Ulimate Monk Armor....?

[Lord Pendragon]

Nail, I don't think the fact that you are boosting the same thing (AC) in every case is a legitimate reason to not have to double secondary effects' cost, merely because of the conclusions I come to if such a thing were possible. If allowed, I'd never buy separate slots. If I had the money to purchase a new item, I would inevitably upgrade an existing item to preserve slots.

So everyone would wind up with a Robe of AC, simply because it would save you an amulet slot (now I can wear the Amulet of Health,) a ring slot (now I can wear that Ring of Spell Storing), and a bracers slot (time to pick up some Greater Bracers of Archery). And it wouldn't cost any more than the regular items.

There has always been a cost associated with stacking effects on the same item, commensurate with the benefit of using fewer slots to accomplish the same effect.

 

[Kirin'Tor]

Most of the debate here seems to center around the concept of wether or not the 'similar powers' discount should be given. My opinion is no, and I have some reasoning to back it up:

Techniocally, all of those are bonuses to AC, but they are aren't all the same, if you consider the actual _effects_ of each bonus, rather than just the numerical side of +N to AC:

+4 Armor AC: An invisible field of armor (just as Mage Armor)
+2 Natural Armor AC: A subtle but effective hardening of the skin (or growing scales, etc ... see the MM for what all counts as natural armor)
+2 Defection AC: A small, mobile field of energy the blocks incomming blows
+2 Luck AC: The supernatural ability to know just where _not_ to be when a blow lands
+2 Sacred AC: A gift of the Divine, as your faith repels attacks...

Ok, I'll admit that the Sacred bonus' description is kind of a stratch, but I think they all get my point across. Lots of things can boost your AC, but that doesn't truely make them all similar...

Here's some descriptions of the other types of AC bonus that you didn't use (rightfully, b/c they can't be applied to items &\or don't fit):

Dodge: The ability to duck and weave at the right moment
Enhancement (as applied to standard armor): Magical protection woven (or hammered) directly into the armor, better than any normal hands could make it.
Profane: See Sacred, but reversed (evil faith)

In general, here's the rule of thumb I use when determining 'similar-ness':
The base spells for an ability (those used as pre-req's) must all be linked in one of several ways, any of which the _character_ must be able to describe in a non-metagame way:
1) an obvious thematic similarity (Fireball & Flaming Sphere; Wall of Ice & Wall of Stone)
2) grouping in a Clerical Domain
3) grouping by a spell descriptor ([Evil], [Sonic], [Force]) or spell sub-category (summoning, teleportation, compulsion)

#3 is a tricky one, and is usually either covered by #1 or #2, but I mention it simply for completeness...

that's my thoughts.

 

[Deset Gled]

...But it's not "just plain wrong". As Thanee just said, having a high AC is necessary, and stacking bonuses is a major piece of the rules.

...

So, again: Why (or why not) are stacking AC bonuses in one item "different", as defined by the Creating a Magic Item section in the DMG?

I'll clarify a bit.

I don't have an have any issues with stacking AC bonuses, yadda yadda yadda. The part that I think is "just plain wrong" is that it seems fairly blatant to me that you're just trying to find a way to skirt around other pricing rules and get something cheaper. Trying to find an item that has a +4 higher bonus but still costs 12000 gold less than another similair one described in the rules just screams munchkin. The fact that other people have shown you ways to get very high ACs with a monk, but you don't like them because they make the character trade off some of his other good qualities to be really good at one thing backs up the idea of munchkin a lot.

The Creating a Magic Item section is only a set of general guidelines, by their own admission. There are certainly a number of bad pricings that come out of them if you try hard enough (an infinite charge item of cure minor wounds is a good example). Using them to justify pricing on an item like the one you created is pretty meaningless; to me the item is obviously powerful enough to be worth more.

I don't really have enough information to make a strong arguement for it, but it seems to me that the real problem you're having is that you want this monk to be something monks aren't. I don't think monks aren't supposed to be amazingly good melee characters without a lot of effort. If you're not willing to sacrifice a good amount of feats and other abilities for the AC and HP, you're best way to stay alive is to use your high speed to get nice and far away from anything that's attacking you.

Again, the game is yours to do with as you please. If you feel that giving a character an item like this is the only way to balance things out, feel free. But if I were a player in your group, I would see this as either being very slighting to other players, or a wide open door to a ton more munchkining.



(A smilie to ensure that this post is not read as too aggressive, as I realize it may seem rather harsh.)

 

[RigaMortus]

Just a reminder, if you are playing by the Character Wealth "rules", no sinlge item can be equal to more than half of the character's wealth. So, for example, if a player's character wealth is 100k, he can't own a single item worth more than 50k.

 

[Jarrod]

Wow, is the SRD badly written.

I was prepared to post "multiple AC boni are not similar per the SRD", but then I read the FM... gah.

My call as a DM: multiple bonuses (of any sort) that stack would not be considered "similar" by the SRD meaning, even though they are "similar" as per English. My take is that SRD "similar" means "doesn't stack", and SRD "different" means "does stack". For example, an item that would produce a +4 armor bonus OR a +4 deflection bonus OR a +4 natural armor bonus would be "similar". Replacing "OR" with "AND" gets you "different".

As for the 30% discount... I'll paraphrase from a different gaming system (IFGS for you LARPers): "If a significant fraction of the possible users of the item would not be hampered by the crock, then the price should not be reduced". In this case, no monk would be hampered: no price reduction. If the robes prevented you from using any other magic item, then maybe.

 

[two]

Screw AC

Seriously. Monk16. If you don't have huge stats, and I mean, huge, or have dipped into other classes to steal some extra AC from here of there -- it's going to be a long, expensive, unrewarding process.

+5 Plate, +5 Large Shield, +1 dex = +21 to AC. Throw in some not-too-expensive wondrous items of +2 to this, +3 to that, and it's easy to punch through the AC 40 barrier with slots to spare.

Think about what a poor monk has to do (and spend) just to get +21 to AC. Then if you have any slots left... well, you probably won't.

I don't think your monk will ever have a good AC for the monsters you will face, so... give up.

Instead, do "indirect" AC.

This means buying a:

Cloak/item of Greater Displacement (continual). Remember, having a 50% miss chance is like having an AC=14,234 half the time. You are unhitteable, unless they roll over 50%.

Wondrous Item of Mirror Image. Make it like the boots of speed, useable for 20 rounds a day, activate as a free action. Should be about as expensive; lower level spell, but slightly greater duration.

Ring of Invisibility/some invisiblity item. Just because it's another layer of protection, when needed.

So, when battle comes along, this Monk can leap into the fray immediately using only free action buffs (mirror image item) and the enemy has to suffer:

50% miss chance (displacement)
Mirror Image miss chance
Can't be targeted by spells because of mirror image.
Items can't be dispelled easily becasue of mirror image.
Monk can't be sneak attacked due to displacement.

Plus, this is a quite cheap combo, leaving lots of cash around to beef up the monk's typically bad damage output.

Yeah, you are screwed against melee monsters that have true seeing. But how common is THAT? Enemies that DO have true seeing are mages/clerics, and we know who wins those battles (monk vs. spellcaster, yum).

Just an idea.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

That's not how the pricing system works for secondary effects that are in a magic item that takes up a body slot.


Already did the bonus to Wis and Dex. That's a given , frankly, and not included in the "Robe question".

As for your specific suggestion:
Armor bonuses are cheap, true...but given limited resources, you're better off going after lower bonuses for other AC boosts, like Luck, Sacred, or Insight......given you have enough body slots to spend, etc, etc.

Either way, your suggestion gives him only a +13 AC. For a Monk 16, that's too low!

I know it's too low. Sorry I wasn't much help but I was in a hurry. Good luck. I've seen high level monks and with the right resources they can have the higest ACs in the party. Good luck.

 

[RigaMortus]

Yeah, you are screwed against melee monsters that have true seeing. But how common is THAT? Enemies that DO have true seeing are mages/clerics, and we know who wins those battles (monk vs. spellcaster, yum).

Just an idea.

Even so, you can't cover all your bases. Nor should you want to. If your character had the best AC, the best miss chances, the best saves, etc. so much so that they only got hit/affected 5% of the time... Well what's the point in even playing?

You give a really good idea about "indirect" AC. The whole displacement route is a good idea, coupled with mirror image.

 

[Wish]

Cloak/item of Greater Displacement (continual). Remember, having a 50% miss chance is like having an AC=14,234 half the time. You are unhitteable, unless they roll over 50%.
*snip*
Plus, this is a quite cheap combo, leaving lots of cash around to beef up the monk's typically bad damage output.

The standard cloak of displacement costs 50k and is useable 15 rounds per day, requiring an action to activate. To make a continuous cloak, the cost would be 120k by the formula (3rd level spell * 5th level caster * 2000gp * 4 for short duration), not cheap at all.

 

[Thanee]

I believe this is an advantage.

You are kidding, right?

Four +2 different bonuses are an advantage to a single +8 bonus (costs aside)? Hardly!

The biggest downside, btw, is that you need four slots (yes, they are different ) for the four items (or costs increase again, which could still be worth it in some combinations).

Bye
Thanee