Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8336198" data-attributes="member: 6932123">Continuing on the thoughts on weapon pricing: I forgot to account for two-weapon fighting.  Boosting the cost of the +1 version of weapons from 500 to 1000 means the dual wielder needs to pay 2000 for a full upgrade instead of 1000.Now, this might be what they want, given that dual wielding "overperforms" at low levels, but it's still something to consider.Perhaps the prices might scale for light, normal, and heavy weapons (eg: -50%, +0%, +50%), but that would also make it look like the question of how pricing of armor works for light/medium/heavy armor.  Since the decision on armor was to price based on the target AC, what do things look like with to-hit rolls?To-hit rolls increase by both attribute and proficiency bonus, whereas armor is only affected by Dex.  If we assume a 16 in the main stat at level 1, increasing to 18 at level 4, and then increasing to 20 at level 12-16 (because the game was balanced against an 18 in the primary stat for tier 2, and doesn't assume a 20 til late game), we're looking at:Level 1: 16 Str, +0 weapon = +5 to attackLevel 5: 18 Str, +1 weapon = +8 to attackLevel 9: 18 Str, +2 weapon = +10 to attackLevel 13: 20 Str, +3 weapon = +13 to attackLevel 17: 20 Str, +3 weapon = +14 to attackHonestly, it feels like a decent progression rate, gaining about +1 to hit every 2 levels, and +1 to damage every 4 levels.  Compare with armor gaining about +1 AC every 2 levels (up to a point).So, my original estimate of when to gain the next +X to a weapon seems appropriate, and price can be derived from that. Mainly 8000 seems too low for a +3, as you're able to afford that only a couple levels after you get a +2, which really ruins the value of +2s.Putting that aside, and going back to the Dragon Slayer, there's the issue of replacement cost.  That is, in my original analysis I assumed a +1 weapon would be replaced by a +2 weapon.  However, since weapons generally don't require attunement (including the Dragon Slayer), it's reasonable to hold on to the Dragon Slayer in order to use it in its niche specialty, rather than replace it.So you get your Dragon Slayer, which functions as a +1 sword, at level 5, but you don't replace it at level 9 because if you fight a dragon, you're still going to want to use the Dragon Slayer, even if you use some other +2 weapon the rest of the time.  You're more likely to replace it entirely when you get a +3 weapon.So, in the original pricing, costing 7000 means it costs just a little less than a +3 weapon (8000), which is the point it would be getting replaced (maybe). If you consider 7000 relative to a price of 15,000 for a +3, it seems more reasonable. It's a +2.5 for its niche use, but doesn't compete with a full +3, while still being affordable at a point that allows it to be used for a few levels before +3s start being viable.Of course you might evaluate it as being worth holding onto regardless of any alternate weapons, because the +3d6 vs dragons outweighs 2 less to-hit points by a fair margin.  In that case, the Dragon Slayer will never get fully replaced, and pricing it as only a little less than a +3 is reasonable because it can last the entire game.  You don't buy it as a primary weapon, but as a specialist weapon.And I'm kinda out of thoughts on how to evaluate that any further, at the moment.  I'll look at [USER=12731]@CapnZapp[/USER]'s point later.</blockquote>

Verification