wuyanei said:
How much should the negative cost be? Well, a bonus to a single skill costs 100 x bonus squared. We will use that as a base, and apply the penality to both attack rolls and to damage rolls -- i.e. a total of 200 x penality squared.
But these are not skills, and the DMG shows us that pluses to hit are worth a *lot*, so then shouldn't penalties to hit be worth a lot?
... which isn't really much cheaper -- but then, a -1 flaming sword isn't much worse than a +1 flaming sword in the first place.
Only if you think a +1 and +3 sword are also about equal. Or a +1 about the same as a +1 flaming shocking, etc.
Lets compare a -1 flaming sword vs a straight +1 sword. The flaming sword does 1.5 more damage per hit. But is will hit less often. If you need a 16 to hit straight, the +1 sword will hit *50%* more often. If you need a 12 to hit, the +1 will hit *25%* more often. In fact the +1 sword is *better* than the -1 flaming sword.
Any steeper discount will just cause the players to 'golf bag' numerous weapons,
I thought so too, but it just doesn't add up. It is still pretty expensive to golf bag weapons, so at what level is it worth it to blow 10K on 4 'extra' weapons. Soon it becomes a waste of time to switch, since your main weapon will be better than the back ups.
player to make a -8 flaming shocking corrosive vicious magebane humanbane holy longsword for 2220 gp at 3rd level, then [hit] for 1d8-8 +11d6 damage.
Yes, assuming they only go after evil human mages, and assuming the players are powergamers that will tweak the system to hell and gone, and assuming the DM would allow all of that on the same weapon, and assuming there are no other limiting factors, etc.
yeah, true strike may be an issue. Normally, a -8 weapon kind of balances itself out. The fact that a nat 20 always hits is another problem. But these can be handled by putting limitations, I think.
You are looking at the 2% of edge cases, which is needed, but we can limit the edge cases.
Actually, a -4 flaming shocking corrosive frost longsword (1d8-4 +4d6 damage per hit) is all that is needed to utterly wreak any low to low-middle level game.
Hmmm.....
If the fighter has this, compare it to a +1 sword. He is -5 to hit, but +9 damage. But how often will he do 0 damage because he plain missed?
Lets assume a 16 str and weap spec. So +1 sword does (d8+1+3+2) 10.5 damage. The -4 sword does (d8-4+3+2+4d6) 19.5 damage. So, if he needs a 12 to hit straight up, the +1 sword needs an 11, and the -4 sword needs a 16, so he will hit twice as often with the +1, and thus do *more* damage with the +1 sword compared to the one you made up. Granted, if he needs something like a 5 to hit, it makes your sword better, but I find that unusual in my games. And even if it *is* normal to only need an 8, the difference in overal damage output is not much, and hardly enough to wreak any game.
If the Magic user has this sword, and uses it with True Strike, he will likely hit, and do some damage. But he has to get into melee range, and risk quickly dieing, for a measly 4d6 damage over *two* rounds. About on par to casting magic missle.
Seems pretty balanced to me.
Am I missing something?
I think the way extreme (-8 or -10 or whatever) may be an issue, especially if combined with True Strike at low level. So lets think of ways to balance that.
I can think of two options.
A) Like normal enchantments, you can't put more than -5 on any weapon. or...
B) The base price is the square root of the neg enhancement. So using -1 to -3 the minimum price is 2K, using -4 to -8 the minimum price is 8K, etc. -9 is 18K, (think things break again if you allow above that... not sure.)
