Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nonsi256" data-source="post: 5052639" data-attributes="member: 86164">>> What if i think it is a 3rd level effect? My point>> is, you are not giving any guidelines as to what>> an effect is worth.There’s no ruling for DM’s personal taste – which has a significant effects of a chosen effect level.I once saw a DM on one of the forums that gave an argument in favor of making Storm of Vengeance a 6th level spell.There are some things that are beyond anything but common sense.>> Again, i have no idea what you are basing these>> spell levels on. You are just being arbetrary.As arbitrary as telling you to use the same parameters as for inventing new spells for spells’ sake.>> If it takes me 12k gold to buy a +1 weapon,6.3K (12k is with Flaming)>> If you want weapons to seem more speacial,>> make them more powerful, but more rare.Higher prices + failure chances are suppose to do exactly that.>> This amounts to: 0gpNow these are the things I was after more than anything else – the missing info in my rules.I think I’ll make 0 level spells worth 1/2 as much as 1st level spells.>> So rather than being a very limited used of>> the telekinesis spell, as the current Immovable>> Rod is (telekinesis is the required spell), I've>> got to first invent an Immovable spell and>> then enchant it into a rod.Of course.5th level is a rip off for 8000lb of immovability.Notice that as a 1st level spell, the cost would be just a bit higher.>> Or I could, for 300 gp less, have a permanent>> invisibility effect that goes on or off at will>> by rotating the ring.Assuming the 1st note was not already presented in the document (remember that regular Invisibility ends upon attack, so you’ll have to make it an ever-repeating power), emanating effects cannot be applied to others, given they’re already active.Also, 5th level rather than 3rd was just for the hack of it.But now that you mentioned it, I’m considering lowering the base price for permanent items to [SpL x 4000]>> Reading your originally posted draft, it seems>> clear that a magic weapon, whose enhancement>> applies to each attack, would fall under the Ever>> Repeating Effect category1. That would be correct if a +1 to a single attack would be worth a 1st level spell (not, I guess)2. My bad for not redirecting to   [FONT=&quot]<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/267875-fixing-casters-right-way.html" target="_blank">TS’s thread</a>[/FONT].>> so now I have to wonder what that entry is for.I’ll give you an example: Mace of Disruption.This is practically a repeating Disintegrate variant that’s limited vs. undead only. With my rules, you’d use the actual effect of Disintegrate.Now I’d be really thankful for some decent rules for price reduction when limiting an effect to occur vs. a limited group of targets (Disruption is limited to a specific group (undead). A Stoneblade (give a guess) vs. green dragons is under a double restriction). This should, of course, be relevant only for ever-repeating effects.</blockquote>

Verification