A -1 flaming burst sword
- Thread starter Coredump
- Start date
Actually, I am mostly concerned with the way the price scales, especially how drastic a -1 to cost can affect the price at high levels. Let me write down my concern in a mathematical fashion -- its hard to clearly express is only words.
1) For a normal weapon, the base cost equals to 2000 times the square of the total price modifier. i.e. P(x) = 2000 x X^2
2) Let us say that the weapon imposes a -Y peanlity to hit and to damage. i.e. For a -1 flaming weapon, Y will equal to 1.
3) Define Z to be the base cost of the masterwork weapon.
4) In your method, the bse cost of a weapon with negative enhancement will equal:
Q(X, Y) = 2000 x (X - Y)^2; Y = 0, 1, 2, ... , X-1 (since you retain the base +1 enhancement)
Q(X, Y) = 2000 x (X^2 + Y^2 -2XY)
at the high end, when Y = X - 1; the cost is a constant of:
Q(X, X-1) = 2000 x (X - X + 1)^2 = 2000 gp -- a constant
So in your method:
+1 weapon costs: Z +2000 x (1)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-1 flaming weapon costs: Z +2000 x (2 -1)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-9 Dancing Vorpal weapon costs Z +2000 x (10-9)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
The cost does not scale with the vast increase in bonuses. However, in specific conditions, a special weapon, even with -9 penalty, will be far better than a straight +1 weapon. In all other cases, you can just switch to another weapon, and thus avoid the penalty.Therefore, the penalty cannot be seen as balancing the bonus, since the penalty can be easily sidestepped (or bypassd entirely with magic).
In D&D, it is always assumed that the characters will seek to maximize to use of their strengths, and minimize the use of their weaknesses. In this particular case, if the -9 Dancing Vorpal weapon carries a curse, so that you must use that weapon and that weapon only (similar to the -2 cursed longsword in the DMG), I would say that the 2000 gp base price is correct. However, it is not the case here.
Also, another small drawback of our method is that you cannot construct +0 weapons (with enhancements, of course), unless you make a special rule for them.
5) Therefore, in my post I proposed that the penality be 'added' as a negative cost, instead of directly subtracted to the bonus:
R(X, Y) = 2000 x X^2 - B x Y^2; B = 200 gp, Y is the penality to attack rolls and to damage, Y = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... X.
Actually, the number B = 200 gp is just an arbitary guess --
In this method:
at the high end, R(X, X) = 2000 x X^2 - 1000 x (X)^2 = 1000 X^2; i.e. half price of a non-cursed item, which still scales with the square total enhancement.
More importantly, a minor -1 or -2 penality to a +10 weapon will affect the price of the weapon minutely (note, a weapon with -1 penalty is a +0 weapon):
R(10, 0) - R(10, 3) = 1000 x (3 x 3) = 9000; compaire to
Q(10, 0) - Q(10, 2) = 2000 x [ 10^2 - (10 - 2)^2 ] = 72000 gp
+1 weapon costs: Z +2000 x (1)^2= (2000 + Z) gp;
-1 flaming weapon costs: Z +2000 x (2)^2 -1000 x (2)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-9 Dancing Vorpal weapon costs Z +2000 x (10)^2 -1000 x (10)^2= (100000 + Z) gp;
At the low end, things are not much different, but this second method can more easily prevent high-end abuse.
As with all things, all of the above are my opinions only. Take what you can use, and feel free to disregard the rest. Either way, after you introduce the possibility to your players, I would like to hear how it works out in your game. The important thing, of course, to have fun. So... happy gameing!
1) For a normal weapon, the base cost equals to 2000 times the square of the total price modifier. i.e. P(x) = 2000 x X^2
2) Let us say that the weapon imposes a -Y peanlity to hit and to damage. i.e. For a -1 flaming weapon, Y will equal to 1.
3) Define Z to be the base cost of the masterwork weapon.
4) In your method, the bse cost of a weapon with negative enhancement will equal:
Q(X, Y) = 2000 x (X - Y)^2; Y = 0, 1, 2, ... , X-1 (since you retain the base +1 enhancement)
Q(X, Y) = 2000 x (X^2 + Y^2 -2XY)
at the high end, when Y = X - 1; the cost is a constant of:
Q(X, X-1) = 2000 x (X - X + 1)^2 = 2000 gp -- a constant
So in your method:
+1 weapon costs: Z +2000 x (1)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-1 flaming weapon costs: Z +2000 x (2 -1)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-9 Dancing Vorpal weapon costs Z +2000 x (10-9)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
The cost does not scale with the vast increase in bonuses. However, in specific conditions, a special weapon, even with -9 penalty, will be far better than a straight +1 weapon. In all other cases, you can just switch to another weapon, and thus avoid the penalty.Therefore, the penalty cannot be seen as balancing the bonus, since the penalty can be easily sidestepped (or bypassd entirely with magic).
In D&D, it is always assumed that the characters will seek to maximize to use of their strengths, and minimize the use of their weaknesses. In this particular case, if the -9 Dancing Vorpal weapon carries a curse, so that you must use that weapon and that weapon only (similar to the -2 cursed longsword in the DMG), I would say that the 2000 gp base price is correct. However, it is not the case here.
Also, another small drawback of our method is that you cannot construct +0 weapons (with enhancements, of course), unless you make a special rule for them.
5) Therefore, in my post I proposed that the penality be 'added' as a negative cost, instead of directly subtracted to the bonus:
R(X, Y) = 2000 x X^2 - B x Y^2; B = 200 gp, Y is the penality to attack rolls and to damage, Y = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... X.
Actually, the number B = 200 gp is just an arbitary guess --
-- is a convincing argument for a greater number, perhaps B = 1000 gp instead. I do not believe that it is worth the full 2000 gp (see above), but 1000 gp may be a better number than 200 gp. The best, precise value must be discovered by playtesting. I will use B = 1000 gp in the calculations below.Coredump said:
In this method:
at the high end, R(X, X) = 2000 x X^2 - 1000 x (X)^2 = 1000 X^2; i.e. half price of a non-cursed item, which still scales with the square total enhancement.
More importantly, a minor -1 or -2 penality to a +10 weapon will affect the price of the weapon minutely (note, a weapon with -1 penalty is a +0 weapon):
R(10, 0) - R(10, 3) = 1000 x (3 x 3) = 9000; compaire to
Q(10, 0) - Q(10, 2) = 2000 x [ 10^2 - (10 - 2)^2 ] = 72000 gp
+1 weapon costs: Z +2000 x (1)^2= (2000 + Z) gp;
-1 flaming weapon costs: Z +2000 x (2)^2 -1000 x (2)^2 = (2000 + Z) gp;
-9 Dancing Vorpal weapon costs Z +2000 x (10)^2 -1000 x (10)^2= (100000 + Z) gp;
At the low end, things are not much different, but this second method can more easily prevent high-end abuse.
As with all things, all of the above are my opinions only. Take what you can use, and feel free to disregard the rest. Either way, after you introduce the possibility to your players, I would like to hear how it works out in your game. The important thing, of course, to have fun. So... happy gameing!
MachinaDeus
First Post
I'd just be afraid of having a weapon like that when there're spells like Greater Magic Weapon around. Might be something to consider.
Indeed, MachinaDeus. That is one of the many possibilities lumped into "the penalty cannot be seen as balancing the bonus, since the penalty can be easily sidestepped (or bypassed entirely with magic)."
Another, better, way is to calculate the Market Price (buying/selling cost) however you will, but to keep the base price (i.e. creation cost) at same as a non-cursed version.
Just say that the penalty was an accident, or the result of deliberately mis-casting the enchantment. In either way, it does not reduce the cost of creating the enhancement itself.
For example, you can always tweak a bike so that it handles badly (-2 bike -- just give the front wheel a good kick), but it won't really save you any money to do so when compaired to making a normal bicycle (+1 bike -- +1 because you want to add all those other cool features).
So when creating an item, either due design or by accident, you can freely place a penalty to attack rolls and to damage of up to -10 on the weapon. Once placed, the penalty cannot be changed or removed except by 'reforging' -- which costs extra gp and XP. As a DM, you can place such weapons into your game freely, as with all cursed weapons, but players probably will not want to make (or order) such weapons themself.
Another, better, way is to calculate the Market Price (buying/selling cost) however you will, but to keep the base price (i.e. creation cost) at same as a non-cursed version.
Just say that the penalty was an accident, or the result of deliberately mis-casting the enchantment. In either way, it does not reduce the cost of creating the enhancement itself.
For example, you can always tweak a bike so that it handles badly (-2 bike -- just give the front wheel a good kick), but it won't really save you any money to do so when compaired to making a normal bicycle (+1 bike -- +1 because you want to add all those other cool features).
So when creating an item, either due design or by accident, you can freely place a penalty to attack rolls and to damage of up to -10 on the weapon. Once placed, the penalty cannot be changed or removed except by 'reforging' -- which costs extra gp and XP. As a DM, you can place such weapons into your game freely, as with all cursed weapons, but players probably will not want to make (or order) such weapons themself.
First, I want to thank you for taking the time to repond with such thoroughness. I know it takes time and effort to do so, and it will help me better understand the mechanics and repurcussions.
So, when would these negatives not be negatives? I instinctively agreed that the -4 flaming shocking corrosive ice sword was unbalancing, but it turns out to not be; even with true strike. So, what weapons really *would* be unbalancing?
But I will let you know how they react.
And the ease that it allows having multiple 'specialty' weapons.
And that is the question, would it really. And if so, are there ways to keep the overall mechanic, but remove the 'problem' cases. Assuming you had this -9 dancing vorpal weapon in mind, when would that be unbalancing? What if a 4th level character had it? A 10th? A 16th? Everytime you activate it, it takes a standard action, so that is an attack. (or full attack) missed. With a -9 it is likely to need a double 20 to use the vorpal. So lets be generous and say one out of 300 attacks chops off a head; you have given up possibly 100's of attacks, for this one extra kill.
So, when would these negatives not be negatives? I instinctively agreed that the -4 flaming shocking corrosive ice sword was unbalancing, but it turns out to not be; even with true strike. So, what weapons really *would* be unbalancing?
In theory you could have a +0 flaming sword as a +1 enchantment. But I really don't like the 'flavor' of that. I would prefer to keep them positive, or negative. So make it a -1 flaming burst, or -1 flaming corrosive, or whatever
I realize that the most likely place for balance issues to arise, is at the far end. But that can be easily dealt with if it proves necessary. (Cap the -X enchantments, or charge more for large negative enchantments.)
I like your opinions, and appreciate them. Thanks.
Hmmm.... I may intro them as early as next week. But they are not of a level to make them, and likely won't have time to commission anything. So they will only have the choice of what is available.
But I will let you know how they react.
Hmmmm... I think that is a larger problem than True Strike. I will need to think of a mechanic to counteract this......MachinaDeus said:I'd just be afraid of having a weapon like that when there're spells like Greater Magic Weapon around. Might be something to consider.
This is likely how it will work in my campaign anyway, but I like the concept. Keeps obnoxious combos under my control.wuyanei said:
OTOH, I am still not convince what combos would be a problem.
wuyanei said:
This is the part I can't wrap my head around. What are the plot implications of a faulty magic item? If there are wizards screwing up magic weapons but their special abilities wash it out in the end, how come there aren't other slightly screwed up items out there? Why not potions that scare the user while giving him barksin or rings with freedom of movement that also happen to slow their user? If you're just giving a unique weapon to one of your PCs that happens to be faulty, that's one thing, but if you're outfitting a party with several of them, then how are they all getting ahold of these duds and yet no other items in the world have duds? Somehow the mechanical side of things just smacks of inconsistency to me. I personally can't imagine a wizard pouring his wealth and life force (XP) into something he new was flawed. However, if you argue that he took shortcuts of some persuasion and that that is where the penalty comes in, than why isn't that a trend across all magic items? Surely magic smiths are not the only item creators that would like a shortcut. Does anyone see where I'm going with this?
Thia Halmades
First Post
Good morning, y'all.
I do see where you're going with this, but there are always options for side-stepping any number of things; whether it's a world mechanic, such as an HR which says Magic has degraded over time, or because the weapons themselves were intentionally cursed.
Part of what they're asking is this: Would it actually make more sense, and be cheaper and more easily abused, to create "negative" weapons which trade the penalty (say, simply, -1) to balance out the bonus (Shocking Burst, +2) thusly allowing you to create a cheaper weapon. If yes, is the cheaper weapon better?
I totally understand where you're coming from. I had a similar initial thought, specifically, "Sure, guys, it KIND of makes sense, but is it even legal?" Once we established that this is purely an HR, I loosened up a bit and tried to think of interesting ways it could be introduced.
Other things you might want to consider are people who are building these bad-boys en masse to make a quick buck. Magic Item Snake Oil Salesmen. They build the weapon - an enchanted longsword, say - sell it to for "a bargain" - 5% off, because they have to "Feed their kids" or some BS - and then run. I mean RUN, despite the fact you'll have trouble hitting them. They could also come from a cursed forge (which is how I plan on integrating them into my Ravenloft campaign).
My $0.02 on world integration (which I think is what you're asking about).
Cheiromancer
Adventurer
Considering extreme cases is a good way of testing a rule. If it works even in extreme cases, it probably works in moderate ones as well. But if a rule breaks down at the extremes, it might still work in moderation.
I am not at all convinced that the proposed rule (allowing negatives to balance positives when computing prices) breaks down at the extremes. There's the example of the -4 flaming, shocking, corrosive ice sword. -4 to hit, 4d6-4 (average +10) to damage. That's very close to someone power attacking at -5 with a masterwork weapon. And if you made a greatsword that automatically power attacked for 5, then I think people would think that it is cursed. It certainly wouldn't be worth very much.
As for greater magic weapon, well, as long as it stacks with the penalty instead of replacing it, it should be fine. True strike should be ok as well; after all, a fighter with a level of sorcerer could power attack for full and use true strike to ensure he hits. This combo exists, but the game doesn't suffer from it.
That being said, maybe an argument can be made that this "balancing" of pluses and minuses is a trifle unbalanced at the extremes. Well then, don't apply it to the extremes. Say the minuses cannot exceed half the positives. If the pluses of a weapon add up to +8, you can include -4 in penalties, to reduce the cost to +4. That should be far enough from the extremes as to not be a problem.
A question I have; does a weapon need a +1 enhancement to hit creatures with DR /magic? That is, can a -1 cursed sword hurt a gargoyle?
I am not at all convinced that the proposed rule (allowing negatives to balance positives when computing prices) breaks down at the extremes. There's the example of the -4 flaming, shocking, corrosive ice sword. -4 to hit, 4d6-4 (average +10) to damage. That's very close to someone power attacking at -5 with a masterwork weapon. And if you made a greatsword that automatically power attacked for 5, then I think people would think that it is cursed. It certainly wouldn't be worth very much.
As for greater magic weapon, well, as long as it stacks with the penalty instead of replacing it, it should be fine. True strike should be ok as well; after all, a fighter with a level of sorcerer could power attack for full and use true strike to ensure he hits. This combo exists, but the game doesn't suffer from it.
That being said, maybe an argument can be made that this "balancing" of pluses and minuses is a trifle unbalanced at the extremes. Well then, don't apply it to the extremes. Say the minuses cannot exceed half the positives. If the pluses of a weapon add up to +8, you can include -4 in penalties, to reduce the cost to +4. That should be far enough from the extremes as to not be a problem.
A question I have; does a weapon need a +1 enhancement to hit creatures with DR /magic? That is, can a -1 cursed sword hurt a gargoyle?
Thia Halmades
First Post
Cheiromancer: *blank stare* Again, full evidence I can't always cover all the angles. Well, I see two possible rulings:
- That the weapon would count as magical based on a final calculation (i.e., a -4 Vorpal is a +1)
- That it just doesn't, because it's cursed, and has no "magic" modifier; i.e., it'll never penetrate a Magic +4 DR, because the point of the build is to eschew those basics; that's an inherent limitation
- That it does, "ignoring" the cursed status out of convenience and to not completely eff the players.
I'm torn, really, between the middle ground (net) and extreme (it is no longer a "magic" weapon for overcoming DR, as we don't count special abilities). Does anyone know the RAW off the top of their heads?
- That the weapon would count as magical based on a final calculation (i.e., a -4 Vorpal is a +1)
- That it just doesn't, because it's cursed, and has no "magic" modifier; i.e., it'll never penetrate a Magic +4 DR, because the point of the build is to eschew those basics; that's an inherent limitation
- That it does, "ignoring" the cursed status out of convenience and to not completely eff the players.
I'm torn, really, between the middle ground (net) and extreme (it is no longer a "magic" weapon for overcoming DR, as we don't count special abilities). Does anyone know the RAW off the top of their heads?
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (207) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
