Retooling Epic Item Costs

[Cheiromancer]

I'm still not pleased with the notion of a flat +200,000 gp cost for all epic items. I'd prefer to have to be related to the multiplier:

200K + bonus cubed x 400 for weapons
150K + bonus cubed x 300 for spell penetration items
100K + bonus cubed x 200 for shields
10K + bonus cubed x 20 for skill bonus items
5K + spell level cubed x 10 for scrolls (caster level = 2 x spell level)
​

And so on. Take the quadratic multiplier for the non-epic bonus and multiply by 100 to get the additive term. Double this and divide by 1000 to get the cubic multiplier. It means a shield costs 1/2 as much as a weapon, just like in non-epic levels.

If you really want to stick with the +200K multiplier, just confirm that's what you want to do, even with scrolls and skill bonus items, and I'll try to move on.

We still have an issue with regard to the SR items. Are you still set on a major item (1/4 of wealth) providing a SR of character level +10? I think it is a mistake to do it that way, but if you make an executive decision I'll try to move on here too.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

If you make an executive decision I'll try to move on here too.

I'd rather find a solution which is mutually acceptable.

I make a suggestion here

 

[Cheiromancer]

Could you go over the reasons why a common additive term is attractive to you? I kinda like the notion of there being a common factor; (500 + bonus^3) that is multiplied by an appropriate number depending on the item. 400 for weapons, 200 for shields, and so on.

It preserves the 2:1 ratio between the cost of weapons and the cost of armor, and is a principled way of costing other kinds of items. You get a bit of a break with skill bonus items, for example. And with scrolls. Adding 200K to each such item seems too much, and making a bunch of ad hoc numbers seems unnecessarily arbitrary.

I don't think it requires too much arithmatic. If we make a table it would involve one column for each bonus and one row for each multiplier. If people use a spreadsheet it doesn't really matter how complicated it is.

There will still be a gap between the best non-epic item and the weakest epic item. A +5 shield with +5 in special abilities will cost 100K. A +6 epic shield will cost 143K. The jump is proportionate to the jump from a +10 non-epic sword (200K) and a +6 epic sword (286K). Considering that an epic sword penetrates epic DR, it deserves more of a premium than an epic shield which just provides another +1 AC.

The only argument I can see for your position is that it ensures epic items cost more than 200,000 gp. The 200,000 gp point is kinda special, if for nothing else than you have to be higher than 20th level for your best item to cost that much. But it doesn't seem decisive to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The only argument I can see for your position is that it ensures epic items cost more than 200,000 gp. The 200,000 gp point is kinda special, if for nothing else than you have to be higher than 20th level for your best item to cost that much. But it doesn't seem decisive to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

This is my only real reason - maybe I'm too hung up on it. But it seems difficult to rationalize why the 20th-level fighter doen't have a +7 shield.

But (and this is a big 'but') I'm actually concerned that we're pricing items too cheaply, anyway. I've been playing with a couple of ECL 40 Devaststing Critical builds, including a half-dragon fire giant barbarian 18 with a Strength of 70 (35 base +8 template +5 inherent +18 enhancement +4 level), or Str 76 raging. This seems a trifle excessive to me - the DC to resist a raging critical is 59. Big falchion = big trouble.

Obviously, this brings up a number of issues - not the least of which is that DevCrit may be broken as hell. Sure, a lot of opponents will have fortification items, and some will be immune to crits. But not all. By ECL 50, the same character (Bbn 28) will have a +24 Str item, mighty rage, +3 more Str from levelling. Str 87 raging. DC = 69. Even a Xixecal (Pd 66) would need to roll a 14 to save against this.

I'm also looking at a half-fiendish pixie assassin, with a very mean Death Attack Save.

As you pointed out, non spellcasters can really afford this investment in nonstandard races and templates. Given that most epic campaigns won't start from 1st level, we can expect builds such as these to stretch the system to its limits. And what worries me more, is that these are using the core books only - heaven knows what ghastly combinations can be engineered with splats and other monster books.

In any case, a +18 buff item by level 40 might be too much. It's not the whole problem, by any means, but we might need to reappraise.

 

[Cheiromancer]

A +7 epic shield isn't very cost effective. A nonepic +10 shield will be a better value, at least until other measures of increasing AC have been exhausted, or item slots (for amulets of natural armor and such) are becoming quite scarce.

And so what if they have a few epic items at 18th level? According to the wealth guidelines nonepic characters could afford an epic scroll long before that point; a 19th level spell is less than 15K.

Regarding the buff items; if that ECL 50 barbarian had a +6 strength item the save DC would still be 60, which is too high (mature adult Prismatic dragon- Pd 54 - has a fort save of 45 and needs a 15 to save). And it is safe to assume that he should be able to afford a +6 item.

So even the most punitive pricing scheme for epic buff items (one that puts a +8 item out of reach for a 50th level character) wouldn't be enough to rein in DevCrit. So naturally suspicion falls on DevCrit.

Unfortunately, DevCrit is not unique; that formula is standard for determining the DCs of supernatural attacks, creature poison and many class abilities such as bardic suggestion to assassin death attacks. Unless you have a good save and an equally high ability modifier, you'll fail more than half the time. And the checks are often save-or-die kinds of effects.

I don't know what to say. I don't mind saying that fighters will auto-hit equal CR opponents, but I'm hesitant to say that they should be able to auto-kill equal CR opponents. We ran into this problem with Matt and his evil twin, didn't we? Was he able to kill his double in a round? Did we discover a satisfactory solution to this?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

And so what if they have a few epic items at 18th level?

I'm conflicted. This is a fair point. In many ways, the 'it's epic, so it shouldn't be available to pre-lvl 21 characters' position is kind of untenable, anyway. But it's hard to know when to break with precedent, and when to stick with it.

More generally, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the radical jump from +10 (nonepic) to +11 as compared to the smooth transition from +10 (epic) to +11 - I'm wondering if we should price the enhancement bonus to hit and damage altogether separately from the equivalent bonus in special abilities. I know that this creates a whole, new, different set of problems, but I'm thinking maybe we should eliminate the additive term altogether.

At present, using (bonus^3 x 400) +200:

+5 vorpal sword = 200K
+6 vorpal sword = 732.4K
+7 vorpal sword = 891.2K
+8 vorpal sword = 1078.8K

Say we priced an epic enhancement bonus to hit and damage at bonus^3 x 2000. A straight +6 sword would cost 432K, which is expensive - although still less than the ELH. If we priced special abilities separately (at bonus^2 x 2000 for nonepic special abilities and bonus^3 x 2000 for epic special abilities), and then added them together, you'd get this:

+5 vorpal sword = 200K
+6 vorpal sword = 482K
+7 vorpal sword = 736K
+8 vorpal sword = 1074K

This creates a big discontinuity in the convention regarding the way weapons are priced - i.e. the vorpal effect is now worth only 50K - assuming the weapon doesn't have any other special abilities. But a +6 vorpal flaming weapon would use the epic pricing for both its special abilities and its enhancement bonus - i.e. 864K.

Using the (bonus^3 x 400) +200 model, I'm concerned that minmaxing players will opt for the rather dull +1 flaming frost shocking thundering keen axiomatic holy wounding weapon, and just slap a GMW on it (or an EMW, if they have access to a jacobean caster), and save themselves a bunch of cash.

Weapons and armor are problematic, in any event, because of the artificial divide between enhancement bonuses and special abilities - I don't think that any solution is going to be entirely satisfactory.

At least at bonus^3 x 1000, we wouldn't have to worry about +18 headbands until 62nd level


At this point, I'm liking the idea of feats assuming a greater importance than items, btw. That may change...

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Meh.

Ignore suggestion in previous post - I don't like that, either.

What if we priced epic 'plusses' separately, with a linear progression?

E.g. a +6 vorpal sword has 10 nonepic plusses and 1 epic plus; a +3 vorpal flaming sword has 8 nonepic plusses and 1 epic plus; a +8 sword has 5 nonepic plusses and 3 epic plusses, etc.

What if an epic plus was worth 50,000 for the first, 100,000 for the second, 150,000 for the third etc.?

*

If we moved to a quadratic wealth model (level^2 x 2000), I can't help but think that things would be simpler to balance. Maybe it's just a case of the grass being greener.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Using the (bonus^3 x 400) +200 model, I'm concerned that minmaxing players will opt for the rather dull +1 flaming frost shocking thundering keen axiomatic holy wounding weapon, and just slap a GMW on it (or an EMW, if they have access to a jacobean caster), and save themselves a bunch of cash.

I thought that was the standard way of deploying magic weapons. It is easy to patch this; have GMW add up to +5 to the enhancement bonus but not over a total bonus of +10. And maybe let the enhancement bonus go over +5. But while this is a fine house rule, I don't think it is really necessary for this project. At least I've never heard anyone complain about the "double boundary" of epicness for weapons. The fact that they can't afford a +6 weapon for several levels- I've heard complaints about *that*, but not the other thing.

As far as I can tell, you are suffering from two conflicting desires; you want there to be a sharp distinction, price-wise, between epic and non-epic items. And you also want the prices to change gradually.

If we moved to a quadratic wealth model (level^2 x 2000), I can't help but think that things would be simpler to balance. Maybe it's just a case of the grass being greener.

The treasure earned from defeating monsters would have to change.

I don't know if you noticed this, but the formula "treasure = challenge x 100" works pretty well at replicating the cubic wealth formula through non-epic levels and even into epic levels. A PC who has kept every penny will have 823K at the beginning of 20th level (8% more than the PHB value of 760,000) and 7% more than he should (according to the cubic wealth formula) at level 50. Normally you have to multiply this "treasure formula" by an appropriate number to compensate for losses when selling items, consuming items, losing items, paying for material components, lodging, bail money, etc.. This "savings multiplier" will vary according to campaign. treasure = challenge x 200 or even challenge x 300 would not be unreasonable.

So right now it treasure earned should be proportionate to the challenge of the monster. Which is additive; four monsters have four times as much treasure as one monster. That's a very desirable property.

But if you change the wealth formula to be linear, then you need to scale down the treasure from encounters. Rather than proportionate to the challenge of an encounter, treasure would have to be in proportion to the CR of the monster defeated (or group CR for a group of monsters. Which leads to counter-intuitive results; 4 monsters together have only twice as much treasure as 1 monster.

Perhaps there is an explanation why pit fiends lose wealth when they join together (perhaps only poor pit fiends travel in groups?), but this seems a little awkward. The cubic wealth formula is aesthetically a little nicer. It interconnects with the quadratic challenge formula in a very elegant way, and it'd be a pity if we had to change it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Yasrpf

How about we use this formula for pricing SR items?

20K + (SR-10)^3 x 10​

SR 21 would only cost 33,100 gp. Much cheaper than the current 90K, but it would actually be useful when PCs could afford it, unlike the mantle of spell resistance. SR 30 would be 100,000 (this could be the minimum value for an epic item), and SR 40 would cost 290,000, exactly its current price.

This formula means that as a 10% item it gives SR of about level + 10. As a major item it gives SR 50 at level 30, SR 77 at level 50, and SR 104 at level 70.

There are so many potential challenges to an epic level character that a major item should give major protection. I think SR of +20 (level +20, I mean) is a good benefit, but not excessive. In fact, at higher levels when the range of CRs is greater, a greater bonus is quite desirable.

However as a 10% item it should still give worthwhile protection against equal CR opponents. And SR of level +9 or level +10 is decent.

What do you think? It is a cubic formula, it scales well with level, and it agrees with the ELH mantle as far as pricing goes. What could be better?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

How about we use this formula for pricing SR items?
20K + (SR-10)^3 x 10

I think that this is far too generous; unbeatable SR against opponents with a CL equal to yours at level 30 becomes unbeatable SR against opponents with a CL less than (your level +15) by level 70 or so - for a #1 item.

Whilst its true that high level characters will be facing opponents of a much higher CR (and CL) than their own, they'll also be facing opponents of much lower CR, as well. Probably many more of them, in fact.

I honestly can't see a problem with the x25 multiplier - it clearly demarcates the maximum possible SR that a character can expect, given that they put their eggs in this particular basket.

(SR-10)^3 x 25 would give close to 50% coverage against spells cast by a character of a CL equal to your own level.

(SR-12)^3 x 25 would pretty much guarantee the 50% coverage - given the fact a character can seldom afford an item that costs exactly 25% of their wealth, and will in fact buy a slightly less valuable one, this is my preferred costing.

(SR-20)^3 x 25 is generous (although still less generous than your proposal). I could see an argument for it if the campaign predicts lots of approximately equal CR opponents with spell penetration feats or items, or higher level casters. The coverage that it gives against creatures with a lower CL than your own makes me wary.

I think SR is incredibly valuable, though.