Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quartz" data-source="post: 3392826" data-attributes="member: 40552">There've long been comments about how combat types are overshadowed by the spellcasters at high levels. Inspired by <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=190627" target="_blank">this thread</a>, I'm wondering if part of the problem is the way the cost of arms and armour are calculated. Basically, they're expensive, and interesting items can only start to be enjoyed when the characters' levels are in the low teens. When a mage is creating a multifunction device that isn't arms or armor, all the functions are costed seperately and then added together; but with arms and armour, you add up the 'plus equivalent values' of the functions first, then calculate the cost. This doesn't seem quite right - or fair - to me.Now, having a 'plus equivalent value' seems to me to be a necessary evil to stop players taking the piss and having their arms and armour insanely enchanted. How about if the cost of the basic plus of the item and the cost of the 'plus equivalent value' enhancements were seperated out? So, for example, the cost of a +5 Holy Avenger would not be based off (5+5)^2 but off (5^2)+(5^2). Equally, a +1 sword with a minor (+1 equivalent) enchantment would be based off (1^2)+(1^2) instead of (1+1)^2. And since there's a limit of +5 on either side, this would stop people creating +1 weapons with +9 in PEVs and then boosting them with Greater Magic Weapon.This would allow fighter-types spare cash for more interesting items.What do you think?</blockquote>

Verification