(3.5) Item of continuous Miracles

[Goonthegoof]

According to the DMG, creating an item that you could activate whenever you want that cast a spell of 9th level would cost
9x17x1800=275400 gold
A hefty price to be sure, but if you used that for miracle then wouldn't you effectively have an unlimited source of level 8 and below cleric spells/7 and below for any other spell?

[The Glyphstone]

Congratulations, you have found another reason why that section of the DMG is very explicitly guidelines. Cookie?

[Goonthegoof]

Yeah, I've found a lot of those over the years, but this is the first one that has seemed blatantly broken.

[Gabe the Bard]

Such an item would be limited to a version of Miracle that doesn't require an XP component. If you want to use the more powerful version of the spell, you would have to increase the cost of the item by factoring in the 5000 XP cost.

[Defiant]

How about an item of continuous Mage Armor? Or Shield? Or Wraithstrike?

You don't even need 100,000gp...

[Goonthegoof]

I always use those three, plus trapsmith haste if I can get away with it. I'm aware I'd be limited to the non experience costing parts, but those parts are an unlimited supply of 8th level cleric spells/7th level any other spells, so I'm still thinking it would be the world's best item.

[Defiant]

I always use those three, plus trapsmith haste if I can get away with it.

...

[Salbazier]

What's wrong with continuous mage armor? You are better off casting it yourself or UMD a scroll of it rather than spending 16000 gp. (by the way i got one for a bargain price just 2000 gp ) Continuous Shield isn't broken either, not for 32000 gp. Wraithstrike? Yeah, that spell is broken.

[Goonthegoof]

What's the for? Mage armour's a cheap source of armour if you're unarmoured, shield is a cheap source of shield bonus if you don't have a shield and gloves of wraithstrike are a great investment at only 48k.

What's wrong with continuous mage armor? You are better off casting it yourself or UMD a scroll of it rather than spending 16000 gp. (by the way i got one for a bargain price just 2000 gp ) Continuous Shield isn't broken either, not for 32000 gp. Wraithstrike? Yeah, that spell is broken.

They really don't cost that much. An item of continuous Mage Armour is 2000, an item of continuous Shield is 4000.

[The Glyphstone]

What's the for? Mage armour's a cheap source of armour if you're unarmoured, shield is a cheap source of shield bonus if you don't have a shield and gloves of wraithstrike are a great investment at only 48k.

Because if you don't recognize how abusive this is, well....

[Goonthegoof]

Not really abusive at all. I tend to play melee characters, getting useful magical effects as cheaply as possible is the only way to stay on an even level with casters.

[Defiant]

Compare:

Bracers of Armour
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...bracersofArmor

1000gp for +1 armour bonus to AC (does not stack with armour)
16000gp for +4 armour bonus to AC


Item of Continuous Mage Armour
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...MagicItems.htm

Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp

[...]

If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

2000gp for +4 armour bonus to AC



Hey, I'll give you another cheese hint:

Other Considerations

Once you have a final cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:
Item Requires Skill to Use

Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.
Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use

Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the cost by 30%.

I will reiterate this part:

Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.

[Defiant]

Not really abusive at all. I tend to play melee characters, getting useful magical effects as cheaply as possible is the only way to stay on an even level with casters.

You are abusing rules in a way that could be abused by everyone, not just non-casters. Not to mention you are assuming things that are supposed to be up to DM approval. I hope you double-check with your DMs first.

And if your DM truly feels that items of continuous Mage Armour or Shield are acceptable, then why doesn't he or she just directly cut the cost off of all magic items? Or just give you more wealth? The gold system is fairly balanced the way it is - this just unbalances it by making obviously erroneous items.

Why do bracers of +2 to +4 armour exist if one can just make an item of continuous mage armour?

[tyckspoon]

9x17x1800=275400 gold

Problem: You've blown past the Epic limiter. Although that technically doesn't trigger the x10 cost multiplier, because the item doesn't grant a bonus as such, it does mean you need to find an Epic crafter to make the thing. Although it'll actually cost less XP than calculating it as a non-Epic item.

[Goonthegoof]

Continuous Mage Armour and Shield are possibly bad examples- I don't use them too often, mostly because I rarely play unarmoured characters. I agree that those two cost less than they should, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to use them at every opportunity- Alter self for example costs less than it should and that gets used a lot.

I do however look for ways to get various magical effects at the lowest possible prices- Items of continuous Swift Fly and Wraithstrike, command word Alter Self, Charm Person and Dimension Door items. By the time I can afford those items I usually need as many of them as possible to catch up to the spellcasters.

Problem: You've blown past the Epic limiter. Although that technically doesn't trigger the x10 cost multiplier, because the item doesn't grant a bonus as such, it does mean you need to find an Epic crafter to make the thing. Although it'll actually cost less XP than calculating it as a non-Epic item.

True, and using stuff like Mercentile Background to reduce the price to buy it won't reduce how much it's worth, so I'd have to find a price reducer that doesn't limit usage. Usually alignment/race pre-requisites are a good way to do that.
In any case it doesn't matter much, limitless 8th level spells kind of defeats the point of not being a full caster.

[Coidzor]

^: Well, more like it allows the Artificer to have a literal Easy Button. And with item stacking, for it to be of both Wish and Miracle for the lulz. Maybe Genesis... (4.24186875% of 275,400 is about 11,682.1065 or 11,683 gp.)



So that's about... what, 70% of a 15th level cleric(turn undead, self-propelling/own initiative count, ability to turn into a Zilla making up the remainder)? Compare with the price of simply buying such a cleric off of the Neogi, equipping it, and installing one's own method of controlling such a thing. Say, Animate Dread Warrior.

225*100*4 = 90,000 gp for the cleric + 52,000 in gear for the basic model (let's say a +6 Wis item and a +4 Int item to counteract its template) + 3750 xp (roughly equivalent to 18750gp?).

142,000+18,750 = 160,750 gp equivalent

160,750 vs. 275,400

ah, heck, let's say that miracle is 80% of such a cleric...

.8 * 275,400 = 220,320 gp

Well, that was fun to think about for a bit.

[Defiant]

Continuous Mage Armour and Shield are possibly bad examples- I don't use them too often, mostly because I rarely play unarmoured characters. I agree that those two cost less than they should, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to use them at every opportunity- Alter self for example costs less than it should and that gets used a lot.

I do however look for ways to get various magical effects at the lowest possible prices- Items of continuous Swift Fly and Wraithstrike, command word Alter Self, Charm Person and Dimension Door items. By the time I can afford those items I usually need as many of them as possible to catch up to the spellcasters.

You are committing the is-ought fallacy. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Your focus is the lowest price.

In the end, such magical items are unbalanced in an otherwise balanced magic item system. Not only are they outliers in the normal pricing system of D&D, they are abusive of guidelines.

If your worry is that melee characters need to catch up, just give them more wealth directly. But don't pretend that these items are "fair" as-is.

It's like giving fighters level 8 spells at level 16, randomly, through abuse of a guideline reading. OK, yes, fighters need help... but this doesn't make any sense, and it's wrong.

[Goonthegoof]

You are committing the is-ought fallacy. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Your focus is the lowest price.

In the end, such magical items are unbalanced in an otherwise balanced magic item system. Not only are they outliers in the normal pricing system of D&D, they are abusive of guidelines.

If your worry is that melee characters need to catch up, just give them more wealth directly. But don't pretend that these items are "fair" as-is.

It's like giving fighters level 8 spells at level 16, randomly, through abuse of a guideline reading. OK, yes, fighters need help... but this doesn't make any sense, and it's wrong.

Except it's a (somewhat) balanced magic item system in a very unbalanced game. The whole point of optimisation is to get the most benefit at the least cost to yourself, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to items. True, it gets me ahead of other who expend an equal amount of resources, but those people are usually ahead in other methods.

And I'm aware casters can do it too, but they already have access to many of the effects given by the items, so it's one of the few parts of the game that are weighted in favour of the non spellcasters.

[ffone]

Except it's a (somewhat) balanced magic item system in a very unbalanced game. The whole point of optimisation is to get the most benefit at the least cost to yourself, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to items. True, it gets me ahead of other who expend an equal amount of resources, but those people are usually ahead in other methods.

And I'm aware casters can do it too, but they already have access to many of the effects given by the items, so it's one of the few parts of the game that are weighted in favour of the non spellcasters.

Except 'optimization' means 'using the rules to improve the character'. This is 'making up rules', since the item pricing formulae are not entitlements.

I swear, that's my least favorite line in all the SRD. Over my life of DMing I've had at least 4 players ask about Mage Armor or Cure Light Wounds for 2K.

And the melee vs spellcasters thing is very lame justification. Suppose you allow Continuous Wraithstrike for that reason. Now EVERY melee-er of sufficient level is going to have one. Does that make for an interesting gaming experience or campaign setting? Is the world fun when every single warrior has 1 level of Pouncebarian?

The problems with the melee/caster justification for broken thing X is

1. It reduces variety (everyone will have one)
2. You haven't shown it's the best or even a good way to balance the classes. I've heard this argument made to justify dozens of ridiculous things. Why should I choose yours? Would giving ALL of them to melee'ers still be balanced?
3. Usually X benefits CoDzillas too
4. If you try to 'retune upwards', you'll end up creating some new combo that's now the best. So then you'll retune upwards everything else, and then...
5. In many/most campaigns, casters are not in fact outshining meleers, for whatever reason
6. Everyone claims physical attackers are so weak, yet when I DM the parties are much more likely to be attacker-heavy and lack casters than vice versa. I wouldn't claim attackers should be punished or weakened for this....but it means I lack for incentive to massively up-power them.

[Goonthegoof]

And using prestige classes is optional too, but both tend to be allowed by DMs. If the DM doesn't want to use the pricing guidelines from the DMG then I don't use them, but if I have the option to use them I will, and I'll create whatever is optimal for my character.

[Defiant]

And using prestige classes is optional too, but both tend to be allowed by DMs. If the DM doesn't want to use the pricing guidelines from the DMG then I don't use them, but if I have the option to use them I will, and I'll create whatever is optimal for my character.

There's a difference between

- This is an optional rule that players can use, subject to DM approval

and

- The price formulas given do not always apply because of the item's actual worth, and are thus subject to DM approval


One states an optional rule. The other outlines the flaws within a given formula, and the necessity for DM over-watch.

[Goonthegoof]

Except that almost any situation in 3.5 where several options are all supposed to be equal in power is flawed because of lack of playtesting. I don't see why using one of the few flaws that actually boosts non casters more than casters is a bad thing.

[Coidzor]

And I'm aware casters can do it too, but they already have access to many of the effects given by the items, so it's one of the few parts of the game that are weighted in favour of the non spellcasters.

The same non-spellcasters that are dependent upon spellcasters crafting said items. It's weighted in favor of them, rather than the peeps who can actually choose to make such items.

[Goonthegoof]

Or just get NPCs to make the items.

[Coidzor]

Or just get NPCs to make the items.

Who are themselves casters and charge at least double the price in most cases.

And that doesn't address what makes you think item creation is weighted in favor of non casters.

[Goonthegoof]

It was in the context of making magic items of command/continuous use of various magic spells being an abuse of game mechanics. I said that if it is, it's pretty much the only unbalanced part of the game in any way weighted in non-caster's favour, as casters can already provide the spells for themselves.

Ie reusable items of invisibility, charm, flight, antimagic field, teleport and the like being more useful to non casters than it is to casters, due to casters being able to provide some of those effects from their own spell lists.

[Salbazier]

Whoops. Another lesson to check things first before posting. Yeah, sorry i misremember the rules. Still, my DM is on the opinion that bracers of Armor is overpriced. Thus a bargain for me

Personally, I thought of it as a case of specific triumph general - pricing rules for item that gives AC bonus override the price for continuous items. And even if it's not, i personally would still allowed for mage armor if I DMing.

[Bayar]

It was in the context of making magic items of command/continuous use of various magic spells being an abuse of game mechanics. I said that if it is, it's pretty much the only unbalanced part of the game in any way weighted in non-caster's favour, as casters can already provide the spells for themselves.

Ie reusable items of invisibility, charm, flight, antimagic field, teleport and the like being more useful to non casters than it is to casters, due to casters being able to provide some of those effects from their own spell lists.

Hmm, and casters wouldn't prefer to fill their spell slots with something other than invisibility, charm, flight, antimagic field, teleport and the like if they can get reusable items of those ?

You argue that getting these items for non-casters is optimisation and casters don't need them because they can spend spell slots for those spells (that often have a duration other than all day long, refresh when needed). Well, SURPRISE ! Casters getting those continuous items would qualify as being optimisation as well acording to your statements.



And of course, those Item creation "rules" are not actually rules. They are guidelines. Meant for the DM to use to create other magic items that are not found in the DMG. The players could come up with a concept for a new magic item, but the DM must approve of it.

"Getting away with it" is in poor form, and might make the DM or other players quite upset about it.

Except that almost any situation in 3.5 where several options are all supposed to be equal in power is flawed because of lack of playtesting. I don't see why using one of the few flaws that actually boosts non casters more than casters is a bad thing.

"Hey, UMD can be boosted quite easily. I could make a monk that focuses on UMD and buff myself, debuff others, shoot fireballs and other stuff. Because you know, being a polimorphing a monk into a hydra gives more bonuses than a wizard polimorphing into a hydra." Yeah, no. Both casters and non-casters benefit from continuous mage armor. Non-casters might even benefit less from it because now they cannot gain armor enhancements on their mage armor.

[Goonthegoof]

Hmm, and casters wouldn't prefer to fill their spell slots with something other than invisibility, charm, flight, antimagic field, teleport and the like if they can get reusable items of those ?

You argue that getting these items for non-casters is optimisation and casters don't need them because they can spend spell slots for those spells (that often have a duration other than all day long, refresh when needed). Well, SURPRISE ! Casters getting those continuous items would qualify as being optimisation as well acording to your statements.

My statements said nothing of the sort. I'm not saying casters don't need them, I'm saying that such effects are much more valuable to non casters who can't otherwise replicate the effects. An item that grants contingency 1/day is much more useful to a fighter (in conjunction with say a plane shift 1/day item) than it is for a wizard, who would merely be saving one spell slot.

In addition, many spell effects (such as haste and wraithstrike) are much more valuable to melee fighters than they are to casters.

And of course, those Item creation "rules" are not actually rules. They are guidelines. Meant for the DM to use to create other magic items that are not found in the DMG. The players could come up with a concept for a new magic item, but the DM must approve of it.

"Getting away with it" is in poor form, and might make the DM or other players quite upset about it.



"Hey, UMD can be boosted quite easily. I could make a monk that focuses on UMD and buff myself, debuff others, shoot fireballs and other stuff. Because you know, being a polimorphing a monk into a hydra gives more bonuses than a wizard polimorphing into a hydra." Yeah, no. Both casters and non-casters benefit from continuous mage armor. Non-casters might even benefit less from it because now they cannot gain armor enhancements on their mage armor.

Except that that one's a pretty bad example- For a monk, polymorphing into a hydra is a much bigger boost in power than it would be for a wizard. A lot of the monk's class abilities stack well with the abilities hydra form grants and monk has better BAB and HD than the wizard. Abilities like the monk's armour bonus and fast movement still function and synergise well with the hydra, whereas the wizard can no longer use his primary ability properly.

[Coidzor]

My statements said nothing of the sort. I'm not saying casters don't need them, I'm saying that such effects are much more valuable to non casters who can't otherwise replicate the effects. An item that grants contingency 1/day is much more useful to a fighter (in conjunction with say a plane shift 1/day item) than it is for a wizard, who would merely be saving one spell slot.

No, you said weighted in the favor of them, not that such things are relatively of more value to such characters. Which you are right about, when you can't cast at all, an item that does it for you is more valuable. But that's not what you said initially. At all.