Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3216289" data-attributes="member: 141">Could you go over the reasons why a common additive term is attractive to you?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 400 for weapons, 200 for shields, and so on.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; You get a bit of a break with skill bonus items, for example. And with scrolls.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If we make a table it would involve one column for each bonus and one row for each multiplier.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; A +5 shield with +5 in special abilities will cost 100K.&nbsp; A +6 epic shield will cost 143K.&nbsp; The jump is proportionate to the jump from a +10 non-epic sword (200K) and a +6 epic sword (286K).&nbsp; Considering that an epic sword penetrates epic DR, it deserves more of a premium than an epic shield which just provides another +1 AC.&nbsp; The only argument I can see for your position is that it ensures epic items cost more than 200,000 gp.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But it doesn't seem decisive to me.&nbsp; Perhaps I'm missing something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 3216289, member: 141"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification