Retooling Epic Item Costs

[Sepulchrave II]

I think that is pretty simple; having a sliding modifier instead of a flat x10 modifier is a little more complicated, but for characters of 30th level or lower they'll probably just use x3 all the time. Even if they are using weapon bonus/4, shield bonus/5 that isn't too complicated. What do you think? I should figure out the bonus for a bonus squared x 2500 gp item too... bonus/3 should work fine.

We need a table w/ 4 columns. The first 3 should be enhancement bonus, special ability bonus and total bonus, under one heading of 'use the highest bonus which applies'. The fourth column will give the multiplier. Tables are good - people don't have to think. I don't have to think.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Looking at them on a spreadsheet, I find I dislike the jumps in price that my method gives when the multiplier changes. But the numbers are ugly when I use decimals instead of whole numbers.

I think I could go with 200,000 + bonus cubed x 400 for weapons. (and anything with a cost of 2000 x bonus squared)

How about 100,000 + bonus cubed x 200 for shields? (and anything with a cost of 1000 times bonus squared)

Sure it means an epic item would technically be available to non-epic characters. But it requires an epic feat to make, and I don't think there would be anything game-breaking about having a +6 shield that costs 143,200 gp. Compare it to a +5 shield; +1 AC more, at a cost of 93,200 gp.

By symmetry, an item with a cost of 2500 x bonus squared should cost 250,000 + bonus cubed x 500.

A skill bonus item (normally bonus squared x 100) should be 10,000 + bonus cubed x 20.

Generally if the cost of the non-epic item is bonus squared x N, then the cost of the epic item would be (N x 100) + bonus cubed x (N/5).

Spell resistance is an odd one. As a non-epic item it is linear. As an epic item it should be quadratic. It should have a constant term, though.

Maybe 180,000 + (SR-10) squared x 360?

The non-epic mantle would be about 2.5 times as expensive if priced according to this formula. That's about right; look what happens if you price a +5 (non-epic) shield according to the epic formula. The mantle of epic spell resistance would be 504,000 if priced in this scheme. Pricey, but probably still worth it.

How does that sound? Go with the cubic formula you propose (though with different additive terms), and a quadratic formula for SR items?

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm reposting this from the main thread. It is concerned with pricing items, so I think I'll put it here:

****

In Pricing robe of the archmagi I complain about the discrepancy between the DMG price and price when you work things out. The robe should be 130,500 (91350 after the alignment discount), but is only 75,000. I'm thinking that alignment restrictions are not appropriate for PC created (or improved) items; they don't reduce the utility of the item in any way. They are better for equipping villains with.

I'm thinking that as a general rule, non-standard items should be priced according to Skip's formula, without faux restrictions, and then a fixed, ad hoc discount applied to reconcile things with the DMG.

For a robe of the archmagi the ad hoc discount would be 55,500 gp; the difference between the formula price and the book price. If a player wished to improve the item to give a +8 armor bonus, SR 32, +5 resistance bonus on saves and +4 spell penetration, they'd calculate the cost as follows:

SR 32 is 200,000
+8 armor bonus is 64,000 x 1.5 is 96,000
+5 resistance bonus is 25,000 x 1.5 is 37,500
+4 bonus vs SR is at least 24,000 x 1.5 is 36,000
(I'm guessing bonus squared x 1500)

Total: 369,500 - 55,500 = 314,000

The augmented robe would still retain its alignment restriction, but wouldn't get the full 30% discount for being restricted to a particular alignment. And it has to pay the surcharge- or most of it, the ad hoc discount applies. If we followed the weird pricing scheme that the robe of the archmagi followed (no surcharge, 30% discount) it would cost only 219,100 gp.

I think this is a good way of remaining faithful both to the section on pricing magic items and to the description of the robe.

Oh, and SR 32 is probably the highest we should follow the (SR - 12 ) x 10,000 formula. Above that we should do something different. Although I still disagree with you on the use of a cubic formula. It should be quadratic.

***

Oh, and in case we need a link to Greybar's Intrinsic Gear thread, here it is.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Spell resistance is an odd one. As a non-epic item it is linear. As an epic item it should be quadratic. It should have a constant term, though.

Maybe 180,000 + (SR-10) squared x 360?

I think it's more a question of 'as a nonepic item it should've been quadratic, as an epic item it should be cubic.'

An SR70 robe using that price is going to be a steal for a 50th-level character at 1.5Mgp: 12% of his wealth for unbeatable spell resistance against any CLs equal to or lower than his own CR.

A cubic formula will scale very smoothly: (SR-10)^3 x 20 or (SR-12)^3 x 25 or whatever. It relates to character wealth directly.

**

 

[Cheiromancer]

Ah, but think of what a steal it would be using the original formula! A SR 70 item would be 522K according to the official rules, only a third what my new formula would yield.

Spoiler

Mind you, saying a rule is less broken than the official rules is not much of a defense, is it?

Having cheap, high SR items helps prevent the "glass jaw" syndrome that characters currently have; characters can dish out immensely destructive effects, but they can't take a hit. Protecting them against direct spells by equal level opponents would address this nicely. It would play the same role that the mantle of epic spell resistance holds right now; available to a 23rd level character and very hard to beat by equal level opponents. We are already considering that greatly enhanced spell turning would be de rigeur; shouldn't there be more than one reason why a caster wouldn't directly attack another caster?

It would help enable them to cope against higher level opponents as well; as you get into epic territory the spread of appropriate encounters gets wider and wider. If a party is going to be able to tackle a higher level threat, they need to have protection against an opponent 20 levels higher. A SR of level+10 won't cut it. Conversely, they have be to threatened (at least a little) by opponents 10 levels lower than they are. It helps if those opponents have significant SR.

And it is not like this gives a party an insuperable advantage: there are counter-measures. Attacks that avoid SR, like those appropriate against golems. The lowly assay resistance spell helps a fair bit. Spell penetration items (150,000 gp + (bonus cubed) x 30). Plain old-fashioned melee.

Or... you might be right. I'll think about it. But if we come to an agreement, I'll want to know that we gave fair consideration to both sides of the question.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

These are fair points - especially regarding the range of possible CRs as opponents at these levels. I think that this is more a problem regarding how Spell Resistance itself works: like saving throws, it doesn't scale too well into this territory. Like any roll which uses a d20 mechanic, in fact - the random factor becomes less and less significant when a modifier of +50, +60 or +70 applies.

Short of changing the way SR works, I'm afraid I don't have an answer. Whilst I agree that, overall, CRs follow a quadratic formula, there are instances where it doesn't really work. Four 35th-level characters are probably going to be wiped by a 70th-level wizard; I wouldn't peg their chances at 50/50.

The complexity of measures and counter-measures becomes mind-boggling. It is a given that a powerful spellcaster will be immune to pretty much everything, all of the time - or at least have sufficient resistances to withstand a few rounds of assault. Meh.

I pity the fighter. Maybe we need cheap SR items for their sake.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Maybe the spellcasters need a bit of nerfing. Make them less an artillery piece and more a utility knife...

[edit] Nah. We'll never get this thing out the door if we try to change the way the classes are balanced. *Maybe* we could fiddle with the number of epic bonus feats (more to non-spellcasters, fewer to spellcasters). But it would probably be more trouble than it is worth.

[edit2] I guess we'll need to reprice the epic equipment according to these principles. Though that shouldn't be difficult; the only items that need to be repriced are the headband and the cloak.

Except... Are the headbands of intellect going to be a problem? Changing to the new pricing formula allows the characters to afford a headband +6 better than before, resulting in a +3 to the save DCs. I think that should be OK; instead of having this weird floating GSF, they'll have a headband instead. And resistance saves are priced on the same scale, so NPCs and PCs alike will have higher saving throws, and so it will all cancel out.

bonus   new price       old price
6	143,200	        360,000
8       202,400         640,000
10	300,000	        1,000,000
12	445,600	        1,440,000
14	648,800	        1,960,000
16	919,200	        2,560,000
18	1,266,400	3,240,000
20	1,700,000	4,000,000
22	2,229,600	4,840,000
24	2,864,800	5,760,000
26	3,615,200	6,760,000
28	4,490,400	7,840,000
30	5,500,000	9,000,000

[edit3]

Boots of swiftness are trickier. If they were a 3.5 item, I suspect they'd only increase your land speed by 10 ft. to avoid Monk-insanity. I'd price them thus:

+20 Climb (wrong slot, x 1.5.) =60,000
+6 Dex (wrong slot, x1.5, 2ndary x1.5.) = 81,000
Evasion (from ring of evasion. Probably wrong slot x1.5. 2ndary x 1.5) = 56,250
+10 ft. (right slot. 2ndary. from boots of striding and springing) = 8250
+20 Jump (right slot. 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Tumble (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Balance (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000

Total = 385.5K.

And that's with a pair of boots that don't double your base speed, only increase it by 10 ft.

I'd peg Climb as being the right slot; both gloves and boots can be appropriate for climbing; look at slippers of spider climbing, or imagine bounding spryly as a mountain goat. In fact, nimbleness and quickness is just as much a function of your feet as of your hands; think of trying to dance or tumble without feet. Assuming a movement component for evasion, it is easier to see fast feet as helping you than fast hands. So I'd price all of them as being the right slot. I would, however, increase the movement speed to +30 ft. (doubling most characters' move, but without allowing Monk insanity). That would be 5500 x 9 = 49,500, and it would be the primary function. So:

+20 Climb (right slot, 2ndary x 1.5.) = 60,000
+6 Dex (right slot, 2ndary x 1.5.) = 54,000
Evasion (right slot, from ring of evasion. 2ndary x 1.5) = 37,500
+30 ft. (right slot. 2ndary x 1.5. from boots of striding and springing x 9 ) = 49,500
+20 Jump (right slot. 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Tumble (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000
+20 Balance (right slot, 2ndary) = 60,000

Total = 381K

Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: Boots of Swiftness

I'd peg Climb as being the right slot; both gloves and boots can be appropriate for climbing; look at slippers of spider climbing, or imagine bounding spryly as a mountain goat. In fact, nimbleness and quickness is just as much a function of your feet as of your hands; think of trying to dance or tumble without feet.

Don't get me wrong - all of these arguments are rational. The only reason that I steered clear of them was because it's probably not the way they'd be costed officially re: slots. But I think 381K (at +30 ft.) is good - let's go with it. Still very desirable, but not quite such a no-brainer as the current 256K.

I think I could go with 200,000 + bonus cubed x 400...100,000 + bonus cubed x 200 for shields...250,000 + bonus cubed x 500.

It's weird - I'd really just like a 200K flat epic surcharge and I'm strangely set on it. More so than any particular progression for swords (I think I'd be just as happy with bonus^3 x 500, say). It's a kind of universal demarcation, in some ways a substitute for the x10 multiplier. Terminus est, or something. It could be included at the head of a table of item prices without breaking the simplicity of subsequent formulae.

Except... Are the headbands of intellect going to be a problem? Changing to the new pricing formula allows the characters to afford a headband +6 better than before, resulting in a +3 to the save DCs. I think that should be OK; instead of having this weird floating GSF, they'll have a headband instead. And resistance saves are priced on the same scale, so NPCs and PCs alike will have higher saving throws, and so it will all cancel out.

Maybe, but creatures without the epic resistance items are going to feel the pinch more. I guess we can adjust if we feel it necessary. It might be nice to include conversion notes for character wealth to both UK's system and the ELH system, when we finally settle on it.

**

I'm just curious:

Staff of Necromancy
This staff allows use of the following spells.

Circle of death (intensified, 2 charges, DC 29)
Create greater undead (1 charge)
Finger of death (improved heightened to 16th, 2 charges, DC 34)
Soul bind (improved heightened to 16th, 2 charges, DC 34). The soul trapped through the use of the soul bind spell is trapped in the staff rather than a gem. Only by breaking the staff can the souls be freed.

Caster Level: 27th; Prerequisites: Craft Staff, Craft Epic Staff, Intensify Spell, Heighten Spell, Improved Heighten Spell, circle of death, create greater undead, finger of death, soul bind; Market Price: 1,505,312 gp; Cost to Create: 1,290,156 gp + 14,303 XP.


DCs don't apply any more to staves; another example of a half-arsed update to 3.5 in the epic SRD. It looks pretty whacked, anyway. Whatever. I'll try and cost this assuming AMC and MF were used to construct it. I hate pricing staves - they're far too complicated; AFAIK different functions must have the same (highest) CL: I haven't seen staves with multiple CLs listed.

Soul Bind is 16th-level - that's AMF x 7 and MF, which means a 32nd-level caster. 2 charges per use. Base price is (750 x 16 x 32)/2 = 192,000. Soul bind is expensive (1000gp/HD) - we have no idea as to HD limit for the staff, however. Let's say 30HD. 30,000 x no of charges/2 = 750,000 gp. Subtotal for this function is 942,000. Ouch.

Finger of death is a second function (multiple similar abilities) so 0.75 x (750 x 16 x 32)/2 = 144,000

Circle of death is double empowered and maximized so it's costed as a 13th-level spell. It also uses 2 charges per pop. It's a tertiary function. Base price is 0.5 x (750 x 13 x 32 x)/2 = 78,000.

Create greater undead is uses 1 charge per use. It can create devourers (600gp material component. 600 x no of charges = 30,000. OK. 0.5 x (750 x 8 x 32) = 96,000. Subtotal = 126,000

I make it 1,290,000 gp, CL 32, and assuming a 30HD cap on soul bind. Can you see any problems with that?

It would be a #1 item for a 37th-level character. Sorcerers with the Master Staff epic feat really stand to benefit from items like this - a sorcerer can otherwise ignore the Necromantic aspect of his repertoire, maybe focussing on Enchantment and Evocation instead. He just burns slots through his staff. I like this - it really opens up a sorcerer's options. And at 37th level, a save DC 26 + modifiers still really bites for finger of death. I have to say, if I were making this staff, I'd up the HD limit on soul bind to 40 HD and burn 3 charges to make it work. It would shave a little off the price, as well.

Edit: If Master Staff works with staves which contain spells which normally require expensive material or XP requirements, we'll need to revise it.

Edit: Powerful domain-oriented staves would be cool. Staff of destruction, staff of the sun etc.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'd really just like a 200K flat epic surcharge and I'm strangely set on it.

Even for skill items? A +30 item would come out to 550,000 gp using my formula- it doesn't really need to be bumped up by another 190,000.

And I like the way that shields are half the price of swords. You don't maintain the ratio if you change the multiplier but keep the additive term the same.

Staff of Necromancy

Nice job pricing it. I'm sorta at a quandary about whether we should try to hit the ELH price for the item (raising the HD limit to 40 would add 250,000 to the price) or try to make it available at about the same level as it would for an ELH character. Since an ELH character could afford it as a best item at level 33, we'd have to lower its price to only 850,000 gp or so. That seems unrealistically low; the soul bind would have a HD limit of only 12 HD.

Maybe we should add "Ignore Material Components" to the prerequisite line? Then it would be 510,000 and be available at 28th level. I wonder if that would work. If you can use a feat (AMC) to evade the requirement for a high level feat slot, why not an expensive material component?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I'm sorta at a quandary about whether we should try to hit the ELH price for the item (raising the HD limit to 40 would add 250,000 to the price)

I've halved the material component cost (30,000 x 50) on the basis of 2 charges per use; at 3 charges and 40HD it would be (40,000 x 50) / 3.

Maybe we should add "Ignore Material Components" to the prerequisite line?

Excellent. And EMC, as well. Although, there would be no need for any kind of upper limit on the HD of soul bind - I think that's OK. DvR 6+s aren't subject to this kind of magic anyway, and I'm generally on the lookout to protect deities. Maybe demigods can take their chances...

Mininum Character Level to create would be 33 - due to the IMC factor. I wonder if we should price it as a CL 33 item?

Edit: Make that level 35 - the creator needs Craft Epic Staff, as well.

Edit: those multiple Heightens are pretty meaty. If a 29th level character (say a sorcerer with Cha 33 and Master Staff) was in possession of one of these, he'd be forcing saves with a DC of 37. This makes him very competitive with Matt - which I like.

Edit: the obvious revision to Master Staff re. items which can cast spells which require an XP component is "Special: if you use this feat to emulate a spell which would normally require an XP cost, you must pay this cost."