Talk:Shield Sphere (3.5e Equipment)

Major Questions

Did I overprice it? Did I underprice it? Is the ability too powerful in general? Should it cost 40,000 -- AC Bonus(other) squared * 2500? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarnott (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

You can probably drop the levitation requirement, the shield spell itself can probably be safely assumed to deliver the movement capability of the sphere. Honestly this would probably cost about 4,000gp, possibly less because of the limitations you have placed on the item. I took the price from adding a spell for continuous use on an item at spell level x caster level x 2,000 x 2 (for being a 1 minute casting time). If you take into account your limitations... I'd drop the price to 3,000gp. --Calidore Chase 15:37, 19 January 2007 (MST)

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'm not so sure it is overpriced as it is. A bonus of +4 to shield AC is very good. For front line fighters, this allows two-handed weapons to be used and still have the equivalent to a +3 buckler. For Monks I don't even have to explain. For rogues, it is good because rogues rarely use shields (I find at least). For mages, it is one less spell to cast. And for druids and cleric types I think it is least useful, but still worthwhile. The reason I put levitation as a requirement is to increase the character level for crafting such an item. An easy way to balance an item is often to look at other items of the same price. I didn't look at these in particular, but it ends up supporting the price extremely well: Bracers of Armor. I made some changes (such as removing levitation) to make it more like the bracers. Aarnott 10:21, 1 February 2007 (MST)

I think it is better now. The price and the benefits are more reasonably priced. Good job on the fix. --Green Dragon 21:31, 1 February 2007 (MST)

gollark: As far as I know, most moral standards are in favor of judging people by moral choices. Your environment is not entirely a choice.

gollark: If you put a pre-most-bad-things Hitler in Philadelphia, and he did not go around doing *any* genocides or particularly bad things, how would he have been bad?

gollark: It seems problematic to go around actually blaming said soldiers when, had they magically been in a different environment somehow, they could have been fine.

gollark: Both, really.

gollark: Yes. It would be preferable if they did *not* do such things. But I don't think the average random soldier can be reasonably expected not to.

This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.