# Cloak of Mage Armor



## arnon (Apr 14, 2008)

A friend is playing a Wizard and is constantly on the look to creating magical items. He asked me a question:

Can you create a "Cloak of Mage Armor" (or whatever you want to call it)?

So that creating such an item, according to the formulas for creating magic items in the SRD will cost 2000 gp to create.



> *Use-activated or continuous:* Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp




To me it seems strange that it possible to create something that will grant a continuous +4 to AC for only 2000 gp... I'm sure I'm missing something.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Apr 14, 2008)

arnon said:
			
		

> A friend is playing a Wizard and is constantly on the look to creating magical items. He asked me a question:
> 
> Can you create a "Cloak of Mage Armor" (or whatever you want to call it)?
> 
> ...



What you forget is that Mage armor has a frien called Bracers of armor. THey do same thing.

Example: To just get a armor bonus, use the armor bonus forumla ala Bracers of Armor 

So what is he looking for just +4 Mage armor bonus? Is so why not just Cloak of Armor same as Bracers?
If using formula for armor bonus it cost 16K to get +4. 

It mentions always compare to existing items.

Now he could buy/make a caster caster 10 2/day Mage armor: costs 8K. This is a use activated one. This would give him effectively all day Mage armor for a low price. And decent caster for dispelling.
Alternatively, he could get a Caster 15, 1/day Mage armor for 6,000. That should be most of adventuring day


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 14, 2008)

Well lets look at it this way. 

I would look at the cost for creating a suit of armor.  According to it I do believe it should be around 16,000gp.

And since it is not an item normally associated with an armor bonus you charge 50% more.

Making this item 24,000gp in cost.

If your friend would like an item as he sees it.  Then he should try making a cloak that is Command Word activated.

In this matter it would only cost him 2700gp (Base Cost + 50% because of an item not associated with armor bonus) but it would have the duration of a Mage Armor cast by a 1st level caster, and it would take a Standard Action to activate.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 14, 2008)

Bracers of Armor are too expensive! Do not use them as a Guide!!!


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 14, 2008)

To be honest Slayed _Bracers of Armor_ follow the rules for creating armor exactly.  Just you only get the enhancement bonus and no inherent armor bonus from being a suit of armor.

Bracers of Armor +1 = 1000gp

Adding a +1 to any suit of armor = 1000gp

As a side note the basis for creating _Bracers of Armor_ is the spell Mage Armor.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 14, 2008)

For the Armor Class Bonus that they give Bracers of Armor are too expensive.

I think that adding +3 Armor Bonus to each while keeping the costs the same would be about right. That would also make it match up better with the Mage Armor Spell as a side benefit!!


----------



## Folly (Apr 14, 2008)

A magic item you might want to have your player look at is: Mages Battle Cloak (or something like that) from the MIC. It has a mage armor component, but also has some other benefits tied in as well.


----------



## Folly (Apr 14, 2008)

A magic item you might want to have your player look at is: Mages Battle Cloak (or something like that) from the MIC. It has a mage armor component, but also has some other benefits tied in as well.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 14, 2008)

Mage Armor has another friend: 50 potions of Mage Armor in a Heward's Handy Haversack.  What does that cost... 4500gp? Given that it's slotless and that you can put other stuff in the haversack, I'd put the cost of a Cloak of Mage Armor (Requires a slot, requires no action to activate a spell that's normally cast out of combat anyway) at around 5000gp.

Ken


----------



## Nifft (Apr 14, 2008)

arnon said:
			
		

> To me it seems strange that it possible to create something that will grant a continuous +4 to AC for only 2000 gp... I'm sure I'm missing something.



 Yep, you're missing this stuff which comes right after the table: 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> MAGIC ITEM GOLD PIECE VALUES
> 
> Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to *match the new item to an item that is already priced* that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the *guidelines* summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.



 Note two things:
1/ Use existing item prices; and 
2/ That table isn't *rules*, it's just guidelines for *estimating* magic item values.

Here's a bit more from that same section: 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.




Basically: _mage armor_ lasts a long time. He should just cast it every day, or he should suck it up and buy Bracers of Armor. IMHO the smarter wizard is the one who does not rely on AC to defend himself, but tastes differ. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't buy the "bracers of armor are too expensive" argument. They allow unarmored characters to have an armor bonus. That is pretty huge right there. And unlike actual armor, it doesn't have a max dex modifier. I love dextrous characters, and I have made a few that are better off with bracers of armor than with any other armor.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Mage Armor is a cheap and easy Spell. Getting above the Maximum Dexterity Limit for Light Armors takes a lot of time and effort as well! Padded Armor costs 5 Gold Pieces, gives a +1 Armor Bonus, and has a +8 Maximum Dexterity Bonus Limitation. So until the Character gets above 27 in Dexterity they save 995 Gold Pieces by getting Padded Armor!

Having someone in the party Cast Mage Armor on the Character saves a Large Pile of Money Too!!!!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 15, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Basically: _mage armor_ lasts a long time. He should just cast it every day, or he should suck it up and buy Bracers of Armor. IMHO the smarter wizard is the one who does not rely on AC to defend himself, but tastes differ.



Seconded. Also: He should rather pick up a Lesser Metamagic Rod, Extend for that money. It only costs 3,000 gp and he can apply it to nifty stuff like _Rope Trick_ as well. Oh, and ready _False Life_. It's fun - esp. with that nifty rod.

At 6th level, the wizard can walk around for 12 hours, decked out in _mage armor_ and _false life_ with that little trinket!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> For the Armor Class Bonus that they give Bracers of Armor are too expensive.
> 
> I think that adding +3 Armor Bonus to each while keeping the costs the same would be about right. That would also make it match up better with the Mage Armor Spell as a side benefit!!



They are not supposed to match up to Mage Armor. Mage armor was given extra oomph and a generous duration to give a leg up to low level mages. 

Bracer's cost match up perfectly to armor enhancement costs. Want 3 more points of AC? Enhance a suit of studded leather.

Although it is funny you say "+3" too expensive. They practically get a +3 property for free. Since the bracer AC is from planes of Force, it is like having 'Ghost touch" built in.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Two important things here. I said Side Benefit and Bracers of Armor do not function anywhere near the level of Ghost Touch.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> ... and Bracers of Armor do not function anywhere near the level of Ghost Touch.



Why not?


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor do not function anywhere near the level of Ghost Touch.



As far as players are concerned they certainly do. Unless the player has a specific Splat spell going or is a incorporeal undead, it is just as good as the ghost touch property.

_*Ghost Touch*
This armor or shield seems almost translucent. *Both its enhancement bonus and its armor bonus count against the attacks of incorporeal creatures.* It can be picked up, moved, and worn by incorporeal creatures at any time. Incorporeal creatures gain the armor or shield’s enhancement bonus against both corporeal and incorporeal attacks, and they can still pass freely through solid objects. 

Strong transmutation; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, etherealness; Price +3 bonus. _


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 15, 2008)

Bracers of Armor don't provide protection from incorporeal touch attacks. It only provides an armor bonus. Or is there a reference aside from the spells used to create the magic item?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 15, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor don't provide protection from incorporeal touch attacks. It only provides an armor bonus. Or is there a reference aside from the spells used to create the magic item?



 Yep, it does; and yes, there is:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#incorporeality

Cheers, -- N


----------



## darthkilmor (Apr 15, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor don't provide protection from incorporeal touch attacks. It only provides an armor bonus. Or is there a reference aside from the spells used to create the magic item?







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Armor Bonus
> 
> An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, *except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell)* which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.




and



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor
> 
> These items appear to be wrist or arm guards. They surround the wearer with an *invisible but tangible field of force*, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
> 
> Moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, *mage armor*, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers; Price 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5), 36,000 gp (+6), 49,000 gp (+7), 64,000 gp (+8); Weight 1 lb.




relevant parts highlighted. Its a bit obtuse to be sure.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 15, 2008)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> Its a bit obtuse to be sure.



 Nah, check out the link I provided, which contains this: 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The physical attacks of incorporeal creatures ignore material armor, even magic armor, unless it is made of force (such as mage armor or *bracers of armor*) or has the ghost touch ability.



 Spelled out clear as day. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## darthkilmor (Apr 15, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Nah, check out the link I provided, which contains this:  Spelled out clear as day.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I saw that right after I posted, doh! A mention in the bracers of armor entry would be handy though : )


----------



## Kat' (Apr 15, 2008)

It's unclear. I'd say it protects from incorporeal attacks, but not from incorporeal touch attacks. Of course, that would only be my interpretation.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 15, 2008)

Kat' said:
			
		

> It's unclear. I'd say it protects from incorporeal attacks, but not from incorporeal touch attacks. Of course, that would only be my interpretation.



 Could you provide an example of the former that is NOT the latter?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 15, 2008)

It is effective against incorporeal attacks, whereas bracers fo armor are ineffective against regular touch attacks.


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 15, 2008)

double posted...oops


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> It is effective against incorporeal attacks, whereas bracers fo armor are ineffective against regular touch attacks.




Nifft is getting at the fact that there are not incorporeal touch attacks, but that there are incorporeal creatures that make touch attacks. Thus you would resolve an attack from an incorporeal as an incorporeal attack, and the touch attack as a touch attack.


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 15, 2008)

Hi All,
I'm Arnon's friend who originally asked the question.
I feel that the discussion drifted from the original question, and I would like to clarify my point.



> Origianlly posted by SRD
> Armor bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared x 1,000 gp +1 chainmail
> Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp2 Lantern of revealing




In my opinion that for the creation of a cloak of mage armor the second rule should apply for the following reasons:
1. Mage Armor gives an armor bonus and it doesn't stack with other armor bonuses.
2. The "Armor bonus (enhancement)" is for adding enhancement bonus to already existing armor bonus, so it stacks.
3. Mage Armor gives a +4 bonus and if we look at an equivalent in the armor table :



> Armor            Cost    Armor Bonus    Maximum Dex Bonus    Armor Check Penalty    Arcane Spell Failure Chance    Weight1
> Scale mail       50 gp        +4                      3                        –4                       25%                                    30 lb.



so for 40 time the Scale Mail price you get the same AC without the penalties.
4. My intention is to make the "cloak of mage armor" with caster level 1 so it will only cost 2000gp whereas bracers of armor are caster level 7 which is more difficult to dispell. Making the cloak with caster level 7 will cost 14000gp according to the table.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Actually, an incorporeal touch attack is a specific thing.  See for instance the monster entries... they list "incorporeal touch," which the incorporeality entry explains as ignoring armor and shield bonuses except for those provided by force attacks.

For example, a ghost wizard would make an incorporeal touch attack to deliver a draining touch, but a regular touch attack to deliver a shocking grasp spell.  The latter would ignore mage armor and bracers or armor, while the former would not.

However, as far as I know the armor bonus from bracers of armor functions exactly like that of armor with the ghost touch property, for touch attacks, incorporeal touch attacks, or anything else.  The only difference is that the bracers cannot be worn by an incorporeal creature.

---
As for a cloak of mage armor, I'd be OK with a 2000 gp item that lets you cast the spell 5 times per day at CL 1.  The benefit of continuous use clearly has to follow the example of the bracers... maybe a small discount for lowering the caster level, but nothing much.


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> Actually, an incorporeal touch attack is a specific thing.  See for instance the monster entries... they list "incorporeal touch," which the incorporeality entry explains as ignoring armor and shield bonuses except for those provided by force attacks.




Sorry, I was using the wording that others in the thread where using instead of looking up the specific wording. What I meant is that there are the incorporeal touch and then there are touch attacks. They are two separate attacks and are resolved using their own rules.


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

gabriel_z, the issue is that there is an existing item that already uses the spell Mage Armor as part of its creation. The equations as before mentioned are guidelines and you should first compare a new item against existing items.

Also mage armor is better compare against a chain shirt, since both do not prevent moving at full speed. But you are not simple playing gaining the same AC bonus, there are a number of other benefits from the item. As has already been mentioned, you gain the AC against incorporeal attacks, but further you also do not have to deal with armor check or spell failure. The cost that Bracers of Armor represent is the cost of increasing ones AC through enhancement bonuses over the base armor of the object. This is why Bracers of Armor has the cost equation as the cost to increase the enhancement bonus on armors. The difference is that the bracers assume a +0 base armor.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Regarding the comparison with the chain shirt, the real comparison would be:

+1 twilight ghost-touch mithral chain shirt:  AC +5, no ASF or ACP (and thus usable without armor proficiency), works against incorporeal touch.  Total price = 26,100 gp

vs

+5 bracers of armor.  Same benefits, total price = 25,000 gp.  Not far off.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 15, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> What I meant is that there are the incorporeal touch and then there are touch attacks. They are two separate attacks and are resolved using their own rules.



 I agree with this.

Touch attacks (which are not "incorporeal") ignore armor bonuses, period. It was a mistake on the designer's part to call "incorporeal" attacks "incorporeal touch", since the rules for "touch" are different. :\

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> As far as players are concerned they certainly do. Unless the player has a specific Splat spell going or is a incorporeal undead, it is just as good as the ghost touch property.
> 
> _*Ghost Touch*
> This armor or shield seems almost translucent. Both its enhancement bonus and its armor bonus count against the attacks of incorporeal creatures. It can be picked up, moved, and worn by incorporeal creatures at any time. Incorporeal creatures gain the armor or shield’s enhancement bonus against both corporeal and incorporeal attacks, and they can still pass freely through solid objects.
> ...




The big differences are the useful parts for Incorporeal Creatures and I would say that the vast majority of the cost for the Enhancement comes from that ability. Even with it this Enhancement is too expensive but saying that Bracers of Armor have this ability is just plain WRONG!    



Bracers of Armor are too expensive as written. Mage Armor is a First Level Spell with a long Duration and it is not unbalanced and so the Base Cost of the Bracers of Armor should be much lower.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> Regarding the comparison with the chain shirt, the real comparison would be:
> 
> +1 twilight ghost-touch mithral chain shirt:  AC +5, no ASF or ACP (and thus usable without armor proficiency), works against incorporeal touch.  Total price = 26,100 gp
> 
> ...




Ghost Touch, Twilight, and Mithral should all be excluded from this comparison.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 15, 2008)

gabriel_z said:
			
		

> 4. My intention is to make the "cloak of mage armor" with caster level 1 so it will only cost 2000gp whereas bracers of armor are caster level 7 which is more difficult to dispell. Making the cloak with caster level 7 will cost 14000gp according to the table.



 Why not just buy a Wand of Mage Armor (CL 1)? For 750 gp, you have a non-controversial item which does exactly what you want.

I mean, it's not like Craft Wondrous Item is weak... it shouldn't be allowed to substitute for every other item creation feat.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Ghost Touch, Twilight, and Mithral should all be excluded from this comparison.



Only if you want the comparision to be inaccurate


----------



## billd91 (Apr 15, 2008)

gabriel_z said:
			
		

> 4. My intention is to make the "cloak of mage armor" with caster level 1 so it will only cost 2000gp whereas bracers of armor are caster level 7 which is more difficult to dispell. Making the cloak with caster level 7 will cost 14000gp according to the table.




The skeptic in me would be more likely to guess that you wanted a +4 armor bonus without paying the full cost of the bracers at that level. 

But were I DMing this situation, if the magic item would duplicate the effect of one of the items already in the DMG, it would cost exactly the same. The difference in caster level, considering magic items are targeted with dispel magic very rarely, should not be a significant factor in the cost of the item that has powers unaffected by caster level.


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Ghost Touch, Twilight, and Mithral should all be excluded from this comparison.




Why?    

Are these not the necessary magical modifications necessary to allow a wizard to use a chain shirt as though it were bracers of armor +5.

As far as pricing is concerned, the magic item creation rules state to first compare against existing items, then use the equations as a guideline. 

As for official sources, on the appropriate nature of the cost of armor items. The MIC adjusted the cost of items, usually reducing the cost. If my memory serves me right, the MIC didn't decrease the cost of armor class at all. It is part of the balance of the game that it costs the same amount of resources for each class to get the same increase of AC. The fact that they have different base AC is part of each class. Allowing a class to circumvent this would subtly unbalance the characters and its not like wizards are underpowered in comparison to almost any class.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Are these not the necessary magical modifications necessary to allow a wizard to use a chain shirt as though it were bracers of armor +5.
> 
> ...




Why? Because you are giving the Armor a lot of abilities that the Bracers of Armor do not have and increasing the price DRAMATICALLY WITHOUT PURPOSE!!

How many Classes are actually hindered by Arcane Failure in Light Armor? How many of those can simply Cast Mage Armor?

You are taking overpriced option after overpriced option and putting them all together to make a horribly useless item that no Character in their right mind would ever want and then using it in a comparison!!

A Pearl of Power 1 has a price of 1000 Gold Pieces and it can give that Wizard an extra Mage Armor a day or a lot of other options. Putting the price of Bracers of Armor +4 at 1000 Gold Pieces to simulate the cutting away of the options for a more consistent Bonus makes sense!! Doubling the price can be done as well but that sucks with this comparison and is not necessary.


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why? Because you are giving the Armor a lot of abilities that the Bracers of Armor do not have and increasing the price DRAMATICALLY WITHOUT PURPOSE!!
> 
> How many Classes are actually hindered by Arcane Failure in Light Armor? How many of those can simply Cast Mage Armor?
> 
> ...




For a comparison the twilight and ghost touch are the necessary enchantments to simulate having +5 AC from normal armor. This is a legitimate comparison. The pearl of power is a valid option, but does have its own draw backs. Those being that it is now a buff rather than an item. This means that the effect is vulnerable to dispelling effects. 

The pearl option is great for a wizard, but only a wizard. Since sorcerers cannot use pearls, and monks do not have spell casting. A magic item's cost shouldn't be reduced because it doesn't make sense in one case.


----------



## Christian (Apr 15, 2008)

Magic items are priced based on the characters who will find them most useful, not those that will find them least useful. Otherwise, scrolls (for example) would be very, very cheap.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 15, 2008)

Hrm, a cloak that casts _Mage Armor_ a few times a day might make everyone happy.

Brad


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 15, 2008)

Gabriel Z based on your interpretation of the rules I could very well make a glove with the effect of True Strike on it as a use activated item that gives me a +20 to any attack.

I think you are interpreting the rule based on the letter of the law vs the intent of what it is stating.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> For a comparison the twilight and ghost touch are the necessary enchantments to simulate having +5 AC from normal armor. This is a legitimate comparison. The pearl of power is a valid option, but does have its own draw backs. Those being that it is now a buff rather than an item. This means that the effect is vulnerable to dispelling effects.
> 
> The pearl option is great for a wizard, but only a wizard. Since sorcerers cannot use pearls, and monks do not have spell casting. A magic item's cost shouldn't be reduced because it doesn't make sense in one case.




The Enhancements you list are overpriced for their function and give a lot of extra abilities that the Bracers of Armor do not have!!! That makes the comparison illegitamate.

Add on that no Character in their right mind should make that item further exasperates the problem!!!

Wizards and Sorcerers both have Mage Armor as a Spell that they can Cast which is automatically better than the Bracers of Armor.

The Monk is an exception because they are weak in the Armor Class department without something like Mage Armor but a friendly party member could put it on them!

The Pearl of Power is a good comparison because it actually simulates the effect and it does so much much much much much much much better than the Armor you proposed!!


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Christian said:
			
		

> Magic items are priced based on the characters who will find them most useful, not those that will find them least useful. Otherwise, scrolls (for example) would be very, very cheap.




Which Class would find it most useful and how much should it cost for them in your opinion?


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why? Because you are giving the Armor a lot of abilities that the Bracers of Armor do not have and increasing the price DRAMATICALLY WITHOUT PURPOSE!!



(a) the bracers in fact do have those abilities and (b) they do serve a purpose.  If it occurs that you don't care about those abilities, then just get a chain shirt, and your problem is solved.  The only reason to have this discussion is if those abilities matter; they should therefore be included.  

What is the basic issue here?  If you really think mage armor is a better solution than bracers of armor, just use mage armor.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

a) They can be used by Incorporeal Creatures and move through objects with them? Where do the Bracers say that??

b) They serve the purpose of obscuficating the issue at hand!!

The Bracers of Armor with my modification still cost much more than normal Armor so the extra Opportunity Cost is there they just are not so overpriced that a Character has to seriously hinder their other options to get them!

16000 Gold Pieces for Bracers of Armor +4 is ridiculous!!!    :\


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Which Class would find it most useful and how much should it cost for them in your opinion?




Monks, they do not have the option of normal armors, and cannot cast the spell, and I see the listed price for Bracers of Armor being the appropriate cost for an armor bonus, since it mirrors how other non-caster classes get additional armor bonus from magic items.

Arcane casters have the option of using some of their spell power to get armor. This makes it an aspect of the class.

The magic item creation equations are only a guideline. Since by the equations an item that gives True Strike unlimited times per day for unlimited duration and an activation action of a free action would only cost 8000.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 15, 2008)

Monks are HEAVILY Multiple Attribute Dependent. Would my proposed change make Monks too powerful?


----------



## jaelis (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> 16000 Gold Pieces for Bracers of Armor +4 is ridiculous!!!



Then you should simply house rule otherwise, and perhaps move the discussion to the house rule form.


----------



## Folly (Apr 15, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Monks are HEAVILY Multiple Attribute Dependent. Would my proposed change make Monks too powerful?




Yes


----------



## Slaved (Apr 16, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> Then you should simply house rule otherwise, and perhaps move the discussion to the house rule form.




But it is on topic in a Thread talking about making an item which will be giving a +4 Armor Bonus using Mage Armor.

Comparing prices to existing Items is how the System works but it does not work with Bracers of Armor because they are overpriced to begin with!


----------



## Slaved (Apr 16, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Yes




You say Yes and I say No but my No carries with it good examples from earlier in the Thread.


----------



## darthkilmor (Apr 16, 2008)

Just buy some robes +4 and be done with it. You get a +4 armor bonus with no armor check/spell failure.

Regardless of whatever item you end up wanting to create, your DM is going to have to approve it and tell you what you actually make. Trying to create an equivalent to bracers of armor +4 for only 2000 gp isnt going to fly.  If I was the DM I'd probably give you a cursed cloak though for trying.

edited for snark.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 16, 2008)

gabriel_z said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I'm Arnon's friend who originally asked the question.
> I feel that the discussion drifted from the original question, and I would like to clarify my point.
> 
> ...




You appear to be missing a lot of points here:

1) The disadvantages you are talking about are expensive to get rid of, not cheap. You are trying to do it cheaply.

For example, a +4 Robe (which takes away all of the disadvantages that you want to take away for 2000 GP) costs 16,000 GP, not 2000 GP.

2) Mage Armor gives an additional advantage against incorporeal creatures. This counters the fact that force armor does not stack with shield armor. Pros and Cons (not just the con you mention in your #1 above).

3) A Cloak of Mage Armor is the wrong slot. Why? Because gaining armor in the cloak slot frees the glove slot up for Gloves of Dexterity.

4) The dispel issue is totally irrelevant. Dispelling worn magic items in the game almost never happens (dispelling carried items happens once in a blue moon, but less rarely).

5) Magic item armor bonuses in the game are expensive:



> Armor bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared x 1,000 gp +1 chainmail
> AC bonus (deflection) Bonus squared x 2,000 gp Ring of protection +3
> AC bonus (other)1 Bonus squared x 2,500 gp Ioun stone, dusty rose prism
> Natural armor bonus (enhancement) Bonus squared x 2,000 gp Amulet of natural armor +1




An equivalent item with these other types of AC bonuses would cost anywhere from 16,000 GP to 40,000 GP.

So, why should Force Armor cost 2000 GP just because you found a way in the rules to craft items based off spells? That's not balanced with respect to magical AC costs in the rest of the game system.


All in all, this should be priced at 24,000 GP.

16,000 GP for the bonus squared * 1000 GP rule times 1.5 for not in the right slot.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 16, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I agree with this.
> 
> Touch attacks (which are not "incorporeal") ignore armor bonuses, period. It was a mistake on the designer's part to call "incorporeal" attacks "incorporeal touch", since the rules for "touch" are different. :\
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Uh, not quite.  There are ways to get armor bonuses to apply to touch AC without only applying to incorporeal touch AC.  They are pretty obscure, though.  If memory serves, one of them was in Frostburn . . .


----------



## moritheil (Apr 16, 2008)

arnon said:
			
		

> To me it seems strange that it possible to create something that will grant a continuous +4 to AC for only 2000 gp... I'm sure I'm missing something.




Remember that the magic item creation rules are suggested guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules.  They fully expect the DM to say "Wait a minute, if that's only 2000 gp who will ever buy bracers of armor?" and adjust the price to match.

For another item that doesn't fit well within the rules, think about bracers of true strike.  If true strike wasn't a 1st-level spell those bracers would clearly be priced by the epic rules (+20).  Most DMs I know therefore price them as epic items if they allow them at all.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 16, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Uh, not quite.  There are ways to get armor bonuses to apply to touch AC without only applying to incorporeal touch AC.  They are pretty obscure, though.  If memory serves, one of them was in Frostburn . . .



 Uh, not so obscure, but those are *exceptions* which are called out explicitly.

2nd level of Wilder is the easiest.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Apr 16, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 3) A Cloak of Mage Armor is the wrong slot. Why? Because gaining armor in the cloak slot frees the glove slot up for Gloves of Dexterity.



 As a total side note, I've always played that bracer = bracelet slot, while gloves are a slot of their own. (Gauntlets occupy both of these slots.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 16, 2008)

Creating that Cloak of Mage Armor should be a little cheaper than bracers of Armor. It is not a continuous effect. Plus it will be something that requires a standard action to activate. In addition, I think Slaved was talking about a limited number of activations. 5X a day?
Plus the Mage Armor can be dispelled along with any buffs usually carried without requiring a targeted dispel. Should be cheaper than Mage Armor..but no way should it be 2,000gp. That is too cheap for an item that produces a spell effect repeatedly without requiring a recharge forever. Wands do run out of a charge after a bit of time. 

As for Bracers of Armor, costing the same as regular magic armor (sounds odd) that shouldn't be the case. As stated by everyone else, it can be used by characters without armor proficiencies. This is the major benefit. That is why people want the items. Can be worn beneath clothing, allows special abilities to work in the case of monks, rogues, wizards, and sorcerors. 

Thank you for the clarification on the Bracers of Armor being effective against incorporeal attacks.


----------



## Folly (Apr 16, 2008)

KarinsDad- The 50% bonus cost is based of the table in the magic item creation section that details which slots are for what effects. Given that the table lists cloaks as a protection slot, I do not see the need to attach the 50% extra charge.

Bracer/Glove slot- The MIC has clarified that these are two separate slots. You can rule it differently, but keep that in mind if you end up incorporating items from that source.

Armor bonus to Touch- Gnomish Twistcloth comes to mind. Exotic armor from Race of Stone that if you have the feat for the armor you apply its armor (including enhancement) to your touch AC) I agree that these are exceptions.

Slaved- Bracers being overpriced is your opinion, and the examples you speak of are not ironclad. Since the examples are not above question, they are not a solid base to work off of. 

Hyperfist- When an item has 5 charges, it costs the same amount as an item with unlimited charges. I personally believe this is the weakest area of the magic item creation equations, since different spell effects would be used at different frequency. For example, 5 charges of teleport is close to being unlimited(how often do you need more than 5 teleports in one day) while 5 charges of Gravestrike/Golemstrike/Plantstrike will last 1 or 2 combats of a typical 3 combat day.

Dispel- If the item is use activated it can be dispel as a buff on the individual (with the character having to use a standard action to activate) but since this is a continuous effect the dispeller would need to target the item instead.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 16, 2008)

Another approach you could consider:

Eternal wands let you cast a spell 3 times per day, and cost like a regular wand.  To have mage armor up 24 hours a day, you would need an eternal wand of at CL 8, which would cost 6000 gp.  But only characters with mage armor on their spell list (or a good UMD check) could use it.  Based on potions vs wands, it might cost twice as much to make it usable by anyone, giving 12000 gp, which is indeed a bit less than the bracers.  It wouldn't take up a body slot either.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 16, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> KarinsDad- The 50% bonus cost is based of the table in the magic item creation section that details which slots are for what effects. Given that the table lists cloaks as a protection slot, I do not see the need to attach the 50% extra charge.




Also, I've seen at least 2 or 3 cloaks that provide armor or natural armor bonuses.  So, it's not without precedent.



> Bracer/Glove slot- The MIC has clarified that these are two separate slots. You can rule it differently, but keep that in mind if you end up incorporating items from that source.




Huh, shows how much attention I've paid to this thread, those two were always separate slots so far as I remember.

Brad


----------



## Folly (Apr 16, 2008)

jaelis said:
			
		

> Another approach you could consider:
> 
> Eternal wands let you cast a spell 3 times per day, and cost like a regular wand.  To have mage armor up 24 hours a day, you would need an eternal wand of at CL 8, which would cost 6000 gp.  But only characters with mage armor on their spell list (or a good UMD check) could use it.  Based on potions vs wands, it might cost twice as much to make it usable by anyone, giving 12000 gp, which is indeed a bit less than the bracers.  It wouldn't take up a body slot either.




While it is 4000 cheaper than equivalent bracers, this price is acceptable. The 4000 gold difference is the cost of being vulnerable to dispel magic.


----------



## Folly (Apr 16, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Huh, shows how much attention I've paid to this thread, those two were always separate slots so far as I remember.




I agree. I have always thought that these were two different slots.


----------



## Hyperfist (Apr 16, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Hyperfist- When an item has 5 charges, it costs the same amount as an item with unlimited charges. I personally believe this is the weakest area of the magic item creation equations, since different spell effects would be used at different frequency. For example, 5 charges of teleport is close to being unlimited(how often do you need more than 5 teleports in one day) while 5 charges of Gravestrike/Golemstrike/Plantstrike will last 1 or 2 combats of a typical 3 combat day.
> .




I agree. I was just saying it is a use activated item requiring a standard action to do so. Whereas the Bracers of Armor are always in effect. That is all. 

So when surprise occurs...it takes time to get that mage armor up. As opposed to the bracers. So that is how come I could see the cloak costing less than the Bracers of Armor.


----------



## Folly (Apr 16, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> I agree. I was just saying it is a use activated item requiring a standard action to do so. Whereas the Bracers of Armor are always in effect. That is all.
> 
> So when surprise occurs...it takes time to get that mage armor up. As opposed to the bracers. So that is how come I could see the cloak costing less than the Bracers of Armor.




Well, here is what I think might be part of the confusion of this thread. The op did not specify those details, but used the equation for a continuous magic item. This is why so many have found it to be unreasonable. An item that casts Mage Armor, is not nearly as powerful as one that provides it as a continuous affect.


----------



## darthkilmor (Apr 16, 2008)

Hyperfist said:
			
		

> I agree. I was just saying it is a use activated item requiring a standard action to do so. Whereas the Bracers of Armor are always in effect. That is all.
> 
> So when surprise occurs...it takes time to get that mage armor up. As opposed to the bracers. So that is how come I could see the cloak costing less than the Bracers of Armor.




except with the longer duration of mage armor, you set your CL high enough and you're only casting in a few times a day, which combat-wise the same as having it always on, what are the odds your 8 hour duration spell expires in the 1 minute of combat that you have ?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 16, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Slaved- Bracers being overpriced is your opinion, and the examples you speak of are not ironclad. Since the examples are not above question, they are not a solid base to work off of.




It is my opinion based on facts that are actually relevant instead of the crazy Armor listed earlier which is too different to be a good comparison!

Bracers of Armor are too expensive for a number of reasons. Take your pick for which to discuss.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 16, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor are too expensive for a number of reasons. Take your pick for which to discuss.




Well, given that an _Amulet of Natural Armor +5_ is 50,000g, and a _Bracers of Armor+8_ is 64,000g, providing 3 more points of AC for 14,000g, I'm going to say, no, they're not overpriced for what they do.

Expensive?  Yes, but what isn't?  Consider what you're getting; a _Bracers of Armor +n_:

- Gives you an armor bonus to your AC without requiring you to wear armor;
- Imposes no Armor Check Penalty or Max Dex, nor does it limit movement or encumberance;
- Protects against incorporeal creatures against whom regular armor is useless (and can be worn AT THE SAME TIME so bonuses overlap as needed); and
- Takes up a slot that has very few other good choices in the DMG (in particular, the Amulet slot, for a monk, has three good choices, all pricey).

There are a few downsides:  
- You can't hang special properties on bracers (unless you take the Arms & Equipment Guide option), but there are so few that are worth it this isn't an issue.  
- You'll have less total AC per gold spent, but the reason armor's so cheap is that it penalizes movement and skill checks, such that you have to have crazy armor materials and enchants to get something equivalent in benefit.  The character types who are likely to have _Bracers of Armor_ as their primary Armor bonus carrier are typically not the type to draw most attacks (arcane casters and monks), so this is not a crippling weakness.

Now, you *can* go ahead and just let your players have their perma-_Mage Armor_ cloak.  It's your game, we can't physically stop you.  The FASA squads stopped long ago.

Of course, were I in your game, I would then take that same reasoning and make my _Gloves of True Strike_, using the same reasoning as you give for the cloak, that it's a use-activated continuous magic item, and thus get myself a +20 bonus to hit on every swing.

Brad


----------



## Slaved (Apr 16, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Well, given that an _Amulet of Natural Armor +5_ is 50,000g, and a _Bracers of Armor+8_ is 64,000g, providing 3 more points of AC for 14,000g, I'm going to say, no, they're not overpriced for what they do.




Mage Armor is a First Level Spell with a 1 Hour Per Caster Level Duration that gives a +4 Force Armor Bonus while the only easily applicable Spell for a Natural Armor Enhancement is a Second Level Spell with a 10 Minutes Per Caster Level Duration.

There are also many cheap ways to gain an Armor Bonus while there are only a handful of ways to gain a Natural Armor Enhancement and they are more expensive.

Although I do think that a Natural Armor Enhancement Bonus should cost less than a Deflection Bonus since the latter is more widely useful.

The benefits you list are of minimal impact in nearly every case where Bracers of Armor would be used. The only important one is that Monks have a problem with wearing actual armor but I do not see how reducing the cost of Bracers of Armor are going to overpower that Class!!!!




			
				cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Of course, were I in your game, I would then take that same reasoning and make my _Gloves of True Strike_, using the same reasoning as you give for the cloak, that it's a use-activated continuous magic item, and thus get myself a +20 bonus to hit on every swing.




My reasoning is that there is already a cheap alternative for Bracers of Armor and there is a Long Duration easily accessable spell which covers a large portion of the Bracers range and that the Case of Largest Benefit will be for the Monk who is seen to be very weak in the Armor Class arena already. None of that is applicable to your comment here.

I do not think I would have a problem with a Weapon that took a Standard Action to activate a True Strike Spell which could be used all day long though. One attack every other Round at +20 with the middle Round not being used for anything Offensive is not too bad.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 16, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I do not think I would have a problem with a Weapon that took a Standard Action to activate a True Strike Spell which could be used all day long though. One attack every other Round at +20 with the middle Round not being used for anything Offensive is not too bad.



yes there is once 2 for 1 Power attack comes into play. To say nothing of one-trick-ponies who planned to use that other round to set up thier charge anyway.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 16, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> yes there is once 2 for 1 Power attack comes into play. To say nothing of one-trick-ponies who planned to use that other round to set up thier charge anyway.




By the time the Characters Base Attack Bonus is high enough for this to be an issue they are giving up Multiple Attacks in order to make a Single Attack more powerful!

Without seeing a build I am unable to comment on the One-Trick-Pony-Charge-Build directly.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 17, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> yes there is once 2 for 1 Power attack comes into play.



Also: The gloves are nice for rogues. Use your move action to get into flanking position, activate gloves. Next turn: Sneak Attack with greatsword and power attack for hilarious amounts of damage. Because the one thing rogues have problems with is hitting opponents with higher than mid-AC. The gloves get rid of that problem. Throw in something for circumventing armour bonuses as well (e.g. Wraithstrike) and you can do hideous stuff that way.


			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Mage Armor is a First Level Spell with a 1 Hour Per Caster Level Duration that gives a +4 Force Armor Bonus while the only easily applicable Spell for a Natural Armor Enhancement is a Second Level Spell with a 10 Minutes Per Caster Level Duration.



Don't at it as a spell, look at it as a class feature to offset the pitiful d4. Then the bracers of armour are suddenly items granting class features. Which should be expensive.

Also: If they're overpriced, why they're still competitive? You've listed other alternatives - use them instead, ignoring the bracers. Give your mage a chain shirt. Or just use _mage armour_.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## jaelis (Apr 17, 2008)

True strike (3/day) gauntlets cost 3500 gp.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 17, 2008)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> except with the longer duration of mage armor, you set your CL high enough and you're only casting in a few times a day, which combat-wise the same as having it always on, what are the odds your 8 hour duration spell expires in the 1 minute of combat that you have ?




With the known strategy of stacking multiple buffs on characters before going into a fight? Much higher than the odds of losing the cloak of armor. Targeting buffed clerics and wizards with dispel magic is a fun and time honored tactic in the campaign I run. That mage armor spell can get dispelled with a blanket casting but, I believe, a particular magic item must be narrowly targeted to be affected.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 17, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> A
> Don't at it as a spell, look at it as a class feature to offset the pitiful d4. Then the bracers of armour are suddenly items granting class features. Which should be expensive.
> 
> Also: If they're overpriced, why they're still competitive? You've listed other alternatives - use them instead, ignoring the bracers. Give your mage a chain shirt. Or just use _mage armour_.
> ...




What? The Classes with d4 for Hit Dice are those that can already use the Spell so have little need for the Bracers of Armor. What Class Feature is being gained? Why not look at the item in reference to a Common Spell in the Core Rules?

What makes you think that they are competitive? The only Class that might really want them is the Monk and that Class DOES NOT need yet another overpriced item to get a basic effect!!!!


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 21, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The skeptic in me would be more likely to guess that you wanted a +4 armor bonus without paying the full cost of the bracers at that level.
> QUOTE]
> 
> No, I started the debate with something simple! I wanted to add a continuos "shield" spell as well.


----------



## Folly (Apr 21, 2008)

The problem here stems from the equation for magic items that emulate spells. This equation is horribly inadequate at estimating the price of the item. There are numerous examples were this equation cause items to be either under-priced or over-priced. 

Your question is a special exception since there is an existing item that already provided the base affect. Adding the cost of a second effect has an extra 50% attach to every effect except for the most expensive one. So if you where to use the equation to determine the cost of shield, it would be 1 spell level*1 caster level*2000 base coefficient *2 duration coefficient = 4000gp for the shield aspect. For a +4 armor (not discussing what it should be worth) cost 16000. This means that combining them would cost 22000, since 16000 for the armor and 6000 for the shield (because of the 50% extra cost). I personally wouldn't go for this item as the DM, since it would seem to me that if an armor bonus has a cost of 16000 for a +4, shield should cost about the same.


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 21, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Gabriel Z based on your interpretation of the rules I could very well make a glove with the effect of True Strike on it as a use activated item that gives me a +20 to any attack.





			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> For another item that doesn't fit well within the rules, think about bracers of true strike.  If true strike wasn't a 1st-level spell those bracers would clearly be priced by the epic rules (+20).  Most DMs I know therefore price them as epic items if they allow them at all.





			
				cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Of course, were I in your game, I would then take that same reasoning and make my _Gloves of True Strike_, using the same reasoning as you give for the cloak, that it's a use-activated continuous magic item, and thus get myself a +20 bonus to hit on every swing.





			
				jaelis said:
			
		

> True strike (3/day) gauntlets cost 3500 gp.




You cannot extend "True Strike" to be _contiuous_ since it has no duration that is measure in rounds/minutes...
Nor can you make it a _use-activated[\I] since it has an effect for only the next attack role , provided it is done in the next round!
What you can do, is make it use-activated[\I] with 5 charges/day, where the "use" is "drawing the weapon" (see boots of speed[\I], you have to knock the heals etc.), and according to the guidlines the glove should cost 
Gloves of True Strike: CL1 x SL1 x 2000gp (Use-Activated) x 1.5 (Wrong item affinity)=3500gp
The Gauntlets should cost 2000gp



			
				Hyperfist said:
			
		


			I agree. I was just saying it is a use activated item requiring a standard action to do so. Whereas the Bracers of Armor are always in effect.
		
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. See Boots of Speec[\I], actvated by a free action and conrespond exactly to the guidelines table.



			
				darthkilmor said:
			
		


			except with the longer duration of mage armor, you set your CL high enough and you're only casting in a few times a day, which combat-wise the same as having it always on, what are the odds your 8 hour duration spell expires in the 1 minute of combat that you have ?
		
Click to expand...


Setting the Caster Level[\I] to 8 will make the item 8 times more expesive!!!_


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 21, 2008)

Look at the following (Note this is just using the Core DMG):

Cloak

Continuous +4 Armor Bonus
No Armor Check Penalty
No Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
Virtually No Weight
No Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Now compare that to a +3 Ghost Touch Leather Armor 16150+ gp:

Chest Slot
+4 Armor Bonus
Little to No Armor Check Penalty
5% Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
5lb Weight
+8 Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Functionally these are the same.  However if you look at the details you have to say the cloak is by far a better deal.  So in your opinion is the cloak valid in cost?

Now if you include the shield effect that was mentioned then it looks like this:

Cloak, 4500gp

Cloak Slot
Continuous +4 Armor Bonus, Continuous +4 Shield Bonus
Immunity to Magic Missles
No Armor Check Penalty
No Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
Virtually No Weight
No Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Now compare that to the above armor but including a shield because armor does not give a shield bonus:

+3 Ghost Touch Leather Armor and +3 Ghost Touch Buckler, 32300+ gp

Armor Slot and Shield Slot

Continous +4 Armor Bonus, Continous +4 Shield Bonus
Little to No Armor Check Penalty
10% Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
10lb Weight
+8 Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Do you still think this is balanced?

Now for those who argue the Bracers of Armor look at this:

Bracers of Armor +8 (to get equivalent bonus to armor), 50000gp

Arm Slot
Continuous +8 Armor Bonus
No Armor Check Penalty
No Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
Virtually No Weight
No Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Cloak, 4500gp

Cloak Slot
Continuous +4 Armor Bonus, Continuous +4 Shield Bonus
Immunity to Magic Missles
No Armor Check Penalty
No Chance of Spell Failure
Works against Incorporeal Attacks
Virtually No Weight
No Maximum Dexterity Bonus

Do you still find this balanced in cost?

I gotta say if the answer to this question is yes then I got a great deal for you.  I have some ocean front property in Arizona, and if you buy now I will throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.


----------



## Folly (Apr 21, 2008)

"You cannot extend "True Strike" to be contiuous since it has no duration that is measure in rounds/minutes..." -gabriel_z
True strike has a duration, so there is no reason it couldn't be made continuous. The catch here is that the duration ends once the target makes an attack.

"Nor can you make it a use-activated since it has an effect for only the next attack role , provided it is done in the next round!" -gabriel_z
True strike states your next attack provided it happens before the end of the next round. This means if you quicken a true strike you can use the benefit on an attack made in the same round.

"What you can do, is make it use-activated with 5 charges/day, where the "use" is "drawing the weapon" (see boots of speed, you have to knock the heals etc.), and according to the guidlines the glove should cost" -gabriel_z
These activation methods are all free actions, there is no reason it couldn't be a free action done between swings. Thereby circumventing the buff ending on use.

The combination of these means that it is possible to make an item that costs 2000 (for example bracers) That would give a +20 insight bonus to hit and ignore all concealment on every swing the character ever takes for 2000 gold. This is one of the examples I was talking about when I said the equation for magic items that emulate equations are terrible at estimating cost. Its either too cheap (for low level spells) or too expensive (generally higher level spells)


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 21, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Cloak Slot
> Continuous +4 Armor Bonus, Continuous +4 Shield Bonus
> Immunity to Magic Missles
> No Armor Check Penalty
> ...




Cloak cost, 
continuouse Shield: 1x1x2000x2 +
Continouse Mage Armor 1x1x2000x1.5
for total 7500gp and not 4500gp.

You are forgetting the Ghost Touch can be worn by incorporeal creatures without loosing their special abilities.

And like someone mentioned, a targeted dispell, is a very effective method to fighting wizards, in which case the cloak's protection won't hold

Gaby


----------



## Slaved (Apr 21, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Ghost Touch




GHOST TOUCH PROVIDES MANY BENEFITS THAT THE CLOAK DOES NOT!

You are taking a +3 Enhancement and stripping away much of what made it +3 in the first place!!!! The part about it working against Incorporeal Attacks is the WEAKEST part of what it does!!!!!       

How about a +5 Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt? 37,150 Gold Pieces, +9 Armor Bonus, +6 Maximum Dexterity Bonus, 0 Armor Check Penalty, 0% Arcane Spell Failure, 12.5 Pounds.

I think that Twilight is Overpriced for what it does but at least this is a better comparison than Ghost Touch!!!!!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 21, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> GHOST TOUCH PROVIDES MANY BENEFITS THAT THE CLOAK DOES NOT!
> 
> You are taking a +3 Enhancement and stripping away much of what made it +3 in the first place!!!! The part about it working against Incorporeal Attacks is the WEAKEST part of what it does!!!!!
> 
> ...




Now you're just being silly. And I would say that working against incorporeal attacks is most certainly NOT the weakest thing ghost tough does... for PCs, that is.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 21, 2008)

Why is the Arguement silly????

For Player Characters how common are Incorporeal Touch Attacks? For Creatures that are Incorporeal how good would it be to have an Armor Bonus to Armor Class?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 21, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> GHOST TOUCH PROVIDES MANY BENEFITS THAT THE CLOAK DOES NOT!






Ghost Touch provides _one_ benefit that the cloak does not, and it's a benefit that only a fraction of a percent of all PCs will ever be able to use, since incorporeal PCs are rare.

The +3 MPM is almost entirely based on the item providing its armor bonus against incorporeal attacks.

I think the issue with using Ghost Touch Leather Armor as a pricing guide, though, is that Ghost Touch becomes more valuable the higher the armor bonus of the armor it is applied to.  +1 Ghost Touch Full Plate costs only 6 or 7 percent more than +1 Ghost Touch Leather Armor, but the armor bonus it provides against incorporeal attacks is over 200% higher.

-Hyp.


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 21, 2008)

> Look at the following (Note this is just using the Core DMG), Van Richten




That is in response to the Twilight Armor statement.



> You are forgetting the Ghost Touch can be worn by incorporeal creatures without loosing their special abilities. Gaby




As for the Ghost Touch being worn by incorporeal creatures you are correct it can be.  However unless the DM expects his ghosts to be removing the armor from his PCs and putting it on I think this is a point that can be disregarded.



> And like someone mentioned, a targeted dispell, is a very effective method to fighting wizards, in which case the cloak's protection won't hold.  Gaby




Let us remember that any item with a magical effect can be dispelled with Dispel Magic.  Now if you are saying that the Cloak casts the spell then you would be right it would be easily dispelled, however in the following round the wearer could then recast the Mage Armor effect.  In the case of the Ghost Touch armor this is not the case.  The Ghost Touch armor would be shut down for a number of rounds specifically detailed under Dispel Magic.  The only way this would fall true is if the caster of Dispel Magic specifically targetted the cloak instead of the spell it is casting.

And though I have never disagree with you on the math of what the DMG says on creating the cloak.  I asked again:  Do you think the item is equivalent to others in the DMG?  

If so this applies:

I have some ocean front property in Arizona, and if you buy now I will throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 21, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ghost Touch provides _one_ benefit that the cloak does not, and it's a benefit that only a fraction of a percent of all PCs will ever be able to use, since incorporeal PCs are rare.
> 
> The +3 MPM is almost entirely based on the item providing its armor bonus against incorporeal attacks.
> 
> ...




Ghost Touch allows Incorporeal Creatures to Pick Up, Move, and Wear the Item. It also allows the Armor Bonus to work against Corporeal Creatures while the Wearer is Incorporeal. It also is able to move through Solid Objects with an Incorporeal Creature.

From the Magic Item Compendium there is the Greater Crystal of Screening. It Costs 3000 Gold Pieces and it provides a -10 Penalty to Touch Attacks made against the Wearer by Incorporeal Creatures.

+5 Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt plus Greater Crystal of Screening. 40,150 Gold Pieces, +9 Armor Bonus, +6 Maximum Dexterity Bonus, 0 Armor Check Penalty, 0% Arcane Spell Failure, 12.5 Pounds, -10 Penalty on Touch Attacks made against Wearer by Incorporeal Creatures.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 21, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Ghost Touch allows Incorporeal Creatures to Pick Up, Move, and Wear the Item. It also allows the Armor Bonus to work against Corporeal Creatures while the Wearer is Incorporeal. It also is able to move through Solid Objects with an Incorporeal Creature.




Right.  One extra benefit - it can be used by incorporeal creatures.  And it's a benefit that won't apply to almost every PC.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 21, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.  One extra benefit - it can be used by incorporeal creatures.  And it's a benefit that won't apply to almost every PC.
> 
> -Hyp.




Why does it matter if it will not apply to almost every Player Character? In this case it is an Item that will be on a Creature the Party will have to Fight. The Enhancement Value is High to limit both when it can be used Against the Party and to limit its Effectiveness if a Player Character can become Incorporeal.

My Example with the Crystal of Screening is a better example of this. It is Priced much more reasonably for the Effect of Blocking Incorporeals from Attacking!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 21, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> My Example with the Crystal of Screening is a better example of this. It is Priced much more reasonably for the Effect of Blocking Incorporeals from Attacking!




Doesn't a Greater Crystal need to be applied to a suit of armor with at least a +3 enhancement bonus?

So you're not going to be getting your bonus against incorporeals for less than 12k gp anyway...

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 21, 2008)

There are Lesser Versions which are Cheaper and provide a Lesser Benefit.

Mithral Chain Shirt plus Least Crystal of Screening. 1500 Gold Pieces.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why does it matter if it will not apply to almost every Player Character?




The same reason some powers add significantly to ECL but not to CR. Used by an NPC/monster, it'll get used in one encounter. Used by a PC, it gets used again and again and again.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why is the Arguement silly????




Oh, multiple sad faces. Full caps. All sorts of visual rhetorical elements that make it seem like the sky is falling when it's really a fairly minor issue.


----------



## moritheil (Apr 22, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Oh, multiple sad faces. Full caps. All sorts of visual rhetorical elements that make it seem like the sky is falling when it's really a fairly minor issue.




But we are DEFENDING THE TRUTH on the INTARWEBS!    


Was anyone else amused by the "I can make Y custom item for only Y gp, thus making X custom item for X gp is balanced" line of reasoning in a thread where limits on custom item making are themselves being discussed?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 22, 2008)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Was anyone else amused by the "I can make Y custom item for only Y gp, thus making X custom item for X gp is balanced" line of reasoning in a thread where limits on custom item making are themselves being discussed?



 But circular arguments are clearly the most efficient use of mental space!

"They make my mind feel so large!", -- N


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The same reason some powers add significantly to ECL but not to CR. Used by an NPC/monster, it'll get used in one encounter. Used by a PC, it gets used again and again and again.




Effective Character Level and Challenge Rating are each defined in Different Circumstances.

Money is the same System for each but with Different Amounts. The Price of Items are the same for both. This is different than Effective Character Level and Challenge Rating.

Your response is not a good answer to my question.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Oh, multiple sad faces. Full caps. All sorts of visual rhetorical elements that make it seem like the sky is falling when it's really a fairly minor issue.




So you make repeated Ad Hominems?


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 22, 2008)

I still think the Bracers of Armor are reasonably priced because any other item that provides an armor bonus and exists in the game provides a maximum dexterity bonus that puts a hard cap on how much AC you can get from the sum of your Armor Bonus and your Dexterity Bonus. Hence the Bracers of Armor are essentially a +0 armor that has an infinite Max Dex bonus and can be enchanted (with the exceptions that this +0 armor can be enchanted up to +8 using non-epic rules, and IIUC cannot be enchanted with special armor abilities).


----------



## ardentmoth (Apr 22, 2008)

*Oi Gevalt.*



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> So you make repeated Ad Hominems?




I think he called you (or was it your argument?) silly a page or so ago. Other than that, there have been no Ad Hominem attacks. Repeated? No. Ad Hominem? Barely.

Rather, after having re-read this thread, I find that you are guilty of taking things, and yourself, WAY too seriously. The purpose of a game is what again? To have fun.

Go have fun.
----------
Back to the topic at hand, my opinion to the dungeon master is this:

Master your dungeon. If you feel that it would be okay to do, let it be so; if you cannot decide how to price it or craft it, make one, and let it be treasure. I don't think a player would have much of a problem with Phat Loot® instead of XP and GP loss   .


----------



## Tewligan (Apr 22, 2008)

After careful consideration, I have to side with Slaved on this one. His frequent use of exclamation points really convinces me. No one uses four of THOSE in a row unless he's sure of what he's saying!!!!


----------



## ardentmoth (Apr 22, 2008)

Okay, alright, that's two of them, I stand corrected....after the fact.... hehe...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 22, 2008)

My Wizard's philosophy is that once you hit middling levels it does not matter whether you are AC 10 or AC 20.  If Mirror Image or Blur or Displacement fail you, you are gonna get hit always.

Mage Armor?  Who cares!

Bracers of Armor are priced correctly...for other characters or monsters.

Besides, they are really cheap when you take them of the arms of your fallen foes.


----------



## MithrasRahl (Apr 22, 2008)

Slightly off topic question, but would you price an item that mimiced the Shield spell at the same price as +4 Bracers of Armor, or would it be slightly higher or lower?


----------



## Nifft (Apr 22, 2008)

MithrasRahl said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic question, but would you price an item that mimiced the Shield spell at the same price as +4 Bracers of Armor, or would it be slightly higher or lower?



 Higher, of course.

_Shield_ has a duration 1/60th that of _mage armor_. Also, a Ring of Force Shield is more expensive than Bracers of Armor +2.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 22, 2008)

Probably 25%-50% more. Considering it has the following effects:

+4 Shield Bonus
Immune to Magic Missle
Works against Incorporeal Touch Attacks
No Armor Check penalty
No Spell Failure penalty
Virtually No Weight
Allows the wearer to use an item in both hands with no penalty due to use. (This is an
     extrapolation on the fact of using a shield in the offhand gives the wearer penalty to 
     attack if it is a buckler, but does not allow a weapon at all if it is a small or large shield.)


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

The ring of force shield is definitively an overpriced item. I say this because compared to other magic items that provide AC bonuses that are not an armor bonus, it cost more. For example, an Amulet of Natural Armor +2 costs 8000 gold, while the Ring of Force Shield costs 8500. They both provide a bonus to AC, they both use an item slot (it can be argued that the ring uses two, but it is unclear). Further when compared against a +1 Mithral Buckler (2020 gp), the only difference is the ring can be activated and deactivated as a free action (a useless feature if it only uses the ring slot). Both provide a +2 shield bonus to AC, but the buckler has going for it: upgraded (either by more enhancement or other special properties), and does not take up a slot for any character that does not use their off-hand for attacking. The only class that would use this item would be a monk, and even then it would be purchased after all other defensive items. As far as what the ring should cost, it should be somewhere between 4000 and 8000.

My view is that the bracers of armor are balanced around the cost of increasing the AC bonus on armors. This makes sense to me since each class is designed to have access to certain items, and abilities. The classes are balance around these restrictions. A fighter not being able to cast spells is a restriction on his capabilities, just as a wizard/monks inability to use armor. Thus by giving more armor for less cost for bracers it throws off this balance between the classes, since it would allow the non-armored classes a faster AC progression. Saying that it is ok to have this imbalance in items since class X is gimpy does not justify an imbalance in items. If class X is gimpy then change class X not an item that is usable by anybody. Even if you can only forsee class X using the item at the moment, there is no telling what the future will hold, and I personally prefer to use rule 0 as evenly and rarely as possible. (since if it becomes broken in the future you have to reverse course on the ruling)


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 22, 2008)

> For example, an Amulet of Natural Armor +2 costs 8000 gold, while the Ring of Force Shield costs 8500. Folly




Amulet of Natural Armor does not work against Incorporeal Attacks and the Ring of Force Shield does.


----------



## akbearfoot (Apr 22, 2008)

Seems like any attempt to make an item that grants a permanent bonus to armor class for cheaper than the standard price is pure cheeze.  This also applies if said bonus is 'effectively' permanent and will apply to more or less every combat your character gets into, without costing any action DURING said combats.

Mage armor lasts practically forever in terms of game time....Look, a dungeon....I cast mage armor caster level 1 and it will probably last until we are ready to leave and rest for the day...unless it's one of those Tomb of horror things where you are forced to take 20 searching every 5 foot square or face a no-save TPK.  If I can cast mage armor 3 times in a day then that is every encounter you're probably going to face in a day, even if they are broken up at different times.


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Amulet of Natural Armor does not work against Incorporeal Attacks and the Ring of Force Shield does.




Sorry, poor example. Lets use the Ring of Protection instead, since it also costs 8000 for a +2.


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> "You cannot extend "True Strike" to be contiuous since it has no duration that is measure in rounds/minutes..." -gabriel_z
> True strike has a duration, so there is no reason it couldn't be made continuous. The catch here is that the duration ends once the target makes an attack.




No! You are interpreting it wrong!


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus



"True Strike" affects you next attack roll, with a ristriction of one round.


----------



## gabriel_z (Apr 22, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Let us remember that any item with a magical effect can be dispelled with Dispel Magic. Now if you are saying that the Cloak casts the spell then you would be right it would be easily dispelled, however in the following round the wearer could then recast the Mage Armor effect. In the case of the Ghost Touch armor this is not the case. The Ghost Touch armor would be shut down for a number of rounds specifically detailed under Dispel Magic. The only way this would fall true is if the caster of Dispel Magic specifically targetted the cloak instead of the spell it is casting.
> 
> And though I have never disagree with you on the math of what the DMG says on creating the cloak. I asked again: Do you think the item is equivalent to others in the DMG?
> 
> ...






			
				gabriel_z said:
			
		

> 4. My intention is to make the "cloak of mage armor" with caster level 1 so it will only cost 2000gp whereas bracers of armor are caster level 7 which is more difficult to dispell. Making the cloak with caster level 7 will cost 14000gp according to the table.




Yes, they have the same effect and almost the same price! (and if SRD fixes the CL for the Bracers of Armor to CL8, they will be EXACTLY the same)

What you can so as a DM is to restrict the Caster Level for AC bonus to CL7 or CL8 which will multiply the cost of the cloak by 7 or 8 respectively.


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

gabriel_z said:
			
		

> No! You are interpreting it wrong!
> 
> "True Strike" affects you next attack roll, with a ristriction of one round.




Your right, but that doesn't change the cost of the item or the ability to activate it as a free action. So while you cannot have it up for unlimited time, you can simple activate it before every swing.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> So you make repeated Ad Hominems?




Ad hominems do not work that way, Slaved.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Sorry, poor example. Lets use the Ring of Protection instead, since it also costs 8000 for a +2.



 I like this comparison. Both use the Ring slot, costs are very similar.

The trade-offs are:
- Shield Ring is a less common magical bonus (only the _shield_ spell grants one, while there are many spells which grant a Deflection bonus), so it stacks well; but
- Ring of Protection works against more attack types (Deflection is "better").

Since a shield bonus is so rare, I'd be cool charging +16% over the base cost of the Protection ring.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I like this comparison. Both use the Ring slot, costs are very similar.
> 
> The trade-offs are:
> - Shield Ring is a less common magical bonus (only the _shield_ spell grants one, while there are many spells which grant a Deflection bonus), so it stacks well; but
> ...




The reason I consider the Shield Ring over priced is that there is a base item that has the same effect for the vast majority of encounters (depending on campaign) for 1/4 the cost. I do not think it is much over priced since of the 4000 to 8000 range I mentioned earlier, I believe it should be closer to the 8000 side of things.

The 4000 and 8000 number come from using the equation for armor and deflection as the lower and upper bounds. There is something to be said for the ability to get the bonus via mundane means (same reason armor is cheaper than other AC bonuses).


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 22, 2008)

> What you can so as a DM is to restrict the Caster Level for AC bonus to CL7 or CL8 which will multiply the cost of the cloak by 7 or 8 respectively.




I would put it at CL 8 which would put the cost of the cloak at 24,000 for the +4 Armor bonus making it very balanced.  The cost being based +50% because the item in question is not normally associated with an armor bonus.

Beyond that there are only two ideas I can see for the  Shield bonus to avoid a powergaming/cheeze factor.

Option 1:  Remove the Immunity to Magic Missles, make CL 8, and Increase the cost of the item to a total of 60,000gp.   This includes the armor bonus, plus the cost of a Shield spell at CL 8 for 16,000 x 2.25 (50% increase for non-standerd effect of a cloak and 75% for adding the second effect).  Mage Armor Effect 24,000gp + Shield Effect 36,000gp.

Option 2:  Make the shield effect usable a maxium of 3x/day, leave the immunity to magic missles, and still keep the effect to CL 8.  Take the cost of the shield effect x 2.25 then determine based on number of times per day.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Ad hominems do not work that way, Slaved.




I did use the wrong Logical Fallacy to describe what was happening. That does not stop what was being done from being a Logical Fallacy however.     

I believe that Appeal to Ridicule is a much better description.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> The reason I consider the Shield Ring over priced is that there is a base item that has the same effect for the vast majority of encounters (depending on campaign) for 1/4 the cost.



 Does a buckler grant its AC bonus when a PC uses both hands to attack? IMHO the Shield Ring is priced to not be a no-brainer while your barbarian is saving up for his animated adamantine heavy shield +5.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> My view is that the bracers of armor are balanced around the cost of increasing the AC bonus on armors. This makes sense to me since each class is designed to have access to certain items, and abilities. The classes are balance around these restrictions. A fighter not being able to cast spells is a restriction on his capabilities, just as a wizard/monks inability to use armor. Thus by giving more armor for less cost for bracers it throws off this balance between the classes, since it would allow the non-armored classes a faster AC progression. Saying that it is ok to have this imbalance in items since class X is gimpy does not justify an imbalance in items. If class X is gimpy then change class X not an item that is usable by anybody. Even if you can only forsee class X using the item at the moment, there is no telling what the future will hold, and I personally prefer to use rule 0 as evenly and rarely as possible. (since if it becomes broken in the future you have to reverse course on the ruling)




Which Classes will really want the Bracers of Armor? Wizards and Sorcerers could use the Armor that I Posted earlier. They will get a better Armor Bonus for less Gold. It had no Armor Check Penalty or Arcane Spell Failure.

So the only Class that is badly hurt by the Overpriced Bracers of Armor is the Monk. I do not think that the Monk is Overpowered and I do not think that Pricing the Bracers of Armor lower would make the Monk Overpowered. The Monk already has to contend with the Amulet of Mighty Fists and Multiple Attribute Dependency.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Does a buckler grant its AC bonus when a PC uses both hands to attack? IMHO the Shield Ring is priced to not be a no-brainer while your barbarian is saving up for his animated adamantine heavy shield +5.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Does the Ring of Force Shield let the Player Character use both hands to Attack? 



			
				System Resource Document said:
			
		

> Force Shield
> 
> An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and *can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield* (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
> 
> Moderate evocation; CL 9th; Forge Ring, wall of force; Price 8,500 gp.




Does the Bolded Section mean a Character uses a hand to Wield the Shield as they would a normal Heavy Shield?


----------



## ardentmoth (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I did use the wrong Logical Fallacy to describe what was happening. That does not stop what was being done from being a Logical Fallacy however.
> 
> I believe that Appeal to Ridicule is a much better description.



 I agree, the whole thing is ridiculous, lol.

and yes, they can wield the wall of force as if it were a shield.


----------



## s-dub (Apr 22, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I like this comparison. Both use the Ring slot, costs are very similar.
> 
> The trade-offs are:
> - Shield Ring is a less common magical bonus (only the _shield_ spell grants one, while there are many spells which grant a Deflection bonus), so it stacks well; but
> ...




I disagree on this one.  The shield ring description reads:

Force Shield
An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and *can be wielded by the wearer* as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action. 

A RoP requires no hands, and this seems to indicate a hand is needed.

This if you are flat footed you wouldn't get this bonus (though it probably would apply to inc touch ac)

I think that the best comparison would be a +1 mithril buckler

I rue the day that my PC's find out about +5 mithril buckers with the improved buckler defense feat.  They are hard enough to hit as it =P.


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Does a buckler grant its AC bonus when a PC uses both hands to attack? IMHO the Shield Ring is priced to not be a no-brainer while your barbarian is saving up for his animated adamantine heavy shield +5.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I am not saying that it is vastly overpriced, just overpriced. Besides why would a barbarian want an adamantine shield. Between the headache of not having rules for applying adamantine to shields and DR from different sources seems kinda pointless.

VanRichten - you need to look at the additional costs for multiple effects and also the item slot synergy table. Cloaks are considered defensive items, thus would not have the 50% bonus cost for being a non-synergistic slot. Further when you have multiple effects on one item, there is a 50% increase in cost of all effects except for the most expensive. Thus with a shield and mage armor effect, the mage armor is the cheaper of the two and would have the additional 50% tacked on. The MIC clarifies the rules for having multiple effects on one item. Since by base DMG it depends on the order inwhich you enchant it. Thus with the exception of upgrading an item as you go along it will always be on the cheaper (since as the craft you pick to do the most expensive one first). The MIC also changes it such that upgrading works the same way as base crafting (the 50% is never on the expensive component).


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Which Classes will really want the Bracers of Armor? Wizards and Sorcerers could use the Armor that I Posted earlier. They will get a better Armor Bonus for less Gold. It had no Armor Check Penalty or Arcane Spell Failure.
> 
> So the only Class that is badly hurt by the Overpriced Bracers of Armor is the Monk. I do not think that the Monk is Overpowered and I do not think that Pricing the Bracers of Armor lower would make the Monk Overpowered. The Monk already has to contend with the Amulet of Mighty Fists and Multiple Attribute Dependency.




By changing the price as you have suggested you make almost every light armor in the game completely useless, this relatively weakens the classes that have light armor proficiency since that class feature has lost almost all meaning. And as my argument states, a class being underpowered is not a valid reason to change an items price. Thus it not being too good because monks are weaker in your mind and they are the ones who would benefit most is a flawed argument. If monks are too weak change monks.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> By changing the price as you have suggested you make almost every light armor in the game completely useless, this relatively weakens the classes that have light armor proficiency since that class feature has lost almost all meaning. And as my argument states, a class being underpowered is not a valid reason to change an items price. Thus it not being too good because monks are weaker in your mind and they are the ones who would benefit most is a flawed argument. If monks are too weak change monks.




How does the Price Change I proposed make Light Armor useless?

My Arguement is based on considering the Optimal Use of the Bracers of Armor and seeing that they come up as Overpriced in that comparison. The further Arguement that Monks would not be Overpowered with the change is to round out the Arguement rather than to further it.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 22, 2008)

s-dub said:
			
		

> A RoP requires no hands, and this seems to indicate a hand is needed.



 If that's the reading used in your campaign, I can easily see how it would be overpriced. Let's say readings vary, and price should conform to the appropriate reading. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Folly (Apr 22, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> How does the Price Change I proposed make Light Armor useless?
> 
> My Arguement is based on considering the Optimal Use of the Bracers of Armor and seeing that they come up as Overpriced in that comparison. The further Arguement that Monks would not be Overpowered with the change is to round out the Arguement rather than to further it.




Since you proposed Bracers of Armor +4 costing 1000 and progress as normal, that means that every thing but chain shirt and mithral breast blate (unless you have crazy dex then those are not worth it either) are the only light armors anyone would use. This is because a +1 Studded Leather provides +4 armor but has the restrictions of armor and does not protect against incorporials. 

You compare the cost of the bracers to class abilities. This is not a fair comparison. It should be compared against other magic items. The only magic item that makes it seem overpowered is the one that emulates Mage Armor. But there is not such an item base, and thus as per the rules for making magic items if an existing item exists you refer to its price. Thus you cannot use the item that emulates mage armor for comparison since it doesn't pass the rules for making magic items. Compared to every other magic source that increases AC bracers are as cheap as it gets. 

Getting an enhancement bonus on armor cost the same amount.

Natural and deflection cost 100% as much.

All others cost 150% as much.

Armor proficiency is an ability of each class. Thus the mundane AC bonus are a part of the class similar to a monks dodge bonus or wisdom bonus. Armor uses have the additional cost of the armor while monks/wizards/sorcerers have restrictions from using armor at all.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 22, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Since you proposed Bracers of Armor +4 costing 1000 and progress as normal, that means that every thing but chain shirt and mithral breast blate (unless you have crazy dex then those are not worth it either) are the only light armors anyone would use. This is because a +1 Studded Leather provides +4 armor but has the restrictions of armor and does not protect against incorporials.




In my experience this is True with the System currently. Once there is enough Money in the equation the only Light Armors in use are Chain Shirts and Mithral Breastplates with the occasional Darkleaf Breastplate.

Making the change I proposed or not does not change this.

I also do not see Characters with Hide Armor, Scale Mail Armor, or Splint Mail Armor after the first few Levels either.



			
				Folly said:
			
		

> You compare the cost of the bracers to class abilities. This is not a fair comparison. It should be compared against other magic items. The only magic item that makes it seem overpowered is the one that emulates Mage Armor. But there is not such an item base, and thus as per the rules for making magic items if an existing item exists you refer to its price. Thus you cannot use the item that emulates mage armor for comparison since it doesn't pass the rules for making magic items. Compared to every other magic source that increases AC bracers are as cheap as it gets.




I also Compared the Bracers to several different Armors in this very Thread!!     

I feel that Mage Armor is not Overpowered. It is a Low Level Long Duration spell and a perfect fit for being placed into an Item.



			
				Folly said:
			
		

> Armor proficiency is an ability of each class. Thus the mundane AC bonus are a part of the class similar to a monks dodge bonus or wisdom bonus. Armor uses have the additional cost of the armor while monks/wizards/sorcerers have restrictions from using armor at all.




The Armor's I Listed earlier in this Thread have had 0 Armor Check Penalty. There is no penalty to using them without Proficiency!!!     

Most of the Armor's I Listed had 0% Arcane Spell Failure as well!!     

The only Class mentioned so far that suffers from the High Price of Bracers of Armor are Monks.


----------



## ardentmoth (Apr 23, 2008)

An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and *can* be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.

I believe the key operative word in that is CAN, as in it doesn't have to be, but it's possible.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Certainly the Character could choose to not Wield the Shield but they should get no Benefit from it if they do not.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 23, 2008)

ardentmoth said:
			
		

> I believe the key operative word in that is CAN, as in it doesn't have to be, but it's possible.




Right, but note that the +2 AC is a feature of wielding it like a heavy shield.

If you don't wield it like a heavy shield, you don't get +2 AC.

-Hyp.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I did use the wrong Logical Fallacy to describe what was happening. That does not stop what was being done from being a Logical Fallacy however.
> 
> I believe that Appeal to Ridicule is a much better description.




Sorry, man. You're the one who made your own _post_ subject to ridicule by presenting it in such a ridiculous fashion. 

Your _argument_ is addressed by my assessment that ghost touch's power to provide an armor bonus against incorporeal attacks is not at all the least of its significance.


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> What makes you think that they are competitive? The only Class that might really want them is the Monk and that Class DOES NOT need yet another overpriced item to get a basic effect!!!!




As already mentioned, Mage Armor (or Greater version of it) is often dispelled, like any other buffing spells. And there are creatures who can't cast Mage Armor and has no proficiency on any armor.

Even for non-monster characters, higher level rangers and rogues may have +10 or higher Dex bonus and now Bracers of Armor is simply better than magic armors. Even Mithral Chain Shirt has max dex bonus to AC of 6. +4 armor bonus from chain shirt + max dex bonus of +6= +10. And now you can only apply +6 bonus to touch attacks while you can apply all of your dex bonus against touch attacks. And bracers or armor protects you against incorporeal creatures. And because that is a magic item and not spell effect, it is rarely dispelled.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 23, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> And there are creatures who can't cast Mage Armor and has no proficiency on any armor.




That's a good point - if Slaved feels that most of the price for Ghost Touch is because of its utility for incorporeal monsters, then most of the price for Bracers of Armor should take into account their utility for Tyrannosauruses.

Whether or not they're all that great for anyone but the Monk, they're great for dinosaurs!

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2008)

Robe of Arcane Might (Magic Item Compendium, pg. 129)
+4 armor bonus to AC
+1 competence bonus to caster level for one school of magic
21,000gp
Requires Mage Armor to create


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 23, 2008)

> VanRichten - you need to look at the additional costs for multiple effects and also the item slot synergy table. Cloaks are considered defensive items, thus would not have the 50% bonus cost for being a non-synergistic slot. Further when you have multiple effects on one item, there is a 50% increase in cost of all effects except for the most expensive. Thus with a shield and mage armor effect, the mage armor is the cheaper of the two and would have the additional 50% tacked on. The MIC clarifies the rules for having multiple effects on one item. Since by base DMG it depends on the order inwhich you enchant it. Thus with the exception of upgrading an item as you go along it will always be on the cheaper (since as the craft you pick to do the most expensive one first). The MIC also changes it such that upgrading works the same way as base crafting (the 50% is never on the expensive component).




In answer to your statement we must remember that cloaks are inherently made for Resistance effects not Armor hence the increase in cost on the Mage Armor.

I also considered the Shield effect to be the greater of two effects since it inherently a greater effect due ot it being a shield effect for which a wizard is not normally allowed to use a shield.  But if you feel that 50% is better then go for it.  Still I feel the price as stated was correct since item in question in most DM's eyes would never be allowed anyway.


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> In answer to your statement we must remember that cloaks are inherently made for Resistance effects not Armor hence the increase in cost on the Mage Armor.
> 
> I also considered the Shield effect to be the greater of two effects since it inherently a greater effect due ot it being a shield effect for which a wizard is not normally allowed to use a shield.  But if you feel that 50% is better then go for it.  Still I feel the price as stated was correct since item in question in most DM's eyes would never be allowed anyway.




The DMG does not say anything about precedence in the creating magic items, and since the cloak is described as having an affinity for protection, any effect that provides defensive bonuses would not trigger the extra cost on cloaks.

The reason the extra 50% cost from having multiple effects goes onto the Mage Armor effect instead of the Shield effect is that the extra cost is placed on the second effect placed on the item(MIC changes this). So if you were creating this item in one crafting session you craft the more expensive effect first, so that it does not get hit by the extra cost. 

Honestly I found both of these spells to be ill suited for becoming continuous effect items since there already exists items that provide similar continuous effect. If the item had limited charges, then it would be different from the continuous items and would not be caught by the first rule of pricing make items. For example, a Cloak of Mage Armor and Shield that has a command word activation(standard) and 5 charges of each a day would cost 6300. I do not think this price is too unreasonable, but I as a DM would do some tweaking to the item to add some minor restrictions.


----------



## Will (Apr 23, 2008)

Man. I'd love to be in Slaved's game. 

I'd make a cloak of Constant Healing (CLW once per round, continuous) for 8000 gp!

Effective Fast Healing 5! WOO!


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> Man. I'd love to be in Slaved's game.
> 
> I'd make a cloak of Constant Healing (CLW once per round, continuous) for 8000 gp!
> 
> Effective Fast Healing 5! WOO!




Don't forget the Ring of Vigor, lesser for 8000. That way in case you go negative you'll eventually get back up.


----------



## Will (Apr 23, 2008)

That's even better, since it actually has a duration.


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 23, 2008)

Monte Haul:  "Anyone in the audience with 9000gp I will give you whats behind door number 3"

:: Door number 3 opens ::

Game Show Announcer: "Today behind Door Number 3 we have a Cloak of Mage Armor (2,000 Gold, Continous Mage Armor Spell, Use Activated, Use = Worn), a Ring of Shield (2,000 Gold, Continous Shield Spell, Use Activated, Use = Worn), and finally a True Strike Sword +1 (5,000 Gold, +1 Enhancement Bonus, True Strike Spell, Use Activated, Use = Held)."

::Audience Member stands up:: "I got it I got it."

Monte Haul: "So what is your name"

Contestant:  "VanRichten"

Monte Haul:  "Alright VanRichten you can either take whats behind door number 3 or you can take whats in the box."

::Mystery Box is brought out to the floor::

::Audience chants both box and door::

Monte Haul:  "So VanRicthen what will it be, Door Number 3 or The Box?"

Van Richten:  "I am gonna choose Door Number 3."

Monte Haul:  "Alright you chose Door Number 3.  Had you chosen the box ::box is then lifted::  You would have only recieved Bracers of Armor +3.  Congratulations!"

::Audience cheers::


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Sorry, man. You're the one who made your own _post_ subject to ridicule by presenting it in such a ridiculous fashion.
> 
> Your _argument_ is addressed by my assessment that ghost touch's power to provide an armor bonus against incorporeal attacks is not at all the least of its significance.




Belittling and decrying the exuberance of others does nothing to further your position or this Discussion.

My Argument about Ghost Touch is well founded given the Item from the Magic Item Compendium and the Rarity of Incorporeal Attacks.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> As already mentioned, Mage Armor (or Greater version of it) is often dispelled, like any other buffing spells. And there are creatures who can't cast Mage Armor and has no proficiency on any armor.
> 
> Even for non-monster characters, higher level rangers and rogues may have +10 or higher Dex bonus and now Bracers of Armor is simply better than magic armors. Even Mithral Chain Shirt has max dex bonus to AC of 6. +4 armor bonus from chain shirt + max dex bonus of +6= +10. And now you can only apply +6 bonus to touch attacks while you can apply all of your dex bonus against touch attacks. And bracers or armor protects you against incorporeal creatures. And because that is a magic item and not spell effect, it is rarely dispelled.




Bracers of Armor stop at +8 while the Mithral Chain Shirt stops at +9. That means that the Base Armor Bonus for the Mithral Chain Shirt can be higher so that is an Important Factor. The 3000 Gold Piece Item I mentioned earlier gives a -10 Penalty to Touch Attacks made by Incorporeal Creatures. Adding Nimbleness to the Armor will increase its Maximum Dexterity Bonus by 1 and there might be other Armor Enhancements or Special Armors out there to make it go Higher!    

Back to your Basic Argument a Character that has that High of an Investment in Dexterity is so Strong it needs the Price Gouging to be brought into line in your opinion?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's a good point - if Slaved feels that most of the price for Ghost Touch is because of its utility for incorporeal monsters, then most of the price for Bracers of Armor should take into account their utility for Tyrannosauruses.
> 
> Whether or not they're all that great for anyone but the Monk, they're great for dinosaurs!
> 
> -Hyp.




Something of a Reductio ad Absurdum?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> Man. I'd love to be in Slaved's game.
> 
> I'd make a cloak of Constant Healing (CLW once per round, continuous) for 8000 gp!
> 
> Effective Fast Healing 5! WOO!




This is a Poor Use of Reductio ad Absurdum or a Strawman Argument since I have made no claims about such an Item or the Spells it would use.


----------



## Will (Apr 23, 2008)

It is a comment about the usefulness of tossing guidelines out the window.

More on point:
You state, categorically, that bracers of armor are 'absurdly overpriced.'
Your only defense of this point is that 'you can cast mage armor and it lasts so long' and connecting that to magic item creation rules. Yet the rules clearly indicate that if there is a clear prior item that fits what you are trying to do, you can't legitimately do an end-run around it by some other means and end up with something much much cheaper.

Clearly, the intent of the rules is that if you want a fixed mage armor-like effect, you buy bracers of armor. And their price is clearly laid out. Heck, 'mage armor' is the spell used to make them.

Build your case that anyone should do anything otherwise.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

So the Argument I used for Armor that already exists in the Game is not to your liking? Why?

The Mage Armor Spell is a Long Duration Low Level Balanced Spell. Using a Cheaper Guideline than the one which is given for Bracers of Armor makes sense with that in mind.

An Item that Granted Constant Protection from Evil would be Very Expensive. This is a Good Indicator that the Spell should be placed at a different Level.

I am not throwing away the Item Creation Guidelines. Instead I am doing what they say to do and Comparing to what is already in the Game!! It would be Impossible to determine whether or not the Bracers of Armor are Priced Correctly by only looking at Bracers of Armor!!


----------



## Will (Apr 23, 2008)

Because you end up with an item that is much cheaper than an existing item that does the same thing, with fewer drawbacks. Which makes no sense.

It also violates the guideline of using the best pre-existing fit for a particular item.

Bracers of armor are a core item. They are priced correctly because they are part of the canonical list of starting equipment.


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> So the Argument I used for Armor that already exists in the Game is not to your liking? Why?
> 
> The Mage Armor Spell is a Long Duration Low Level Balanced Spell. Using a Cheaper Guideline than the one which is given for Bracers of Armor makes sense with that in mind.
> 
> ...




Yes, but cherry picking produces no better results. I compared them against the cost of other magic items that increase armor class. In that comparison bracers of armor is on par with the cheapest other armor class increasing magic items. Considering they are already one of the cheapest armor class increasing items, I do not see any reason to reduce their cost further.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> Because you end up with an item that is much cheaper than an existing item that does the same thing, with fewer drawbacks. Which makes no sense.
> 
> It also violates the guideline of using the best pre-existing fit for a particular item.
> 
> Bracers of armor are a core item. They are priced correctly because they are part of the canonical list of starting equipment.




So no Items in the Dungeon Masters Guide are Overpriced? The Magic Item Compendium disagrees with you.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Yes, but cherry picking produces no better results. I compared them against the cost of other magic items that increase armor class. In that comparison bracers of armor is on par with the cheapest other armor class increasing magic items. Considering they are already one of the cheapest armor class increasing items, I do not see any reason to reduce their cost further.




Bracers of Armor are Cheaper than Magical Armor???


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor are Cheaper than Magical Armor???




"on par with the cheapest" 
"one of the cheapest"

I did not spell it out since I spelled it out in my earlier post. Bracers of armor are the same cost as magical armor per increase.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> "on par with the cheapest"
> "one of the cheapest"
> 
> I did not spell it out since I spelled it out in my earlier post. Bracers of armor are the same cost as magical armor per increase.




Bracers of Armor +1 Cost 1000 Gold Pieces.
Padded Armor Costs 5 Gold Pieces.

Bracers of Armor +2 Cost 4000 Gold Pieces.
Padded Armor +1 Costs 1155 Gold Pieces.
Leather Armor Costs 10 Gold Pieces.

Bracers of Armor +3 Cost 9000 Gold Pieces.
Padded Armor +2 Costs 4155 Gold Pieces.
Leather Armor +1 Costs 1160 Gold Pieces.
Studded Leather Armor Costs 25 Gold Pieces.

Your Argument only holds true if we ignore the Armor Bonus that the Armor itself gives. That is a Very Poor Assumption to make.


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Bracers of Armor +1 Cost 1000 Gold Pieces.
> Padded Armor Costs 5 Gold Pieces.
> 
> Bracers of Armor +2 Cost 4000 Gold Pieces.
> ...




No as I have stated before, I consider mundane armor a feature of a class.

Certain classes cannot use armor, certain classes can. Thus by making enhancement bonuses for the classes that cannot use mundane armor cheaper, you skew the balance between the classes. In your original suggestion, (+4 for the cost of +1) the rogue in light armor would only have 1 additonal armor over a monk/wizard/sorc were before your suggestion he had 4. This messes with the balance of the classes.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Your Argument only holds true if we ignore the Armor Bonus that the Armor itself gives. That is a Very Poor Assumption to make.




But that is exactly what we do. Think of non-magical bracers (or cloak) as having an armor bonus of +0 (which it effectively does).


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 23, 2008)

Bracers of Armor +1 Cost 1000 Gold Pieces
     Virtually Weightless
     No Armor Check Penalty
     No Arcane Spell Failure
     Works Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can be worn/used by all classes without proficiency

Padded Armor Costs 5 Gold Pieces.
     Has a specific weight of note
     Little to No Armor Check Penalty
     Arcane Spell Failure
     Does not Work Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can only be worn by classes with proficiency or by spending a feat to use gain 
          proficiency

Bracers of Armor +2 Cost 4000 Gold Pieces
     Virtually Weightless
     No Armor Check Penalty
     No Arcane Spell Failure
     Works Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can be worn/used by all classes without proficiency

Padded Armor +1 Costs 1155 Gold Pieces.
Leather Armor Costs 10 Gold Pieces.
     Has a specific weight of note
     Little to No Armor Check Penalty
     Arcane Spell Failure
     Does not Work Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can only be worn by classes with proficiency or by spending a feat to use gain 
          proficiency

Bracers of Armor +3 Cost 9000 Gold Pieces.
     Virtually Weightless
     No Armor Check Penalty
     No Arcane Spell Failure
     Works Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can be worn/used by all classes without proficiency

Padded Armor +2 Costs 4155 Gold Pieces
Leather Armor +1 Costs 1160 Gold Pieces
Studded Leather Armor Costs 25 Gold Pieces
     Has a specific weight of note
     Little to No Armor Check Penalty
     Arcane Spell Failure
     Does not Work Against Incorporeal Attacks
     Can only be worn by classes with proficiency or by spending a feat to use gain 
          proficiency


Do you still wish to argue the price Slaved?  I mean look at the pros and cons here.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> No as I have stated before, I consider mundane armor a feature of a class.
> 
> Certain classes cannot use armor, certain classes can. Thus by making enhancement bonuses for the classes that cannot use mundane armor cheaper, you skew the balance between the classes. In your original suggestion, (+4 for the cost of +1) the rogue in light armor would only have 1 additonal armor over a monk/wizard/sorc were before your suggestion he had 4. This messes with the balance of the classes.




Any Class can use Armor. A Character does not even need Proficiency to use Armor!


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But that is exactly what we do. Think of non-magical bracers (or cloak) as having an armor bonus of +0 (which it effectively does).




I am considering the total Armor Bonus given. Ignoring the Armor Bonus that is Cheap skews the entire process!


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> B
> Do you still wish to argue the price Slaved?  I mean look at the pros and cons here.




Yes I do. I have already covered all of these points in my previous posts except for Weight.

Strength 8 is the Minimum Starting Strength for a Medium Size Character from the Players Handbook if Point Buy is used. Light Load for Strength 8 is 26 Pounds. A Mithral Chain Shirt Weighs 12.5 Pounds which allows for Gear.


----------



## Folly (Apr 23, 2008)

But before leaving core, there is no way to wear armor as a caster without taking some amount of penalty. Not many casters are willing to put up with a 5% spell failure chance. Just because they can wear it doesn't mean they are going to. And monks are not allowed period, without giving up almost all of their class features. 

Many consider the enchant that reduces spell failure to be too good, so bringing a questionable enchant into the picture to prove you point, puts your point on questionable ground.

I was trying to make my point within the core books. And while the MIC does say that alot of the items in the DMG are too expensive, it doesn't change the cost of Bracers of Armor. To that point, it doesn't overlook bracers of armor because they werent included in the MIC, but specificly left them the same while reprinting it.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Only Arcane Casters are hindered by Arcane Spell Failure and in the Core Bards are Immune to it while Wearing Light Armor.

Sorcerers and Wizards both have Mage Armor on their Spell Lists and so are better off using a Spell than they are paying 16000 Gold for the Same Effect.

That leaves only the Monk. Is a shift in the Price going to upset the Balance of the Monk?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> That leaves only the Monk. Is a shift in the Price going to upset the Balance of the Monk?




Since it's only the Monk, is leaving the price the way the rules say it is going to upset the balance of the Monk?

-Hyp.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I am considering the total Armor Bonus given. Ignoring the Armor Bonus that is Cheap skews the entire process!



  Would you argue that an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 costs too much, because Kobolds gain a +1 Natural Armor bonus for free?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Since it's only the Monk, is leaving the price the way the rules say it is going to upset the balance of the Monk?
> 
> -Hyp.




I believe that one of the Complaints about the Monk is that its Armor Class is too Expensive to Improve.

Changing the Monk would work. Changing the Bracers of Armor so that it helps the Monk and helps Characters who want more Options than just the Armors listed is Better. I say it is Better because it Helps More with a Single Stroke and if the Price is set more reasonably Balance is not Hurt.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Would you argue that an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 costs too much, because Kobolds gain a +1 Natural Armor bonus for free?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I would say that an Amulet of Natural Armor Costs too much because I think that a Ring of Deflection +1 is Priced close enough to Correct to not worry about.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 23, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I believe that one of the Complaints about the Monk is that its Armor Class is too Expensive to Improve.




That doesn't necessarily mean the prices are incorrect, though; it means that the monk has a weakness, and people should either find alternative means to increase AC, or deal with it, or stop playing monks.

And I'm Trying to figure Out if there's A Pattern to when you Choose to capitalise a Word...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 23, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That doesn't necessarily mean the prices are incorrect, though; it means that the monk has a weakness, and people should either find alternative means to increase AC, or deal with it, or stop playing monks.
> 
> And I'm Trying to figure Out if there's A Pattern to when you Choose to capitalise a Word...?
> 
> -Hyp.




I have said already that the Monk part of my Argument was to round it out rather than the Main Thrust.

Alternative means to Increase Armor Class abound. The Rules are supposed to support Balanced Options. Bracers of Armor fall outside of that Balance based on their Price and the Price of other Items.

There is a Pattern and a Reason.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> The Rules are supposed to support Balanced Options.




Right.



> Bracers of Armor fall outside of that Balance based on their Price and the Price of other Items.




Bracers of Armor help define that balance based on their price, and help to determine the price of other items.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But based on other Options the Price of Bracers of Armor are Balanced Incorrectly.

Do you feel that the Mage Armor Spell is Overpowered for its Cost and Effect? It may be placed on any Creature and the Duration is sufficiently long that it can be considered a Constant Buffing Spell early in the Game.

Do you feel that the Price any Light Armor is Balanced Incorrectly?

Do you feel that an Armor Bonus to Armor Class should be as valuable as a Luck Bonus to Armor Class as some have suggested?

Do you feel that there is a Balance Issue with making the Bracers of Armor Cheaper?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Do you feel that the Mage Armor Spell is Overpowered for its Cost and Effect?




No.



> Do you feel that the Price any Light Armor is Balanced Incorrectly?




No.



> Do you feel that an Armor Bonus to Armor Class should be as valuable as a Luck Bonus to Armor Class as some have suggested?




No.  Armor bonus: bonus squared x 1000.  Luck bonus to AC: bonus squared x 2500.

The armor bonus is about two-fifths as valuable as the Luck bonus.



> Do you feel that there is a Balance Issue with making the Bracers of Armor Cheaper?




I don't feel there's a balance issue with _not_ making them cheaper, so why should I change the rules where no issue exists?

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Enhancement to Armor Bonus costs Bonus squared times 1000 Gold.
Armor Bonus is not defined in the Magic Item Creation Rules but Armor Bonuses are the Cheapest and Easiest Bonus to Buy for Armor Class next to Shield Bonus. Bracers of Armor do not Give an Enhancement to Armor Bonus instead they give an Armor Bonus. This could mean that the Magic Vestment Spell could be Cast on the Bracers of Armor and the Armor Class Bonus would be Increased the same as a Suit of Armor would.

There is no Issue for you and that is Fine. There is an Issue for me and I feel that I have made my Case sufficiently to Warrant a Price Reduction.

A Character attempting to Create an Item that gives an Armor Bonus to Armor Class should not be Penalized by the Poor Pricing of the Bracers of Armor!!!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Enhancement to Armor Bonus costs Bonus squared times 1000 Gold.
> Armor Bonus is not defined in the Magic Item Creation Rules but Armor Bonuses are the Cheapest and Easiest Bonus to Buy for Armor Class next to Shield Bonus.




It's indirectly defined in the Magic Item Creation rules, via the 'compare to similar items' rule.



> Bracers of Armor do not Give an Enhancement to Armor Bonus instead they give an Armor Bonus. This could mean that the Magic Vestment Spell could be Cast on the Bracers of Armor and the Armor Class Bonus would be Increased the same as a Suit of Armor would.




_Target: Armor or shield touched
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with..._

Bracers of Armor, as neither armor nor shield, are not a valid target for the Magic Vestment spell.



> A Character attempting to Create an Item that gives an Armor Bonus to Armor Class should not be Penalized by the Poor Pricing of the Bracers of Armor!!!




A character attempting to create an item that gives an armor bonus to AC should compare the pricing to the existing item that gives an armor bonus to AC - Bracers of Armor.

"Poor pricing" - sorry, "Poor Pricing" - is a subjective judgement.  What's objective is that the pricing of Bracers of Armor _is_ 1000gp x bonus squared, and that's what new items get compared to.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's indirectly defined in the Magic Item Creation rules, via the 'compare to similar items' rule.




The Similar Items are Normal Armor since those are the Closest in Effect.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _Target: Armor or shield touched
> You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with..._
> 
> Bracers of Armor, as neither armor nor shield, are not a valid target for the Magic Vestment spell.






			
				System Resource Document said:
			
		

> Magic Vestment
> Transmutation
> Level: 	Clr 3, Strength 3, War 3
> Components: 	V, S, DF
> ...




So the Character merely has to designate the Bracers as part of their Regular Clothing.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A character attempting to create an item that gives an armor bonus to AC should compare the pricing to the existing item that gives an armor bonus to AC - Bracers of Armor.
> 
> "Poor pricing" - sorry, "Poor Pricing" - is a subjective judgement.  What's objective is that the pricing of Bracers of Armor _is_ 1000gp x bonus squared, and that's what new items get compared to.
> 
> -Hyp.




Existing Items may be Poorly Priced. Take a look at the Magic Item Compendium.

I have shown why I believe the Bracers to be Poorly Priced and I feel that the Argument holds up under Scrutiny.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> There is no Issue for you and that is Fine. There is an Issue for me and I feel that I have made my Case sufficiently to Warrant a Price Reduction.
> 
> A Character attempting to Create an Item that gives an Armor Bonus to Armor Class should not be Penalized by the Poor Pricing of the Bracers of Armor!!!



Uh, from whom exactly? The only one you could wish to argue to in order to "Warrant a Price Reduction" would be a GM.

And I disagree. There is no hard cap on Bracers of Armor's combined armor and dexterity bonus to AC, and hence it is a superior option in any situation where that is relevant. It starts being highly relevant around level 12 for a character who focuses on dexterity; it is consistently relevant for anyone who cannot wear armor for any reason.

You keep comparing the bracers to Mage Armor, the spell. That's fine. If you have a character who can cast Mage Armor, then that is apparently the best option to go with. Unless you get ambushed when not prepared. Or attacked after more hours of sleep than the duration of Mage Armor. Or someone tosses a Dispel Magic your way. Hence I'm fine with an item that can cast Mage Armor N times a day at caster level M, but not fine with an item that provides the continous benefit of Mage Armor, because that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

As others have mentioned, comparing Bracers of Armor to an item that follows the guidelines for a continuous 1st level spell is like comparing enhancement bonuses to weapons to an item that follows the guidelines for a use-activated 1st level spell (True Strike). It is obviously going to come out in the "custom item"s favour with regards to performance per gold piece. That is the point. *People still buy Bracers of Armor*, because there is a market for them. And as long as there is a market for them, and not every character buys them (i.e. if it is an item that every character would want to have because it is obviously better than any possible other item at that price, like the use-activated true strike weapon) it is balanced enough to not warrant a change in most campaigns.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> The Similar Items are Normal Armor since those are the Closest in Effect.




No, the Bracers are the closest in effect - they give an armor bonus based on a magical force effect.  Normal armor doesn't.

If you're making a cloak that duplicates the effect of a Mage Armor spell continuously, that's giving an armor bonus based on a magical force effect, and it's closer to Bracers of Armor than it is to a chain shirt.  So Bracers of Armor are what you use for the comparison.



> So the Character merely has to designate the Bracers as part of their Regular Clothing.




If you designate them as part of regular clothing, then they count as armor that grants no AC bonus, and the Magic Vestment enhancement bonus will get added to "no AC bonus".

-Hyp.


----------



## Will (Apr 24, 2008)

You know, as an aside, it's kind of interesting that bracers of armor provide an armor bonus and not an enhancement to armor bonus.

Presumably, a mage with a cleric friend could have bracers of armor and then add magic vestment on TOP. Maybe make some sort of spellswap deal.  'You cast that, I'll cast...'

Kind of interesting. I can't imagine many clerics bothering to use bracers of armor, though.

Wonder who else might want to make use of this...


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 24, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> You know, as an aside, it's kind of interesting that bracers of armor provide an armor bonus and not an enhancement to armor bonus.
> 
> Presumably, a mage with a cleric friend could have bracers of armor and then add magic vestment on TOP. Maybe make some sort of spellswap deal.  'You cast that, I'll cast...'
> 
> ...




As already mentioned, the bracers are not valid target of Magic Vestment spells. So if the mage is not wearing any other armor, the only valid target of Magic Vestment spell is his normal (AC +0) clothing. The mage only gets two different Armor Bonus (one from his Bracers of Armor and one from his garment under the effect of Magic Vestment spell) which over-wraps and does not stack.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 24, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> The mage only gets two different Armor Bonus (one from his Bracers of Armor and one from his garment under the effect of Magic Vestment spell) which over-wraps and does not stack.



 (Useless side note: "over-laps". Over-wrapping is when a line of text breaks to continue on another line, or when a gift has too much paper on it.  )

Cheers, -- N


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted by System Resource Document
> Magic Vestment
> Transmutation
> Level: Clr 3, Strength 3, War 3
> ...







> This could mean that the Magic Vestment Spell could be Cast on the Bracers of Armor and the Armor Class Bonus would be Increased the same as a Suit of Armor would. Slaved




A bracer (or arm-guard) is a strap or sheath, commonly made of leather, stone, or plastic that covers the inside of an archer's arm to protect it while shooting. Bracers keep the inside of the archer's forearm from getting hurt by the string of the bow or the fletching of the arrow; they also prevent loose clothing from catching the bow string.

How is a bracer considered clothing?


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 24, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> (Useless side note: "over-laps". Over-wrapping is when a line of text breaks to continue on another line, or when a gift has too much paper on it.  )
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Ah thanks. A Japanese like me often fail in distinguishing L sound from R sound.


----------



## Folly (Apr 24, 2008)

To me the monks wisdom bonus to AC and dodge bonus from level is equivalent to mundane armor that other classes get access to. This belief is reinforced by the fact that a monk loses these bonuses if they use armor. Since we have all agreed that monks are the primary users of bracers, comparing bracers to mundane armor is flawed because the monk class gives an ability to counterbalance not using armor.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> People still buy Bracers of Armor




Who? Why?


----------



## Folly (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Who? Why?




Monks that do not have wizards/sorcerers to piggyback off of.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, the Bracers are the closest in effect - they give an armor bonus based on a magical force effect.  Normal armor doesn't.




You are attempting to call the Item that is being Questioned as a Key Argument while ignoring any other Information.

Saying that Bracers of Armor are Priced Correctly because they are the Same Price as Bracers of Armor is a Circular Argument.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you're making a cloak that duplicates the effect of a Mage Armor spell continuously, that's giving an armor bonus based on a magical force effect, and it's closer to Bracers of Armor than it is to a chain shirt.  So Bracers of Armor are what you use for the comparison.




Blocking Incorporeal Attacks is a Minor Issue. But since my point is that Bracers of Armor are Improperly Priced using Bracers of Armor as a Demonstration Tool of what the Proper Price Should Be is Faulty Logic.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you designate them as part of regular clothing, then they count as armor that grants no AC bonus, and the Magic Vestment enhancement bonus will get added to "no AC bonus".
> 
> -Hyp.




But Enhancement Bonuses to Armor Class on an Item that Grants and Armor Bonus Stack. So the Outfit with Magic Vestment Cast on it will have an Armor Bonus from the Bracers and an Enhancement from the Spell. They would Stack.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> As already mentioned, the bracers are not valid target of Magic Vestment spells. So if the mage is not wearing any other armor, the only valid target of Magic Vestment spell is his normal (AC +0) clothing. The mage only gets two different Armor Bonus (one from his Bracers of Armor and one from his garment under the effect of Magic Vestment spell) which over-wraps and does not stack.




As already mentioned this is Not a Problem. The Effects would Stack.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Monks that do not have wizards/sorcerers to piggyback off of.




Why?


----------



## Folly (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> But Enhancement Bonuses to Armor Class on an Item that Grants and Armor Bonus Stack. So the Outfit with Magic Vestment Cast on it will have an Armor Bonus from the Bracers and an Enhancement from the Spell. They would Stack.




This is actually incorrect. This is like saying that having +1 padded armor and +2 Bracers of Armor and you get a +3 bonus to AC. The magic vestment is acting on the clothing, and not directly on your characters AC. Thus the spell increase the amount of armor being provided by the cloths. This means that the cloths provide X bonus and the bracers provide Y and they do not overlap.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> A bracer (or arm-guard) is a strap or sheath, commonly made of leather, stone, or plastic that covers the inside of an archer's arm to protect it while shooting. Bracers keep the inside of the archer's forearm from getting hurt by the string of the bow or the fletching of the arrow; they also prevent loose clothing from catching the bow string.
> 
> How is a bracer considered clothing?




It looks like you Copied this directly from Wikipedia. Why did you limit yourself to the First Paragraph?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A bracer (or arm-guard) is a strap or sheath, commonly made of leather, stone, or plastic that covers the inside of an archer's arm to protect it while shooting. Bracers keep the inside of the archer's forearm from getting hurt by the string of the bow or the fletching of the arrow; they also prevent loose clothing from catching the bow string. They normally cover the forearm only, but chest-guards are sometimes worn, usually by female archers, and other areas have at times been protected. With some combinations of non-baggy clothing and bows with a larger distance between the bow and the string, the archer may not need to wear any bracer.[1]
> 
> Stone wrist-guards from the European Bronze Age have been thought to be archery bracers, but a recent suggestion is that they were status symbols without practical function.[2] The two functions may of course be combined. The Navajo people have developed their "ketoh" bracers, using silver, turquoise, and other adornments. Ketoh decorations have a center motif, sometimes with a central ornament, and four curvilinear shapes that radiate toward the corners. Ketohs normally have a smooth leather surface on the inside of the arm and are thus still perfectly functional, but are normally used as items of personal and ritual adornment, or as works of art in their own right.




Bracers and Wrist Guards can be both Functional and Decorative. When I go Horse-Back Riding through Rough Wilderness, Hiking in Hazardous Locations, and Rock Climbing I Wear something that Functions like that. If my Normal Life was as Potentially Hazardous as a Player Characters I would Wear them every day!!!! They would be as much a part of my Normal Clothing as Sturdy Boots!!!


----------



## Nifft (Apr 24, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> Ah thanks. A Japanese like me often fail in distinguishing L sound from R sound.



 Oh please, you're superb compared to an American like me who fails utterly to distinguish between those squiggle-picture-thingies y'all use.

(Well, except this one: の which is obviously a partial differential.)

"No kidding", -- N


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> This is actually incorrect. This is like saying that having +1 padded armor and +2 Bracers of Armor and you get a +3 bonus to AC. The magic vestment is acting on the clothing, and not directly on your characters AC. Thus the spell increase the amount of armor being provided by the cloths. This means that the cloths provide X bonus and the bracers provide Y and they do not overlap.




It is not like saying that because the Padded Armor and Bracers of Armor are different Objects. In the case of the Spell the Outfit is being Targetted and the Bracers are part of that Outfit.

It is like saying having a Magic Vestment Spell of Caster Level 20 Cast onto the Padded Armor +1 will Stack with the Armor Bonus of the Armor but Overlap with the Enhancement already present.


----------



## Folly (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> It is not like saying that because the Padded Armor and Bracers of Armor are different Objects. In the case of the Spell the Outfit is being Targetted and the Bracers are part of that Outfit.
> 
> It is like saying having a Magic Vestment Spell of Caster Level 20 Cast onto the Padded Armor +1 will Stack with the Armor Bonus of the Armor but Overlap with the Enhancement already present.




Sorry, I misread the flow of the conversation. In such situation, it would work.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Folly said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misread the flow of the conversation. In such situation, it would work.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 24, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Saying that Bracers of Armor are Priced Correctly because they are the Same Price as Bracers of Armor is a Circular Argument.




I'm saying that Bracers of Armor are priced correctly, period, because that's the price in the book.

I'm saying that the Cloak of Mage Armor is _only_ priced correctly if it's priced the same as +4 Bracers of Armor, because +4 Bracers of Armor are the most similar already-existing item (effectively identical, in fact).



> But Enhancement Bonuses to Armor Class on an Item that Grants and Armor Bonus Stack. So the Outfit with Magic Vestment Cast on it will have an Armor Bonus from the Bracers and an Enhancement from the Spell. They would Stack.




If you consider the Bracers part of an outfit of regular clothing, then _for the purposes of the Magic Vestment spell_, they provide no armor bonus.  That's what the Magic Vestment spell says to do with an outfit of regular clothing.

So while your 'outfit of regular clothing', including the Bracers, grants an armor bonus of, say, +6, the Magic Vestment spell applies a +3 (say) enhancement bonus to "no armor bonus", because the spell text defines the armor bonus of an outfit of regular clothing as "no armor bonus".

Because you're applying the enhancement bonus to a different armor bonus (or rather, 'no armor bonus'), you end up with your 'outfit of regular clothing' providing two armor bonuses - the original +6, and the enhanced 'no armor bonus' granting a total of +3.  Two armor bonuses don't stack, and you're left with your original +6 from the Bracers.

Which is the same result you'd get by wearing Bracers and casting Magic Vestment on your clothes without trying to finesse things by claiming the Wondrous Item is just part of your clothes.

-Hyp.


----------



## Folly (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm saying that Bracers of Armor are priced correctly, period, because that's the price in the book.
> 
> I'm saying that the Cloak of Mage Armor is _only_ priced correctly if it's priced the same as +4 Bracers of Armor, because +4 Bracers of Armor are the most similar already-existing item (effectively identical, in fact).
> 
> ...




And this is why I said, In such situation. Since its up to the DM as to how strict an interpretation to take.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 24, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm saying that Bracers of Armor are priced correctly, period, because that's the price in the book.
> 
> I'm saying that the Cloak of Mage Armor is only priced correctly if it's priced the same as +4 Bracers of Armor, because +4 Bracers of Armor are the most similar already-existing item (effectively identical, in fact).




I am saying that the Bracers of Armor are Priced Incorrectly because of the Comparisons that may be made to Other Aspects of the Game.

Bracers of Armor are Priced as they are in the Book being Why they are Priced Correctly is not a Sound Logical Argument unless you Assume that the Book is Always Correct.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you consider the Bracers part of an outfit of regular clothing, then _for the purposes of the Magic Vestment spell_, they provide no armor bonus.  That's what the Magic Vestment spell says to do with an outfit of regular clothing.
> 
> So while your 'outfit of regular clothing', including the Bracers, grants an armor bonus of, say, +6, the Magic Vestment spell applies a +3 (say) enhancement bonus to "no armor bonus", because the spell text defines the armor bonus of an outfit of regular clothing as "no armor bonus".
> 
> ...




The Spell treats the Clothing as being Armor with no Armor Bonus and gives that Clothing an Enhancement Bonus. The Bracers are part of this Clothing and give an Armor Bonus. The Armor Bonus from the Bracers Stack with the Enhancement Bonus from the Spell. Bracers themselves could also be viewed as being Armor that Normally Provides no Armor Bonus with the Bracers of Armor being an Exception to that Rule. In this Case the Bracers would Qualify for the Spell directly. Either way the Spell should give its Bonus.


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> he Spell treats the Clothing as being Armor with no Armor Bonus and gives that Clothing an Enhancement Bonus. The Bracers are part of this Clothing and give an Armor Bonus. The Armor Bonus from the Bracers Stack with the Enhancement Bonus from the Spell. Bracers themselves could also be viewed as being Armor that Normally Provides no Armor Bonus with the Bracers of Armor being an Exception to that Rule. In this Case the Bracers would Qualify for the Spell directly. Either way the Spell should give its Bonus.




If you make bracers which turns normal clothing into an actual armor with Armor bonus, this is an item largely different from existing Bracers of Armor. This is a new item and thus must be determined it's cost differently. As this is a valid target of Magic Vestment spell and maybe upgraded by adding enhancement bonus to AC as usual armor, if the DM allows it (If I were a DM, I don't allow it, though).

The most similar items are Robe of Archmagi or Robe of Arcane Might (MIC) minus special abilities. Both of the items are specific items and thus it is hard to reverse engineer how much does the AC bonus part costs. But I guess that armor bonus part maybe following the usual formula for Armor bonus, I mean, AC bonus squared x 1,000 gp. But your new item is better than those robes as it protects you from incorporeal attacks. This is a big difference. So the cost should be significantly increased.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 25, 2008)

Why is Incorporeal Attack Protection considered to be a Significant Boost to the Power Level of an Item?


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why is Incorporeal Attack Protection considered to be a Significant Boost to the Power Level of an Item?




Because there are a lot of Incorporeal Undead creatures. And their attacks tend to have lower attack bonus but the damages are deadly.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Who? Why?



At least two of my characters. At least 4 characters in as many campaigns.

An excellent example would be my level 13 Catfolk Ranger/Scout who had a +10 DEX modifier.


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 25, 2008)

Sorry if I am misunderstanding. But for me, it seems that the OP is playing and found that the monk class is rather ineffective, and believing that if he could have AC bonus cheaper it will fix the character or at least improve the character significantly.

If so, that approach is wrong because of those 2 facts.

1. Bracers of Armor, or similar items are, not just for monks.

It is already pointed out by many posters with reasons. By making Bracers of Armor cheaper or making cheaper items with identical ability, not only monks but other monsters and characters who are benefitted from such an item will become stronger, though there is no need for them to fix.

2. The weakness of Monk class is not just AC. It is too late.

It is argued again and again and again and again and.... many people tried to make a truly effective monk character. But many failed. Who managed to make some nice but really extreme build, which often involves prestige class with spell-casting ability or special feats which are setting specific or need careful role playing (like Vow of Poverty). And the former options are, more like spell casters with some monk abilities, rather than to be monks with spell-casting abilities.

Monks are weak in 3.Xe. Period. Either don't play it or play it for flavor even if it is not as effective as other standard classes as a melee combatant. You need tremendous effort if you really want to make a monk into well-balanced tier 1 class.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 25, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> Because there are a lot of Incorporeal Undead creatures. And their attacks tend to have lower attack bonus but the damages are deadly.




A lot compared to what? Are they even 1% of Potential Foes?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 25, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> At least two of my characters. At least 4 characters in as many campaigns.
> 
> An excellent example would be my level 13 Catfolk Ranger/Scout who had a +10 DEX modifier.




This does not answer Who or Why very well. Could you provide more details? A +10 Dexterity Modifier at Level 13 is Very High. Was this Game well over the Assumed Level of Power for Characters?

From Races of the Wild where the Catfolk are for 3.5 there is a Light Armor which has a +10 Maximum Dexterity Modifier. Why not use that instead?


----------



## Shin Okada (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> A lot compared to what? Are they even 1% of Potential Foes?




Well, even in core MM, you can find 5 incorporeal undead creatures. And one is template, and other two have variant (Wraith/Dread wraith, Shadow/Greater Shadow). This is only slightly above 1% of the entire monsters in MM. But actually, those creatures are quite popular in many published (or otherwise written) adventures.

if you read official modules, you will notice that there are so many encounters against incorporeal undead creatures at any level. In my understanding, they are popular because,

1. Undead

Indeed. Undead monsters are so popular at any level. Many of the DnD adventures involves closed dungeon environment, And Undead monsters (basically) exist forever and don't need food or water.

2. Stands out

Even amongst undead monsters, they look special, Thus loved by many authors and DMs who love to include some "different" encounter or two.

3. Effective against higher level PCs.

You will not see many CR 3 creatures, say worg or ogre, in many adventures designed for 10th-level party, even as minions of BBEG or grants of med-class- bosses. But you will see Shadow (also CR3) in many of such adventures. While usual creature of that CR are not threat at all to the characters of that level (even as a supporting soldier), shadows can often do some damages to even a 10th-level fighters and such. And because of incorporeality, they survive many attacks, both physical and magical ones. So, you tend to see many low-CR incorporeal undead creatures than other creatures of the same CR.

4. Villains can summon!

Supplements introduced Summon Undead spells and there are classes and monsters (like nightshades) who can summon incorporeal undead. And, because of the reason (3), incorporeal undead monsters are good choice for summoning.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> This does not answer Who or Why very well. Could you provide more details? A +10 Dexterity Modifier at Level 13 is Very High. Was this Game well over the Assumed Level of Power for Characters?




Not really. 17 (start) +3 (levels) +4 (racial) +6 (item) = 30. You just have to focus in it.
And yeah, 36000 is a significant chunk of 150000 (Catfolk have +1 LA, so we have an ECL 14 character, hence if we follow expected wealth per level in the DMG the character would have 150 000 available for starting gear), but when you focus in DEX that's worth it.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> From Races of the Wild where the Catfolk are for 3.5 there is a Light Armor which has a +10 Maximum Dexterity Modifier. Why not use that instead?



Because the moment the character started getting Inherent bonuses to DEX it would be pointless. It doesn't scale. And the protection from incorporeal touch attacks is significant for a character who focuses in one stat; such a character tends to have relatively lower STR and CON, the most commonly useful stats for surviving hits from incorporeal undead (they often drain STR or CON or there's a fort save to negate whatever effect).
[Edit: Oh, yeah, and light armour - even 5lbs-light armour - still weighs significantly more than bracers. Again, for a character that doesn't put much into STR, that counts.]


----------



## Slaved (Apr 25, 2008)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> Well, even in core MM, you can find 5 incorporeal undead creatures. And one is template, and other two have variant (Wraith/Dread wraith, Shadow/Greater Shadow). This is only slightly above 1% of the entire monsters in MM. But actually, those creatures are quite popular in many published (or otherwise written) adventures.
> 
> if you read official modules, you will notice that there are so many encounters against incorporeal undead creatures at any level. In my understanding, they are popular because,
> 
> ...





There are many Templates in the Monstrous Manual. The Ghost Template Creates a Monster that does not have to be a Foe. 

Undead are seen often but Incorporeal Undead are only a small portion of Undead.

I would expect to see a Shadow at High Levels about as often as a handful of Stirge. That is to say Rarely.

None of what you say here leads me to believe that Incorporeal Foes are anywhere near Common enough to Warrant a Significant Price Boost.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 25, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Not really. 17 (start) +3 (levels) +4 (racial) +6 (item) = 30. You just have to focus in it.
> And yeah, 36000 is a significant chunk of 150000 (Catfolk have +1 LA, so we have an ECL 14 character, hence if we follow expected wealth per level in the DMG the character would have 150 000 available for starting gear), but when you focus in DEX that's worth it.
> 
> 
> ...




With a 17 Starting Dexterity Score the rest of your Ability Scores would suffer unless you are playing with a High Point Buy. When you had said Level 13 I thought you were already including the Level Adjustment. 36000 of 110000 is a much more Significant Investment!     

You would be better off buying up your Armor Class with other Items long before Inherant Bonuses to Dexterity became an Issue! 36000 for Bracers of Armor +6 and 36000 for an Enhancement to Dexterity +6 is rather a lot even when you have 150000 to play with!     

Catfolk are Medium Creatures which puts your Strength Score at a Minimum of 8. Is 1 Pound versus 5 Pounds truly a Big Problem? With the 11000 Gold you would save from the Bracers of Armor you could get an Enhancement to Strength of +2!! You can even add Easy Travel to it from the Magic Item Compendium for 1500 which would allow you to Carry up to your Medium Load without incurring Penalties and March for 10 Hours per Day before making Constitution Checks!!!


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 25, 2008)

Something tells me at this point this has become trying to beat down a brick wall with your head.  Eventually you just get bloody and stupid.


----------



## Nifft (Apr 25, 2008)

VanRichten said:
			
		

> Something tells me at this point this has become trying to beat down a brick wall with your head.  Eventually you just get bloody and stupid.



 Don't let that stop you! (It's fun to watch.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Will (Apr 25, 2008)

Sometimes the only way to win the game is not to play.


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 25, 2008)

Or maybe take over the game and not let Slaved play


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 25, 2008)

arnon said:
			
		

> To me it seems strange that it possible to create something that will grant a continuous +4 to AC for only 2000 gp... I'm sure I'm missing something.




I would allow this. For 1cp, even. Because I like copper. I had a dog named Copper once. I liked him too.

Anywho, basically, what everyone else said about following the pricing for Bracers of Armor. Some might want to impose a slot affinity penalty on such a cloak, but I wouldn't (and having nothing to do with my like of copper or my former dog).


----------



## Rystil Arden (Apr 25, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Oh please, you're superb compared to an American like me who fails utterly to distinguish between those squiggle-picture-thingies y'all use.
> 
> (Well, except this one: の which is obviously a partial differential.)
> 
> "No kidding", -- N



 そうですねえ。私も新岡田さんは英語がすごくお上手だと思います。それに日本語がとっても難しいだから私はあまり分かりません。でもブレイサーズオフアルマーはべつに高くないんです。　

In other words, I agree with everyone who's saying that Bracers of Armour are reasonably priced for the correct buyer.  Of course, I still usually try to find someone to cast Mage Armour until I'm looking at needing the +5 or higher Bracers, but I certainly wouldn't balk at receiving them as treasure (if the price is high by so much, Slaved, as you suggest more than a factor of 2, then everyone who finds them should be selling them and buying something else with the proceeds).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 25, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> The Spell treats the Clothing as being Armor with no Armor Bonus and gives that Clothing an Enhancement Bonus. The Bracers are part of this Clothing and give an Armor Bonus. The Armor Bonus from the Bracers Stack with the Enhancement Bonus from the Spell.




Either the Bracers are part of the clothing, or they're not.

Either way, when Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to clothing, it adds it to 'no armor bonus'.

So it's either enhancing the clothing, including the Bracers, as an enhancement to 'no armor bonus'; or it's enhancing the clothing, excluding the Bracers, as an enhancement to 'no armor bonus' that doesn't go anywhere near the Bracers.

What it doesn't do is enhance the +X armor bonus the Bracers provide as a wondrous item.  As far as the spell is concerned, clothes (whether they're including Bracers or not) never have an armor bonus.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 26, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> With a 17 Starting Dexterity Score the rest of your Ability Scores would suffer unless you are playing with a High Point Buy.




Yes.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> You would be better off buying up your Armor Class with other Items long before Inherant Bonuses to Dexterity became an Issue! 36000 for Bracers of Armor +6 and 36000 for an Enhancement to Dexterity +6 is rather a lot even when you have 150000 to play with!



You don't need to buy Bracers of Armor +6.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Catfolk are Medium Creatures which puts your Strength Score at a Minimum of 8. Is 1 Pound versus 5 Pounds truly a Big Problem?




No, but it is a difference. I wish I hadn't mentioned it now, since it gave you an excuse to ignore a more important point.




			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> With the 11000 Gold you would save from the Bracers of Armor you could get an Enhancement to Strength of +2!!




And which slot would that take? The gloves? Sorry, dex. Bracers? Sorry, Bracers of Armor. Belt? Sorry, con. etc. And who says I'm buying bracers of armor +6?



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> You can even add Easy Travel to it from the Magic Item Compendium for 1500 which would allow you to Carry up to your Medium Load without incurring Penalties and March for 10 Hours per Day before making Constitution Checks!!!



Yes, I know this. However, class features that only work "while wearing light or no armor and carrying no more than a light load" would still stop working when you're above your light load, even if you still move as quickly.

You still haven't addressed the point that with sacrificing other ability scores to get a high DEX, the incoroporeal touch attack protection becomes even more important than it otherwise is.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 26, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Either the Bracers are part of the clothing, or they're not.
> 
> Either way, when Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to clothing, it adds it to 'no armor bonus'.
> 
> ...




Either way it is an Enhancement Bonus on the Item which Stacks with the Armor Bonus of the Item. Why do you Choose to Ignore the Stacking Rules?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 26, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> You don't need to buy Bracers of Armor +6.




So? If they are below +6 some amount of Gold is still saved by using the Armor instead!! You could get the Extra Items and Enhancements I mentioned all the way down to about Bracers of Armor +3.



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> And which slot would that take? The gloves? Sorry, dex. Bracers? Sorry, Bracers of Armor. Belt? Sorry, con. etc.




Enhancement Bonuses to Ability Scores can be Added to any Item without the Extra Ability Cost.



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Yes, I know this. However, class features that only work "while wearing light or no armor and carrying no more than a light load" would still stop working when you're above your light load, even if you still move as quickly.






			
				Magic Item Compendium said:
			
		

> When Wearing Armor that has this Property, you can Carry up to a Medium Load as if it were a Light Load






			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> You still haven't addressed the point that with sacrificing other ability scores to get a high DEX, the incoroporeal touch attack protection becomes even more important than it otherwise is.




A High Dexterity Score already Protects against Incorporeal Touch Attacks. What Extra Protection are you wanting over someone who did not put as much Effort into Dexterity?? How about you Buy that Cheap Item that I already mentioned earlier in this Thread?? 3000 Gold Pieces and Incorporeal Attackers have a -10 Penalty on Touch Attacks against your Character!!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Either way it is an Enhancement Bonus on the Item which Stacks with the Armor Bonus of the Item.




One way, it's an enhancement bonus on the item which stacks with the armor bonus of that item for the purposes of the Magic Vestment spell, which is 'none'.

The other way, it's an enhancement bonus on one item, which doesn't stack with the armor bonus on a different item.

Either way, it's not an enhancement bonus that stacks with the +X armor bonus granted by Bracers of Armor, because it doesn't enhance that armor bonus.  

If the Bracers are part of the outfit of clothing, their armor bonus for the purpose of the Magic Vestment spell is 'none'.  If they aren't part of the outfit of clothing, they're not a valid target for Magic Vestment.

There isn't a way to cast Magic Vestment on the Bracers with them being treated for the purposes of the spell as having an armor bonus that isn't 'none'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 27, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> So? If they are below +6 some amount of Gold is still saved by using the Armor instead!! You could get the Extra Items and Enhancements I mentioned all the way down to about Bracers of Armor +3.




Because it is the price point at which the comparison to the padded armor is the worst - below, and the price difference is lower. Above, and the price difference is irrelevant because you can't get the padded armor to higher than +5.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Enhancement Bonuses to Ability Scores can be Added to any Item without the Extra Ability Cost.



Assuming the MIC is in play and that that slot is not already taken up with an ability score (DEX for gloves, CON for belt) - and no, not any item. Only items that have an affinity for that ability score. And those slots have many other useful affinities. Like DEX and CON.

As for the MIC quote on easy travel, I had assumed that you correctly summarised the enhancement the first time you mentioned it.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> A High Dexterity Score already Protects against Incorporeal Touch Attacks. What Extra Protection are you wanting over someone who did not put as much Effort into Dexterity?




The extra protection neccessary to avoid being one-shotted by Stat drainers at high levels due to low stats that aren't DEX.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> How about you Buy that Cheap Item that I already mentioned earlier in this Thread? 3000 Gold Pieces and Incorporeal Attackers have a -10 Penalty on Touch Attacks against your Character!




Nice, extra bonus against incorporeal touch attacks! That still doesn't invalidate the Bracers of Armor bonus, though.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 27, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> One way, it's an enhancement bonus on the item which stacks with the armor bonus of that item for the purposes of the Magic Vestment spell, which is 'none'.
> 
> The other way, it's an enhancement bonus on one item, which doesn't stack with the armor bonus on a different item.
> 
> ...




Why are you ignoring the Stacking Rules?


----------



## Slaved (Apr 27, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Because it is the price point at which the comparison to the padded armor is the worst - below, and the price difference is lower. Above, and the price difference is irrelevant because you can't get the padded armor to higher than +5.




Above Bracers of Armor +6 and the Price continues to climb dramatically!! A Level 15 Character has a lot of Wealth but you are talking about an Enormous amount of Gold Use even for them!!



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Assuming the MIC is in play and that that slot is not already taken up with an ability score (DEX for gloves, CON for belt) - and no, not any item. Only items that have an affinity for that ability score. And those slots have many other useful affinities. Like DEX and CON.
> 
> As for the MIC quote on easy travel, I had assumed that you correctly summarised the enhancement the first time you mentioned it.




Why does it matter if the Item already has an Enhancement Bonus on it? With the Magic Item Compendium the Extra Enhancement is put on without Extra Cost for Extra Abilities.

And I did Summarize the Ability the first time I mentioned it! Losing access to other Abilities sounds like a Penalty to me!     



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> The extra protection neccessary to avoid being one-shotted by Stat drainers at high levels due to low stats that aren't DEX.




What does this have to do with anything???? The Extra Dexterity is already providing Protection!



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Nice, extra bonus against incorporeal touch attacks! That still doesn't invalidate the Bracers of Armor bonus, though.




I am talking about the Bracers of Armor Cost not the Bonus that it gives! Extra Protection against Incorporeal Attacks is a Footnote at best and Should Not cost a Significant Amount of extra Gold.


----------



## Nail (Apr 27, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why are you ignoring the Stacking Rules?



How is he ignoring the Stacking rules?

Oh, I can't help it.  here's a "new" smiley.       Think: sideways smile.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 27, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why are you ignoring the Stacking Rules?




I'm not ignoring the stacking rules.

I'm pointing out that Magic Vestment doesn't enhance the armor bonus of Bracers of Armor.

It either enhances the armor bonus of a suit of armor or shield, which Bracers aren't, or it enhances "no armor bonus" on an outfit of regular clothing.

-Hyp.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 27, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Above Bracers of Armor +6 and the Price continues to climb dramatically! A Level 15 Character has a lot of Wealth but you are talking about an Enormous amount of Gold Use even for them!




Yes, it does. And why are you limiting it to level 15? My character example was one example where I chose to buy Bracers of Armor rather than other armor for good reasons - these reasons become better the higher level the character is.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Why does it matter if the Item already has an Enhancement Bonus on it? With the Magic Item Compendium the Extra Enhancement is put on without Extra Cost for Extra Abilities.



Ah, I see. The MIC doesn't limit how many bonuses are on each item; that was a house rule I've been playing with and I apologise for the misunderstanding. You're right. Weight doesn't matter.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> And I did Summarize the Ability the first time I mentioned it! Losing access to other Abilities sounds like a Penalty to me!



No, it isn't. A penalty in DnD is a reduction of a numeric stat.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with anything???? The Extra Dexterity is already providing Protection!



Yes, it is. But so is the Bracers of Armor. Having low stats beside dexterity makes more protection = better, especially with the poor scaling of AC vs To Hit in DnD. That goes doubly for Touch AC.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> I am talking about the Bracers of Armor Cost not the Bonus that it gives! Extra Protection against Incorporeal Attacks is a Footnote at best and Should Not cost a Significant Amount of extra Gold.



It doesn't cost a significant amount of extra gold. Here, let me break it down for you:

Bracers of Armor is basically a +0 AC light armor with infinite Max Dex, 0% ASF and 0 ACP which you can enhance up to +8 from the base value (better, normal armor can only be enhanced to +5 from the base value), can't have other armor enhancements on it (worse), doesn't count as armor for classes that are restricted from wearing armor (better), and counts against incorporeal touch attacks (better).
As you can see, in addition to having no hard cap on the sum of Armor AC+DEX it only has one worse quality from regular light armor, and three better qualities. You are taking each point of these and saying about each of them "this isn't worth much". But they all add up.


----------



## Will (Apr 27, 2008)

From the peanut gallery, I'd point out that 'can't have other armor enhancements' is a somewhat minimal restriction. Among other things, in the games I've been in, few people ever bother with enhancements other than a simple bonus.


----------



## Slaved (Apr 27, 2008)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Yes, it does. And why are you limiting it to level 15? My character example was one example where I chose to buy Bracers of Armor rather than other armor for good reasons - these reasons become better the higher level the character is.




I used Level 15 because it is close to the Example given. I still see your Example as not being Well Defined and an Extreme Case. Neither give me much to work with!!    



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Ah, I see. The MIC doesn't limit how many bonuses are on each item; that was a house rule I've been playing with and I apologise for the misunderstanding. You're right. Weight doesn't matter.




House Rules do get in the way sometimes!!      



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. A penalty in DnD is a reduction of a numeric stat.




I gave a Summary of what the Enhancements Abilities are. What did you think the Ability did based on my Summary?



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Yes, it is. But so is the Bracers of Armor. Having low stats beside dexterity makes more protection = better, especially with the poor scaling of AC vs To Hit in DnD. That goes doubly for Touch AC.




OF COURSE More is Better!!! But this Side Topic does not help the discussion!! 



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> It doesn't cost a significant amount of extra gold.




I have been told in this Thread that Protection from Incorporeal Attacks should cost a Significant Amount!



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Here, let me break it down for you:
> 
> Bracers of Armor is basically a +0 AC light armor with infinite Max Dex, 0% ASF and 0 ACP which you can enhance up to +8 from the base value (better, normal armor can only be enhanced to +5 from the base value), can't have other armor enhancements on it (worse), doesn't count as armor for classes that are restricted from wearing armor (better), and counts against incorporeal touch attacks (better).
> As you can see, in addition to having no hard cap on the sum of Armor AC+DEX it only has one worse quality from regular light armor, and three better qualities. You are taking each point of these and saying about each of them "this isn't worth much". But they all add up.




The Maximum Dexterity Bonus is an Issue with how many Characters? Of those how many would still be better off Wearing Armor over the Bracers?

Few Light Armors will have an Armor Check Penalty less than 0, Arcane Spell Failure only matters for Characters that have Access to Mage Armor and Greater Mage Armor, and I would not treat Starting at 0 Armor Bonus to be a Small Matter!!!

Being able to Buy up to a +8 Armor Bonus is nice but it comes with the price of Starting Lower to begin with!! Those last points of Armor Bonus are also Vastly More Expensive than the Initial Points of Armor.

The Armor I mentioned earlier has a Maximum Dexterity Bonus of +10. It also has a Maximum Armor Bonus of +6 when a +5 Enhancement is placed upon it. It Costs 25405 Gold Pieces.

The Equivalent Bracers of Armor cost 36000 Gold Pieces. They are able to be Increased up to +8 which would cost 64000 Gold Pieces.

That means that the Character Wearing the Armor has nearly 40000 Gold Pieces to use to catch up with 2 Points of Armor. Unless each Character already has Every Defensive Item in the Game below this amount of Gold it should be possible to accomplish that goal and more!

There is also the Third Level Spell Greater Mage Armor from the Spell Compendium which deserves an Extra Mention. It has the same Long Duration as Mage Armor and gives a +6 Force Armor Bonus.


----------



## Elethiomel (Apr 28, 2008)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I used Level 15 because it is close to the Example given. I still see your Example as not being Well Defined and an Extreme Case. Neither give me much to work with!



You asked who and why. I answered. I'm sorry if the answer is not to your liking - had that character been played any further, it would have been a better case (and a more extreme example on top of it).



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> I gave a Summary of what the Enhancements Abilities are. What did you think the Ability did based on my Summary?



I thought the enhancement in question (Easy Travel) eliminated the speed reduction, the max dex reduction, and the check penalty listed in the Encumbrance section of the PHB




			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> I have been told in this Thread that Protection from Incorporeal Attacks should cost a Significant Amount!



I don't know about that. Maybe it should. But it doesn't.





			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> The Maximum Dexterity Bonus is an Issue with how many Characters? Of those how many would still be better off Wearing Armor over the Bracers?



Any who wants to buy the bracers of armor, and none, respectively. I'm going to cut most of the rest of the quoting out here, because I think you're not getting what I'm getting at.

If you have a character with a dex modifier of +12, bracers will give you a higher sum of AC than any other armor option, for the same (actually lower, as you don't need to buy the base armor) cost. That's it.

Yes, few characters will have a dex modifier of +12, and they will tend to have it at high levels, but that's irrelevant. These characters can exist within the core ruleset (PHB, DMG, MM only), which can't be said about many other extreme characters at these levels. That bracers of armor has a niche market doesn't prevent them from being bought by that niche market, and making them cheaper would make that niche market more powerful by giving them more money to spare.

Full Plate +1 is a much, much cheaper way to get 9 Armor AC than a Chain Shirt +5. Why? Because with the Chain Shirt, you have an additional 3 AC you can get out of Dexterity. According to your argument (which seems to be that "Armor bonus is all that matters, the max dex is irrelevant and any other abilities are footnotes at best"), these two armors should cost the same.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> There is also the Third Level Spell Greater Mage Armor from the Spell Compendium which deserves an Extra Mention. It has the same Long Duration as Mage Armor and gives a +6 Force Armor Bonus.




That's great! For arcane casters. And people who happen to be friends with arcane casters. For everyone else, there's Bracers or Armor.


----------



## VanRichten (Apr 28, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Slaved
> I am talking about the Bracers of Armor Cost not the Bonus that it gives! Extra Protection against Incorporeal Attacks is a Footnote at best and Should Not cost a Significant Amount of extra Gold.




Well if we consider this line of thinking.  Lets put these bracers on someone and see what happens.  

Since we have spoken about a level 15 character lets use that as our example.  Now lets take said character and make him so that he has a 30 dex since this was spoken as well.  Now lets take into account that said character has done everything gear and level wise to increase its dex to this level.  Thus giving him an impressive level of Touch AC being 20 on without any added effects.

Now lets take that character and put him up against say a Shadow for which is both incorporeal and low level.  Now lets up this shadow to a level equivalent with what would be a challenge for said 15th level character.   Given the 15th level character would be a Rogue on average and can't be flat footed it is more than likely that the Shadow in question would only have to deal with a Touch AC of 20.  Sounds pretty nice huh?  But what happens when the shadow has had a few hits on this character.  Since we know that the character has put everything into dex, we can imagine that he has lost a lot of bonus to strength.  Meaning that he would easily lose all strength after only a few hits from said Shadow.  At the point he hits 0 strength he no longer has that nice Touch AC of 20 it now drops to 10 at best.

So lets change this character and give him Bracers of Armor +6.  And only a 18 Dex.  Even if the shadow drops the character to 0 Strength he still has an Armor of 16 at least.  Due to the Incorporeal Protection he has from the bracers.

So in this situation we can see how part of the price of the Bracers of Armor is factored into it, and not just a footnote.

And if you think this won't occur.  Run through Ravenloft and show me how that 30 Dex character is so much better than having Bracers of Armor +6.  When you come back on your 3rd or 4th character you will know.


----------



## s-dub (Apr 28, 2008)

Slaved your argument that you can use magic vestment to up Bracers or armor's enhancement bonus has several fatal flaws, not the least of which is this:

According to RAW 

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#adventuringGear

Your normal clothes options are delineated here:

"Assume a character owns at least one outfit of normal clothes. Pick any one of the following clothing outfits: artisan’s outfit, entertainer’s outfit, explorer’s outfit, monk’s outfit, peasant’s outfit, scholar’s outfit, or traveler’s outfit. "

No starting outfit includes bracers.  Therefore you cannot have bracers are part of your normal clothes and magic vestment can't target your bracers.


----------



## moritheil (May 27, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> From the peanut gallery, I'd point out that 'can't have other armor enhancements' is a somewhat minimal restriction. Among other things, in the games I've been in, few people ever bother with enhancements other than a simple bonus.




What level do you play at?  You don't see fortification or death warding as common enhancements?


----------

