Immortals Handbook - Grimoire (Artifacts, Epic Magic discussion)

[Upper_Krust]

Hi poilbrun matey!

I trust you and Izzy are great!?

Just thought I'd point out that Kerrick is speaking about a +5 sword with the keen and holy abilities (+3 market modifier), for a total modifier of +8, becoming a +6 sword with the keen and holy abilities (+3 modifier), for a total modifier of +9.

Well that wasn't entirely clear then, apologies for my mistake.

I think it is not that easy to know the price of a weapon with an epic enhancement bonus but with a total modifier lower than +11. For example, how much does the above sword cost (+6 enhancement, +1 keen, +2 holy):
- 162,000 GP? That's the price of a non-epic +9 weapon
- 1,620,000 GP? That's the price of an epic +9 weapon
- 738,000 GP? That's the price of an epic +6 weapon (720,000 GP) plus the price of a +3 non-epic weapon (18,000 GP)

I'd go with the third one, epic price for the epic part of the sword (in this case the enhancement bonus), non-epic price for the non-epic part (in this case the added abilities). But then it begs the following question: can you have a +1 longsword with an ability valued at +6 or even much higher (depending on the highest-valued ability you will have in Grimoire ).

Actually the correct answer is 'B', 1,620,000 GP.

Any individual market modifier of +6 or better means its epic, so the answer cannot be 'A'.

You never split non-epic and epic market bonuses within the same weapon, so 'C' is incorrect.

One possible solution to this mess might be to triple the bonus rather than squaring it. This would do away with the need for a x10 modifier hike at epic.

Use x 200 for weapons and x 100 for armour/shields.

1 x 1 x 1 x 200 = 200 GP for +1 weapon...little more than masterwork anyway.
3 x 3 x 3 x 200 = 5,400 GP for +3
5 x 5 x 5 x 200 = 25,000 GP for +5
7 x 7 x 7 x 200 = 68,600 GP for +7
10 x 10 x 10 x 200 = 200,000 for +10
20 x 20 x 20 x 200 = 1,600,000 for +20
30 x 30 x 30 x 200 = 5,400,000 for +30

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

It doesn't appear that you are tripling the bonus, rather cubing it.

This will produce low end reasonable values, but the higher you go, the more exponentially ridiculous the prices you will get.

Personally, I find it's simpler to either say: "Hey, its an epic item/artifact; It's priceless."
(Of course this does nothing to help if a player wants to craft an item)

The problem with the current wealth system is that if the power of an item goes up in magnitudes of perfect squares, (or faster) your wealth had better increase by the same rate. (which leads to all manner of trouble)

Ideally, there shouldn't be a squaring of any value in the formula. If it were just "bonus x 2000" for weapons, it would be easy to regulate prices, wealth, Xp costs, and availability across all levels. (Yes this exact formula tends to get ridiculously cheap results, but a similar formula would be much easier and simpler to work with than Squaring this and that and then seeing if Bob the Timelord can fit it into his budget)

Ex: Say a 4 armed god, with four artifact Swords. Cost of all his or her artifacts would be (Total '+') x 8000. Bam. Is he/she level 80? 4 +20 swords? They each cost 40,000! (Again, +20 weapons should not be this cheap. Just demonstrating the formula)

 

[Kerrick]

I'd go with the third one, epic price for the epic part of the sword (in this case the enhancement bonus), non-epic price for the non-epic part (in this case the added abilities). But then it begs the following question: can you have a +1 longsword with an ability valued at +6 or even much higher (depending on the highest-valued ability you will have in Grimoire).

I was considering that too, but UK's right - once any part of the bonus becomes epic (either the enhancement bonus or the total market value) the whole thing is treated as epic. The ELH provides a rather convoluted ruling on this:

Note that the +6 to +10 [epic pricing] rows apply only to weapons that provide an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10[,] or weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10. Magic weapons with a total effective bonus of +6 to +10 but that have an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and special abilities whose individual market price modifiers are +5 or less use the table for nonepic magic weapons to determine price.

So basically what it's saying is this: if the item has an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and/or a bunch of enhancements, none of which exceed +5 AND total +10 or less, then it uses the non-epic pricing. If the item has an enhancement bonus of +6 or more, OR has any single ability that provides a market bonus of +6 or more, OR has a total market value of +11 or more, then it trips the x10 multiplier and becomes epic.

One possible solution to this mess might be to triple the bonus rather than squaring it. This would do away with the need for a x10 modifier hike at epic.

Yeah, it would also drop the levels at which these items could become available - you could afford a +20 weapon at 34th level, rather than whatever level it is now (40th+), which would toss your ECL formula out the window.

I still don't see the big problem with the ELH method?

I assume you mean the jump from non-epic (the +5 keen holy sword) to epic (+6 keen holy sword). Like I said, it could work - I'm not sure at this point which method to use, the merged tables (where the +5 keen holy sword has the same price as a +8 sword) or the separate ones (where the +5 keen holy sword is a non-epic market value and the +8 sword is an epic market value). The main problem is that it's much easier to get a low-enhancement item and pile on abilities (and given the 3.5 DR system, this is the route everyone's going anyway). A +3 keen flaming wounding weapon of speed (+10 total) is only 200,000 gp without the epic multiplier. IMO, a pile of lesser enhancements should equal one larger enhancement - that weapon is hugely poweful and has a lot of magic in it.

If you're talking about the x10 mutliplier, well... you're talking a 10-level jump in affordability.
A +5 weapon can be afforded at 15th level; a +6 weapon isn't affordable till 27th. Likewise, a +10 market value weapon is affordable at 27th level, whereas +11 isn't available till 36th. That's a huge gap, wouldn't you say?

With the graded multiplier, there is no appreciable jump in levels - a +5 weapon is affordable at 15th level, a +6 at 17th, and +7 at 20th; a +10 market weapon is affordable at 28th and a +11 at 31st. That is, of course, assuming you merge the tables; if you don't (you use the epic multiplier for epic bonuses only), then +6 is 17th still (since it's x1), and +7 is 21st - still not a big jump. +10 market value is 21st, and +11 becomes 31st level. Okay, that's a huge jump, I'll admit - I didn't check that beforehand. It's pretty well convinced me the tables should be merged, though.

It still seems like more work to me...but that could just be because I am quite familiar with the ELH.

Probably. Course, my notes aren't exactly easy to understand either. Here's a table for you:

+6 armor (x1): 36,000 gp, 1,400 XP
+7 armor (x1.5): 73,500 gp, 1,960 XP
+8 armor (x2): 128,000 gp, 2,560 XP
+9 armor (x3): 243,000 gp, 3,240 XP
+10 armor (x4): 400,000 gp, 4,000 XP

+6 weapon (x1): 72,000 gp, 2,880 XP
+7 weapon (x1.5): 147,000 gp, 3,920 XP
+8 weapon (x2): 256,000 gp, 5,120 XP
+9 weapon (x3): 486,000, 6,480 XP
+10 weapon (x4): 800,000 gp, 8,000 XP.

Yes but the point is you are not meant to be making those items at 16th-level.

Assuming you're not making a +20 enhancement bonus item (CL 60th), I'd like you to show me a 16th level PC who has 2.8 million to blow. Under my system, you don't get that much until 28th level; in the core system, it's 27th. A PC can't even afford such an item by the 1/4 rule until 45th level (my system; I don't know about the core, but it's likely 50th). I don't see your point here - you're over-exaggerating.

Ideally, there shouldn't be a squaring of any value in the formula. If it were just "bonus x 2000" for weapons, it would be easy to regulate prices, wealth, Xp costs, and availability across all levels. (Yes this exact formula tends to get ridiculously cheap results, but a similar formula would be much easier and simpler to work with than Squaring this and that and then seeing if Bob the Timelord can fit it into his budget)

I dunno.. the squaring system seems to work well enough. As long as you have a table people can refer to, so they don't have to do all the math themselves, and the item prices scale with level (which they do if you fix the wealth progression), it all works out pretty well.

 

[Kerrick]

Okay. For UK, and anyone else who's interested, I've posted all the tables - gp prices, XP costs, and multipliers, listed by bonus type. I also included some notes down at the bottom about the system itself - the good and bad points. Oh, and ignore the Artificing link at the top - that page isn't live yet.

 

[Pssthpok]

Can anyone answer this:

Metamagic Freedom and AMC... how do these feats replace Multispell? I can read the text, but it's not clear to me.

 

[Phantom Llama]

Can anyone answer this:

Metamagic Freedom and AMC... how do these feats replace Multispell? I can read the text, but it's not clear to me.

This is how I understand it:
The first quickened spell in a round requires one application of Quicken Spell. The second quickened spell requires two applications, the third three, and so on ad infinitum.

 

[Fieari]

That was the popular interpretation, but UK clarified in an earlier thread that Metamagic Freedom allows any number of quickened spells to be cast in a round, so long as the quickening comes exclusively from Automatic Metamagic Capacity, and not just from applying the quicken feat normally. Since AMC grants spell levels per round, this provides the new limiter to number of quickened spells, in that every 4 AMC feats taken allow for an additional spell per round, so long as you don't mind that those spells won't have other metamagic on them.

 

[Pssthpok]

Thanks, guys; that's what I was wondering: whether it was +4/additional quickened spell or not.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Hmm, I'm surprised it was such trouble for you. We worked pretty hard on working it over in to an intuitive explanation in the text. What threw you off?

 

[Pssthpok]

I remembered there being a discussion over it some time ago, but couldn't remember if the wording had been change to reflect any conclusion that had been reached or not.