The Gaming Den

I was going through magic items for my character, when I noticed something strange.

Why does this

SRD wrote:Robe of Blending

When this robe is put on, the wearer intuitively knows that the garment has very special properties. A robe of blending enables its wearer to appear to be part of his surroundings. This allows him a +10 competence bonus on Hide checks. The wearer can adopt the appearance of another creature, as with the disguise self spell, at will. All creatures acquainted with and friendly to the wearer see him normally.

Moderate illusion; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, disguise self; Price 30,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Cost a lot more then this?

SRD wrote:Chameleon Power

As a free action, the wearer of this ring can gain the ability to magically blend in with the surroundings. This provides a +10 competence bonus on her Hide checks. As a standard action, she can also command the ring to utilize the spell disguise self as often as she wants.

Faint illusion; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, disguise self, invisibility; Price 12,700 gp.

Considering the two, the second is cheaper and somewhat more useful; as it only uses up a ring slot instead of the more important body (armor) slot.

Well, the second item costs a standard action. And... magic item pricing sucks?

In other news, rainy days expected to be wet this year.

It has a lower caster level and requires 2 spells?

Also WotC can't write for shit.

Robes can go over armour and still count.

It should also be noted that a Ring of Chameleon Power is impossible to make with a caster level of 3, since you need CL of 12 to get Forge Ring.

So allow me to answer your question with another question.

Why does a Helm of Blindsense cost more than a Blindfold of True Darkness?

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1182843050[/unixtime]]Robes can go over armour and still count.

Actually, no.

SRD wrote: A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which place on the body the item is worn.

* One headband, hat, helmet, or phylactery on the head
* One pair of eye lenses or goggles on or over the eyes
* One amulet, brooch, medallion, necklace, periapt, or scarab around the neck
* One vest, vestment, or shirt on the torso
* One robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt)
* One belt around the waist (over a robe or suit of armor)
* One cloak, cape, or mantle around the shoulders (over a robe or suit of armor)
* One pair of bracers or bracelets on the arms or wrists
* One glove, pair of gloves, or pair of gauntlets on the hands
* One ring on each hand (or two rings on one hand)
* One pair of boots or shoes on the feet

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1182842973[/unixtime]]Well, the second item costs a standard action.

The first item costs a standard action as well. Even though the description says "at will", "at will" isn't an action type, and according to the SRD: "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise."

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1182842973[/unixtime]]And... magic item pricing sucks?

Just the latter

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1182842973[/unixtime]]In other news, rainy days expected to be wet this year.

Huh. I appear to be mistaken. Still...

You wear your magical robes over your armour. When you want to use the magical robes, you turn off your armour's magical properties. Like wearing ten rings.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1182843050[/unixtime]]
Why does a Helm of Blindsense cost more than a Blindfold of True Darkness?

The blindfold of true darkness apparently actually makes you blind beyond it's granted power. So you have blindsight out to 60 ft or whatever, but you can't see anything at distance at all. It's not a very good magic item, because it's a pain in the ass for the DM to remember that in every description for you.

Yeah, so when the fight starts, you put the damn thing on. You're good.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1182887563[/unixtime]]Yeah, so when the fight starts, you put the damn thing on. You're good.

All depends on what kind of action your DM calls for to put it on I suppose. If it takes a standard action or more, then that's a pretty big drawback, since you effectively lose a round to get the benefit, which balance wise is pretty much okay.

I'd be fine if players did the on/off style, the only problem arises from when PCs with the blindfold are always wearing it and pretending like they know what's going on based on what the other PCs see. And you get into all these metagame knowledge arguments about what they would and wouldn't know based on what the other characters tell them. That's really a pain in the ass and something I don't even want to get into as a DM. It's mainly why I think it's a terrible item concept.

Amra at [unixtime wrote:1182844205[/unixtime]]

shirak at [unixtime wrote:1182842973[/unixtime]]Well, the second item costs a standard action.

The first item costs a standard action as well. Even though the description says "at will", "at will" isn't an action type, and according to the SRD: "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise."

Depressingly, I don't think it would be out of character for WotC to price the items differently because one of them says it costs a standard action! Sometimes, I fucking hate WotC.

Well, it'd have to be a move action, right? Just like strapping on a shield or drawing a weapon. It certainly doesn't take a standard action to pull a blindfold down from your forehead.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1182900899[/unixtime]]Well, it'd have to be a move action, right? Just like strapping on a shield or drawing a weapon. It certainly doesn't take a standard action to pull a blindfold down from your forehead.

Well depends on how much leeway your DM gives you as far as having magic items partially on. In the core rules, there's no really such thing as a magic item that's partially on. Either you're wearing the item or you're not. Having it tied onto your head, but not over your eyes is a grey area. It's sort of like asking if you can have pants that are half pulled up to avoid the time to pull them up.

Personally for balance reasons, I'd say that if you've got the blindfold tied onto your head, you're considered wearing it, even if it's not technically covering your eyes.

I'd actually require them to tie the blindfold on to activate it, which I'd say would be a full action.

Then again, that's the sort of ruling that goes by a DM by DM basis, yet another reason I think it's a poorly designed item.

You don't generally tie a blindfold except once per user.

Anyhow, this is what they want: No actual system. If there was an actual system for making content... Content would be at least theoretically balanced. Their errors would be more blatant.

Not that their grammatical errors aren't bad enough.

-Crissa

Wouldn't an actually system that folks could refer significantly reduce errors?

Actually, errors would be significantly increased if they had a system more definitive than the current one, but only checked over as much.

Brobdingnagian at [unixtime wrote:1182900899[/unixtime]]Well, it'd have to be a move action, right? Just like strapping on a shield or drawing a weapon. It certainly doesn't take a standard action to pull a blindfold down from your forehead.

You're talking about something different. The standard action discussed between shirak and I was with reference to the OP: Robe of Blending vs. a Ring of Chameleon Power.

With reference to the Blindfold of True Awkwardness, I'd just remind folks that *actual* blindfolds that *actually* make you blind generally involve wrapping a lot of stuff around your head: they're not just a bandana pulled down over your eyes. I don't have a description for the item to hand, but if this interpretation isn't contradicted, a full-round action to put it on and a move action to take it off doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

Bandanas always seemed to make me pretty damn blind...

I have to agree, a little plastic eye mask without having the eye holes punched out and an elastic string makes a great blindfold. Now to have a blindfold that someone can't just pull off with one hand ... that's a different kettle of fish.