Belt of Ironskin vs. Cloak of resistance

[jdpacheco]

I can cheerfully say that I like Diet Coke better than Diet Pepsi without someone saying 'Yeah, but you could always get Diet Ginger Ale' I'm comparing these two items - one clearly better than the other in every way possible, and 3 levels lower, and saying that I dislike that the item system works that way. I also don't like that there are items that give +2 to two skills that are 7th and 8th level, only difference being the skills, or +2 basic damage with melee is 2nd, ranged is 3rd... these choices seem random and arbitrary by and large, rather than a precise plan. I'm okay with fuzzy levels such that you don't have stupidness like 'So, 2000g for True Strike always on, right?' but I still want 'So if I want a +2 diplomacy item, it'll be the same as the +2 perception one, right?'

Well, of course there's going to be differences in levels of items that *seem* to do the same thing. Bracers of the Perfect Shot are perfect for Wizards who have Magic Missile, and Warlocks. They both have a *power* that counts as a basic ranged attack. Bracers of Mighty Striking are really only going to see use on someone who expects to take a lot of attacks of opportunity. There are no powers which count as basic attacks. The limited number of times you'll use the Mighty Striking vs the Perfect Shot, the cost difference works out.

The same holds true of skills. How often will the players make Perception checks vs Diplomacy? "Make a diplomacy check to see if you notice something." It's not gonna happen. (That if it's a 'diplomatic' situation, you'd use insight to notice something...). Perception is a *very* heavily used skill. Even in a heavy RPing campaign where diplomacy is used more frequently than normal, Perception will probably still beat it out.

The whole thing is a supply and demand economy. Players are more likely to want a Perception boost, so the merchants sell those items for more. If you find that your players pass up items that you think should be "obvious" decisions because they're cheaper than something that does "the same thing", adjust the prices/levels. Find out what things are worth to the characters. That's how economies work.

 

[keterys]

While that is how economies work, these are magic item _levels_, not economies.

If a feat nets you +5 or +3 to a skill, regardless of the skill, it's probably reasonable for a magic item to net you the same bonus. Both skills show up in skill challenges, after all. It's not like +1 bastard swords are higher level than +1 short swords.

Should the level of the bracers of mighty striking rise if someone makes an at-will that counts as a melee basic attack? In a group with a warlord and fighter, it's trivial to get a _lot_ more use out of bracers of mighty striking than perfect shot.

Honestly I think it's more likely that they just wanted a better spread of options so that you had more choices for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

 

[jdpacheco]

While that is how economies work, these are magic item _levels_, not economies.

Of course it's an economy. The levels exist as guidelines, and as a pricing scheme. A player can have item of any level. Heck, they could trade in all their items and get one 15th level item. The levels are a framework, not a straight-jacket.

If a feat nets you +5 or +3 to a skill, regardless of the skill, it's probably reasonable for a magic item to net you the same bonus. Both skills show up in skill challenges, after all. It's not like +1 bastard swords are higher level than +1 short swords.

Of course all +1 weapons are the same level. The trade-offs are built into the weapons themselves. Short Swords are Light Blades, Rogues like those. A bastard sword is useless to a rogue. They don't have a single power that they could use it with (at least, not that I saw at last scan). Bastard Swords also cost an extra feat. Trade-offs are built into the weapons inherently.

And feats represent a different level of choice. And you will likely see that players are less likely to spend a feat on certain skills. If diplomacy is on their class list, they may take it then, but they probably won't take Skill Training in it, and very probably not over Skill Training: Perception.

Should the level of the bracers of mighty striking rise if someone makes an at-will that counts as a melee basic attack? In a group with a warlord and fighter, it's trivial to get a _lot_ more use out of bracers of mighty striking than perfect shot.

Yes, the level *should* probably rise. Level determines price. Price is what the item is worth to your players. If your players only have a limited use for something, they're not going to use it. They'll either not ever buy it, or sell it (or turn it into residuum) at their first opportunity. They're going to prefer using the resources for something else.

And of course it's possible to make a party that can get more use out of the item. However, that's going to be an item that's great for that one specific party build. And, even with your proposed party, you're not looking at more than a couple more Opportunity Attacks than normal. Yes, the fighter gets an OA on a marked opponent who shifts. Once. It's an Immediate Reaction, and page 268 specifically states that you can make one Immediate Action per Round. (The fighter is also choosing to forgo any other Immediate Actions he may have wanted to take when he makes this attack). Unless, of course, you were planning on playing the monsters *real* dumb, they're just *not* going to trigger that many OAs. Certainly not enough for most players to spend the money on the bracers rather than... Oh, maybe a second magic weapon, or magic shield, or maybe a Belt of Vigor, or maybe any number of other things.

Honestly I think it's more likely that they just wanted a better spread of options so that you had more choices for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

I don't think this factors in at all. Look at the tables some time. The distribution is wonky. 4th level seems to get skipped a lot. 9th level is missing on a few. Wands jumps a lot (1,3,6,8,11,13). Arm items lack a 4, 6, 9, 11, but has two 12s and two 13s. Why not make one of the 12s a 11 if they wanted a more even spread.

Is everyone going to agree with the placement? Nopers (clearly). Is there underlying economy at work? Yes.

Again. YMMV. But this is how *I'm* seeing the magic items in the PHB.

 

[keterys]

Okie, pretend the cloak and belt don't exist for a moment.

You're given two items to give item levels to:
1) Ironskin Cloak: resist 5 weapons, minor action, end of next turn
2) Belt of Resistance: resist 5 all, minor action, start of next turn

1.5 and... 9?

 

[jdpacheco]

Okie, pretend the cloak and belt don't exist for a moment.

You're given two items to give item levels to:
1) Ironskin Cloak: resist 5 weapons, minor action, end of next turn
2) Belt of Resistance: resist 5 all, minor action, start of next turn

1.5 and... 9?

Now you're getting into an iffy territory. The Ironskin Cloak, in this case, would likely be *significantly* worse. What level would I place the items at? Hard to say.

As I said earlier, the advantage of the Ironskin belt is the fact that it *is* a belt. The Belt of Resistance is not a significantly kick-butt item, as you can now wear it with any number of other things (such as the Cloak of Survival) and still have it *easily* look good.

There are two questions you have to ask in this situation. "How likely is the average character to buy this?" and then balance it out with where you think the player the would have to honestly think about it. And then, for some items, it's more about "How likely is the intended character type to buy this?" If the item (like the Perfect Shot bracers) has a limited audience, that has to be taken into consideration, and may even lower the level a notch.

The Ironskin Cloak has the unfortunate penalty of not being quite what I consider 2nd level, but is clearly better than the first level item for its category. No player would debate "Do I want the amulet, or the cloak that does the same thing and also has a random daily power?". Clear choice. That means that it sort of has to be level 2, at least until someone comes up with a price 1.75 level items. (I'm not willing to go quite so low as 1.5...)

The Belt of Resistance... Would probably be a level 7 in my mind. Is it really as good as, say, a Belt of Sacrifice? Meh, probably not in the long run, but the +1 item bonus wouldn't stack with the Belt of Vigor that your teammate may have... A Belt of Resistance I don't think could push itself so high as level 9. I think it'll peak around level 7.

 

[austinwulf]

I'm definately with Keterys on this one, but at least by seeing folks who do find some value in the Ironskin Belt, I am at satisfied that it is not a terrible WoTC oversite in poor ballance, or for that matter, an intentionally bad item. (Some of my magic playing friends have told me that they intentional produce lack luster cards, like say "pearled Unicorn" to help teach players what a bad card is)

I don't like it, but if others find it potentially handy, play ball!

thanks guys!

 

[Runestar]

And then, for some items, it's more about "How likely is the intended character type to buy this?" If the item (like the Perfect Shot bracers) has a limited audience, that has to be taken into consideration, and may even lower the level a notch.

Shouldn't items be priced based off the worse case scenario, in that we assume that the PC using it will be the one to best milk its benefit(s) for all it is worth, and then price it accordingly?

For example, bracers of perfect shot may stink for all other classes save for a very specific build. In this case, should we price it based on these classes who will likely never ever use it in the first place, or based off the 1 class who will find it very useful? Make it too cheap and it becomes a steal for that 1 exception....It is like arguing that a holy avenger deserves a discount because only the paladin can use it...

 

[jdpacheco]

Shouldn't items be priced based off the worse case scenario, in that we assume that the PC using it will be the one to best milk its benefit(s) for all it is worth, and then price it accordingly?

For example, bracers of perfect shot may stink for all other classes save for a very specific build. In this case, should we price it based on these classes who will likely never ever use it in the first place, or based off the 1 class who will find it very useful? Make it too cheap and it becomes a steal for that 1 exception....It is like arguing that a holy avenger deserves a discount because only the paladin can use it...

Both factors have to be taken into consideration. "How useful is this item in general?" and "How useful is this to the intended recipient?"

Paladins aren't the only ones who can use the Avenger (and it *is* offered at a discount...).

First, it can also be used, fully effectively, by Clerics. It just a weapon that counts as a holy symbol, too, so Clerics will likely find some use for it.

Second, it's still weapon, and a +5 one at that. Keep in mind part of what that means: +5d6 on a critical hit. Would another +5 weapon perhaps be better? Maybe. But toss in the fact that you get to spend a healing surge on a crit as well, and the deal is sweetened.

Third, *any* class that has radiant damage powers (and uses the Weapon keyword for those powers) can use the Property of the weapon.

Fourth, there isn't going to be anyone who *can't* use the Daily power, and it's a pretty good power. +5 to all defenses for a full round for the cost of a minor action is hard to complain about, especially when it's you and pretty much all your allies.

Finally: It's darn good weapon. Probably almost valid as a 25 on it's own... (Level 21 for being +5, +1 level for the extra crit ability, +1 for the daily means we're talking at least Level 23). Now add in the fact that it's also a +5 holy symbol. That's one less purchase. +5 holy symbol + +5 Magic weapon doesn't add up to the cost, but the extra abilities certainly do. Should it be level 25? Hard to say. But looking around at the other level 25s, it's about on par, and it could almost be a level 26+ item in the eyes of a Pally (or maybe Cleric). It's one of those "this is the *obvious* choice for a Paladin, even compared to a Flaming weapon", but it's not *as* useful to other classes, so it comes down a little.

Pact blades serve much the same purpose, only much more specifically to Warlocks, and have fewer extras, and the +5 Pact Blade comes out two levels short of the +5 Holy Avenger...

 

[jdpacheco]

Actually...

Pact blades are probably a perfect example.

+5 Dagger: Level 21 (225,000gp)
+5 Wand (or Rod, they're all the same): Level 21 (225,000gp)

+5 Pact Blade Dagger: Level 23 (425,000)

A +5 dagger *and* a +5 wand *should* be 450,000gp. Add in the fact that the pact blade automatically damages anyone who attacks you in melee... Pact Blades are a huge discount, and Warlocks are the only class that could use them as anything other than a +5 Weapon. (No one else has curse to benefit from the Property, and the description specifically states it's a Warlock implement.)

 

[austinwulf]

You lost me on that point. maybe I'm missing something.

A +5 dagger is just a plus 5 dagger.

A +5 pact dagger is a + 5 dagger AND has benefits if you are warlocky (i'm not looking at the rules, but maybe advanced multi-classing will get you something)

Those bennies are only good if you are a warlock, but they are still extra, and makes the dagger more valuable to a warlock, should you need to trade one.
Its doing more, so it costs more.

Belt vs. Amulet, the amulet does more and costs less. (also, with only 1 daily power use per day from levels 1-10, I just can't see anyone going out of their way to get an ironskin belt)

again, sometimes you get what the goblins give you, but such is life.