8-10K gold piece value magic item for a mage

[kreynolds]

What about a necklace that provides:

a +2 insight bonus to AC
comprehend languages 1/day

then the necklace would have shells on it that would act like charges. The charges would be:

10 quickened true strikes
10 magic missiles @ 5th level
10 fireballs @ 5 th level

This is what the price breakdown would look like. By the way, I assume spell-trigger action for all the spells (its cheaper and more appropriate to a spellcaster anyway). Anything with a (x2) is doubled because its a secondary power on the item...

+2 insight bonus to AC (2 x 2 x 2500) - 10,000gp
comprehend languages 1/day (spell-trigger, 1 x 1 x 750 / 5) - 150gp (x2) 300gp
10 quickened true strikes (spell-trigger, 5 x 9 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 6,750gp (x2) 13,500gp
10 magic missiles @ 5th level (spell-trigger, 1 x 5 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 750gp (x2) 1,500gp
10 fireballs @ 5 th level (spell-trigger, 3 x 5 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 2,250gp (x2) 4,500gp

Total Market Price - 29,800gp; Cost to Create - 14,900 gp + 1,192 XP; Feats Required - Craft Wondrous Item (and I would suggest Craft Wand as well).

 

[Dash Dannigan]

That's not correct. The ring grants an armor bonus, which does not help against touch attacks. What's more, it's seldom useful for mages, since it does not stack with the bonus from Mage Armor or bracers of armor.

I thought it might not be. And yet the force shield is still a small wall of force and can block spells, how is that suppose to be worked in rules-wise?

The entry for force shield notes it works just as a normal (large) shield does, granting a +2 AC. Perhaps an individual with mage armor gains no benefit from using a large wooden shield then?

 

[Ferret]

Runed gloves: Arcane Mark at will, +10 decipher, And Comprehend languages. Don't know price but will write up later...

 

[kreynolds]

Perhaps an individual with mage armor gains no benefit from using a large wooden shield then?

They will in 3.5, but I think they do now as well. Bracers of Armor don't stack with armor, but I thought they stack with shields, just like armor stacks with shields, or maybe this day is just way too frickin' long...

 

[Mahali]

3.0 rules it needs to be worn armor and the Bracers don't qualify because it's not armor.

 

[kreynolds]

3.0 rules it needs to be worn armor and the Bracers don't qualify because it's not armor.

Where does it say that it must be worn? I'm just wondering because I don't remember reading that.

 

[Pielorinho]

This is what the price breakdown would look like. By the way, I assume spell-trigger action for all the spells (its cheaper and more appropriate to a spellcaster anyway). Anything with a (x2) is doubled because its a secondary power on the item...

+2 insight bonus to AC (2 x 2 x 2500) - 10,000gp
comprehend languages 1/day (spell-trigger, 1 x 1 x 750 / 5) - 150gp (x2) 300gp
10 quickened true strikes (spell-trigger, 5 x 9 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 6,750gp (x2) 13,500gp
10 magic missiles @ 5th level (spell-trigger, 1 x 5 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 750gp (x2) 1,500gp
10 fireballs @ 5 th level (spell-trigger, 3 x 5 x 750 / 50 x 10) - 2,250gp (x2) 4,500gp

Total Market Price - 29,800gp; Cost to Create - 14,900 gp + 1,192 XP; Feats Required - Craft Wondrous Item (and I would suggest Craft Wand as well).

Although you're by-the-book's-guidelines-correct, I'd figure the cost slightly differently. The point of charging double for extra powers on an item is to compensate for the item's not taking up an extra slot (at least, I think that's why -- that's also why nonslotted items charge double for their powers).

However, wands are already (arguably) slotless items. So I wouldn't charge double for any of the wand powers. That would reduce the cost to 20,800, if I can successfully do math in my head.

Furthermore, there's no innate reason why an insight bonus is better than (say) a deflection bonus; I think it's more expensive because you don't want people to stack too many bonuses one on top of the other. If you think it's cool for a diviner to have an insight bonus, just restrict his access to deflection bonuses, and you won't have a problem. This will be a your-campaign-only tweak that shouldn't affect the balance. This'll get the cost down to 18,800.

Finally, one of the big costs is the quickened true strikes. Honestly, in the context of a wand, this is nowhere near as useful as (for example) a wall-of-force wand. I wouldn't charge the same thing for this power as you would for a necklace that created ten walls of force. This is purely IMHO, but you could reduce the value of these down to 750, and I think it'd be reasonable.

That gets your item's total value down to 12,800. Much closer to what you're looking for.

One last note: if you're gonna goof up with giving someone too powerful an item, it's a good idea to make it a charged item. Worst case scenario, this fellow has 50 way-too-powerful rounds in combat before the item is gone. And that's really not such a worst-case.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

The point of charging double for extra powers on an item is to compensate for the item's not taking up an extra slot (at least, I think that's why -- that's also why nonslotted items charge double for their powers).

Right. Its to account for it being a secondary power on a slotted item. A staff is nothing but multiple wands on a single stick. If the powers are similiar, such as a bunch of cold spells, like on a staff, then the secondary powers are reduced in price. If they are not similar, like the powers we have here, they're doubled.

However, wands are already (arguably) slotless items.

It doesn't really work that way. The only time a wand is half price is when it is the third similar power on a staff (or when it only has 25 charges, of course), etc. None of the powers of this item are similar, so their price is doubled.

Furthermore, there's no innate reason why an insight bonus is better than (say) a deflection bonus;

Oh, believe me, you don't have to tell me! <looks around> Tell all them!

Honestly, in the context of a wand, this is nowhere near as useful as (for example) a wall-of-force wand.

+20 to an attack? I can see that being very useful. Anyways, I've seen true strike used in very innovative and creative ways, so I can't really come down on the price for it.

One last note: if you're gonna goof up with giving someone too powerful an item, it's a good idea to make it a charged item. Worst case scenario, this fellow has 50 way-too-powerful rounds in combat before the item is gone. And that's really not such a worst-case.

Eh? I don't get your meaning.

 

[Pielorinho]

Well, what would you charge, kreynolds, for a bundle of mostly-used-up wands with these powers? I see this item as about as useful as that bundle.

I get your point about the quickened true strike being nasty. I'm still not sure that it's as nasty as your average 5th-level spell cast at ninth level. Which would you generally rather have: a ray attack that will definitely hit (consider that ray attacks usually hit anyway), or an empowered fireball cast at ninth level? I'd definitely rather have the empowered fireball. But this is a purely subjective judgement call on my part.

As for the charged item being less damaging to a campaign than an uncharged item, here's what I'm thinking:

If you give someone a +3 sword when they're at third level, that's an effect that stays with them for a long time, and it's hard to take away. OTOH, if you give them an overpowered wand, either they won't use it (and therefore it's not overpowering), or they'll use it (and it'll go away). If you're gonna err on the side of being generous with magic items, it's probably best to do it with charged items, I think.

Daniel

 

[kreynolds]

Well, what would you charge, kreynolds, for a bundle of mostly-used-up wands with these powers?

What kinds of wands?

Which would you generally rather have: a ray attack that will definitely hit (consider that ray attacks usually hit anyway), or an empowered fireball cast at ninth level? I'd definitely rather have the empowered fireball. But this is a purely subjective judgement call on my part.

I'd take the fireball too, but I'm biased.

As for the charged item being less damaging to a campaign than an uncharged item, here's what I'm thinking:

Oh, ok. I get ya' now. You just came outta left field with that, so I wasn't sure where exactly you were headed with it. I definately agree with you though.