Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Dog Soul Hosted Forum
Retooling Epic Item Costs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3217691" data-attributes="member: 141"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The treasure earned from defeating monsters would have to change.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 3217691, member: 141"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Dog Soul Hosted Forum
Retooling Epic Item Costs
Top