D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Magic Item Creation help needed.

[Greenfield]

A Ring of Force Shield is already in the book at 8,500 gp. It's a +2 AC bonus, and doesn't automatically block Magic Missile spells.

This is where the other rule of magic item creation comes into play: Find an item of comparable power in the book, and use that item's price as a starting point.

A normal Ring of Protection +4 would cost 32,000 gp, and still wouldn't block Magic Missile spells.

So yeah, you're right, your approach to the ring is much too cheap.

As a general rule, if you want magic protection, lots of small items are cheaper than a single big bonus item, they just use more slots to do the job.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

A Ring of Force Shield is already in the book at 8,500 gp. It's a +2 AC bonus, and doesn't automatically block Magic Missile spells.

This is where the other rule of magic item creation comes into play: Find an item of comparable power in the book, and use that item's price as a starting point.

A normal Ring of Protection +4 would cost 32,000 gp, and still wouldn't block Magic Missile spells.

So yeah, you're right, your approach to the ring is much too cheap.

As a general rule, if you want magic protection, lots of small items are cheaper than a single big bonus item, they just use more slots to do the job.

The ring of shield would apply a shield bonus, rather than a deflection bonus. It should cost about one-half as much, or 16,000 gp. Maybe add another 2,000 gp for immunity to the magic missile spell.

 

[orion90000]

A Ring of Force Shield is already in the book at 8,500 gp. It's a +2 AC bonus, and doesn't automatically block Magic Missile spells.

Which makes it the lamest Transformer of them all =)

 

[scott2978]

Which makes it the lamest Transformer of them all =)

Maybe you failed to notice that this is an untyped bonus to AC. Not only is this not lame, it's better than a Ring of Shield, Bracers of Mage Armor, and even a Ring of Protection, because it would stack with anything.

 

[TKDB]

Maybe you failed to notice that this is an untyped bonus to AC. Not only is this not lame, it's better than a Ring of Shield, Bracers of Mage Armor, and even a Ring of Protection, because it would stack with anything.

That's pretty debatable, given that it is described as being "wielded as a heavy shield". Doesn't explicitly state that it's a shield bonus, but the intent is very clearly implied and most DMs would probably interpret it that way.
Even if you do take it as being an untyped bonus, the fact that you have to wield it in the off hand makes the distinction pretty miniscule. You could stack it with an animated shield or the Shield spell, but that's about it.
I guess if you're really that concerned with maxing AC it's useful to you, but frankly I'm pretty sure there are better things to spend your cash, off hand, and ring slot on.

 

[Sekhmet]

That's pretty debatable, given that it is described as being "wielded as a heavy shield". Doesn't explicitly state that it's a shield bonus, but the intent is very clearly implied and most DMs would probably interpret it that way.
Even if you do take it as being an untyped bonus, the fact that you have to wield it in the off hand makes the distinction pretty miniscule. You could stack it with an animated shield or the Shield spell, but that's about it.
I guess if you're really that concerned with maxing AC it's useful to you, but frankly I'm pretty sure there are better things to spend your cash, off hand, and ring slot on.

In D&D, because there is such a wide variety of explanations and items and wording variations, it is important to pay attention to the rules as written, not as implied.
If you wanted to use this Ring of Force Shield as an example, rules as written state you get a small Wall of Force that acts as a special Heavy Shield with no encumbrance or weight.
While it does say "as if it were a Heavy Shield", and you infer that it means "Shield Bonus", you would also infer that it meant you were effectively wearing armor (no Monk bonus to AC, among other things), you would also have to infer that it meant the majority of users would not be proficient with it. While it wouldn't cause any penalty to occur, it would indeed raise many other questions regarding similar such "as if it were" spells and items, which would then need to be reevaluated and reruled.

Far better to adhere to the rules there were written, rather than the rules that were left open to interpretation. At least then, everyone is working with the same material.

 

[TKDB]

In D&D, because there is such a wide variety of explanations and items and wording variations, it is important to pay attention to the rules as written, not as implied.
If you wanted to use this Ring of Force Shield as an example, rules as written state you get a small Wall of Force that acts as a special Heavy Shield with no encumbrance or weight.
While it does say "as if it were a Heavy Shield", and you infer that it means "Shield Bonus", you would also infer that it meant you were effectively wearing armor (no Monk bonus to AC, among other things), you would also have to infer that it meant the majority of users would not be proficient with it. While it wouldn't cause any penalty to occur, it would indeed raise many other questions regarding similar such "as if it were" spells and items, which would then need to be reevaluated and reruled.

Far better to adhere to the rules there were written, rather than the rules that were left open to interpretation. At least then, everyone is working with the same material.

Technically speaking, if you're sticking to RAW, monks probably aren't proficient with unarmed strike...
While generally speaking it is a good idea to stay as close to RAW as possible, in many cases this causes a lot of problems. 3.x especially is bad on this point.
In this particular case with the ring, it's a rather trivial distinction -- 2 points of AC one way or the other generally isn't that big a deal by the time you're at a level where you could even afford the ring -- but the general principle of favoring RAW over RAI is a very dangerous one in 3.x.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Far better to adhere to the rules there were written, rather than the rules that were left open to interpretation.

Sorry, no. D&D expects you to use your brain, not turn it off. Reading the rules in context is critical to interpreting them correctly.

Adhere to the RAW at your own risk. Anybody at my table who tried to argue that a ring of force shield grants an untyped bonus to AC would get laughed out of the room.

 

[Sekhmet]

Technically speaking, if you're sticking to RAW, monks probably aren't proficient with unarmed strike...
While generally speaking it is a good idea to stay as close to RAW as possible, in many cases this causes a lot of problems. 3.x especially is bad on this point.
In this particular case with the ring, it's a rather trivial distinction -- 2 points of AC one way or the other generally isn't that big a deal by the time you're at a level where you could even afford the ring -- but the general principle of favoring RAW over RAI is a very dangerous one in 3.x.

Monks gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at level 1.

The problem with RAI is that everyone can have a different interpretation and it allows for Rules Lawyers to drag games down to a screeching halt. having multiple sets of possible rules is the pen and paper equivalent to Calvin Ball.

[MENTION=40109]Vegepygmy[/MENTION] Yes, it expects you to use your brain while you play the game, coming up with exciting and fun ways to adventure, hang out, and have a good time. It doesn't expect you to go through every source book and make a mental note on how you interpret the rules for every individual occasion. D&D is Plug And Play, not a cold installation of new hardware that requires a long install process and requires you to read the manual.

These are my opinions, you don't have to play that way.

 

[TKDB]

Monks gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at level 1.

Improved Unarmed Strike is not the same thing as weapon proficiency. Humanoids are only proficient with the weapons given on their class list (if they have no class -- that is, if they only have racial hit dice -- then they're proficient with all simple weapons), and monks do not have unarmed strike listed on their class proficiency list. IUS does allow the monk to be considered armed when not wielding a weapon for the purposes of provoking AoO and such, and gives the monk the ability to deal lethal damage with the unarmed strike, but the monk by RAW still has to deal with a -4 nonproficiency penalty to hit with unarmed strike. The only way for a monk to be proficient with unarmed strike by RAW is to take the weapon proficiency feat or be a non-humanoid race (humanoids are the only creature type that don't automatically gain proficiency with either their natural weapons or all simple weapons).

Of course, the RAI in this case is so painfully obvious (and the RAW relatively obscure) that it's universally assumed that monks are indeed proficient in unarmed strike, but this this is not actually RAW.