Tell me about weapons of legacy

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because one trumps another. Why not throw the "unconventional slot" penalty on while you're at it? You seem to be stretching to make WoL useful. I'm taking an interpretation of the rules that makes the most sense.

Because it doesn't use an unconventional slot. It doesn't use a slot at all. The choices given between "proper slot", "improper slot" and "no slot" are exclusive of each other.

Even if you assume its slotless, you shouldnt add in the 1.5 penalty for an additional property on an item. Putting multiple properties on the same slotless item is a penalty if anything, you dont pay extra on top of that. If I have an ioun stone that grants +2 to strength and intelligence, it shouldnt cost more than 2 ioun stones granting +2 to intelligence and strength respectively.

By the rules, it should, because it's got two powers rather than one. I can see where you're going with that though. By adding an extra power to an item that doesn't use a slot anyway, you're not getting away with any more slotless powers than if you had two slotless items. However, the design rules operate on the assumption that an item with two powers is better than two items with one power each, and those are the rules I'm using to price these items.

You could make the argument that this is a bad assumption, but that's a completely different issue: the design of the pricing guidelines. Right now we're arguing about implementation of those guidelines. I'm taking their instructions at face value since those are the official guidelines we have been given for pricing weapons, and so it's the best tool we have for finding gp values for nonstandard items.

By virtue of being multiple items, the ioun stones are better, since you can split them among party members if needed, and if they become damaged, they are cheaper to repair. Thats why you dont apply the 1.5 penalty on slotless items.

Show me where it says you don't apply the 1.5 penalty on slotless items.

An item that can cast bless 3/day would cost 11250 (its suggested that daily limit items be priced as a wand). Multiply that times 1.5 and you get 16,875, approximately the cost it adds to the weapon. Hence my point. You obviously dont apply the double penalty for being slotless. The intelligence is extra since it lets the item activate powers on its own, and typically raises the DC's of some spells/effects.

Yes, I've suggested that the rules for the price of intelligent weapon powers are different from the rules for other items, for several reasons, not least of which is that the powers available are very limited.

The 1.5 times cost IS the extra amount.

Plus the penalty for a slotless item. It's right there in the table. If slotless items are not supposed to be affected by the penalty, why was it placed in the table with the instruction to apply it to slotless items?

Because the sword +1 of protection +1 (2000 + 1.5 of 2000) has a base price of 5000, while the ring and sword have a base price of 4000? A sword +1 and a slotless item of protection +1 runs 6000. Under your pricing scheme, you'd have someone pay 10,000 for a sword of protection +1 (additional property of 1.5, all multiplied by 2). Does that make sense? Is it fair?

Sure it's fair. You've got a sword of protection, which I must point out again, isn't actually allowed by the rules, and which allows you to wear two other rings. Normally, the ability to have more than two ring effects costs 8000 (hand of glory), so 1000 seems like a bargain by comparison.

The +1 sword of protection +1 is pretty clearly worse than the +1 sword and slotless item +1, as you can split them up if needed, dont need the weapon in hand to gain its benefits, and repairs are cheaper (sunder anyone?). Thats why you get a discount for it, compared to slotless items, only paying 1.5 instead of double, and certainly not your 1.5 AND double.

It's not my double. It's the table's double. Cite a rule that says that you don't apply the doubling factor and I'll cede the argument. Otherwise, it's clear it gets applied...when we ignore the fact that a sword of protection +1 is not legal anyway.

Well, the 11th level character wouldnt get full benefits from the WoL item either, so I'm not sure what your point there is.

Well, allow me to explain it in a more direct way then. An extra 73,000 gp increases a 20th level character's total wealth by 10%...or more pointedly, because you pay all the gold by 17th level, it increases a 17th level character's total wealth by 21%.

Moreover, the greater invisibility gets a 50% discount, as its similar to an existing power. I wouldnt count creature compass as a +1 either, more like a flat gold increase (2000 - 4000 or so). We obviously arent going to reach a consensus on the exact price, but I think I've made my point more or less clear.

Yes. You don't want to apply the doubling factor for slotless items because you think it's unfair. I still haven't seen a reason why this line of the table should be ignored if we're following the rest of the table. I happen to think it's not unfair, so we've got one vote in either direction. Regardless, the RAW says to apply it to all slotless items, so that's what happens when we're calculating prices. It would be foolish to just haphazardly apply the rules we feel like applying and forget the rest. That might be a fine house rule, but for the purposes of evaluating a new set of rules against the old rules, we have to take the old rules as they are written, and not as we would have liked them to be written, in order to make a fair assessment of the new rules.

edit: The bottom line here is that WoLs allow you to add abilities to a weapon or armour that you couldn't get any other way. The drawback mechanics are there to provide a cost for being able to break the rules in this manner, as well as to defer the gp costs of the weapon itself. If you want the weapon MerricB posted above, the only way to build it is to use WoL. The craft feats from the PHB do not allow powers like that to be added to a weapon.

 

[Gundark]

I'd really like to see the opinion of an open-minded person who sat down at 5th level, got or put together a Legacy item, and played through five or six levels of actual weekly gameplay with it. And hated it, and was willing to talk about his time at the table playing with the item and why he disliked it.

That would be interesting.

--fje

QFT. Since I'm the OP here that's why I posted this to begin with. To get people's play XP not a bunch of "it looks like crap, havn't played it". I had the same reservations about WoL as well, but I was hoping to get people's gameplay xp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

QFT. Since I'm the OP here that's why I posted this to begin with. To get people's play XP not a bunch of "it looks like crap, havn't played it". I had the same reservations about WoL as well, but I was hoping to get people's gameplay xp.

Every character in my group has agreed to try out a custom-designed WoL in our AoW campaign. Talk to me in 6 months and I might have some good playtest info.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

So if I note that the warrior class has less HP and feats than the fighter class, I'm performing some kind of biased experiment "out to get the warrior", and not just making an observation of the facts? Moreover, I'd need to actually force a player to run a warrior to get a feel for their balance, or I'm close-minded? Sorry, I disagree.

NOTE: Everybody seems to be totally focused on the "close minded" term ... not the statement associated with it, not the intent of that statement, just those two words, in order to stand on a soap box of some sort and claim moral superiority.

For the record ... I wasn't refering to ANY POSTERS IN THIS THREAD ... you can hate/like/burn the book at first/second/fifteenth read, that's fine.

It was not a behind-the-back-jibe at any posters in this thread.

It was a limiter on a hypothetical. The hypothetical was: "Somebody who played an actual weekly table game including an item from the book and using said item for several levels who, upon reflecting on that experience, decided they did not like it."

The limiter was: "But yet not somebody who went into this (the hypothetical game-table-play experience) with the sole and expressed intent to hate the system."

That various posters "would not inflict" or "can tell by reading" or "didn't like the cut of its jib" or whatever ... totally excludes them from the hypothetical situation and thus from being "called" close-minded. Wasn't directed at you. Wasn't "up in yer grill".

That I like my item is only being held up for what it is: That I, personally, just me ... have a Legacy item and that I, myself, only me ... enjoy using it and the system around it.

I've made mention to, but not issue of, the fact that other people I know have also used the system and liked the system. In fact, that is the reason I decided to use the system, because somebody else liked it and I wanted to try it and see if I would.

I cannot, however, give express detail on their experiences and the how/why they liked the system. They thought it was "cool". Perhaps they're ignorant savages incapable of making informed decisions. Perhaps they're good players. I thought they were pretty keen, I played with them regularly for two years. That's just my opinion.

I'm not stating that, for a fact, the system is factually better than "something else" or does not contain the ultimate suck. As an opinion, anybody reading my comments is free to decide that I am, in fact, a total rube and like the system only because I don't know any better.

For the record, opinion and experience, I've often played item-creation characters in the past. (I even played a dwarven bard craftsman ... odd choice, still fun). I enjoyed it, as well. I enjoyed it when many individuals have claimed that making items suck because it eats up XP ... to which I replied: "I like it. The XP costs aren't really all that high, once you get past the psychological ew factor of LOSING XP, and I think it allows me to make alot of sweet items."

Just as an aside, I've seen GMs who allow item creation feats to only create items that are found in the DMG.

--fje

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because it doesn't use an unconventional slot. It doesn't use a slot at all. The choices given between "proper slot", "improper slot" and "no slot" are exclusive of each other.

A sword isnt an unconventional slot? i mean, you're obviously trying to impose a screw job on the crafted weapon in order to prop up the sub-par WoL isystem. Why not add an arbitrary 3X cost for being a weapon while you're at it!

By the rules, it should, because it's got two powers rather than one. I can see where you're going with that though. By adding an extra power to an item that doesn't use a slot anyway, you're not getting away with any more slotless powers than if you had two slotless items.

At least you've finally managed to grasp the obvious. Yet, inexplicably, you continue to defend the most bizarre interpretation of the pricing system.

However, the design rules operate on the assumption that an item with two powers is better than two items with one power each, and those are the rules I'm using to price these items.

ONLY IF THEY TAKE A SLOT. Sweet jesus, are you just ing with me at this point? You understand why its not a benefit, you understand why the pricing scheme doesnt make sense using your method, you get that other items arent priced like that, and you insist on defending your position?

Yes. You don't want to apply the doubling factor for slotless items because you think it's unfair. I still haven't seen a reason why this line of the table should be ignored if we're following the rest of the table. I happen to think it's not unfair, so we've got one vote in either direction.

Except you havent presented a reason other than "I choose to interpret a rule in a rediculous way, a way that results in paying CONSIDERABLY more than what multiple, more efficient slotless items cost". If thats your definition of "fair" or "reasonable" please stop DM'ing. I've pointed out why the cost should be lower than far superior multiple slotless itema, and why the pricing penalties shouldnt stack. You've stubbornly clung to your position in the face of reasonable evidence why its wrong, citing only that both appear on the same chart. Hell, lets stack the miss chance for concealment and total concealment while we're at it. Because, you know, if you're totally concealed you must also be regularly concealed, so thats a 70% chance. Better yet, you use stunning fist on a guy who is paralyzed. Should the AC penalties stack? I mean, they're on the same chart. Sure, the paralyzed guy wasnt moving anyways, but, uhh... he's stunned! And its on the chart! If you dont use common sense, then yes. I can only guess you're being contrary, or trolling. Either way, I'm done.

 

[pawsplay]

There are sample items that contradict the multiplier for slotless items anyway. An additional power isn't "slotless," it's additional. That's why it costs more.

You can always add an ioun stone. But you can only wield a +2 enchancement Str sword if you don't wield something else.

 

[MerricB]

QFT. Since I'm the OP here that's why I posted this to begin with. To get people's play XP not a bunch of "it looks like crap, havn't played it". I had the same reservations about WoL as well, but I was hoping to get people's gameplay xp.

From actual play...

My Ulek campaign has had WoLs in it for the past 12 sessions or so, and I used a couple of WoLs in the Necropolis campaign before that. One player has reservations, four players love them.

My Age of Worms campaign has had WoLs in it for the past 15 sessions or so. One player doesn't like them so much, three players love them.

Especially the way I run them - I only give my players access to the powers they've unlocked so far - levelling up is somewhat like Christmas to the players. "I can cast Dispel magic now! Wow!"

Cheers!

 

[Piratecat]

ONLY IF THEY TAKE A SLOT. Sweet jesus, are you just ing with me at this point? ... I can only guess you're being contrary, or trolling. Either way, I'm done.

Deep breaths, guys. Please don't turn this discussion into a personal argument, even if you feel strongly about the subject. And that goes for everyone, not just Ehren.

I like WoL, but more for inspiration than actual practical use. I'm in the process of designing a githyanki silver sword WoL for an epic level githzerai monk. By using the rules, I have a template for letting the PC strip away the githyanki-related powers and replace them with githzerai-related powers. I've designed quests to enact the change and link him to the item, and I've designed some powers that even let him use the sword with his flurry of blows.

To do this, I used the WoL system of balancing items, and then tweaked here and there. I'm pretty happy with the results, and I'm glad I used the book. But I'm not so sure that I'd want to use all the rules as written, if I could have a DM fine-tune an appropriate power-and-penalty system instead.

 

[Sejs]

The huge GP costs associated with unlocking strain belieavability. I'm spending 5000 gp to go burn incense on a mountaintop? What, does the incense have Pelor's cord blood in it or something?

Yeah, this one's always sort of stuck in my craw.

"Go spend three days in the desert without food, water, shelter, or weapons. Doing so costs 40,000 gp."

I guess it's a really exclusive desert, or something.

 

[Nightfall]

Some nice ideas you got there PC. Might steal them from you.