PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Item-Crafting Math



Fax Celestis
2009-09-01, 11:17 AM
I don't have my books handy (and the SRD is blocked from my office), but: is it more effective to put a use-activated shocking grasp or chill touch on a weapon than the shocking enhancement? What about uses-per-day? Command word? Is there a point in which adding an enhancement in this fashion is more cost-effective than adding another +1 bonus equivalent?

lesser_minion
2009-09-01, 11:40 AM
IIRC, a magic weapon enchantment would be priced as a slotless item (by SRD guidelines), so would cost SL x CL x 4,000gp.

Chill Touch is always going to be 4,000 gp under that guideline (as it would never need to be cast above CL 1). It would also retain the Strength damage and the panic undead effects.

Shocking Grasp would cost 4,000 gp to mimic a Shock enchantment.

A +1 bonus equivalent costs not less than 6,000gp (4,000gp per point of pre-existing bonus plus another 2,000gp) - that means that those weapon enchantments are not only weaker than imbuing the weapon to cast the corresponding spell every time it is used, but they also cost more in all cases.

The only exception is if you permit a weapon with no enhancement bonus, just a special ability. Then, it costs 2,000gp to imbue a +1 bonus equivalent.

For daily use spell-like abilities, the cost would be 800gp x SL x CL for each use imbued into the item.

Charge-limited spell-like abilities cost 40gp/charge.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-01, 11:43 AM
Okay, cool, my theory appears to be right for 1st level spells. What about a use-activated 2nd level fire spell (like combust) in comparison to, say, flaming burst?

Eloel
2009-09-01, 11:43 AM
You add 1.5x the price actually (6k, just what a +1 enhancement costs). You're adding them on an already-magical item.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-01, 11:44 AM
You add 1.5x the price actually (6k, just what a +1 enhancement costs). You're adding them on an already-magical item.

Right, but at least in the instance of chill touch you're getting the added effect of Str damage instead of just extra cold damage.

EDIT: AND if you decide to add extra +X enhancements later, their price doesn't increase as instead of a +1 equivalent, you've got a +X000 gp effect.

kamikasei
2009-09-01, 11:46 AM
I don't have my books handy (and the SRD is blocked from my office), but: is it more effective to put a use-activated shocking grasp or chill touch on a weapon than the shocking enhancement?

Were it ever to become so according to the guidelines, then that would seem a clear point at which the guidelines fail and the DM has to say "no - since we already have a weapon enhancement for that, trying to add it for less using other item creation rules is clearly unbalanced".

lesser_minion
2009-09-01, 11:50 AM
You add 1.5x the price actually (6k, just what a +1 enhancement costs). You're adding them on an already-magical item.

I've already doubled the price because the item is priced as slotless - there is no price penalty for adding an additional enchantment to a slotless item.

As Kami pointed out, this is using the highly abusable custom magic item guidelines. Shock and Frost are both painfully overpriced, however.

I'm not familiar with Combust or Flaming Burst, unfortunately.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-01, 11:52 AM
To make it clear: right now I'm looking at revamping equipment enhancing for d20r into a non-plus (sic) based system.

Draz74
2009-09-01, 11:53 AM
I think adding any spells to weapons' attacks, bypassing the standard "equivalent to a +__ enhancement" system for pricing weapons, automatically puts you in "very very shaky Custom Items shenanigans" territory. This goes double if those spells are Use-Activated, rather than at least requiring a standard action for a command word.

I mean, isn't the "Use-Activated True Strike Weapon" example ubiquitous enough yet? And I would have thought its obvious unbalance would have served as an excellent precedent to warn people away from considering similar effects with other Level 1 spells.

kamikasei
2009-09-01, 11:55 AM
To make it clear: right now I'm looking at revamping equipment enhancing for d20r into a non-plus (sic) based system.

Ah, in that case my objection is moot. And good luck, because I fear your head will explode before completing that project.

lesser_minion
2009-09-01, 12:14 PM
I think adding any spells to weapons' attacks, bypassing the standard "equivalent to a +__ enhancement" system for pricing weapons, automatically puts you in "very very shaky Custom Items shenanigans" territory. This goes double if those spells are Use-Activated, rather than at least requiring a standard action for a command word.

I mean, isn't the "Use-Activated True Strike Weapon" example ubiquitous enough yet? And I would have thought its obvious unbalance would have served as an excellent precedent to warn people away from considering similar effects with other Level 1 spells.

That's one of the main problems with doing this sort of thing.

Personally, my plan for fixing custom magic items was to exploit elements of the Vancian system to balance both wizards and magic items - essentially, a character may prepare a spell once and use it a certain number of times once the spell is prepared. In the case of a magic item, it simply prepares the spell once.

Other casting systems can be handled in vaguely similar ways - for example, the d20r Sorcerer has at-will seed-based casting. To imbue a sorcerer spell into a magic item, simply work out its points value, work out a price per point, and then apply a modifier depending on how the effect manifests itself.

Ars Magica handles this extremely well - the effect of a magic item is simply defined as a magical effect using the game's normal rules with the exception that magic items may break the level cap (as long as there is no other reason for them to be rituals)

Stegyre
2009-09-01, 12:41 PM
This thread brings up a thought that's been bouncing around in my head for the past couple of days, as I've been working on the design of several magic items I'd like to try:

It would be nice to have a thread (possibly even stickied) to PEACH magic item creation, sort of like the RAW thread.

I see the following principal uses:

(1) Verify that the creator has followed the RAW guidelines (creator details the items function and includes his or her calculation of the correct cost; any errors are pointed out by other posters);

(2) Point out existing items/traits that accomplish the same purpose. (At least IMO, the RAI is that the price given for existing items trumps the regular calculation process. I believe the SRD even discusses that point.)

(3) Comment on balance issues: if an item is just-too-dang-good for the listed price, that should be pointed out. Part of the goal is to help prospective GMs keep out game-breaking new items.

Has this been tried in the past, or is it just too rare an issue to merit a thread?

(I've actually got a number of items/effects that I'd like to put forward, but I can't see starting individual threads for them, and I'm somewhat less inclined to venture if I'd be the only one doing this.)

EDIT:

IIRC, a magic weapon enchantment would be priced as a slotless item (by SRD guidelines), so would cost SL x CL x 4,000gp.
Is that right? The SRD's paradigmatic example for a +1 bonus is a simple +1 longsword, which has a listed base price of 2,000 (bonus (1)^2 * 2,000). Weapons Table here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm).

I would expect that, unless the weapon allowed use of the spell anytime it was on the person, the weapon would occupy the hands slot. More accurately, as RAI seems to be that one may wear magical gloves and wield a magical weapon, there should probably be a "weapon" slot, for whatever weapon is being wielded. No?

Side comment: anyone know why the item creation table values deflection bonuses to armor at less than other bonuses? As deflection protects against touch attacks that other bonuses do not, I would expect game balance to require the opposite situation. :smallconfused:

Keld Denar
2009-09-01, 01:29 PM
Honestly, I think the plus based item enhancment is one of the more balanced things in D&D (neglecting Greater Magic Weapon). Think about it, the more powerful a weapon is, the more difficult (and thus expensive) it is to cram more magic into it. Its the non-plus equivs like Sudden Stunning, Prismatic Burst, and whatnot, that break the economy of the system.

Also, GMW. GMW should either not exist, or only affect non-magical weapons (like several other spells, like Shillelagh), or be unable to increase a weapon above its plus equivalent with spellover pluses only affecting the item.

lesser_minion
2009-09-01, 01:39 PM
Is that right? The SRD's paradigmatic example for a +1 bonus is a simple +1 longsword, which has a listed base price of 2,000 (bonus (1)^2 * 2,000). Weapons Table here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm).

I would expect that, unless the weapon allowed use of the spell anytime it was on the person, the weapon would occupy the hands slot. More accurately, as RAI seems to be that one may wear magical gloves and wield a magical weapon, there should probably be a "weapon" slot, for whatever weapon is being wielded. No?


As a spell effect, that's the normal guideline for pricing a magic item. It doesn't make any difference in this case that the enchantment is being added to a magic weapon.

Because you must place a +1 enhancement bonus on a magic weapon before you start buying any other goodies, the price of a Shock enchantment works out as being at least 6,000gp, whereas applying a continuous or use-activated spell effect costs 4,000gp for any first level spell along the lines of Chill Touch (the scaling effect lets you use the touch attack multiple times, which is irrelevant if the spell is recast every time you attack) or True Strike (the effect doesn't scale, leading to all kinds of nightmarish cheese)

Note that you could argue that the enchantment must have the caster level of the weapon - i.e. 3 x the highest bonus or special ability equivalent, but I don't think that is borne out by the rules.

My understanding is that held items are 'special' as far as item slots are concerned, and that the normal guideline is to price them as slotless items.

FWIW, a magic item imbued with a continuous (Greater) Magic Weapon would come to:

{table=head]Enhancement|SL x CL|GP Cost
+1|1|4000
+2|24|57600
+3|36|57600
+4|48|76800
+5|60|96000
[/table]

The +1 bonus costs 4k, but this is still twice the cost of a +1 weapon - it does, however, become more cost-effective when combined with more 1st-level spells.

The +3 bonus costs the same as the +2 bonus, because the higher caster level means that the GMW only has to be cast twice to cover 24 hours.

All of these are much more expensive than an equivalent enchantment.

This seems like it might lead to a better guideline for continuous/use-activated items.

Each daily charge costs 800gp per spell level or caster level, and the number of uses needed to keep the spell going for 24 hours determines the number of charges (there is no extra cost for the spell automatically recasting itself). It's not perfect - it leads to something of a mess when used with GMW, but it certainly blocks the 1st-level-spell custom item cheese.

Note that under this slightly adjusted guideline, the cost of a use-activated True Strike, Chill Touch or Shocking Grasp weapon becomes astronomical.

Stegyre
2009-09-01, 01:47 PM
GMW should either not exist, or only affect non-magical weapons (like several other spells, like Shillelagh), or be unable to increase a weapon above its plus equivalent with spellover pluses only affecting the item.
I'm not sure I'm completely understanding. By RAW, it seems that GMW does not stack with a weapon's enhancement bonus, so you'd just take the higher enhancement bonus and ignore the other.

Also, by RAW, it would seem that GMW cannot violate the "+10 rule." ("A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10.")

Are you saying that you don't want GMW to stack with the modified bonus? So a +1 sword with an additional +3 in bonuses is unaffected by a GMW +4, since it already has a +4 modified bonus?

lesser_minion
2009-09-01, 01:50 PM
The problem is that GMW renders it completely pointless to spend money raising a weapon's enhancement bonus.

There are a few fixes out there - the Pathfinder one was that a weapon imbued with its own +5 bonus can also ignore damage reduction, for example.

A +6 enhancement bonus may also be worthwhile, as that allows the weapon to overcome Epic DR.

The problem in both cases is that the orb spells come with "ignore ALL damage reduction", and can be metamagic cheesed for all it's worth.

Draz74
2009-09-01, 01:52 PM
Are you saying that you don't want GMW to stack with the modified bonus? So a +1 sword with an additional +3 in bonuses is unaffected by a GMW +4, since it already has a +4 modified bonus?

I think he's saying, a +1 sword with an additional +3 in bonuses is partially unaffected by a GMW +5, which only acts like a +4 on it, since it already has a +4 modified bonus.

Stegyre
2009-09-01, 04:12 PM
:smallsmile:Happy to be having an Item Creation rules discussion.:smallsmile:

Here’s my own understanding of how the rules apply, going back to the OP for the example, so Fax does not banish us all for hijacking:

Fax wants to price a use-activated shocking grasp or chilling touch on a weapon versus a shocking enhancement on the same weapon.

Pricing the spells is easy, and it does not matter whether they are being placed upon a weapon or not. For either spell, the base cost is:

use activated (2,000) * SL (1) * CL (1) * duration (4)[1] = 8,000.

If the slotless modifier applies (I defer on this issue), that price is doubled for “no space limitation”: 16,000. LM has left off any duration multiplier, which explains the difference in our numbers. IMO, the duration multiplier is key to balancing the power of continuous/on-demand items versus other types, especially as these items defy the action economy.

It is not necessary for the weapon to have an underlying enhancement bonus for purposes of enchanting it with a spell effect. RAW only makes that requirement for “special ability bonus equivalents” (such as shocking, below). To get equivalent situations, however, we should make this spell-effect weapon a +1 long sword. A +1 enhancement bonus costs 2,000, and since this is a less expensive, additional ability, that is increased 50% to 3,000. Total cost of a +1 long sword with on-demand shocking grasp: 19,000.

The shock enhancement is a little more complicated. The table is ambiguous: “weapon bonus (enhancement)” is priced at bonus^2 * 2,000, but there is no other entry for “weapon bonus” (i.e., other than enhancement). Considering the SRD’s delight in referring to weapon bonuses using the “+1, 2, etc.” shorthand, I believe the same formula should be applied for non-enhancement bonuses, but that leads to at least two different ways of calculating the price. Assuming a +1 shocking long sword:

(a) bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 8,000, or

(b) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 *2,000 = 4,000.

If additional special ability bonuses are added (frost, also +1), we have yet another branching:

(a) bonus (1+1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 18,000, or

(b)(1) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 10,000, or

(b)(2) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 * 2,000 = 6,000.

If approach (a), the costliest, is used, IMO, it is not appropriate to apply the “multiple different abilities” increase: by the nature of the formula, all of these bonuses are being treated as having the same basic nature: they are, collectively, the “weapon bonus.”

On the other hand, the (b) approaches imply a difference, so the lower-cost components in each of those calculations would be increased 50%, leading to:

(b) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 *2,000 * 150% = 5,000;

(b)(1) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% + bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 11,000;

(b)(2) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% + bonus(1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% = 8,000.

Note: by RAW, if Fax already has the +1 weapon, he subtracts 2,000 from each of these costs, as the cost of improving a weapon does not depend upon the order in which enchantments are added. It is simply the cost of creating the new version minus the cost of creating the old version. (See “Adding New Abilities” in the SRD.)

I favor approach (a). First, it’s the simplest and easiest to apply. Second, it better reflects the increase in value of the weapon. A single weapon with multiple bonus abilities is much better than having those abilities divided among different weapons: with a single strike, this weapon can do (i) weapon damage, (ii) shock damage, and (iii) chill damage.

Taking all of that into consideration, the total cost of a +1 shocking long sword is 8,000. IMO, this requires us to go back to the spell-effect calculation cost:

Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.
IMO, this means that, if the formula dictates one answer, but an actual item having the same (or substantially the same) effect has a different price, the specific price controls. Shocking Grasp and shock are almost identical, but the two calculations have an 8,000 difference. Every magic item is ultimately a GM call. If I were wearing the hat, I’d say that if Fax was foregoing Shocking Grasp’s +3 bonus to hit those wearing metal, the spell-effect item would be 8,000 (or arguably even 5,000, if he’s foregoing the +1 enhancement). Otherwise, +3 is a big enough bonus, and armored opponents sufficiently common, that he’d have to pay the additional 8,000 for the spell effect.

[1] The duration factor is ambiguous. Shocking Grasp and chill touch are both instantaneous spells. In context, however, these are effects that are going to be discharged and reused round after round. Therefore, I applied the “duration measured in rounds” number. By contrast, when I’ve priced my own creation for an item granting an on demand Sustenance power, another instantaneous effect, I used the “24-hour duration or greater” number, as it is a power that need only be manifested once a day.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-01, 04:19 PM
Why would you waste time with damage effects if your DM allows you to use use activation with attacks? Put on save or suck effects ... doesn't matter that the DC is low, statistics are on your side.

PS. put true strike on first of course, that's a given.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-01, 04:48 PM
Why would you waste time with damage effects if your DM allows you to use use activation with attacks? Put on save or suck effects ... doesn't matter that the DC is low, statistics are on your side.

PS. put true strike on first of course, that's a given.

Right now I'm trying to determine if a GP-based system is better than the plus-based system.

ericgrau
2009-09-01, 04:50 PM
I don't have my books handy (and the SRD is blocked from my office), but: is it more effective to put a use-activated shocking grasp or chill touch on a weapon than the shocking enhancement? What about uses-per-day? Command word? Is there a point in which adding an enhancement in this fashion is more cost-effective than adding another +1 bonus equivalent?

Yes, but in a game breaking way. The magic item creation & pricing guidelines are just that; guidelines that should be approved by the DM before use to avoid abuse. Finding a cheaper way to do the same thing as an existing item should not be allowed. However, check out the spell storing weapon enchantment which works with both spells mentioned in a non-broken fashion, yet is interesting and useful.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-01, 05:10 PM
Right now I'm trying to determine if a GP-based system is better than the plus-based system.
The plus based system is a GP based system, just coarsely quantized with an increasing cost multiplier for each ability added (as it should be, the flat 1.5 multiplier for custom magic items is one of the things which breaks them).

woodenbandman
2009-09-01, 05:11 PM
Honestly, I think the plus based item enhancment is one of the more balanced things in D&D (neglecting Greater Magic Weapon). Think about it, the more powerful a weapon is, the more difficult (and thus expensive) it is to cram more magic into it. Its the non-plus equivs like Sudden Stunning, Prismatic Burst, and whatnot, that break the economy of the system.

Also, GMW. GMW should either not exist, or only affect non-magical weapons (like several other spells, like Shillelagh), or be unable to increase a weapon above its plus equivalent with spellover pluses only affecting the item.

I disagree completely. All you're doing is paying quadratically for a linear power increase, while people who don't need increased money-costing weapons, i.e. wizards, for the most part, get off free. A fighter needs a +9 equivalent weapon with greater dispelling and a tooth of Dahlver Nar, the GMW 1/day version, while a wizard needs only a +1 eager warning defending shuriken or dagger. The fighter actually NEEDS that, while the wizard just adds it to his toy piles, next to his staff.

The impact of this is somewhat lessened by the quadratically-ish increasing wealth-by-level, but the increased marginal utility of a +5 weapon over a +4 weapon is next to none. 90% of all player characters are better off with wondrous items that provide spell effects, such as those wings that grant flight, to spend their hard earned money on. The few exceptions to this are some of the properties like Greater Dispelling and Wild armor that are genuinely good.

Yakk
2009-09-01, 05:26 PM
The easy way to make a GP based system balanced is to throw in a multiplier.

The cost of a magic enchantment on an item is (base cost) times (number of effects on the item), or something along those lines.

So imagine if Flaming is 6000 gp, and Chill is 12000 gp, and each +1 enchantment is a 2000 GP effect (as you want +3, that is three +1 enchanments)

A +3 & Flaming & Ice sword is then (6000 + 12000 + 2000 + 2000 + 2000)*5 = 120,000 GP.

(As an aside, the standard 3e price table is 2000 per plus or plus equivalent, then multiply the price by the number of plusses... In essence, Flaming is a 2000 gp enchantment, but to get it on a sword that is also a +1 doubles the price of both!)

As a neat side effect to this, you can imagine weapons that are OR based instead of AND based.

A +3 & (Flaming | Chill) sword would be:
(2000+2000+2000+(6000+12000))*4 = 96,000 gp
which would be a sword that could switch between being flaming and being a chill sword.

...

The core problem here is that a weapon that delivers 5 spells with one blow is more than 5 times better than a sword that delivers 1 spell with each blow.

Does your d20r have an expected economy change, or are you staying with the 3e mix of exponential cash income and quadratic magic item costs?

3e treasure income curve goes up with 5^(L/6) roughly (after you get through the first few levels, that is). Magic item prices in 3e are roughly X^2 (for example, magic weapon prices are 2 * X^2 for a level X magic item).

This means that magic items undergo a phase shift in 3e between "expensive" and "dirt cheap" over a short window of levels.

Encounter Treasure =~ 400 * 5^(L/6) (note that this isn't accurate from level 1-6), or 1333 * 5^(L/6) per level per player.

Magic Weapon cost =~ 2000 * X^2, X from 1 to 10.

1333 * 5^(L/6) = 2000 X^2
5^(L/6) = 1.5 * X^2
L/6 * ln(5) = ln(1.5) + 2 ln(X)
L/6 = 0.25 + 1.25 * ln(X)
L = 1.5 + 7.5 * ln(X)
X = 1 -> L =1.5 (below the curve, so not valid)
X = 2 -> L =7.7
X = 3 -> L =9.7
X = 4 -> L =11.9
X = 5 -> L =13.6
X = 6 -> L =14.9
X = 7 -> L =16.1
X = 8 -> L =17.1
X = 9 -> L =18.0
X = 10 -> L =18.8

As you can see, the ability to buy a magic +X weapon ends up being bunched up towards the higher levels under the 3e WBL guildlines. (the above is the rough level your character could buy a +X weapon using their share of the treasure from a single level of adventuring).

While every 6 levels your income goes up by a factor of 5, every 5 levels your income goes up by about a factor of 4 (approx), so 5 levels below the above value the entire treasure for a given level can be used to purchase a single magic item of the described power level.

This is highly academic; I hope you don't mind the tangent.

Stegyre
2009-09-01, 05:44 PM
Here’s a point I’d like to have clarified: when to apply the “no space limitation,” “uncustomary space limitation,” and “multiple different abilities” multipliers.

Here is my own interpretation: only one of these multipliers applies to any particular item: (i) if an item has no space limitation, the cost is simply doubled; (ii) if an item has an effect not aligned with the body slot (“uncustomary space limitation”), the cost of any such effects is increased 50%; (iii) if the item has multiple different abilities, it is essentially a given that at least some of these abilities are not aligned with the body slot, when calculating the cost of the item, apply either the 50% increase for multiple abilities or the 50% increase for uncustomary space limitation, not both.

My justification: by RAW, the “multiple different abilities” multiplier is used only “[f]or items that . . . take up a space on a character’s body . . . .” The best sort of item is one that doesn’t take up any slot. The price of that item will be doubled, but it has no further increases, no matter how many different abilities are welded to it. If a non-slot item has multiple similar abilities, it earns a discount, which reduces the cost of an effect back down to the base price by the third effect.

There is no express RAW for the interaction of the “uncustomary space” and MDA multipliers, but if both were applied to the same spell effect, then depending on how one did the math (adding two 50% increases for a total 100% increase, or multiplying a 50% increase by another 50% increase, for a total 125% increase), the cost of adding the effect would be equal to or even 25% more than the cost for the same effect on a slotless item. That is counterintuitive, as other things being equal, any character would prefer slotless items to slotted ones, so he could enjoy more effects overall.

Furthermore, the only reason for combining effects into a single slotted item is to save body slots for other items (with their attendant effects). Thus, the “uncustomary space” and MDA multipliers both exist for the same purpose: to balance the benefit a character gets by stacking spell effects into fewer slots (and thereby having more spell effects over all).

Indon
2009-09-01, 08:10 PM
Yakk, I think that math shows quite well why enhancement bonus is often unpopular for weapons.

Also, the next stage of the Flaming enchantment, using Scorching Ray as a base (4d6 damage), costs 3x2x2000x2(slotless) for a total of 24,000 - conveniently the same amount as four Flaming enchantments added up.

I can think of no clearer demonstration of how the quadratic power of spells can potentially keep pace with the quadratic cost of magic items, and in fact possibly even outpace it by avoiding multi-effect surcharges.

Example: By Yakk's formula, if you had a +1 weapon that did 4d6 damage, you'd have (6000+6000+6000+6000+2000)x5, for a cost of 130,000 GP.

But a +1 Scorching Flame (yes, I did just coin that) enchanted weapon costs (24000+2000)x2: 52,000 GP.

Having a GP-based enchant system isn't necessarily a bad idea, but allowing it with spells strikes me as something that will require per-spell discretion.

Stegyre
2009-09-06, 08:21 PM
Aaak! Thread Necromancy! I confess myself guilty and submit to whatever punishment the tribunal deems appropriate, once I've made my defense:

In the quoted language, I'd noted an ambiguity in the item creation formula: whether weapon bonus enhancements are totalled and squared individually (the "(b)" methods) or collectively (the "(a)" method):


The shock enhancement is a little more complicated. The table is ambiguous: “weapon bonus (enhancement)” is priced at bonus^2 * 2,000, but there is no other entry for “weapon bonus” (i.e., other than enhancement). Considering the SRD’s delight in referring to weapon bonuses using the “+1, 2, etc.” shorthand, I believe the same formula should be applied for non-enhancement bonuses, but that leads to at least two different ways of calculating the price. Assuming a +1 shocking long sword:

(a) bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 8,000, or

(b) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 *2,000 = 4,000.

If additional special ability bonuses are added (frost, also +1), we have yet another branching:

(a) bonus (1+1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 18,000, or

(b)(1) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 10,000, or

(b)(2) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 * 2,000 = 6,000.

If approach (a), the costliest, is used, IMO, it is not appropriate to apply the “multiple different abilities” increase: by the nature of the formula, all of these bonuses are being treated as having the same basic nature: they are, collectively, the “weapon bonus.”

On the other hand, the (b) approaches imply a difference, so the lower-cost components in each of those calculations would be increased 50%, leading to:

(b) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus(1)^2 *2,000 * 150% = 5,000;

(b)(1) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% + bonus (1+1)^2 * 2,000 = 11,000;

(b)(2) bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 + bonus (1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% + bonus(1)^2 * 2,000 * 150% = 8,000.
At page 233 of the MIC, it discusses the method for improving a +1 longsword to a +2 vorpal longsword by simply subtracting the lower cost (2,315) from the higher cost (98,315). 98,315 is the masterwork cost (315) plus (enhancement bonus (2) + special ability bonus (vorpal = 5))^2 * 2,000. Thus, the MIC is using the (a) method.

I thought it was worth noting.

(I'll go quietly now, officer.)

Indon
2009-09-06, 08:42 PM
It's only been five days, man.

Stegyre
2009-09-06, 11:25 PM
It's only been five days, man.
Sh! I'm aiming for some bonus RP points, dude! :smallannoyed:

(Seriously, I need to create an Item Creation thread to discuss these topics in greater detail.)