Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3038897" data-attributes="member: 35788">I think it is largely unbalanced from an economics perspective.A +1 weapon costs 2,000 gold (plus basic costs).A +2 weapon costs 8,000 gold (plus basic costs).If you allow them to stack, you are essentially giving an unfair economical advantage to the ranged fighters.It gets even worse when special abilities come into play.&nbsp; A weapon cannot have more than a +5 bonus ... but ...Take a +1 Shock Bow shooting +1 Flaming arrows.&nbsp; Your end result is a +2 Flaming Shock strike under the system you propose.&nbsp; The Bow would cost you 8,000 gold + base costs.&nbsp; The arrows would likewise cost 8,000 gold + base costs.&nbsp; That's a grand total of a mere 16,000 gold.On the other hand, to do it by the book you could do it several different ways.&nbsp; The most traditional way would be to have a +2 flaming shock bow (or arrows, I suppose).&nbsp; That would cost you 32,000 gold + base costs.&nbsp; Again it is double what you would pay under your suggestion.Another route yuou could take is to split the extra ability onto the different weapons, but you still need a minimu of +1 on each to do this.&nbsp; You could, for example, have a +2 flaming bow and +1 shock arrows.&nbsp; The bow would cost 18,000 gold + base costs.&nbsp; The arrows would cost 8,000 gold + base costs.&nbsp; This saves you some money: ~ 5,700 gold (since in the first example the arrows need not be masterwork but the do in this example).&nbsp; However, the downfall is that once the ammo is spend, it's gone for good.Anyway, if you don't care about the economic issue, I'm honestly not sure there is a problem with what you propose.&nbsp; But game balance often involves an economic angle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 3038897, member: 35788"] I think it is largely unbalanced from an economics perspective. A +1 weapon costs 2,000 gold (plus basic costs). A +2 weapon costs 8,000 gold (plus basic costs). If you allow them to stack, you are essentially giving an unfair economical advantage to the ranged fighters. It gets even worse when special abilities come into play. A weapon cannot have more than a +5 bonus ... but ... Take a +1 Shock Bow shooting +1 Flaming arrows. Your end result is a +2 Flaming Shock strike under the system you propose. The Bow would cost you 8,000 gold + base costs. The arrows would likewise cost 8,000 gold + base costs. That's a grand total of a mere 16,000 gold. On the other hand, to do it by the book you could do it several different ways. The most traditional way would be to have a +2 flaming shock bow (or arrows, I suppose). That would cost you 32,000 gold + base costs. Again it is double what you would pay under your suggestion. Another route yuou could take is to split the extra ability onto the different weapons, but you still need a minimu of +1 on each to do this. You could, for example, have a +2 flaming bow and +1 shock arrows. The bow would cost 18,000 gold + base costs. The arrows would cost 8,000 gold + base costs. This saves you some money: ~ 5,700 gold (since in the first example the arrows need not be masterwork but the do in this example). However, the downfall is that once the ammo is spend, it's gone for good. Anyway, if you don't care about the economic issue, I'm honestly not sure there is a problem with what you propose. But game balance often involves an economic angle. [/QUOTE]

Verification