D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Belt of Enlarge

[Vegepygmy]

Now, there is the super major pain in the ass of dispel magic screwing you over.

Yep. And, unlike the continuous-use item, it can't be "taken off" whenever that would be convenient.

But...still way more worth it than paying some ridiculous sum like 20k for a 1st level spell. Really though, potions are 50 gp and wands are 750...

And every single time you want to use them, you get to spend at least a standard action (1-round casting time for the wand, in fact, and unless it's on your spell list, you'll need someone else to activate it for you) and--in the case of potions--possibly provoke an AoO. As opposed to the continuous-use item, which has none of these drawbacks.

...if it were me I'd never even bother with finding a permanent enlarge person anyway. Who wants to walk into ambushes and traps with a constant -2 AC, -5 hide, and -1 initiative? Much better to buff with it after combat's started, IMHO.

I agree. And it's even better to not spend any actions at all on buffing.

 

[frankthedm]

*I used CL 1 for the actual enlarge person spell because it's going to be permanent anyway and all CL affects is duration.

So you think the caster is going to sell himself short and not charge you for his 9 casting levels? Even IF that an option since Permanency lists it as Enlarge person Minimum Caster Level 9th XP cost 500 XP


Plus:

Spells cast on other creatures, objects, or locations (not on you) are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal.

So if one could reduce caster level on a spell being hit with Permanency, it would be risky.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I priced Permanency at CL 9, but the attached spell, Enlarge Person, at only CL 1. Again, wasn't sure how that'd interact with dispel magic or if you can even do it. But if not, it's just another 80 gp to the cost anyway.

 

[Sekhmet]

Alright, well still then, it has an unnecessary 10th CL attached to it, it only needs CL 1 to cast and would still work for a combat. Dividing the price by 10 (based on the whole DMG guideline of multiplying by CL) would make that 300 gp for a 1/day CL 1 item. Definitely to cheap, clearly. But I've never paid 3k for that stupid belt and never would. You could have 60 potions or 4 fully charged wands (200 uses!) for that price!

MIC's CL10 is what gives it the 10round timer on it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

10 minutes. It's a minute/level spell. Sometimes 10 minutes may mean multiple combats, a lot of times it won't and 1 minute would have been sufficient. Certainly not worth paying many times the price for, IMO (by DMG table 10x as much, but again that's clearly a bogus equation to apply to this item).

I just disagreed that a level 1 spell buff of moderate duration should be worth anywhere near 20k, that's just really excessive to me. If you feel the need to jack up the price that much, may as well just ban the item to begin with.

Why is everyone focused on "continuous" items, though? The same equation/multipliers would apply if it were just infinite use activated. If you actually have a choice in the matter, continuous would almost always be the no-brainer pick. So I always figured that in most cases you don't get to pick, the nature of the spell determines which type of item it is and the default leans heavily towards infinite use activation.

So, for the 4000 gp that an above poster tallied, you'd have an item that let you enlarge person yourself whenever you wanted, for 1 min. duration each time. While it's not a written rule, refreshing the item every round or every other round would severely slow down party travel and just be really ridiculous (not to mention insanely monotonous to the character), so I'd tell the PC he can only refresh it once/minute for such reasons. And whenever a combat rolled around, roll a d10 to see how many rounds of enlarge were left, probably meaning he'd need to burn an action in combat to renew it at some point. For 4000 gp for a 50 gp potion effect, that sounds plenty fair.
/houserules

 

[Vegepygmy]

I just disagreed that a level 1 spell buff of moderate duration should be worth anywhere near 20k, that's just really excessive to me. If you feel the need to jack up the price that much, may as well just ban the item to begin with.

Why is everyone focused on "continuous" items, though? The same equation/multipliers would apply if it were just infinite use activated. If you actually have a choice in the matter, continuous would almost always be the no-brainer pick. So I always figured that in most cases you don't get to pick, the nature of the spell determines which type of item it is and the default leans heavily towards infinite use activation.

So, for the 4000 gp that an above poster tallied, you'd have an item that let you enlarge person yourself whenever you wanted, for 1 min. duration each time.

That's not actually how a continuous-use item works. A continuous-use item (such as gauntlets of ogre power) is simply "always on." You can take the item off and temporarily lose the benefit, but otherwise, there is no action required to use it.

As to the cost I've suggested, I speak from experience. I had a reach-weapon using AoO specialist character once and talked the DM into letting me buy a continuous-use belt of enlarge person using the DMG guideline price (which, I believe, was 4,000 gp, but in any event was much less than 20K). I soon realized I had made a terrible mistake in judgment, as my character went from "extremely effective" to "utterly ridiculous."

So I stand by my recommendation. In the hands of someone who knows what he is doing, a continuous enlarge person item is a Very Big Deal. I'd be reluctant to let one into my game at all, but if I did, I would make sure the price reflected its true value.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As to the cost I've suggested, I speak from experience. I had a reach-weapon using AoO specialist character once and talked the DM into letting me buy a continuous-use belt of enlarge person using the DMG guideline price (which, I believe, was 4,000 gp, but in any event was much less than 20K). I soon realized I had made a terrible mistake in judgment, as my character went from "extremely effective" to "utterly ridiculous."

Doubled reach made you better than a spellcaster suddenly? Really?

I stand by what I said, if you think a continuous use item is unbalanced, don't allow customized ones at all. I actually agree, I don't like the idea of made to order constant effect items, even for low level spell effects, so I wouldn't allow them myself.

I've played long reach warriors before, too. Speaking from experience, I'd laugh at a 20k price tag and just take out my wand. It's not like every single combat starts within melee range from the first round and with no chance to buff at all anyway.

 

[Dandu]

Question: Should melee be able to have nice things?

Follow up: If so, what should those nice things be?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Question: Should melee be able to have nice things?

Follow up: If so, what should those nice things be?

Yes.

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens?

 

[Vegepygmy]

Doubled reach made you better than a spellcaster suddenly? Really?

I would say my character was easily the most powerful in the party. (Frankly, he was "broken.") But then, I've never subscribed to the notion that casters are so much more powerful than non-casters. That "fact" seems to depend quite heavily on the style of game one plays.

I stand by what I said, if you think a continuous use item is unbalanced, don't allow customized ones at all. I actually agree, I don't like the idea of made to order constant effect items, even for low level spell effects, so I wouldn't allow them myself.

I don't entirely disagree, though I hate to simply ban things outright. By setting the price where I would, I'm really just saying to my players: "I'd prefer we didn't introduce this to the game, but if you want it bad enough, I'll acquiesce."

I've played long reach warriors before, too. Speaking from experience, I'd laugh at a 20k price tag and just take out my wand. It's not like every single combat starts within melee range from the first round and with no chance to buff at all anyway.

As I mentioned before, unless you're a caster, you have to get someone else to use that wand for you. Maybe that's not a problem in your games, but in my experience, convincing another player to devote a full round of "casting time" at the start of every battle to buffing my character is...well, I'd have better luck selling snow to eskimos. I'd rely on potions, instead, but those have significant drawbacks as well.