Epic Magic Big Thread

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm confused.

Me too. Maybe we should ask Hypersmurf. He knows everything. I guess I'd cost it as a slotted item and then double it. Maybe the rules just can't handle it.

 

[Quartz]

I've dipped into this thread once more after contributing to the equipment thread. I'd just like to comment on Mage's Disjunction.

You could have an 8th level version which does not affect permanent items. But I actually like the 9th level version: it encourages a good turnover in magical items. If you're still against it, then you could simply rule that Epic = Artifact. Then the spell becomes a mook-blaster.

And the slot affinity thing is IMHO just silly. If you're worried about it, consider it subsumed by the Epic multiplier - after all Epic stuff is supposed to be something special.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Ok. I'm going to try to draft my own formula for multi-function items. I think there should be a discount for "putting all your eggs in one basket", even if it is only a small one. And a function in a slotted location should never cost more than if it were unslotted.

How about we try this:

If an item has one or more powers whose base prices are (from most to least expensive) P1, P2, P3, P4 etc., then the general formula for the price of the item depends on whether the item occupies a body slot or not.

A slotted item whose best power is appropriate to the slot it fills is priced according to the formula

P1 + 2/3 x (P2 + P3 + P4 + ....) = item base price​

If its best power is *not* appropriate to the slot it fills it is priced according to the formula

(1.5 x P1) + 2/3 x (P2 + P3 + P4 + ....) = item base price​

If an item has groups of powers that are not closely related to each other, price each group separately, according the appropriate formula, and add the results together. If one power is appropriate to the slot and another one isn't, then they are not closely related. In other words, powers that are weaker than, but related to, already priced powers get a 2/3 multiplier. A power that's stronger than any related power gets a multiplier of 1 if they are appropriate, and 1.5 if they are inappropriate to the slot.

Slotless items always have the cost of best power doubled. Powers unrelated to the best power are always priced with a 1.5 multiplier, just as if it were an inappropriate power in a slotted item. Powers related to a better power are not discounted, but don't have their costs increased either; they have a multiplier of 1.

Slotless Items

Example 1: A pearl of power (1st) is a slotless item that costs 1,000 gp. Its base price can be calculated to be 500 gp. A pearl of power that works 3 times per day would cost

(2 x 500) + 500 + 500 = 2000 gp​

The best power is doubled, and the additional uses have a multiplier of 1. This item costs only 2/3 of the price of buying three separate pearls. The discount is appropriate because separate items are more convenient to buy, sell, loan and trade than a single item, and so the single item has less utility. Buy two, get one free.

Example 2: A pearl of power (1st) that also gives a +1 resistance bonus to saving throws (like a cloak of resistance) would be an example of a slotless item that has two unrelated powers. The base cost for a cloak is 1000 gp, and so it is the best power; it gets a multiplier of 2. The next power is unrelated, so it gets a multiplier of 1.5. This combination would cost

(2 x 1000) + (1.5 x 500) = 2750 gp.​

This is only about 250 gp (8.3%) less than the price of two such slotless items purchased separately. The utility of a combo item is somewhat less than two items, but not significantly less.

Example 3: A pearl of power (1st) that works three times per day *and* gives a +1 resistance bonus to saving throws is designed. The first use is unrelated to the resistance bonus, so it gets a x1.5 multiplier, but the two additional uses of the pearl of power are similar (identical, in fact) to the first use, and so they are included at their base price, with a multiplier of 1. The item costs

(2 x 1000) + (1.5 x 500) + 500 + 500 = 3750 gp.​

Also 250 gp less than the two items purchased separately.

Slotted items

Example 4: A player wants his character to craft a belt that acts both as a belt of giant strength +6 and an amulet of health +6. The DM is persuaded that a Constitution bonus is appropriate to the belt slot (it is a "physical improvement" and there is the precedent of a belt of dwarvenkind) and so he calculates the price of the belt of robust health +6 to be

36,000 + (2/3 x 36,000) = 60,000 gp​

Example 5: The player in the previous example changes his mind; he wants the belt to give a bonus to Strength and Dexterity rather than Strength and Constitution. The DM thinks this is stretching things a bit, and while Strength and Dexterity are both physical improvements (and so appropriate to the belt slot) he rules (somewhat arbitrarily) that they are not closely related. The price of the belt of martial prowess +6 is

36,000 + 36,000 = 72,000​

The player complains that this is the cost of the pair of items purchased separately, and the DM asks him if he has the Additional Magic Item Slot (belt) feat. He doesn't.

Example 6: The player changes his mind yet again; now he wants the belt to improve Strength and Intelligence. The DM says that Intelligence is not appropriate for a belt, and so the price of the belt of the warmage +6 would be

36,000 + (1.5 x 36,000) = 90,000​

More examples

Example 7: The player decides he doesn't want it to be a belt; an ioun stone would "look cooler". The DM says that a slotless item that boosted Strength and Intelligence would count as having two unrelated powers and would cost

(2 x 36,000) + (1.5 x 36,000) = 126,000​

Example 8: The player says that the DM is misunderstanding things (why does he have to be so mean?) He wants an Ioun stone that boosts Strength and Constitution. The second function is related, and so is priced with neither a discount nor a premium.

(2 x 36,000) + 36,000 = 108,000​

Example 8: A ring of wizardry that doubles all spells has multiple related powers. It would cost

810K + 2/3 x (640K + 490K + 360K + 250K + 100K + 70K + 40K + 20K) = 2,123,333 gp​

Available at level 44.

A pearl that recalled four spells of each level (1 to 9) is just a bit over half as much as buying 4 pearls for each level. The cost of an all-in-one pearl is 610,500. A lot cheaper than the ring; but note that 4 pearls of power (1st) are a lot cheaper than a 1st level ring of wizardry. 4000 gp compared to 20,000 gp. That's true all the way up; a 9th level pearl of power is only 10% the cost of a 9th level ring of wizardry. So I think the price of an all-in-one pearl is fair.

Perhaps this would be better in its own thread?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Re: items of spell resistance.

The mantle of spell resistance grants SR 21, and costs 90K. The mantle of epic spell resistance grants SR 40 and costs 290K. The official formula (DMG 285) is 10K per point above 12; the mantle of epic spell resistance is thus a bit off; it should only cost 280K.

By the time you can afford an item worth 90,000 gp, SR 21 isn't very good. The non-epic mantle is over-priced. However the epic mantle gives great value against opponents of your spell level. Extrapolating the price for even more epic value will give practically unbeatable SR for less than your headband of intellect +8 (SR 76 for 640K).

Now, this *might* be workable. Items of death ward and mind blank make you immune to all kinds of spells; why not have an item that makes you, for all practical purposes, immune to everything that allows spell resistance? I don't find this argument very compelling; ultra-high SR seems to have much greater utility than the official price. And besides, most numerical benefits are scaled quadratically; the linear formula for SR is highly anomalous.

I propose 3 alternatives involving squaring a value. I will give them totally value-neutral names so you can't tell which one I favor:

Option 1: mean and stingy

cost = (SR - 10) squared x 750 gp.​

This gives a value of 90,750 gp for SR 21, very close to the official value of the mantle of spell resistance. The epic mantle's SR 40 comes in at 675,000 gp. This price would make it a primary (25%) item at level 30, and it could have some use as a secondary item (10%) at level 41 (against non-epic opponents, say, or monsters with SLAs at caster level 20). A SR 50 item would cost 1.2 Million; the major item for a 37th level character, perhaps.

Option 2: insanely generous

cost = (SR - 10) squared x 300 gp.​

This gives a value of 270,000 gp for SR 40, quite close to what the official formula would assign to the mantle of epic spell resistance. The non-epic mantle would come in as 36,300. It would compete with the +6 ability buff items to be a primary item around level 12, or a secondary item at level 16. SR 50 would cost 480K, and would be a major item available at 27th level, but would still be useful as a secondary item at level 37. Spell duels would have to involve spells that are not hindered by spell resistance.

Option 3: fair and balanced

cost = (SR - 10) squared x 500 gp.​

This option falls in between the other two. SR 21 is 60,500 gp, about two thirds of the official price, and rather poor value for your money. SR 40 would be 450,000 gp, about three halves of 290K, but not unreasonable. SR 50 would cost 800K, and would be a potent major item for a 32nd level character. Items this expensive might just be powerful enough to provide night-unbeatable SR.

[edit]

Other options

You could get all the disadvantages of the above formulas by using something like

cost = SR squared x 200​

SR 21 would cost 88,200, which is too much; SR 50 would cost 500K, which is too little. SR 40 would be 320K, which isn't bad.

Changing the subtrahend might make a formula which is more balanced over all. But a better alternative to using expressions like (SR - 15) squared (or whatever) would be to use an expression like the following:

cost = SR x (SR - 10) squared x 15​

This would make SR 21 cost 36,300 gp, SR 40 would cost 540,000, and SR 50 would cost 1,200,000 gp.

Such a formula could be fiddled with ad infinitum. For instance, if you wanted the low end to be a bit more expensive and the high end a little bit cheaper, you could try

cost = SR squared x (SR - 10) x 10​

This would make SR 21 cost 48,510 gp, SR 40 would cost 480,000, and SR 50 would cost 1 million gp.

And so on. These formulas aren't really quadratic, though, so I'm not terribly keen on them.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I wouldn't even worry about SR 32 or less: just retain the original formula.

Above SR32, an epic formula can kick in. Relate it to character wealth, such that an item which provides an SR of (say) (character level +10) is always available as a 25% item.

Cost = (SR-10)^3 x25

SR 40 = 675K
SR 50 = 1600K etc.

Maybe SR = (character level +12) would be better as a 25% item. (SR-12)^3 x25. That's pretty solid - devils and abominations hold to this pattern.

SR 40 = 548,800
SR 50 = 1,371,800.

That seems OK.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Example 4: A player wants his character to craft a belt that acts both as a belt of giant strength +6 and an amulet of health +6. The DM is persuaded that a Constitution bonus is appropriate to the belt slot (it is a "physical improvement" and there is the precedent of a belt of dwarvenkind) and so he calculates the price of the belt of robust health +6 to be 36,000 + (2/3 x 36,000) = 60,000 gp

I'm not persuaded that such an item offers less utility than both an amulet and a belt - quite the opposite, in fact. The character should be paying a premium on such an item: now he can wear his scarab of protection or his periapt of wisdom as well - or maybe his periapt of wisdom and protection, also discounted.

According to the DMG pricing guide, your belt should cost 90K - assuming the DM lets a Con bonus go in the belt slot. This seems OK to me.

Re: Talisman of Sublime Wizardry (slotless) vs. Ring of Sublime Wizardry.

From rules of the game (emphasis mine):

Multiple Similar Abilities Versus Multiple Different Abilities: An item with multiple similar abilities costs much less than an item with multiple different abilities, so what's the difference? In this case, "similar" abilities are functions that draw from the same pool of charges, or that can't be used at the same time (or at least don't provide a great deal of extra benefit if they are used together), or all of the above. Sometimes, an item has powers that receive this similar abilities price reduction when the item's multiple powers work together to produce an overall effect, or when an item's powers must be activated separately, but that's fairly rare.

A staff is a great example of an item whose multiple powers are priced as "similar" abilities. Refer to Part Three for notes on pricing staffs. Remember, however, that all a staff's powers must have the same caster level; for an item that has a different caster level for different powers, be sure to charge full price for the most expensive power, 75% for the next most expensive power, and 50% for all other powers.

An item has multiple different abilities when they do not draw from the same pool of charges or otherwise don't interfere with each other. Usually, such powers must be activated separately. Most rods are good examples of this kind of item.

Slotless Powers: According to Table 7-33, an item that doesn't take up space on the user's body has double the normal price. In many cases, it's appropriate to levy this extra cost when an item has multiple powers, especially when one power works continuously or the item's multiple powers tend to reinforce each other in play. The weapon that also bestows a Strength boost from an earlier example is a good example of this kind of item.

I'm guessing that your proposed Talisman of Epic Wizardry shouldn't use the 'multiple similar abilities' rule, because the functions are continuous, and don't interfere with each other. It would cost a lot more.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The sidebar on page 282 in the Dungeon Master's Guide causes a great deal of trouble.

I agree with Skip here.

I think he's kind of redefined what "similar" means, wouldn't you think? I think he's saying that functions are similar if they use charges. That would probably work.

We're giving characters a fair bit less treasure than in the ELH, so if we make the items cheaper, it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. But I wouldn't mind a different method of deciding prices, as long as it makes sense.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I agree with Skip here.

Amen.

I think he's kind of redefined what "similar" means, wouldn't you think?

Oh, I think he knew what it meant all along. He just didn't share the knowledge. I read those articles when they came out, but it was a long time ago. I knew that some part of the puzzle was missing.

We're giving characters a fair bit less treasure than in the ELH, so if we make the items cheaper, it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world.

Er...I think an easier fix would be to change the wealth guidelines back if it comes to that. But I don't think it will.

 

[glass]

I must be misunderstanding the rules somehow; how would you price it?

As I have always thougt, 'multiple similar abilities' refers to abilities that you can only use one at a time -spells in a staff, for example. Extra spells slots of different level definitely aren't similar, on that basis.

It isn't expalined very well, but it makes more sense if you work it that way.

EDIT: Or what Skip (as quoted by Sep) said. D'oh!


glass.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Meh. You can only cast spells one at a time. A caster is kind of a staff with legs, really. I think it is more to do with charges. I don't have the mental focus right now to figure it all out. A pity, really. Post 453 was fun to compose.