implications of a misunderstanding that became a houserule

[big teej]

the rules state that in order to enchant a weapon with a special ability, it must have a vanilla +1 enhancement

I.E.
Masterwork weapon cost + 2,000 gold for +1 + amount of gold for special ability.


what are the potential horrid ramifications for misunderstanding this as the following (and once realizing the misunderstanding, houseruling it anyways)

that a weapon's +x value is equal to the +s of the enchantments?
confused?

example

a + 1 fiery longsword
costs just over 300 gp for a masterwork longsword
2,000 gold for + 1
and then another 2,000 for "fiery"

now, under my misunderstanding/houserule it would be the following
a + 1 fiery longsword is...
masterwork longsword cost + 2,000 for fiery.
which is a plus 1 enchantment

thus making the sword +1 longsword

or a +2 frost, shocking longsword
masterwork longsword - just over 300 gp
frost - + 1, 2,000 gp
shock - + 1, 2,000 gp

total price is thus 4,300 gp


same idea for armor

total +# for a weapon or armor is +10

[Cog]

Basically, weapon price is meant to scale exponentially, so that the progress of plusses becomes linear (matched to the scaling of expected wealth). With this, racking up plusses becomes easier, and it gets even cheaper over time, so characters are going to be able to afford +10-equivalent weapons far earlier than they otherwise would, then reach a cutoff before epic items become available as they won't have nearly the wealth for that.

[Zherog]

example

a + 1 fiery longsword
costs just over 300 gp for a masterwork longsword
2,000 gold for + 1
and then another 2,000 for "fiery"

Your example of what's supposed to be correct is also incorrect.

Prices aren't determined by their individual "equivalent" plus (as you've done here). Instead, add together all the pluses and look up that cost on the chart. For example, your +1 fiery longsword costs the same as a +2 longsword (or 8,315 gp). Your +2 frost shocking longsword costs the same as a +4 longsword (32,315).

*

That aside, as Cog mentioned what your houserule essentially does is makes the price linear rather than exponential, which makes "big ticket" weapons and armor far more affordable early in the game.

[big teej]

okay, so large +# weapons/armor are available sooner.


are there any massively negative ramifications for this?

[Seerow]

The big thing I'd worry about here is the effective cost of some of the higher end enhancements, with this change they are so much more expensive than the alternative, they're likely to not be used.

For example, a +5 enhancement would add 50,000gp to the cost. Alternatively, you can get 5 +1 enhancements (which in the current system are assumed to be an equal power level) for only 10,000 gp, 1/5th of the price.

[Zherog]

The big thing I'd worry about here is the effective cost of some of the higher end enhancements, with this change they are so much more expensive than the alternative, they're likely to not be used.

For example, a +5 enhancement would add 50,000gp to the cost. Alternatively, you can get 5 +1 enhancements (which in the current system are assumed to be an equal power level) for only 10,000 gp, 1/5th of the price.

Only if you also ignore the stacking rules.

*


For example, a +5 enhancement would add 50,000gp to the cost. Alternatively, you can get 5 +1 enhancements (which in the current system are assumed to be an equal power level) for only 10,000 gp, 1/5th of the price.

The various monster manuals make assumptions about what sort of equipment the party will have access to, especially in regards to pluses on weapons and armor. So getting access to bigger pluses sooner might make some monsters a lot more trivial.

For example, the general rule of thumb is that they get +3 somewhere around 12-ish. So the numbers for CR 12 monsters are supposed to take that into account (both in regards to its armor class and attack rolls). If your players instead have +5 weapons and armor at that point, they're harder to hit, hit their target easier, and inflict more damage when they are hit relative to what is expected at their level.

[The Glyphstone]

That'd be the biggest danger. 3.5's math is already tenuous when it comes to CR and appropriate challenges - low-wealth games without adjusting monster difficulty causes it to break, excessive wealth (such as this would indirectly be) would break it in the other direction.

[Big Fau]

That'd be the biggest danger. 3.5's math is already tenuous when it comes to CR and appropriate challenges - low-wealth games without adjusting monster difficulty causes it to break, excessive wealth (such as this would indirectly be) would break it in the other direction.

This is weapon enhancements we are talking about. The only way to break those is to use Sunder.

[RaggedAngel]

This is weapon enhancements we are talking about. The only way to break those is to use Sunder.

That's not always true. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html)

[The Glyphstone]

That's not always true. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html)

strictly speaking, Xykon can't do that, at least not without Dispelling the sword first. That's an example of story over rules, because Shatter only works against nonmagical objects.

[Veyr]

Yes, as has been stated repeatedly. Balance goes all fruit-shaped when you mess too much with WBL and don't know what you're doing. This amounts to a huge "messing with WBL".


EDIT: What do you call a Swordsage who deletes a post you're responding to while you're responding, rather than one who posts a new post in between?

[big teej]

EDIT: What do you call a Swordsage who deletes a post you're responding to while you're responding, rather than one who posts a new post in between?



the forum hiccuped when I posted, it told me it didn't post.... so I tried to post it again, not realizing it had already posted.

thus posting the same thing several posts apart.

and being an epic ninja

[Veyr]

the forum hiccuped when I posted, it told me it didn't post.... so I tried to post it again, not realizing it had already posted.

thus posting the same thing several posts apart.

and being an epic ninja
Oh, that makes sense.

[Darth Stabber]

Another issue. You know that soulknife in the corner crying quietly about how bad his class sucks? He hears about this and cries louder.

[Zaq]

strictly speaking, Xykon can't do that, at least not without Dispelling the sword first. That's an example of story over rules, because Shatter only works against nonmagical objects.

I always thought that was Disintegrate (the art hadn't solidified yet, so I have no problems with the fact that it's different from the ones V's been slinging around), not Shatter. I took the "shatter!" to be an actual sound effect (such as it is), not the spell itself.

No proof either way, of course.

[holywhippet]

strictly speaking, Xykon can't do that, at least not without Dispelling the sword first. That's an example of story over rules, because Shatter only works against nonmagical objects.

Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced about that. Was Roy's greatsword just masterwork beforehand or did it just have actual enchantments to it? I'm not sure that Durkon's spell cast on the sword would magic is count as a magical item as opposed to being a non-magical item with a spell cast on it. Otherwise you could negate the spell just by casting a light spell on an item.

[Tvtyrant]

Another issue. You know that soulknife in the corner crying quietly about how bad his class sucks? He hears about this and cries louder.

At this point all the Tier 5s are crying bout ToB anyways. I wouldn't worry too much; just give his weapons Monk style size increases.

[The Glyphstone]

Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced about that. Was Roy's greatsword just masterwork beforehand or did it just have actual enchantments to it? I'm not sure that Durkon's spell cast on the sword would magic is count as a magical item as opposed to being a non-magical item with a spell cast on it. Otherwise you could negate the spell just by casting a light spell on an item.

They were at least level 5, probably closer to 10 - if Roy didn't even have a +1 sword by level 1, something went horribly horribly wrong.

[Marnath]

They were at least level 5, probably closer to 10 - if Roy didn't even have a +1 sword by level 1, something went horribly horribly wrong.

O.o huh? A level 1 PC can't afford a magic weapon.

[Greenish]

O.o huh? A level 1 PC can't afford a magic weapon.Well, it was his grandfather's sword.

[holywhippet]

They were at least level 5, probably closer to 10 - if Roy didn't even have a +1 sword by level 1, something went horribly horribly wrong.

Yeah, but the sword was an inheritance that had been used by his grandfather. His father would have had the ability to enchant it, but may not have given his disdain for fighters.

[Geigan]

They were at least level 5, probably closer to 10 - if Roy didn't even have a +1 sword by level 1, something went horribly horribly wrong.

I think it was +4 at the time. Depends on what 25% increase in attack accuracy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html) meant. I dunno though, someone with more comic knowledge probably remembers the discussion thread from back in the day.

[Seerow]

I think it was +4 at the time. Depends on what 25% increase in attack accuracy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html) meant. I dunno though, someone with more comic knowledge probably remembers the discussion thread from back in the day.

The +25% to attack refers to a +5 weapon giving +25% chance to hit (every +1 is +5%), it has no bearing on what the sword was before.

[SPoD]

They were at least level 5, probably closer to 10 - if Roy didn't even have a +1 sword by level 1, something went horribly horribly wrong.

Roy's sword isn't magical now. It just is made from a material with a natural +5 enhancement bonus.

Also, things going horribly wrong is pretty much what happens in OOTS.

Also, does it count as derailing a thread if you're doing it with a moderator? :smalltongue:

[Geigan]

The +25% to attack refers to a +5 weapon giving +25% chance to hit (every +1 is +5%), it has no bearing on what the sword was before.

Ah my bad, I was thinking it was referring to the accuracy bonus not the d20 roll.

[Telonius]

I believe there are some Artificer Infusions that would be significantly boosted in power with this as a houserule. (They grant enhancements totaling either +X, or Y GP - I believe they're called "Enhance Weapon" or something similar).

[The Glyphstone]

O.o huh? A level 1 PC can't afford a magic weapon.

Typo. I meant to say +5.



Also, does it count as derailing a thread if you're doing it with a moderator? :smalltongue:

Technically, only if I'm typing in red text while doing it. Otherwise, I'm (supposed to be) just like the rest of you guys.:smallsmile:

[holywhippet]

I think it was +4 at the time. Depends on what 25% increase in attack accuracy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html) meant. I dunno though, someone with more comic knowledge probably remembers the discussion thread from back in the day.

A +4 sword has a market price of 32,000 gold. Using the wealth by level table you wouldn't own something worth that much until somewhere between level 8 and level 9. Of course, that table is for total wealth - everything you own which you've acquired over your adventures. So you wouldn't expect to have a single +4 weapon and just about nothing else. You should have a variety of cheaper items intead.

[Greenish]

Ah my bad, I was thinking it was referring to the accuracy bonus not the d20 roll.The +5 to attack is a bonus to accuracy.

I mean, what other bonuses to accuracy are there in D&D other than the ones on d20 rolls? :smallconfused:

[Seerow]

The +5 to attack is a bonus to accuracy.

I mean, what other bonuses to accuracy are there in D&D other than the ones on d20 rolls? :smallconfused:

He was interpreting it as the accuracy bonus being 25% higher than before. ie a +5 weapon is 25% better than a +4 weapon, because 5 is 125% of 4.

At least I think that was his logic.

[Geigan]

He was interpreting it as the accuracy bonus being 25% higher than before. ie a +5 weapon is 25% better than a +4 weapon, because 5 is 125% of 4.

At least I think that was his logic.

Yeah that.


A +4 sword has a market price of 32,000 gold. Using the wealth by level table you wouldn't own something worth that much until somewhere between level 8 and level 9. Of course, that table is for total wealth - everything you own which you've acquired over your adventures. So you wouldn't expect to have a single +4 weapon and just about nothing else. You should have a variety of cheaper items intead.

But the other way would mean he wouldn't even have a magic weapon by his level. Either way it's odd.

[big teej]

is it wierd that this houserule has yet to break my campaign?

[Geigan]

is it wierd that this houserule has yet to break my campaign?

It lets melee and mundanes get some cool stuff easier. Not really that broken compared to caster shenanigans. It encourages the use of mundane attacks by giving those options to be more effective for cheaper. Not many things are gamebreaking that use mundane attacks. So no, not really weird at all.

[holywhippet]

But the other way would mean he wouldn't even have a magic weapon by his level. Either way it's odd.

No, a +1 weapon is only 2000 gold which is easily within WBL for a level 5 fighter. There's a 3,600 gold gap between 4th and 5th level which is the perfect opportunity for a DM to give the player their first +1 item.

It wouldn't be unknown for a fighter to not own a +1 weapon at such a low level though - you can make up the difference by having a party caster use the enchant weapon spell when required.

[Geigan]

No, a +1 weapon is only 2000 gold which is easily within WBL for a level 5 fighter. There's a 3,600 gold gap between 4th and 5th level which is the perfect opportunity for a DM to give the player their first +1 item.

It wouldn't be unknown for a fighter to not own a +1 weapon at such a low level though - you can make up the difference by having a party caster use the enchant weapon spell when required.

OK, odd but not unheard of. I'll believe that.