It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
I've only just made a start - see what you think. It's got holes - SR items are gonna be useless as #2s pretty fast, but I think that's likely whatever happens. Undecided on where to put deflection/natural armor bonuses; ability bonuses might be too expensive; haven't even considered sacred/profane/luck/insight bonuses yet.
Last edited by Cathix; 12th November 2006 at 05:26 AM..
I'm kinda between a rock and a hard place as far as wealth goes. The rock is the treasure tables in the ELH; it would be nice if our wealth guidelines were closer to theirs. But that formula is more or less quartic (level^4 x 5 gp fits well enough). Our cubic formula aggrees at level 20, but gives only half the equipment value for 40th level characters.
The hard place is Upper_Krust's epic rules, which, for level 41+ assumes that wealth follows a quadratic law; level^2 x 10,000 gp. The x10 epic multiplier is reasonable then.
The problem is in between. How to get costs which are reasonable at the low 20s, but at around level 40 would segue nicely into the Upper_Krust's rules. Which are worth quoting:
Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Quote:
Artifacts are powerful magical items created by the gods and invested with a portion of their immortal power. These receptacles of divine might are extensions of the deity and as the power of the immortal grows so too does the power of its artifacts. However, immortals are limited to wielding four artifacts at any given time, loosely representative of one per domain. The mechanical benefits of limiting characters to four artifacts is that you no longer need contend with a massive shopping list of items, which will only stifle the game. In addition it removes the requirement for pedantic wealth tables, which make less and less sense the more powerful characters become. The idea is also far more in keeping with the mythology, where gods are only likely to have a few signature items (if that) rather than dozens of impersonal objects.
While such characters are limited to four artifacts, they can wield any number of non-epic items (within the parameters of using magic items on the body) they acquire or create. However, few immortals choose to do so for the following reasons. Firstly, non-epic items do not function within anti-magic. If an immortal detects or suspects his opponent is reliant on non-epic items they will likely choose to erect an anti-magic field negating any such advantage. Secondly, if the immortal’s manifestation is destroyed on a non-native plane, only its artifacts return with it back to its home plane, any other items remain behind and are lost. Thirdly, non-epic items are far more prone to disjunction. Fourthly, most immortals have inherent powers or spellcasting abilities that already duplicate the effects of non-epic magic items. Lastly, the higher in power an immortal ascends the less impact having non-epic items will have upon their overall capabilities
QUICK EPIC EQUIPMENT RESOLUTION
To determine the power of artifacts/epic items, instead of resorting to wealth tables, simply apply the following guidelines:
ECL ÷ 2 = Total Enchantment Bonuses for Epic Items which are Bonus squared x 10,000 GP value (such as armor, belts of strength, bracers of armor, cloaks of resistance, shields etc.)
e.g. The demon prince Baphomet (39 HD) with full equipment would be ECL 69. So his bracers of armor are going to be 69 ÷ 2 = 34 (round fractions down) total enchantment bonuses. In this case simply bracers of epic armor +34.
ECL ÷ 2.8 = Total Enchantment Bonuses for Epic Items which are Bonus squared x 20,000 GP value (such as amulets of natural armor, rings of protection, weapons etc.)
e.g. The greater god Odin (118 Class Levels) with full equipment would be ECL 198. So his greatspear Gungnir is going to be 198 ÷ 2.8 = 70 (round fractions down) total enchantment bonuses. Typically half this figure is enchantment bonus and the other half is made up of weapon special abilities. So Gungnir could be a +35 holy power (8), unerring (25) greatspear of distance (1) and returning (1).
For items that are not necessarily measured in terms of bonuses (such as an Amulet of the Planes or a Rod of Rulership) simply determine the GP value of the item by working out the cost of one of the above item types. e.g. A +23 weapon would cost 10,580,000 GP (23 x 23 x 20,000).
At level 40 you should be able to have a +20 shield as one of your major items, and a +14 sword. Each is worth 4 million gp, and you have about 16 million gp total. 13.6 million according to the ELH- so either these items are worth 29% each, and he has 3 of them and a bunch of smaller items, or he has 18% more wealth than he should have. Close enough; but the cubic formula for wealth we are using says he has 6.4 million gp, and that probably isn't good enough.
However UK's wealth formula diverges wildly from the WotC formula for lower levels; it says a 20th level character should have 4 million gp, which is a little crazy. Of course if they did they'd have no problem paying for +6 swords.
Anyway, suppose we use a cubic formula for item pricing, and say it agrees with the quadratic formula (for shields, it would be bonus^2 x 10,000) at level 40 or 44 or so. With a constant so that low epic stuff is sufficiently expensive. For instance, 200,000 + bonus^3 x 200 would work- your formula for table 1.
Similarly, the formula for weapons should be 200,000 + bonus^3 x 400. Your formula for table 3. I'm not at all sure what SR should be priced at. Maybe it could be a quadratic formula. And I'm not sure how paranoid we need to be about the ability enhancements either.
Last edited by Cheiromancer; 12th December 2006 at 11:28 AM..
Honestly, I'm not too concerned about creating a smooth interface with UK's current pricing rules - which are liable to change again, anyway. And I like the cubic wealth formula for epic characters. We simply need to determine what we deem appropriate/desirable for characters of a certain level to possess.
It would be nice if we could maintain a continuity in item pricing, though, i.e:
Type I:
Ability bonus (enhancement)
Armor bonus (enhancement)
Save bonus (resistance)
Type II:
AC bonus (deflection)
Natural armor bonus (enhancement)
Save bonus (sacred, profane, insight or luck)
Weapon bonus (enhancement)
Type III:
AC bonus (sacred, profane, insight or luck)
The cost ratio in the DMG is 25, and it would please me if we could maintain that. My only real concern is stat-boosting items which force higher spell DCs - I think that this could be problematic in conjunction with multiple Heightens from AMC. At the same time, I'm reluctant to cap them, and I don't want to price mental stat items differently than physical ones.
[I would suggest that we revisit the [augment] seed to see gain a clearer perspective, here].
I think bonus^3 x 200 : bonus^3 x 400 : bonus^3 x 500 might work - especially if we're looking at things in terms of 3 x 25% items, rather than 1 x 25% plus 3 x 10% items. Honestly, I think I'd prefer that anyway. I also think that they really should be 25% items, though - not 27% or 29%. Individual DMs can award whatever treasure they like, of course, but I think we should stick tightly to the guidelines.
I'll whip up a 30th-level fighter (armor x 200; weapon x 400) just for kicks, to see how it looks.
Charlie's a 30th-level sword & board fighter-lite. Elite array, core only. I've equipped him according to the prices suggested above wrt. sword and armor, and used lvl^3 x100 wealth guidelines with 3 x #1 items; otherwise, he's by the book. I thought he might be a useful reference point, whatever we decide.
Charlie
Male Human Fighter 30; CR 30; Medium humanoid (human); HD 30d10+270; hp 440; Init +15; Spd 60 ft.; AC 48 (touch 21, flat-footed 37); Base Atk +25; Grp +35; Atk +48 (1d10+25/17-20x2, +7 speed bastard sword); Full Atk +48/+48/+43/+38/+33 (1d10+25/17-20x2, +7 speed bastard sword); SQ Evasion; SV Fort +31 Ref +23 Will +23; Str 30 Dex 24 Con 28 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8
There might be a way of remaining faithful to the idea of the ELH multiplier while maintaining affordability for low level characters.
I wonder if, instead of slapping a x10 modifier on epic items all at once, like the ELH does, it can be gradually applied. Starting from about x3, and then going up to x10 by level 40 or 60 or whatever. That is, price the item as if it were a non-epic item, then multiply by an epic multiplier that scales smoothly to x10 when you get to high-epic levels.
Since there are different ways that an item can “go epic”, the formula might be complicated. For instance, the epic multiplier might be (half epic enhancement bonus, rounded down) or (1 + amount total bonus exceeds 10), whichever is higher. This multiplier is capped at 10.
So a +6 enhancement bonus on a sword will cost 216,000 gp (triple what the non-epic formula would yield). A +5 sword with +6 in special abilities will cost 484,000 gp (double the non-epic formula). A +6 sword with +5 in special abilities would cost 726,000 gp (triple the non-epic formula).
Items like armor, shields, and resistance bonus items cost half as much as a weapon with the same bonus. A +6 shield would cost 108,000 gp in this system, but I don't think that would be a problem. It's still more expensive than a +5 shield with 5 pluses worth of special abilities, and there's no reason why someone would buy a +6 shield rather than invest that cash into a slotless item that gives a +1 insight bonus into AC or something.
Anyway, with these prices I think Charlie will have to be 31st level to afford that sword. He’ll have 2,979,100 gp, and his best item could cost 744,775. E.g.
Charlie’s AC and attack bonus is a little less, but he has 151,145 left to spend; he can surely make it up somehow.
This formula be tinkered with, of course. But I don't see why we have to have a cubic + constant if something playable could be derived that will mesh with the equipment in the ELH and UK's work.
Quote:
[I would suggest that we revisit the [augment] seed to see gain a clearer perspective, here].
If we think that [polymorph] is OK, then it might provide some insight into buffs. [Polymorph] won't give much insight into the problem of high save DCs, but if everything falls into line, perhaps it will too.
But as far as equipment goes, I seem to recall that the item buffs were acceptable using the ELH formula. Since my suggestion converges on that formula, it might be OK too; an extra +2 DC or so won't break the system.
Last edited by Cheiromancer; 12th December 2006 at 11:28 AM..
Do you know why UK switched from lvl^3*100 to lvl^2*10,000 ? Was it to slow down the acquisition of wealth by 100+ level characters, or to speed up its acquisition below that?
You'd have to ask him, but I think he decided to follow WotC precedent a little more closely; using the wealth charts in the ELH up to 40th level, and using their method of pricing epic items.
The notion that an immortal will have 4 artifacts each worth 25% of its total wealth is in there as well.
Finding out could be worth posting in the Eternity Publishing hosted Forum.
UK's formula gives some peculiar results for low-epic (and non-epic) characters. A 20th level character, according to the guidelines, should have an epic-priced +7 sword, +10 shield, +10 armor, and +10 ability buff. (4 items, divide by 2 for the bonus squared x 10,000 items, divide by 2.8 for the bonus squared x 20,000 items). I think that his formula should be the ceiling for whatever we decide. In other words, our item pricing and equipment guidelines shouldn't result in characters who are better equipped than Krust's Ascension rules would indicate.
Is that an acceptable rule of thumb?
If so, then that +11 weapon that Charlie has really can't be obtained until level 30.8 (actually 31.1, since the 2.8 is really sqrt(8) = 2.828). It has a multiplier of 1/10th this value (3.11), if you want the treasure to work out.
The formulas that give Ascension style equipment with cubic wealth is y^3 x 200 for shields and such, y^3 x 565 for weapons. (sqrt(32) x 100 = 565). Or you could treat these items as having multipliers of y/5 for armor and shields, or y x sqrt(2)/5 for weapons. This latter coefficient is 0.2828 (about 2/7), so for a +11 weapon the multiplier is 11 x 0.2828 = 3.11.
I would suggest that the multiplier be at least 3. You could increase the multiplier for higher bonuses; shields of total bonus 16 to 20 would be x4, 21 to 25 would be x5, and so on; every +5 bonus increases the multiplier by 1. For weapons anything up to 10 would be x3, 11 to 14 would be x4, 15 to 17 would be x5, and so on- every +7 bonus increases the multiplier by 2.
An approximation that wouldn't hurt would be the multiplier for epic shields is bonus/5 (minimum 3, maximum 10). The multiplier for epic weapons is bonus/4 (min 3, max 10). (I'm approximating 0.2828 as 0.25, here. ).
An 80th level character with four 12.8 million gp items should be able to afford a +28 sword. Assigning such an item a x7 epic multiplier we get a cost of 10,976,000. A +29 sword (with a +8 multiplier) is too expensive at 13,456,000 million, so there is virtually no difference. It's a trifle cheaper than it should be. Using 2/7 instead of 1/4 gives a price of 12,544,000. A lot closer. sqrt(2)/5 would be too pedantic, I think.
Last edited by Cheiromancer; 13th November 2006 at 12:37 AM..
If so, then that +11 weapon that Charlie has really can't be obtained until level 30.8
Charlie has a +10 weapon. Speed is worth +3 in 3.5. At 200K + bonus^3*400, he couldn't afford a +11 weapon until level 31 - I'm using the cubic wealth rules here, as well.
This is what I'd like to assume, in whatever system we settle with:
Characters have 3 powerful items, each worth up to 25% of their total wealth.
Characters have a bunch of lesser items, none of which is worth more than 10% of their total wealth.
i.e., the guideline in the ELH - of which, UK's four-artifact rule is a logical extension.
I'd like the system to be simple, and user-friendly.
Question: do you want to keep level^3*100 regarding wealth, or do you want to revert to the system in the ELH?
(200K + bonus^3 x 400) diverges from (level/2.8) at 36th level.
(200K + bonus^3 x 500) doesn't break until 50th level. At what point is the 4-artifact rule supposed to kick in, anyway?
Last edited by Sepulchrave II; 13th November 2006 at 02:54 AM..
This is what I'd like to assume, in whatever system we settle with:
Characters have 3 powerful items, each worth up to 25% of their total wealth.
Characters have a bunch of lesser items, none of which is worth more than 10% of their total wealth.
i.e., the guideline in the ELH - of which, UK's four-artifact rule is a logical extension.
I'd like the system to be simple, and user-friendly.
I agree on all counts.
Quote:
Charlie has a +10 weapon.
D'oh! Why is it always the obvious things that trip me up? Then it would cost 603,035 gp. Bonus squared times 2000, times 3 epic modifier (3 is greater than the bonus divided by 4), plus 3000 gp for adamantine (includes masterwork costs) and 35 for the sword.
I think that is pretty simple; having a sliding modifier instead of a flat x10 modifier is a little more complicated, but for characters of 30th level or lower they'll probably just use x3 all the time. Even if they are using weapon bonus/4, shield bonus/5 that isn't too complicated. What do you think? I should figure out the bonus for a bonus squared x 2500 gp item too... bonus/3 should work fine.
Quote:
Question: do you want to keep level^3*100 regarding wealth, or do you want to revert to the system in the ELH?
I don't like the table in the ELH; it is too irregular; I don't like tables that don't have an obvious underlying rule. I much prefer the cubic system. I was worried that it didn't mesh well with UK's system, but if we use the sliding multiplier it should work very nicely. UK's system doesn't work properly in the 20 to 40 range (as far as I can see) so it is not like it is a practical alternative. The cubic system gives less wealth than the ELH, but if we use a different pricing scheme characters will be able to get more epic items. Fewer non-epic items, but it should come out pretty close.
I am not sure how people will actually use our rules. If we fiddle with item pricing and/or equipment guidelines, then epic characters built under other systems (the ELH, for instance) might have to be rebuilt. Epic spellcasters will need to be rejiggered, of course (that's why we are doing this!), but I don't know how much of a hassle converting other characters would be. Their epic items will be cheaper, but they'll have less money, too. Maybe there wouldn't be any problems with just transferring them over, maybe there would be.
We should convert the equipment of some epic NPCs (done up ELH style) and see if their values are problematic if calculated in other systems.
I think that is pretty simple; having a sliding modifier instead of a flat x10 modifier is a little more complicated, but for characters of 30th level or lower they'll probably just use x3 all the time. Even if they are using weapon bonus/4, shield bonus/5 that isn't too complicated. What do you think? I should figure out the bonus for a bonus squared x 2500 gp item too... bonus/3 should work fine.
We need a table w/ 4 columns. The first 3 should be enhancement bonus, special ability bonus and total bonus, under one heading of 'use the highest bonus which applies'. The fourth column will give the multiplier. Tables are good - people don't have to think. I don't have to think.
Looking at them on a spreadsheet, I find I dislike the jumps in price that my method gives when the multiplier changes. But the numbers are ugly when I use decimals instead of whole numbers.
I think I could go with 200,000 + bonus cubed x 400 for weapons. (and anything with a cost of 2000 x bonus squared)
How about 100,000 + bonus cubed x 200 for shields? (and anything with a cost of 1000 times bonus squared)
Sure it means an epic item would technically be available to non-epic characters. But it requires an epic feat to make, and I don't think there would be anything game-breaking about having a +6 shield that costs 143,200 gp. Compare it to a +5 shield; +1 AC more, at a cost of 93,200 gp.
By symmetry, an item with a cost of 2500 x bonus squared should cost 250,000 + bonus cubed x 500.
A skill bonus item (normally bonus squared x 100) should be 10,000 + bonus cubed x 20.
Generally if the cost of the non-epic item is bonus squared x N, then the cost of the epic item would be (N x 100) + bonus cubed x (N/5).
Spell resistance is an odd one. As a non-epic item it is linear. As an epic item it should be quadratic. It should have a constant term, though.
Maybe 180,000 + (SR-10) squared x 360?
The non-epic mantle would be about 2.5 times as expensive if priced according to this formula. That's about right; look what happens if you price a +5 (non-epic) shield according to the epic formula. The mantle of epic spell resistance would be 504,000 if priced in this scheme. Pricey, but probably still worth it.
How does that sound? Go with the cubic formula you propose (though with different additive terms), and a quadratic formula for SR items?
I'm reposting this from the main thread. It is concerned with pricing items, so I think I'll put it here:
****
In Pricing robe of the archmagi I complain about the discrepancy between the DMG price and price when you work things out. The robe should be 130,500 (91350 after the alignment discount), but is only 75,000. I'm thinking that alignment restrictions are not appropriate for PC created (or improved) items; they don't reduce the utility of the item in any way. They are better for equipping villains with.
I'm thinking that as a general rule, non-standard items should be priced according to Skip's formula, without faux restrictions, and then a fixed, ad hoc discount applied to reconcile things with the DMG.
For a robe of the archmagi the ad hoc discount would be 55,500 gp; the difference between the formula price and the book price. If a player wished to improve the item to give a +8 armor bonus, SR 32, +5 resistance bonus on saves and +4 spell penetration, they'd calculate the cost as follows:
SR 32 is 200,000
+8 armor bonus is 64,000 x 1.5 is 96,000
+5 resistance bonus is 25,000 x 1.5 is 37,500
+4 bonus vs SR is at least 24,000 x 1.5 is 36,000
(I'm guessing bonus squared x 1500)
Total: 369,500 - 55,500 = 314,000
The augmented robe would still retain its alignment restriction, but wouldn't get the full 30% discount for being restricted to a particular alignment. And it has to pay the surcharge- or most of it, the ad hoc discount applies. If we followed the weird pricing scheme that the robe of the archmagi followed (no surcharge, 30% discount) it would cost only 219,100 gp.
I think this is a good way of remaining faithful both to the section on pricing magic items and to the description of the robe.
Oh, and SR 32 is probably the highest we should follow the (SR - 12 ) x 10,000 formula. Above that we should do something different. Although I still disagree with you on the use of a cubic formula. It should be quadratic.
***
Oh, and in case we need a link to Greybar's Intrinsic Gear thread, here it is.
Last edited by Cheiromancer; 15th November 2006 at 12:28 PM..
Reason: fixed link
Spell resistance is an odd one. As a non-epic item it is linear. As an epic item it should be quadratic. It should have a constant term, though.
Maybe 180,000 + (SR-10) squared x 360?
I think it's more a question of 'as a nonepic item it should've been quadratic, as an epic item it should be cubic.'
An SR70 robe using that price is going to be a steal for a 50th-level character at 1.5Mgp: 12% of his wealth for unbeatable spell resistance against any CLs equal to or lower than his own CR.
A cubic formula will scale very smoothly: (SR-10)^3 x 20 or (SR-12)^3 x 25 or whatever. It relates to character wealth directly.
Ah, but think of what a steal it would be using the original formula! A SR 70 item would be 522K according to the official rules, only a third what my new formula would yield. Mind you, saying a rule is less broken than the official rules is not much of a defense, is it?
Having cheap, high SR items helps prevent the "glass jaw" syndrome that characters currently have; characters can dish out immensely destructive effects, but they can't take a hit. Protecting them against direct spells by equal level opponents would address this nicely. It would play the same role that the mantle of epic spell resistance holds right now; available to a 23rd level character and very hard to beat by equal level opponents. We are already considering that greatly enhanced spell turning would be de rigeur; shouldn't there be more than one reason why a caster wouldn't directly attack another caster?
It would help enable them to cope against higher level opponents as well; as you get into epic territory the spread of appropriate encounters gets wider and wider. If a party is going to be able to tackle a higher level threat, they need to have protection against an opponent 20 levels higher. A SR of level+10 won't cut it. Conversely, they have be to threatened (at least a little) by opponents 10 levels lower than they are. It helps if those opponents have significant SR.
And it is not like this gives a party an insuperable advantage: there are counter-measures. Attacks that avoid SR, like those appropriate against golems. The lowly assay resistance spell helps a fair bit. Spell penetration items (150,000 gp + (bonus cubed) x 30). Plain old-fashioned melee.
Or... you might be right. I'll think about it. But if we come to an agreement, I'll want to know that we gave fair consideration to both sides of the question.
These are fair points - especially regarding the range of possible CRs as opponents at these levels. I think that this is more a problem regarding how Spell Resistance itself works: like saving throws, it doesn't scale too well into this territory. Like any roll which uses a d20 mechanic, in fact - the random factor becomes less and less significant when a modifier of +50, +60 or +70 applies.
Short of changing the way SR works, I'm afraid I don't have an answer. Whilst I agree that, overall, CRs follow a quadratic formula, there are instances where it doesn't really work. Four 35th-level characters are probably going to be wiped by a 70th-level wizard; I wouldn't peg their chances at 50/50.
The complexity of measures and counter-measures becomes mind-boggling. It is a given that a powerful spellcaster will be immune to pretty much everything, all of the time - or at least have sufficient resistances to withstand a few rounds of assault. Meh.
I pity the fighter. Maybe we need cheap SR items for their sake.
Maybe the spellcasters need a bit of nerfing. Make them less an artillery piece and more a utility knife...
[edit] Nah. We'll never get this thing out the door if we try to change the way the classes are balanced. *Maybe* we could fiddle with the number of epic bonus feats (more to non-spellcasters, fewer to spellcasters). But it would probably be more trouble than it is worth.
[edit2] I guess we'll need to reprice the epic equipment according to these principles. Though that shouldn't be difficult; the only items that need to be repriced are the headband and the cloak.
Except... Are the headbands of intellect going to be a problem? Changing to the new pricing formula allows the characters to afford a headband +6 better than before, resulting in a +3 to the save DCs. I think that should be OK; instead of having this weird floating GSF, they'll have a headband instead. And resistance saves are priced on the same scale, so NPCs and PCs alike will have higher saving throws, and so it will all cancel out.
Boots of swiftness are trickier. If they were a 3.5 item, I suspect they'd only increase your land speed by 10 ft. to avoid Monk-insanity. I'd price them thus:
+20 Climb (wrong slot, x 1.5.) =60,000
+6 Dex (wrong slot, x1.5, 2ndary x1.5.) = 81,000
Evasion (from ring of evasion. Probably wrong slot x1.5. 2ndary x 1.5) = 56,250
+10 ft. (right slot. 2ndary. from boots of striding and springing) = 8250
+20 Jump (right slot. 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Tumble (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Balance (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
Total = 385.5K.
And that's with a pair of boots that don't double your base speed, only increase it by 10 ft.
I'd peg Climb as being the right slot; both gloves and boots can be appropriate for climbing; look at slippers of spider climbing, or imagine bounding spryly as a mountain goat. In fact, nimbleness and quickness is just as much a function of your feet as of your hands; think of trying to dance or tumble without feet. Assuming a movement component for evasion, it is easier to see fast feet as helping you than fast hands. So I'd price all of them as being the right slot. I would, however, increase the movement speed to +30 ft. (doubling most characters' move, but without allowing Monk insanity). That would be 5500 x 9 = 49,500, and it would be the primary function. So:
+20 Climb (right slot, 2ndary x 1.5.) = 60,000
+6 Dex (right slot, 2ndary x 1.5.) = 54,000
Evasion (right slot, from ring of evasion. 2ndary x 1.5) = 37,500
+30 ft. (right slot. 2ndary x 1.5. from boots of striding and springing x 9 ) = 49,500
+20 Jump (right slot. 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Tumble (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Balance (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
Total = 381K
Does that sound reasonable?
Last edited by Cheiromancer; 16th November 2006 at 02:46 AM..
I'd peg Climb as being the right slot; both gloves and boots can be appropriate for climbing; look at slippers of spider climbing, or imagine bounding spryly as a mountain goat. In fact, nimbleness and quickness is just as much a function of your feet as of your hands; think of trying to dance or tumble without feet.
Don't get me wrong - all of these arguments are rational. The only reason that I steered clear of them was because it's probably not the way they'd be costed officially re: slots. But I think 381K (at +30 ft.) is good - let's go with it. Still very desirable, but not quite such a no-brainer as the current 256K.
Quote:
I think I could go with 200,000 + bonus cubed x 400...100,000 + bonus cubed x 200 for shields...250,000 + bonus cubed x 500.
It's weird - I'd really just like a 200K flat epic surcharge and I'm strangely set on it. More so than any particular progression for swords (I think I'd be just as happy with bonus^3 x 500, say). It's a kind of universal demarcation, in some ways a substitute for the x10 multiplier. Terminus est, or something. It could be included at the head of a table of item prices without breaking the simplicity of subsequent formulae.
Quote:
Except... Are the headbands of intellect going to be a problem? Changing to the new pricing formula allows the characters to afford a headband +6 better than before, resulting in a +3 to the save DCs. I think that should be OK; instead of having this weird floating GSF, they'll have a headband instead. And resistance saves are priced on the same scale, so NPCs and PCs alike will have higher saving throws, and so it will all cancel out.
Maybe, but creatures without the epic resistance items are going to feel the pinch more. I guess we can adjust if we feel it necessary. It might be nice to include conversion notes for character wealth to both UK's system and the ELH system, when we finally settle on it.
**
I'm just curious:
Staff of Necromancy
This staff allows use of the following spells.
Circle of death (intensified, 2 charges, DC 29) Create greater undead (1 charge) Finger of death (improved heightened to 16th, 2 charges, DC 34) Soul bind (improved heightened to 16th, 2 charges, DC 34). The soul trapped through the use of the soul bind spell is trapped in the staff rather than a gem. Only by breaking the staff can the souls be freed.
Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Intensify Spell, Heighten Spell, Improved Heighten Spell, circle of death, create greater undead, finger of death, soul bind; Market Price: 1,505,312 gp; Cost to Create: 1,290,156 gp + 14,303 XP.
DCs don't apply any more to staves; another example of a half-arsed update to 3.5 in the epic SRD. It looks pretty whacked, anyway. Whatever. I'll try and cost this assuming AMC and MF were used to construct it. I hate pricing staves - they're far too complicated; AFAIK different functions must have the same (highest) CL: I haven't seen staves with multiple CLs listed.
Soul Bind is 16th-level - that's AMF x 7 and MF, which means a 32nd-level caster. 2 charges per use. Base price is (750 x 16 x 32)/2 = 192,000. Soul bind is expensive (1000gp/HD) - we have no idea as to HD limit for the staff, however. Let's say 30HD. 30,000 x no of charges/2 = 750,000 gp. Subtotal for this function is 942,000. Ouch.
Finger of death is a second function (multiple similar abilities) so 0.75 x (750 x 16 x 32)/2 = 144,000
Circle of death is double empowered and maximized so it's costed as a 13th-level spell. It also uses 2 charges per pop. It's a tertiary function. Base price is 0.5 x (750 x 13 x 32 x)/2 = 78,000.
Create greater undead is uses 1 charge per use. It can create devourers (600gp material component. 600 x no of charges = 30,000. OK. 0.5 x (750 x 8 x 32) = 96,000. Subtotal = 126,000
I make it 1,290,000 gp, CL 32, and assuming a 30HD cap on soul bind. Can you see any problems with that?
It would be a #1 item for a 37th-level character. Sorcerers with the Master Staff epic feat really stand to benefit from items like this - a sorcerer can otherwise ignore the Necromantic aspect of his repertoire, maybe focussing on Enchantment and Evocation instead. He just burns slots through his staff. I like this - it really opens up a sorcerer's options. And at 37th level, a save DC 26 + modifiers still really bites for finger of death. I have to say, if I were making this staff, I'd up the HD limit on soul bind to 40 HD and burn 3 charges to make it work. It would shave a little off the price, as well.
Edit: If Master Staff works with staves which contain spells which normally require expensive material or XP requirements, we'll need to revise it.
Edit: Powerful domain-oriented staves would be cool. Staff of destruction, staff of the sun etc.
Last edited by Sepulchrave II; 16th November 2006 at 09:26 AM..
I'd really just like a 200K flat epic surcharge and I'm strangely set on it.
Even for skill items? A +30 item would come out to 550,000 gp using my formula- it doesn't really need to be bumped up by another 190,000.
And I like the way that shields are half the price of swords. You don't maintain the ratio if you change the multiplier but keep the additive term the same.
Quote:
Staff of Necromancy
Nice job pricing it. I'm sorta at a quandary about whether we should try to hit the ELH price for the item (raising the HD limit to 40 would add 250,000 to the price) or try to make it available at about the same level as it would for an ELH character. Since an ELH character could afford it as a best item at level 33, we'd have to lower its price to only 850,000 gp or so. That seems unrealistically low; the soul bind would have a HD limit of only 12 HD.
Maybe we should add "Ignore Material Components" to the prerequisite line? Then it would be 510,000 and be available at 28th level. I wonder if that would work. If you can use a feat (AMC) to evade the requirement for a high level feat slot, why not an expensive material component?
I'm sorta at a quandary about whether we should try to hit the ELH price for the item (raising the HD limit to 40 would add 250,000 to the price)
I've halved the material component cost (30,000 x 50) on the basis of 2 charges per use; at 3 charges and 40HD it would be (40,000 x 50) / 3.
Quote:
Maybe we should add "Ignore Material Components" to the prerequisite line?
Excellent. And EMC, as well. Although, there would be no need for any kind of upper limit on the HD of soul bind - I think that's OK. DvR 6+s aren't subject to this kind of magic anyway, and I'm generally on the lookout to protect deities. Maybe demigods can take their chances...
Mininum Character Level to create would be 33 - due to the IMC factor. I wonder if we should price it as a CL 33 item?
Edit: Make that level 35 - the creator needs Craft Epic Staff, as well.
Edit: those multiple Heightens are pretty meaty. If a 29th level character (say a sorcerer with Cha 33 and Master Staff) was in possession of one of these, he'd be forcing saves with a DC of 37. This makes him very competitive with Matt - which I like.
Edit: the obvious revision to Master Staff re. items which can cast spells which require an XP component is "Special: if you use this feat to emulate a spell which would normally require an XP cost, you must pay this cost."
Last edited by Sepulchrave II; 16th November 2006 at 04:56 PM..
5, and it would please me if we could maintain that. My only real concern is stat-boosting items which force higher spell DCs - I think that this could be problematic in conjunction with multiple Heightens from AMC. At the same time, I'm reluctant to cap them, and I don't want to price mental stat items differently than physical ones.
). 
Linear Mode
