cost to Craft: 150,000 gp, 11,400 xp. Cost to Wish up using the magic item creation clause: 5,000 xp + 2 * 11,400 xp = 27,800 xp and one 9th level spell slot. Cost to Hire the Wish (if you can find an appropriet 17th level Wizard with the xp to burn - per the equipment tables for hiring a spellcaster, this is not a commonly available spell): 17*90+5*27,800=140,530 gp.

Hmm... needs a Cloak of Resistance+5, Bracers of Armor +8 (or a Mithral Chain Shirt with Magic Vestments, if you're worried about the mounting costs to make it survivable), and maybe an Animated Heavy Darkwood Shield +1 or better (no Armor Check Penalty to cut down on the attack roll). Possibly mount some Guantlets on it (it's still smashing with it's fists...) to enchant.....

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-11, 11:04 AM
The problem is that the rules for crafting constructs make them ridiculously overpriced. It's basically not worth it to make constructs EVER because making undead minions is vastly cheaper, faster, and easier.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-11, 01:44 PM
The problem is that the rules for crafting constructs make them ridiculously overpriced. It's basically not worth it to make constructs EVER because making undead minions is vastly cheaper, faster, and easier.

Not true. If the DM will let me I almost always craft an Iron Golem or 2 with Golem Manuals or a couple Shadesteel Golems.

LotharBot
2007-06-11, 02:07 PM
My party wizard has a shield guardian, and he's been fairly useful. He happened to acquire it by ganking someone else's amulet (http://rubblerousers.blogspot.com/2007/05/shackled-city-day-26-2007-03-30-630-pm.html), so it didn't even cost him anything.

It effectively doubles his HP, gives him a free spell, and lands the occasional hit in combat. It also takes up his amulet slot, which means no +5 natural armor or amulet of the planes. That's the real tradeoff to be aware of... what could you be using that amulet slot for instead? Is the double HP something you're badly in need of in comparison to better AC etc?

Jack_Simth
2007-06-11, 04:59 PM
The problem is that the rules for crafting constructs make them ridiculously overpriced. It's basically not worth it to make constructs EVER because making undead minions is vastly cheaper, faster, and easier.Well, yes and no.

There's a limit to the number of undead minions you can control directly (usually 4*caster level, for Wizards/Sorcerers). Indirectly controlled undead minions (such as through the Wight Army trick) can get you an absurd number of undead under your control, but invite disaster. Meanwhile, the number of constructs you can control directly is limited only by your wealth/xp.

Also, undead minions are not usually socially acceptable. Constructs? Not quite so much in the way of a social stigma (flesh golems aside) in most cases.

Additionally, most undead minions are Evil, and all Core undead-creating spells have the [Evil] descriptor. If, for whatever reason, you want to avoid [Evil], you'll need to skip the undead creation under most DM's. Most constructs are a neutral act to create (with the exception of Flesh Golems, which require Animate Dead - an [Evil] spell), and so won't influence your alignment (in and of themselves - what you do with them, and how you get "funding" for them, as always, will affect your alignment).

Now, anything beyond that is kinda up to DM interpertation, but it mostly strikes me that undead minions are the "power at the cost of others" while (most) golems are a matter of power at a cost only to yourself.

Starbuck_II
2007-06-11, 05:15 PM
1) Market price is what many (probably most) DM's go by when looking at putting the party back to roughly Wealth By Level.

No, if you buy a golem the DM should use markewt price, but if he crafts it: he should count the creation cost instead.

What is the point of crafting feats if the DM makes you lose double what you paid for.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-11, 05:59 PM
No, if you buy a golem the DM should use markewt price, but if he crafts it: he should count the creation cost instead.

It's wealth by level, not money by level.


What is the point of crafting feats if the DM makes you lose double what you paid for.
Crafting lets you make stuff - you've made it. You're not getting it from Ye Olde Versimilitude Breakinge Shoppe ofe Mysticale ande Magjickqueale Itemse (Need More Letters!), you don't have to worry about it being cursed, you don't have to worry about the previous owner showing up wanting it, AND you get to select what you want.

Depends on the campaign, though - if you can buy what you like whenever, there's not much point.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-11, 06:54 PM
I made it, and it cost me XP.

So the sole advantage I get, is it costs me XP, and effectively the same amount of cash, and... wait.

Jack_Simth
2007-06-11, 08:22 PM
I made it, and it cost me XP.

So the sole advantage I get, is it costs me XP, and effectively the same amount of cash, and... wait.
It didn't cost you XP. At least, not long-term; not with the 3.5 XP mechanic. Occasionally, it can even net you XP for a period of time. Seriously. Suppose, for a minute, that a 9th level party of four gets exactly enough XP to level. The Wizard stops and instead of leveling up, scribes a caster level 1 scroll of Featherfall. The Wizard is 1 XP short of level 10. The party of four then encounters, and defeats, a CR 10 troll (it had class levels). Each 10th level character in the party gets 750 xp. The Wizard, still being 9th level, gets 1012 xp (or 1013, if the DM rounds up). 1 XP lost to crafting, but the coincidence gave the Wizard a bonus of 262 xp (relative to what the Wizard would have gotten had the Wizard been 10th level), for a net gain of 261 XP for crafting a 1 XP scroll.

Ignoring that, though, it depends on the campaign - significantly.

Consider, for a moment, a campaign with no magic support network. Any magic items you have are either loot or made yourself (you can sell for half, though, no problem). Say you've got a Cloak of Resistance +4, and you defeat an opponent that has a Cloaks of Resistance +3. Well, switching Cloaks doesn't help (it is weaker than yours). If you don't have access to Craft Wondrous Item, you can keep the cloak as a backup (Nat-1's, Sunder, theft...), or you can sell it for cash - to buy... well, not much mundane stuff you can buy for that 4,500 gp (or rather, there's lots of stuff, but most of it would weigh down an adventurer). If you can Craft, you can sell the +3 cloaks and upgrade your existing +4 cloak. The difference in market price between a +4 Cloak of Resistance and a +5 Cloak of Resistance is 9,000 gp; the cost to upgrade the +4 Cloak is 4,500 gp, 9 days, and 360 xp. A +3 Cloak of Resistance has a market price of 9,000 gp, and sells for half at 4,500 gp. You'll still do okay with the +4 Cloak; the DM will eventually run you across something that'll drop a better item. The XP cost permits you to tailor your wealth more effectively.

Likewise, in the same circumstance, it lets you give your buddy the Meatshiel... er, Fighter a hand. After your Fighter buddy invests in Weapon Focus(Greatsword), Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Focus(Greatsword), and Greater Weapon Specialization(Greatsword), that +4 Mithral Warhammer doesn't look so good as his +3 Steel Greatsword - as he'd lose damage and attack as his feats no longer apply. If you have Craft Magic Arms and Armor, you can sell the Adamantium Warhammer and craft up the Mithral Greatsword to +5 (or equivalent) for some time and XP; the Fighter's damage output and hit rate increase. Again, It lets you tailor wealth.

If you can purchase any item you like, it doesn't matter so much. If your DM pays no attention to Wealth By Level, or does so only rarely, the feats act as a money multiplier. It's highly circumstantial, either way.

Iku Rex
2007-06-12, 02:00 AM
I'm not interested in a blow by blow, but you don't seem to grasp the one, single point I'm arguing. 65000, for a minion which can possibly save the caster's life, does not seem a bad investment. Anything else I've said is only a support of that.I grasp it just fine. Like I told you in my previous post: The topic of discussion is if a shield guardian is a good buy or if the same gold and/or XP could be better spent elsewhere.

If an amulet of natural armor +1 cost 200000 gp would it be a good investment? I'd say "no", but I'm sure you'd stand ready to explain to me in great detail that having +1 AC is better than not having +1 AC.

No one made a claim it did, I only made a claim it didn't as a preface to countering your generalization that the shield guardian could not survive combat. I never said that. It doesn't have to be destroyed in every battle to be a bad investment.

Again, arguing tangents. If you can refute my original statement, that the shield guardian does not just evaporate but must be intentionally destroyed, then you have a valid point. Otherwise, you are wasting 1's and 0's.How about a construct with the stats of a basic kobold costing 1000000 gp? "Worth it"? It "must be intentionally destroyed", after all.

Nor is it likely that the enemy will be targeting the shield guardian in preference to the wizard, which negates both our arguments. Whether it's "likely" depends on the DM and the opponent. I'd say it's quite likely, as it's most likely easier to get to than the wizard, and the DM can unload on it without worrying about campaign-disturbing deaths.

However, like I pointed out, any effect which deals significant damage is better off targeting the construct than the wizard. And like I have pointed out repeatedly that's not true.

Example: The guardian is down to 40 hit points and is attacked by a scorching ray that hits and deals 45 damage. The construct is destroyed.

If the ray had been directed at the wizard it may not have hit, it may not have dealt enough damage to kill the wizard, the wizard may have had fire resistance or immunity, or the wizard may have had SR preventing the damage. And had the wizard been killed he may have been easily true resurrected for less than half the cost of a new guardian, not including XP.

In short, you're wrong. Unless you're once again making an insightful point about how any distraction at any price is "worth it".

BTW, 65000 + 25000 for equipment is the price I'm seeing, I don't quite see what the extra 30,000 is going for.120000 gp is the market price for a shield guardian, and approximately the value of the equipment you could have gotten if you didn't buy the shield guardian. XP is not "free". I was being generous and allowing for the reuse of the 25000+ gp extra equipment.

Right, and nothing stops the wizard from having both. Except possibly a very stingy DM. :smallsigh:

How about this: I will concede that a shield guardian is "worth it" if you don't have to give up anything to get it.

In return you will stop making arguments intended to prove same.


If the shield guardian is just kept in the back, it effectively doubles the wizard's hit points by reducing all damage by half. That seems very useful if the caster has a mind to do so. Useful, yes. The guardian is still at risk, it no longer does it's (according to you) job of "block[ing] things from charging the wizard" and if it moves out of range you lose the benefit. Still, this would be the best approach if you do somehow end up with a shield guardian.

Iku Rex
2007-06-12, 02:39 AM
My party wizard has a shield guardian, and he's been fairly useful. He happened to acquire it by ganking someone else's amulet (http://rubblerousers.blogspot.com/2007/05/shackled-city-day-26-2007-03-30-630-pm.html), so it didn't even cost him anything.

It effectively doubles his HP, gives him a free spell, and lands the occasional hit in combat. It also takes up his amulet slot, which means no +5 natural armor or amulet of the planes. That's the real tradeoff to be aware of... what could you be using that amulet slot for instead? Is the double HP something you're badly in need of in comparison to better AC etc?I'm curious - what happened to the guardian? It doesn't seem to be mentioned after day 30.

Wih
2007-06-12, 02:54 AM
The only experience I've had with a Shield Guardian says...yes, hell yes. Admittedly, I had an item creation specialist making it, so it was a lot more effective than your standard Shield Guardian - Imbuing it as an Intelligent Item was a start, so it grabs skills and feats (Not to mention other nifty abilities). Finding a way to give it proficiency with Weapons and Armour makes it deadly (in this case, we were using Weapon Groups from UA, and the GM said it would get three, as it was functioning as a secondary combatant).
Needless to say, it was unbalancing at the least, and the GM happily let me sell it for one of those nifty books that give you a +5 Inherent bonus to INT, which I wasn't too unpleased with.

LotharBot
2007-06-12, 12:49 PM
I'm curious - what happened to the guardian? It doesn't seem to be mentioned after day 30.

He was named Percy. (Sam is the wizard's pseudodragon familiar, and Redtail is the cleric's hippogriff mount.) Thanks for the heads up; I'll add a note.

You'll notice his true usefulness in day 34 -- wail of the banshee traps are no match for a construct. He also managed to occupy some key space in a battle that could otherwise have turned very ugly.

Jimp
2007-06-12, 02:59 PM
Proposal:
Making my Shield Guardian my Item Familiar too?
I can't remember what book the Item Familiar was in, I'm thinking Unearthed Arcana though.
Can I do this?