Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2215319" data-attributes="member: 17296">No real tearing apart for me, but I like the flavor. I'd make the first a 50% miss chance straigh up, and not worry overmuch about 'details' like what if the thing hitting you is the size of a house. Those details are generally ignored anyhow. As for price, there are a few places to look for a starting point... first is the spell which gives displacement (50%)... So you could base the item's price off the price of a continuously functioning displacement spell. However continuous items are a very 'discretionary' area of those rules, so you need to look at similiar items if they exist. And they do, sort of,  there's a Major cloak of displacement that only functions some of the time (Up to 15 rounds total, not necessarily contiguous). Base it off of that and increase the price for a continuously functioning item. The book lists that as 50,000 gold.Second is the Ring of Blinking. It gives a 50% miss chance... but also a few other penalties like a 20% chance of YOUR attacks missing, slower spead... etc, and other nifty side effects (You're now practically immune to being grappled, for instance, lots of potential sneak attacking). You could look there and adjust the price upwards. That's priced at 27,000 gold.Now, in my opinion they've overpriced the cloak of displacement. However it's IN the rules, and gives 50% miss chance, so that's likely the best place to start pricing this item legitimately. 15 rounds... depending... that's about one to two medium combats. Let's call it 2.5, for simplicity's sake. Why is that simple? Because in the wonderous item creation chart an item that does something five times per day can be considered to be the same cost as one with no limitation. Therefore double that to 100,000gp as a base price.OR you can start with the ring of blinking, and ignore the cloak... and try say that it cost 40K. I'd probably try that because, as I said, I think that the major displacement robe is overpriced. And it depends a little bit on who's your GM. If it's YOU, price it wherever. On the other hand, if your GM is the kind that likes to haggle, and will consider any reasonable price you give him as an opening bid, it helps to start low. On the gripping hand, if the GM is actually willing to work WITH you (or if you're the GM and really looking for something reasonable withing the rules... At 50K I personally think the cloak should give the 50% for 15 rounds AND 25% continuously, and THAT, while a better displacement robe, that's still not as good as this permanent 50% item, so realistically it should probably cost around 80,000 to 100,000.Now, moving on to the ring-gate armor, which you've priced as more. Sure, it's potentially more complicated, but it's also more limited in function. And 3.X prices things based on function. This one, as I'd make it (50% miss for ranged/piercing) is more limited than the above, and should cost less. Probably 75% of the above item's price for full armor, and 75% of the full armor's price for half armor. So say the Portable Hole shirt is 100K, the full ring gate armor would be 75k, and the half ring gate armor 57k. (I'm assuming here that the half ring gate armor has the additional restriction of being ineffective against attacks from the back). Now that's one place to start, and necessitated mainly by your wish to include partial immunity to piercing weapons. If you just wanted partial (or even complete) immunity to arrow/bolts/bullets, I'd probably start with the spell "wind wall"... and I might end up with a slightly lesser price for the armors. It'd be easier in gameplay too if you just made it immunity to certain types of weapons. (Although for complete immunity you're definitly increasing the price right back up, more than making up for what you would have saved).</blockquote>

Verification