Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7347357" data-attributes="member: 12731">Ah. Well, then I think we have different assumptions. My assumption is that the +1 weapon is the baseline magic weapon. I consider +0 weapons (such as vicious or sharp weapons) to be less common offshoots. Basically, a +0 weapon isn't a category of itself, it's basically a +1 weapon with a weird special ability replacing the +1 bonus.Not that it matters much, but if we are initially gonna put a price on a generic &quot;+1 weapon&quot; that needs to be for a best-in-class weapon type. You always take extremes into account for successful balancing.I can understand the viewpoint that a glaive or hand crossbow is a weird strange and rare weapon. But that's relevant only for the regular nonmagical price discussion.I don't think I can justify a +1 glaive or +1 hand crossbow costing significantly more than a +1 greatsword, say.I can justify having a +1 greatsword in mind when pricing the generic &quot;+1 weapon&quot; however, especially if we assume feats are in play. So, using your proposed number for +3 weaponry, and using the Pathfinder wealth curve just for giggles, where a 17th level character sports 410,000 gp, I could see:+3 greatswords, +3 glaives and +3 hand crossbows: ~130,000 gp each+3 rapiers, +3 longbows, and +3 shortswords: ~95,000 gp+3 daggers, +3 sickles and +3 clubs: ~65,000 gpIf you missed it earlier, I kind of guess &quot;one third&quot; is a useful guideline as to how large share of your total accumulated wealth you are able to plow down into a single item. And 130000 is a third of 410000....if I just invent on the spot these three &quot;stratas&quot; of weapons (best of the best, best for each build, and &quot;everything else&quot;, meaning secondary/atmospheric weapons).Of course, to justify these costs I would really need my proposed house rule (so you basically need these weapons against epic threats), but each to his own. Hopefully y'all can see my points without getting stuck on the specifics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7347357, member: 12731"] Ah. Well, then I think we have different assumptions. My assumption is that the +1 weapon is the baseline magic weapon. I consider +0 weapons (such as vicious or sharp weapons) to be less common offshoots. Basically, a +0 weapon isn't a category of itself, it's basically a +1 weapon with a weird special ability replacing the +1 bonus. Not that it matters much, but if we are initially gonna put a price on a generic "+1 weapon" that needs to be for a best-in-class weapon type. You always take extremes into account for successful balancing. I can understand the viewpoint that a glaive or hand crossbow is a weird strange and rare weapon. But that's relevant only for the regular nonmagical price discussion. I don't think I can justify a +1 glaive or +1 hand crossbow costing significantly more than a +1 greatsword, say. I can justify having a +1 greatsword in mind when pricing the generic "+1 weapon" however, especially if we assume feats are in play. So, using your proposed number for +3 weaponry, and using the Pathfinder wealth curve just for giggles, where a 17th level character sports 410,000 gp, I could see: +3 greatswords, +3 glaives and +3 hand crossbows: ~130,000 gp each +3 rapiers, +3 longbows, and +3 shortswords: ~95,000 gp +3 daggers, +3 sickles and +3 clubs: ~65,000 gp [SIZE=1]If you missed it earlier, I kind of guess "one third" is a useful guideline as to how large share of your total accumulated wealth you are able to plow down into a single item. And 130000 is a third of 410000.[/SIZE] ...if I just invent on the spot these three "stratas" of weapons (best of the best, best for each build, and "everything else", meaning secondary/atmospheric weapons). Of course, to justify these costs I would really need my proposed house rule (so you basically need these weapons against epic threats), but each to his own. Hopefully y'all can see my points without getting stuck on the specifics. [/QUOTE]

Verification