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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nonsi256" data-source="post: 5049454" data-attributes="member: 86164">Ok, several things:1. My bad on not directing to TS’s thread.2. For better or worse, the document is my work, so the criticism should be addressed to me.3. I guess it’s also my bad for leaving out examples.4. I must admit that the temp-perm rule is stupid – especially since each effect should be autonomous. Will be nixed.5. I now noticed that I still need to define price modifications according to the activation cost action-wise. Suggestions could be most helpful.6. I also forgot to state that any and all magical stat augmentations overlap. This removes the need for 2-rings-at-most restriction.Looking at TS’s spells, for full casters, each odd level is a magical plus (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th & 9th).Given the spells have a continuous duration, this means we’re talking about emanating effects, so the prices are: 6K, 18K, 30K, 42K & 54K.Regardless of how partial casters. Stat augmenting spells should not be placed in spell-levels that would make them beat fullcasters to the punch. Beyond that, everything’s legit.Now for the comments>> List the price reductions as negatives (i.e. -X%).Noted. Will do.>> How is this bad11 tables = clunky as hell. It means you always have to go back to the tables.>> Less than a thousand actually.Ditto.>> Presumably, this was done to prevent characters from>> being able to make every item. Making a magical>> potion IS different from making a flaming sword or a>> flying carpet.I would agree conceptually to the distinction of scroll-consumable-solid, but that’s it.>> Presumably, this was done to prevent characters>> from being able to make every item.The OD&D rules had chances for success (failure). I don’t get why they removed that aspect. There should be some motivation not to attempt making an item – the xp drain is both ridiculous and not taxing enough for anyone to give it a second thought.>> What info?For example, there’s a table for Adamantine, but not for other materials.>> Because they can't cover all eventualities that>> others may come up with.Meaning they handwaved rather than formulate.>> What is BS about it?The mathematical operation “power” is absolutely ridiculous for the purpose of pricing.Moreover. The gap between +0 to +1 is significantly larger than the gap between +1 to +5. The former already allows you to ignore DR whereas the latter merely augments your stats a bit.>> What exactly do you mean by this?The physical items are nothing more than containers to magical powers.An item’s price should have no effect whatsoever on the prices of the effects it contains.>> And ridiculously overpriced. And allowing for>> no differences inherent to creation, purpose,>> economics, etc.I have to admit I lost you there.>> You are not providing any examples, clarifying any>> points, explaining why, why not, etc. You need to>> provide information, explanations and examples.>> One page doesn't cut it.You’re right, but it will still require only a single page.As for the “why” part, it think I covered that one.>> Um...DMG does this too. It lists all spells involved>> in the magic items made.What was that spell’s name that grants flat save bonuses?And the one that made an ioun stone fly around your head?. . .I’m sure I had it a minute ago...................... nope.>> What exactly does this mean and how is this different>> that the DMG specifying charges, modes, exceptions, etc.?The charges section I’m sure you saw.Operates mode = how an item is to be used to activate an effect.>> to make a +1 weapon, the wizard has only a 35%>> chance of successCorrect.This was totally intentional.Adventurers should adventureCharacters should go about n the world doing their business to interact with the world.Magical items are not supposed to be spread around like garbage. Finding a magical item should be a noteworthy event.One should only cease his routine to make items when one really believes that they’re crucial for one’s survival, and... weigh the pros & cons regarding time-money-chances-necessity.>> But to make the flaming property, he has>> (5 x (5 + 4) - 10) X 3>> (45 - 10) x 3 = 105% chance of success!Not correct.[5 x (Level + STAT-mod) – 10 x SPL]Is mathematically identical to[(5 x (Level + STAT-mod)) – (10 x SPL)]Due to mathematical precedences</blockquote>

Verification