Serious inquiries only please - 100th level adventure hook and module in development

[Yair]

Hmm... apparently you're right, though it does seem kinda unbalance IMHO.

I agree, perhaps we should seperate the price (like we made x10 for Mantle of Spell Resistance). This will lower saves, perhaps making spellcasting a little more viable.

You're right about the saves, I don't know why I got stuck on +45. Even a +70 is within our guidelines.

 

[Enthusiastic Student]

Hmm... apparently you're right, though it does seem kinda unbalance IMHO.

I agree, perhaps we should seperate the price (like we made x10 for Mantle of Spell Resistance). This will lower saves, perhaps making spellcasting a little more viable.

I beg to differ. At 100th level saves which are not around +70 to +100 aren't worth much. At the lower levels the saves are always proportional to your level, but once you hit epic this increase slows severly and to keep up you need to use magic.
Any spellcaster worth his salt at 100th level has maxed out his relevant ability score, otherwise they won't stay epic for long.
Looking at some of the monsters around are CR a +70 on save is down right pathetic.
Any item with more than +5 resistance bonus to saves already costs x10 because it is epic, so price wise this is still a sizable chunk (e.g. 10 mill) of the 250 mill we have.

With regards to the prices of my items I will get back to you since I don't have the file with my calculations with me. Just for your information i have used:

Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don’t take up space on a character’s body use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other abilities.

There is no ruling against this and since I've made sure that all the abilities had the same theme I think it is valid. :\
However I can see that this has not been brought up to consideration and I will of course change what items need changeing if there is a ruling against this.

Have a nice day

 

[Yair]

I beg to differ. At 100th level saves which are not around +70 to +100 aren't worth much. At the lower levels the saves are always proportional to your level, but once you hit epic this increase slows severly and to keep up you need to use magic.
Any spellcaster worth his salt at 100th level has maxed out his relevant ability score, otherwise they won't stay epic for long.
Looking at some of the monsters around are CR a +70 on save is down right pathetic.
Any item with more than +5 resistance bonus to saves already costs x10 because it is epic, so price wise this is still a sizable chunk (e.g. 10 mill) of the 250 mill we have.

The DCs for nonepic spells do not reach such ~100, even with spell focuses and maximized prime ability scores. Epic spell DCs can, barely, reach such heights but it takes all the oomph from their sails.
Saves of around 70 would be more conductive to the play, actually. Against equally-equipped NPCs, anyways.
A monster's DC is generally 10+1/2 HD+Cha bonus, so they CAN get monstrously high. But they can also be fairly low. We should retrofit the monsters to the PCs once we have them, not make the wizard powerless against the fighter in the party.

With regards to the prices of my items I will get back to you since I don't have the file with my calculations with me. Just for your information i have used:


There is no ruling against this and since I've made sure that all the abilities had the same theme I think it is valid. :\
However I can see that this has not been brought up to consideration and I will of course change what items need changeing if there is a ruling against this.

Personally, I find this rule abominable and rediculous; why should the items be cheaper if they DON'T take up a body slot?! I am in favor of simply not using this option; this way we are staying true to the rules, but not exploiting this loophole.

Have a nice day

I plan to.

 

[Enthusiastic Student]

Hi eric

I looked at your items and their prices and such and here's what I found, don't worry; it's not all bad news.

Eric's Items
Mantle of Great Stealth
-+30 bonus to Hide and Move Silently,
-Continuous blur spell (concealment: 20% miss chance) (CL 3)
-Continuous nondetection spell (CL 20)
- Price: 1.5*90,000 + 1.5*24,000 + 180,000 = 351,000 gp (109,000 gp more expensive)

The item is from the SRD here. lol

Shapeshifting Armor of the Celestial Battalion
- light chainmail
+25 enhancement bonus to AC,
max dex +10, no ACP, AF 10%, Fly at will, Magic Circle against Evil, (616,300 gp)
Shapeshifting ability from Shapeshifters Armor (400,000 gp)
Heavy Fortification (+5),
Glamered (2,700 gp),
Greater Shadow (33,750 gp),
Greater Silent Moves (33,750 gp)
- Price: 18,000,000 + 616,300 + 400,000 + 2,700 + 33,750 + 33,750 = 19,086,500 (about 9,850,000 gp more expensive)

Have you remembered the stuff I don't have to pay like the enhancement bonus on the AotCB and on ShpA?

Arilon
Ego 110)

*blinks* How did you figure that?

(after recalculating) Ah... ok. I forgot to figure in the bonuses from special abilites

You should look at some of the durations for your "at will" spells, they might be more effective as a continuous effect.

Note to self: add ruin to daggers to facilitate sneak attack. Great idea eric!

Thanks Jason!
When going through your calculations (still don't have that file) I noticed that you don't use the x10 modifer very often. Personally I like that since it gives me more dough to spend, but the SRD states that any item with a market price of above 200.000 gp is epic and therefore warants the x10 modifier. This of course doesn't go for armor and weapons since the tables already take this into account.

 

[Enthusiastic Student]

Personally, I find this rule abominable and rediculous; why should the items be cheaper if they DON'T take up a body slot?! I am in favor of simply not using this option; this way we are staying true to the rules, but not exploiting this loophole.

Not take up a body slot? The item takes up a body slot.
The rule simply states that if you have an item with more than one ability, say an item which can cast Greater Restoration, Neutralize Poison, and Remove Disease all at will, then it will not cost you the same as three different items each granting these abilities, but will cost you the full price of the most expensive ability + 75% of the second most expensive ability + 50% of every ability thereafter.

Of course I may have misread the rule.
I can't say that this is a loophole since I am pretty sure this is what has been used on many wonderous items, but I can understand if it is deemed inapropriate.

 

[Yair]

Not take up a body slot? The item takes up a body slot.

No, no, no. Let me quote.

Multiple Similar Abilities
For items with multiple similar abilities that don’t take up space on a character’s body use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus one-half the value of any other abilities.

Compare with

Multiple Different Abilities
Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that do take up a space on a character’s body each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.

So if you stack abilities on an intem that takes up a slot you get a fine, but if you stack them on an item that doesn't you get a discount
Mind you, items that don't take up a slot cost twice, so the 75% is actually paying the same as a 150% on a slotted item. But the 50% is a discount.

 

[Enthusiastic Student]

So if you stack abilities on an item that takes up a slot you get a fine, but if you stack them on an item that doesn't you get a discount
Mind you, items that don't take up a slot cost twice, so the 75% is actually paying the same as a 150% on a slotted item. But the 50% is a discount.

ok. I see that you are right. I misread the rule and will correct the prices of the items when I get time. (and that file!)

BTW how does a pseudonatural-paragon-legendary tiger advanced to 48 HD sound as an animal companion? lol

 

[Sage]

Have you remembered the stuff I don't have to pay like the enhancement bonus on the AotCB and on ShpA?

Well... actually I've docked you for almost the total price of those to items since by my estimate, they're horribly underpriced. The enhancement bonus alone of those items comes above their price.

When going through your calculations (still don't have that file) I noticed that you don't use the x10 modifer very often. Personally I like that since it gives me more dough to spend, but the SRD states that any item with a market price of above 200.000 gp is epic and therefore warants the x10 modifier. This of course doesn't go for armor and weapons since the tables already take this into account.

actually, this has not gone into any of my calculations and is symptomatic for basically everyones items... whoops

I won't comment on the 75% stuff as Yair has allready cleared that up for you.

What's the verdict on the saves? I'm routing for the more expensive version.

 

[Yair]

What's the verdict on the saves? I'm routing for the more expensive version.

That's two votes... how many do we need? Or will we make DM-Rocco make all the decisions?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not take up a body slot? The item takes up a body slot.
The rule simply states that if you have an item with more than one ability, say an item which can cast Greater Restoration, Neutralize Poison, and Remove Disease all at will, then it will not cost you the same as three different items each granting these abilities, but will cost you the full price of the most expensive ability + 75% of the second most expensive ability + 50% of every ability thereafter.

Of course I may have misread the rule.
I can't say that this is a loophole since I am pretty sure this is what has been used on many wonderous items, but I can understand if it is deemed inapropriate.

I don't think the rule applies to that case. It's meant to apply to cases where each ability comes from the same pool. Staffs, for example, can use multiple spells but all spells are powered by the shared charges. As a result, the second and further spells don't add much power (just flexibility), so the price is lowered.