Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3217691" data-attributes="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.</blockquote>

Verification