Ulimate Monk Armor....?

[Scion]

From how I normally read the item pricing guids almost nothing will 'ever' be 'similar items'. It is a huge price reduction and as such would only be applied in incredibly few circumstances. Definately not for such a powerful item where all of the bonuses stack at once.

Robe of the Monk: +4 Armor AC, +2 Deflection AC, +2 Natural Armor AC, +2 Luck AC, +2 Sacred AC; only useable by monks.

That said, I would price the item as such on the fly.

+4 Armor = 16k
+2 deflection = 8k *1.5 = 12k
+2 natural = 8k * 1.5 = 12k
+2 luck = 10k * 1.5 = 15k
+2 sacred = 10k * 1.5 = 15k
+glamor = 2k * 1.5 = 3k
----
73k
- 30% reduction
----
51.1k

Only useable by monks of the XXXX order. They must go through a special ceremony whereby the robes are placed on their body while the whole of their teachings are recited by a host of other members. This ceremony takes at least a week, during which time the monk may eat nothing.

If the robe is ever taken off for any reason the ceremony must be performed again before any bonuses will work for the monk. If they ever fall from favor of their monestary then either the robe stops working and may be removed as normal or, at the head monks option if the offense was great enough, all of the above bonuses will turn into penalties. Along with the glamor being permanently set to whatever the head monk wishes (usually something appropriate for the offense).

With the glamor the robes may appear to be almost any set of clothing that the monk desires, but chooseing anything that would be against the tenants of the monks order will instantly cause it to cease functioning and the head monk will be apprised.

In addition, all other items that grant similar bonuses to the above fail to work. Any spells which would grant bonuses greater than the above similarly fail to grant those bonuses (although other bonuses would still apply).



there we are.. I think that is fairly appropriate given the cost Have to earn that discount!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

In any case, there's nothing wrong with looking for a "cheaper, better, faster" way.

I agree with this. There's nothing wrong with a PC or player looking for the most effective way to do something. Min-Maxing one's equipment is no different than Min/Maxing stats or feats, and there's nothing wrong with that so long as you stay within the bounds of the game.

That said, I truly don't believe the robe, as originally written, is legal. You need to double the prices on those extra powers.

Edit to add: I think Scion's breakdown is good, except I as a DM would never allow the 30% reduction. I never use that when PCs are getting items made. Only when they are selling items that not everyone can use.

 

[Scion]

You need to double the prices on those extra powers.

Is this true? before I made my post I checked the errata and it says:

DMG errata 3.5:
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 285
Problem: The “Multiple different abilities” line is in error.
Solution: Change “Multiply higher item cost by 2” to
“Multiply lower item cost by 1.5”

I dont have the book with me, but I had assumed this was talking about the part I was working on. Does it in fact reference something else?

Edit to add: I think Scion's breakdown is good, except I as a DM would never allow the 30% reduction. I never use that when PCs are getting items made. Only when they are selling items that not everyone can use.

Well thanks

I dont use the 30% reduction very often either and when I do I make other costs to make up for it. But while I understand only useing the reduction for selling when it talks about it in the item creation section there is only one cost.. and based on that cost comes exp expenditures and gp needed to create.

I think of it as trading in one restriction (cost) for another restriction (such as the one I made up above, although I would normally make it more strict than that, it is a good start however).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I dont have the book with me, but I had assumed this was talking about the part I was working on. Does it in fact reference something else?

No, no, you're correct. I meant to go back and change this when I edited in that last comment, but completely forgot about it. 1.5 is correct. Much more economical than the ol' 3.0 days.

I think of it as trading in one restriction (cost) for another restriction (such as the one I made up above, although I would normally make it more strict than that, it is a good start however).

Except that it's no restriction. The PC will get full use of the item. The best guidelines for the 30% cost reduction I've seen were (I think) on Monte's boards. Basically, if the item only works at night, or the item only works underground, or the item only works the next three rounds after scoring a critical hit, give the reduction. If the item only works for monks of the hidden valley of yadda yadda, which happens to be exactly what the PC is, then he gets full use out of the item and a nifty security feature, so no cost reduction.

But I'm sure you already know all the pros and cons of the allowing the reduction. I guess I'm just a bit stricter when it comes to allowing it.

 

[Nail]

I think of it as trading in one restriction (cost) for another restriction (such as the one I made up above, although I would normally make it more strict than that, it is a good start however).

Excellent.

Thanks Scion. This is exactly the sort of analysis I was looking for, esp. re: -30% cost reduction. I'll likely firm up the restiction a bit more.

Although there's nothing in the RAW that says so, the Robe is price is currently too low. I think many of the posters in this thread have come to a consensus reading of the DMG text: "Different" doesn't mean what the designers think it means.

In the thread so far, the best definition seems to be: "Different" means "powers that are active at the same time, and are synergistic - that is, they compliment and augment each other". (I forget who first posted this, but: thanks!) A Robe of multiple AC bonuses qualifies for this definition.

For the record, spending ~50k gp for this robe (as per Scion's pricing) puts my Mnk16 AC at (+12 robe, +6 Dex +6 Wis +3 Mnk=) 37. That's O.K. (and stuff is still gonna hit him).

 

[dcollins]

Epic is waaaaaay off base. (Sorry Dcollins! )

Why is that? It has the exact same in-game effect as bracers of armor +12. What's the rationale for skipping over the "first, compare to an existing item" guideline?

 

[Scion]

While both have a total of +12, they happen in incredibly different ways.

They are not directly equivalent and going to the epic rules for it is definately not the way to go.

Unless full plate +4 should be priced as epic? After all, it is +12 to armor, must be the same.

 

[Jarrod]

One thing just occurred to me...

"Multiple different bonus types"

If you had something with a +4 armor bonus, a +2 armor bonus, and a +1 armor bonus... those are similar bonus types. +4 armor, +4 deflection... different bonus types.

Split, I say SPLIT those hairs.

In general, I treat "similar" as "sucking off the same power pool". A staff is about the only thing I can think of that actually is "similar". Most wondrous items, weapons, armor, rings, uh... are "different".

 

[Anthraxus]

Why is that? It has the exact same in-game effect as bracers of armor +12. What's the rationale for skipping over the "first, compare to an existing item" guideline?

-Not the exact same effect as +12 bracers of armor. Someone who had bracers +12 would still be able to take advantage of all the other types of AC bumps, or spells that increased AC in other ways but Armor. The proposed Monks robe is at a disadvantage, considering if someone casts a buff spell to increase AC, the wearer may not recieve any benefit(they probably already have that AC bonus type going...).

I agree that the monks robe bonuses should be at 1.5x, because like Jarrod said: They are multiple different bonus types.

And I also agree with the other posters that have said that the 30% off should not be for item creation, but for sale value.

-A

 

[Thanee]

I think many of the posters in this thread have come to a consensus reading of the DMG text: "Different" doesn't mean what the designers think it means.

Who knows what they think... but what they say is a little vague.

In the thread so far, the best definition seems to be: "Different" means "powers that are active at the same time, and are synergistic - that is, they compliment and augment each other". (I forget who first posted this, but: thanks!) A Robe of multiple AC bonuses qualifies for this definition.

I don't think this is accurate enough. I actually think, that similar only really applies to staffs or similar items (where the abilities are fueled by a mutual source (i.e. charges, uses/day, which are used up by both abilities).

I'd just use the different abilities multiplier in pretty much every case.


To be safe, if it's not completely obvious, that "similar" has to be used, use "different".

Bye
Thanee