Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3089556" data-attributes="member: 18549">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.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.Show me where it says you don't apply the 1.5 penalty on slotless items.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.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? 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.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, 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%.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.</blockquote>

Verification