PDA

View Full Version : New take on True Strike Weapon



DLoFunk
2008-01-10, 01:12 PM
Ok so the debate is ages old about whether a weapon with True Strike should be dirt cheap just counting the cost of the 1st lvl spell or rediculously expensive calling it a +20 enhancement.
Here's a different approach.
What if the weapon were enchanted with Contingency/True Strike instead of just TS? A lvl6 spell and higher Min Caster level would sure bring the price up a quite a bit. How much though? I stink at Item Creation. Would this be a good middle ground here?

marjan
2008-01-10, 01:18 PM
The problem is that once the spell linked to contingency is cast the contingency is expended and you have useless magic item.

DLoFunk
2008-01-10, 01:27 PM
No. Just no.

Were that the case, then EVERY item that has a spell affect would become useless after the first use. Could you imagine a Ring of Featherfall useless after one usage?

No, I'm thinking it would fall under continuous effect for pricing.

Saph
2008-01-10, 01:36 PM
Ok so the debate is ages old about whether a weapon with True Strike should be dirt cheap just counting the cost of the 1st lvl spell or rediculously expensive calling it a +20 enhancement.

No, it really isn't. The 'debate' was over before it started. What it actually is is a prime example of why you're not supposed to read the magic item pricing guidelines literally.


Here's a different approach.
What if the weapon were enchanted with Contingency/True Strike instead of just TS? A lvl6 spell and higher Min Caster level would sure bring the price up a quite a bit. How much though? I stink at Item Creation. Would this be a good middle ground here?

The pricing guidelines you're referring to are guidelines, not rules. The only real way to price a magic item correctly is to price it at what people are willing to pay for it. In the case of an item that gives a +20 bonus to attacks, then it should be extremely obvious that its value is going to be very high.

- Saph

valadil
2008-01-10, 01:53 PM
A sword with true strike cast on it would NOT have +20 to hit. It would have +20 to the NEXT to hit roll. Then it expires.

What you'd need to enchant the sword to do is cast an immediate true strike. There's no immediate spell so far as I'm aware, but let's just say it's 50% more costly than quicken, so +6 levels to make a spell immediate, just for the sake of discussion. That's a 7th level spell. And it needs to be able to cast this several times per round each time the weapon strikes. 5 times, for BAB attacks, and let's just say 10 more times in case your some sort of dex monkey with combat reflexes. So it's casting a 7th level spell up to 15 times per round. I'm not even going to calculate how many times per day this could be. At any rate it's a lot of 7th level spells (which would be better off doing something other than true strike) being cast repeatedly. I really don't care to figure out how much that costs either but I'm willing to bet its over a million gold. And that's with a metamagic feat I just made up for the sake of discussion. You're better off getting something to do quickened true strike some number of times per day.

marjan
2008-01-10, 01:56 PM
No. Just no.

Were that the case, then EVERY item that has a spell affect would become useless after the first use. Could you imagine a Ring of Featherfall useless after one usage?

No, I'm thinking it would fall under continuous effect for pricing.

Contingency lasts until discharged. So first time you strike someone it would get discharged. Featherfall doesn't.

playswithfire
2008-01-10, 02:00 PM
Just throwing this out there because it'd be interesting; no idea how to price it.
The "You won't like me when I'm angry" weapon
When you are hit in melee, you may, as a swift action, expend a daily use of your rage/turn undead/smite/stunning fist/spell slot to make your weapon function as a true strike weapon only in regard to the opponent who hit you for a number of attacks equal to your CON mod/CHA mod/CHA mod/WIS mod/spell level sacrificed. Usable only once per encounter.

Seemed to be in the same vein as a contingency true strike so I thought I'd see what people thought.

Might need to tweak the conditions on the caster version or eliminate them as an option. Could also be done for rogues; no sneak attack dice and lasts INT mod attacks maybe

DLoFunk
2008-01-10, 02:01 PM
Geez, ok let's try to work this now.

1. Age old as in been discussed alot for a while on multiple forums which have short lifespans for threads.

2. I know they're guidelines. I never said they weren't. If they were rules, there wouldn't be a discussion of opinions on the matter. It would have a set price that people would either accept or house rule against. Obviously it doesn't, ergo this thread.

3. Anybody care to discuss the original question? For the sake of clarity, I'll reword it.

If a player proposed the idea of using contingency to create a True Strinking weapon, how would it be priced using the GUILDELINES? And would you as a DM feel about this derived price? (Would you consider it balanced?)

DLoFunk
2008-01-10, 02:10 PM
Ho hum,
Contigency's DURATION is that it discharges once the spell is expended. Spell enchantments in continuous form replenish themselves. Otherwise you would be argueing that things like Feather Fall do not have durations. I'm not asking if it would work or not. I feel it would, and anyone that agrees is asked to discuss the original question with me.

Also a contingent spell activating is an immediate action. Thus, the pricing of speed is covered in the cost of using Contingency in the creation.

Person_Man
2008-01-10, 02:19 PM
Rather then going the custom magic item route, I'd just buy a Brilliant Energy Weapon.

There's also a wide variety of other ways to basically ensure that you're going to hit most of the time. Flame Blade, Fire Lash, Master Thrower, Wraith Strike, Spectral Weapon, Greater Invisibility, anything that Paralyzes your enemy, Snowflake Wardance + Inspire Courage + Words of Creation, etc. It's not particularly difficult.

If you're stuck on getting True Strike, you could take a few Dragonblood Sorcerer racial substitution levels, which allows you to turn a spell slot into a spell like ability. Then take the Quicken Spell Like Ability feat, and viola, Swift Action True Strike three times a day. Certainly not uber. But its helpful. And because you won't be using it all day, your DM won't be forced to severly upgrade the difficulty of your encounters.

Saph
2008-01-10, 02:20 PM
If a player proposed the idea of using contingency to create a True Strinking weapon, how would it be priced using the GUILDELINES? And would you as a DM feel about this derived price? (Would you consider it balanced?)

Okay. The magic item creation guidelines say: "Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced using that price as a guide."

If you're looking for something which gives a permanent bonus to a weapon attack, it's obvious that the best pre-existing thing to compare it to would be a weapon enhancement. Weapon enhancements cost (Bonus squared) x 2000 gp.

So this gives us an initial price estimate of 20x20x2000, or 800,000 gp.

Eyeballing that, I'd halve it (because it only boosts attack, not damage), but then double it (because it's an insight bonus rather than an enhancement bonus). However, True Strike gives the additional bonus of ignoring concealment, which is a big deal at higher levels. That's probably worth another 100k or so.

So that gives us a final price of 900,000 GP, or 0.9 million gold. Sounds about right, off the top of my head, but I don't play epic levels enough to say for sure.

- Saph

marjan
2008-01-10, 02:20 PM
If you are interested in price then it would be 6*11*2000/2 = 66k. That's for contingency. And I'm still not sure how to price spell tied to it. If you price it as secondary effect added to item it would be 1*1*2000*4*1.5-12k. So the final price would be 78k. I don't really think it is good price for constant +20 to hit.

DrummingDM
2008-01-10, 02:20 PM
A sword with true strike cast on it would NOT have +20 to hit. It would have +20 to the NEXT to hit roll. Then it expires. That's how I'd rule a "True Strike" weapon. And hell, if someone wants to pay the price of a +1 weapon for an item that is just about guaranteed to hit once, and then be a simple masterwork weapon forever after, I say let 'em. It'll make the item an interesting MacGuffin-type - send the PCs on a grand quest to recover the ancient lost Sword of the Unerring Strike, lost after a great hero used it to ensure he finished off a terrible beast thousands of years ago, to battle a great threat. They recover it, only to determine that it's exactly what it claims to be, the Sword of the Unerring Strike. Singular.

MCerberus
2008-01-10, 02:22 PM
The easiest way to do a true strike sword is just to do charges/day. Even if you could make it continuous, what you would need to do would likely put it over +10. In that case, no PC can make it.

marjan
2008-01-10, 02:25 PM
However, True Strike gives the additional bonus of ignoring concealment, which is a big deal at higher levels. That's probably worth another 100k or so.


While ignore concealment is nice, I don't it's worth 100k. Improved Precise Shot is feat that gives you same benefit and couple of more things but works only with ranged weapons. So I would say 50k for that at most then multiply it by 1.5 as a secondary effect and you get 75k.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-01-10, 02:25 PM
EDIT: Suddenly, 17,000 ninja appear.

Ho hum,
Contigency's DURATION is that it discharges once the spell is expended. Spell enchantments in continuous form replenish themselves. Otherwise you would be argueing that things like Feather Fall do not have durations. I'm not asking if it would work or not. I feel it would, and anyone that agrees is asked to discuss the original question with me.

Also a contingent spell activating is an immediate action. Thus, the pricing of speed is covered in the cost of using Contingency in the creation.
No need to be so hostile.

Anyway, let me talk this idea out for clarification.

A weapon casts (use-activated, so whenever it's swung) a Contingency spell that contains a True Strike spell. The Contingency is set to activate...when? Let's say just before the next time the item is swung.

The first time you attack with the weapon, the Contingency is set up. Every time the weapon is swung after that:
1) The Contingency discharges, casting True Strike on behalf of the wielder.
2) Another Contingency is cast, setting up another True Strike to be discharged.

This...could work technically. It's basically True Strike on every attack except a user's first one with the weapon, or the first one after the Contingency effect's duration runs out.

It's also a significantly higher cost than True Strike...but still costs way less than it should. I'm sorry, but in my assessment of balance, the only way to price an item that gives +20 to attack on every attack is at least as a +10 Weapon Enhancement. This is a completely ad hoc ruling not covered by the item creation guidelines, but I feel it's the only acceptable judgement.

Saph
2008-01-10, 02:26 PM
While ignore concealment is nice, I don't it's worth 100k. Improved Precise Shot is feat that gives you same benefit and couple of more things but works only with ranged weapons. So I would say 50k for that at most then multiply it by 1.5 as a secondary effect and you get 75k.

Fair enough. That puts it at 875,000 gp, then.

- Saph

Telonius
2008-01-10, 02:38 PM
Actually, if you look at it a certain way, all magic items only function contingent to something else happening. Magic weapons deal extra damage when the contingency, "It hits the guy" occurs. Bane dragon weapons work if the contingencies, "it hits the guy" and "the guy is a dragon" occur. So, I would suggest that you forget the idea of the "Contingency" spell being operative on the weapon, and focus on what effect you're actually trying to achieve.

The effect that you're going for is True Strike (+20 to hit). How often, and under what conditions, do intend for this to be active? If it's charges per day, you'd use the table. But if you're trying to get it to operate only against certain foes, "when the moon is shining," or whatever, the guidelines don't really offer much guidance, except this:


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. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.

My own suggestion would be that if the spell is operative only versus a certain foe, look at the most similar existing enhancement: Bane. Bane deals an extra 2d6, and gives a +1 price modifier. I would say that a +20 to hit, +0 damage, would be significantly better than that. It might even be better against its designated target than an Axiomatic weapon (+2 price), which overcomes DR of chaotic foes. But it's not quite as good as a Vorpal weapon (auto-decapitation on a confirmed critical roll of 20). So, depending on how often this thing is active, I would put it as a +3 or a +4. (If it's something ridiculous like, "Whenever I swing it!" all future enemies would be armed with similar weapons).

sikyon
2008-01-10, 02:48 PM
Okay. The magic item creation guidelines say: "Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced using that price as a guide."

If you're looking for something which gives a permanent bonus to a weapon attack, it's obvious that the best pre-existing thing to compare it to would be a weapon enhancement. Weapon enhancements cost (Bonus squared) x 2000 gp.

So this gives us an initial price estimate of 20x20x2000, or 800,000 gp.

Eyeballing that, I'd halve it (because it only boosts attack, not damage), but then double it (because it's an insight bonus rather than an enhancement bonus). However, True Strike gives the additional bonus of ignoring concealment, which is a big deal at higher levels. That's probably worth another 100k or so.

So that gives us a final price of 900,000 GP, or 0.9 million gold. Sounds about right, off the top of my head, but I don't play epic levels enough to say for sure.

- Saph

I disagree with your math.

The formula is (Bonus Squared)*2000

Because the bonus is really only +20 to hit and not +20 to hit and to damage, the bonus should really be +10 (halving first).

Then you go 10^2*2000 = 200 000

I also would not double it again for insight bonus. Going from armor bonus to deflection AC bonus is 1000 -> 2000, then going to insight deflection is -> 2500, for a 25% increase only.

I would therefore only increase the cost again by 25%. This is important because the insight bonus is on the weapon, which then precludes an enhancement bonus from the weapon, the main source of extra "to-hit."

Total 250000

This is also worth less given that at higher levels hitting is relatively easy as AC has trouble scaling with attack bonuses.

You then add in concealment negation, which is pretty close to a very, very limited blindsight. Blindsight 5 ft is a divine feat, and only getting the concealment negation part of that with your attack only is probably around the power level of a regular feat... so I'd say add something like 50k for that.

So I'd go with somewhere around 300000 for a +20 to hit only weapon which negates concealment chances.

Saph
2008-01-10, 02:55 PM
I also would not double it again for insight bonus. Going from armor bonus to deflection AC bonus is 1000 -> 2000, then going to insight deflection is -> 2500, for a 25% increase only.

For saving throws, an insight (or any other) bonus is valued at twice the price of the 'standard' bonus. Otherwise no-one would buy a +2 enhancement bonus, they'd just get two different types of +1s.


This is also worth less given that at higher levels hitting is relatively easy as AC has trouble scaling with attack bonuses.

Power Attack. To-hit is easily converted into damage.


So I'd go with somewhere around 300000 for a +20 to hit only weapon which negates concealment chances.

Seems a bit underpriced to me - depends on whether you can stack normal enhancements on top of that, though.

But eh. Epic-level balance is pretty much a joke, anyway, so this isn't very serious.

- Saph

marjan
2008-01-10, 03:03 PM
I disagree with your math.

The formula is (Bonus Squared)*2000

Because the bonus is really only +20 to hit and not +20 to hit and to damage, the bonus should really be +10 (halving first).



And why exactly are you halving first. It doesn't make any sense. Dividing final cost by four or more would make more sense if you think that dmg is more important than to-hit.



I also would not double it again for insight bonus. Going from armor bonus to deflection AC bonus is 1000 -> 2000, then going to insight deflection is -> 2500, for a 25% increase only.


First of all that's armor bonus. That 25% increase for armor isn't an issue since you can only get +1 from Ioun Stone so the difference between 25% and 100% isn't that big.



I would therefore only increase the cost again by 25%. This is important because the insight bonus is on the weapon, which then precludes an enhancement bonus from the weapon, the main source of extra "to-hit."


I don't quite understand where are you getting this from but you are wrong.

sikyon
2008-01-10, 03:07 PM
For saving throws, an insight (or any other) bonus is valued at twice the price of the 'standard' bonus. Otherwise no-one would buy a +2 enhancement bonus, they'd just get two different types of +1s.


AC boosting is costed at 25% more so that the insight bonus will stack with the enhancement bonus of armor you are wearing. A weapon should function on a similar principle, in that if the weapon is insight then it costs 25% more so that it stacks with the other equipment you have.

I would not apply the save example because there is no standard item where save bonuses come from.

Finally, people would still buy +2 enhancement bonuses, because they might already have +1's. +1's also take up more slots, and there are not an unlimited number of bonus types. Anyhow it's not that relevant.



Power Attack. To-hit is easily converted into damage.


Takes a feat. Weapons are not priced for specific builds, anyways. I'm not saying it can't be taken advantage of, I'm saying that your average weapon price is an average. These are not weighted by supply/demand

Also, (weapon bonus)^2 is also a very, very raw deal for just to hit bonuses. Above +5, they are weighted against special abilites instead, like vorpal. These multiply the weapon's power exponentially by stacking with the to hit bonus, which is much much better than just increasing the same power. At lower levels there isn't as much stacking which is why the (weapon bonus)^2 still works there.



Seems a bit underpriced to me - depends on whether you can stack normal enhancements on top of that, though.


Seems fine for me too, as long as you can't put more enhancements on the weapon. Stacking with other sources is fine though, personally.

sikyon
2008-01-10, 03:15 PM
Sorry for double posting.


And why exactly are you halving first. It doesn't make any sense. Dividing final cost by four or more would make more sense if you think that dmg is more important than to-hit.


I am assuming that +1 to hit and +1 to damage are worth the same amount. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide. Otherwise it just seems like a goodbasine to work from

With this assumption,

A +20 to hit weapon is worth a +10 to hit and +10 to damage weapon.

A weapon's cost is (Bonus squared)*2000

Therefore the weapon would be worth 200000

Note that the formula is Bonus squared. If you don't get the bonus in the first place, you must not square it. It's pretty basic math. ((2A)^2)/2 =/= A^2




First of all that's armor bonus. That 25% increase for armor isn't an issue since you can only get +1 from Ioun Stone so the difference between 25% and 100% isn't that big.


Doesn't matter, you can make better armor bonuses. These are creation guidelines. You could have a +5 pretty rock to AC for all it matters to the creation guidelines



I don't quite understand where are you getting this from but you are wrong.

Changing enhancement AC to insight AC is 25% difference only. I apply the same logic to weapon bonuses, because they work very similarly and tend to come from similar sources.

RukiTanuki
2008-01-10, 03:27 PM
To the original poster:

Why would combining a constantly-renewing 7th-level spell and a 1st-level spell be cheaper than a constantly-renewing 1st-level spell? I'm confused on that step.

When it comes to custom magic items, I look at the end benefit to the player, period. It's not about whether you can shoehorn the effect you want so it roughly meets what spell Foo does if it were put in magic item Bar; it's about the actual final effect. Like others mentioned, they're guidelines for magic item creation; specifically, they're guidelines that explicitly mention setting prices comparable to similar items.

I assume that someone who tries the True Strike stunt wants +20 to all attacks. If they don't intend to pay a whole lot for it, that seems silly to me. A permanent +20 insight bonus to all attacks feels like it easily qualifies as an epic-level bonus, and the only part of that I'd leave up for discussion with my players would be "pricing it for a high-level epic character" and "creating a much more reasonable item." :smallbiggrin:

marjan
2008-01-10, 03:32 PM
A +20 to hit weapon is worth a +10 to hit and +10 to damage weapon.


+20 to hit =/= +10 to hit + +10 dmg.
+20 to hit = +20 to hit.



Changing enhancement AC to insight AC is 25% difference only. I apply the same logic to weapon bonuses, because they work very similarly and tend to come from similar sources.

I was speaking of insight bonus precluding you from getting enhancement bonus.

sikyon
2008-01-10, 03:49 PM
+20 to hit =/= +10 to hit + +10 dmg.
+20 to hit = +20 to hit.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. We choose to ignore this because then the item cannot be approximated by weapon creation guidelines. This is what we are trying to accomplish, so we offer an approximation for +20 to-hit we feel is reasonable. Yes, we know it is an approximation, as are the weapon creation guidelines. We don't need you to tell us this.



I was speaking of insight bonus precluding you from getting enhancement bonus.

Pardon me? I don't understand this statement. If you could flesh it out abit more, that would be great.

What -I- am talking about is the cost of converting an enhancement bonus to an insight bonus on a weapon.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 03:55 PM
A +20 to hit weapon is worth a +10 to hit and +10 to damage weapon.

A weapon's cost is (Bonus squared)*2000

Therefore the weapon would be worth 200000


Assuming that we accept the +10/+10 premise:

Such an item would be a epic weapon.


Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5.

And thus the price would not be 200000 gp, but rather 2 million gp.

marjan
2008-01-10, 04:01 PM
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. We choose to ignore this because then the item cannot be approximated by weapon creation guidelines. This is what we are trying to accomplish, so we offer an approximation for +20 to-hit we feel is reasonable. Yes, we know it is an approximation, as are the weapon creation guidelines. We don't need you to tell us this.

Well the best course of approximation of price for something that gives bonus is bonus^2*predetermined price (2k,1k,0.5k or whatever you think is appropriate). It's not this +20 is same as another +10. That just doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that you've got price wrong (though I think it is cheaper than it should be) but that your methods of getting it don't make much sense.

And BTW how would you price +5 insight bonus?



Pardon me? I don't understand this statement. If you could flesh it out abit more, that would be great.

What -I- am talking about is the cost of converting an enhancement bonus to an insight bonus on a weapon.

That's not what you were talking.


This is important because the insight bonus is on the weapon, which then precludes an enhancement bonus from the weapon, the main source of extra "to-hit."
I was talking about this.

sikyon
2008-01-10, 04:24 PM
Well the best course of approximation of price for something that gives bonus is bonus^2*predetermined price (2k,1k,0.5k or whatever you think is appropriate). It's not this +20 is same as another +10. That just doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that you've got price wrong (though I think it is cheaper than it should be) but that your methods of getting it don't make much sense.

Fair enough. That's a reasonable way of pricing the item - the problem is, again, that we are trying to price it according to the guidelines. The guidelines have no suggested value for the (predetermined multiplier). Therefore instead of introducing another variable into the equation, I have chosen instead to modify an existing one.

Your point is taken: My method is a wide, general approximation. However, we can't really approximate within the magic item guidelines using your method. The reason is that if we do not equate +damage = +to hit then we have no approximation. If we do, then it must factor into (bonus squared) because it is a bonus and must be equated in that part of the formula. (predetermined multiplier) is a conversion factor, one which relies on a lot of things including how powerful to-hit and damage are. So really, (predetermined multiplier) is made up of a number of variables, and seems like the greater of 2 evils.


I would price a +5 insight bonus as 125% of a +5 enhancement bonus, if it modified to hit/damage or AC. On anything else I would price it as 200%.


Assuming that we accept the +10/+10 premise:

Such an item would be a epic weapon.

And thus the price would not be 200000 gp, but rather 2 million gp.

Or it's a regular masterwork weapon with the special +20 to hit ability which costs as a +10 enhancement bonus (which is litterally how we are applying it).

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 04:31 PM
Or it's a regular masterwork weapon with the special +20 to hit ability which costs as a +10 enhancement bonus (which is litterally how we are applying it).

The rules for Epic magic items do not care if you call it a special ability or straight bonus.

It is a magic item and it grants a bonus larger than +5, so it is by definition an Epic item and thus most be priced as such.

marjan
2008-01-10, 04:33 PM
sikyon: Predetermined multiplier is used because you can usually make bonuses ranging from +1 to +X and therefor it is easier to price them that way. Doing it your way would require pricing on case-by-case basis which is annoying if you allow different bonuses.

NEO|Phyte
2008-01-10, 04:40 PM
The rules for Epic magic items do not care if you call it a special ability or straight bonus.

It is a magic item and it grants a bonus larger than +5, so it is by definition an Epic item and thus most be priced as such.

So, a +5 [martial discipline(s) of choice] weapon is Epic, but only when wielded by a character that knows maneuvers from the given discipline(s)?

How about the Collision weapon enhancement, which adds +5 to damage?

:edit: That said, if this hypothetical True Strike enhancement costs as a +10 enhancement, its STILL Epic, because you can only fit a total of +10 worth of enhancements on a sword pre-Epic. I think there is also a 200,000 GP (or something like that) price cap on nonEpic items

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 04:47 PM
So, a +5 [martial discipline(s) of choice] weapon is Epic, but only when wielded by a character that knows maneuvers from the given discipline(s)?

How about the Collision weapon enhancement, which adds +5 to damage?

Obviously not. Those are specific examples that follow the rules outlined in their descriptions, but if you think you can cheese your way around the rules I think you should come up with something better than saying it is not a +20 magic weapon but a masterwork weapon that adds +20 on attack.

marjan
2008-01-10, 04:51 PM
The rules for Epic magic items do not care if you call it a special ability or straight bonus.

It is a magic item and it grants a bonus larger than +5, so it is by definition an Epic item and thus most be priced as such.

Bracers of Armor can be up to +8 pre-epic. I think only real enhancement bonus counts and effective enhancement bonus can go up to 10 pre-epic.

sikyon
2008-01-10, 04:56 PM
sikyon: Predetermined multiplier is used because you can usually make bonuses ranging from +1 to +X and therefor it is easier to price them that way. Doing it your way would require pricing on case-by-case basis which is annoying if you allow different bonuses.

Yeah, I know. But that's completly in the realm of houseruling anyways. This is in the realm, but not as far.


The rules for Epic magic items do not care if you call it a special ability or straight bonus.

It is a magic item and it grants a bonus larger than +5, so it is by definition an Epic item and thus most be priced as such.

+4 to hit unnamed bonus that doesn't stack with insight at +2 market cost, +6 to hit unnamed bonus that doesn't stack with insight at +3 market cost,
+10 to hit unnamed bonus that doesn't stack with insight at +5 market cost

:smalltongue:

No I see your point. So I guess it's back to the use activated ring then.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 04:59 PM
Bracers of Armor can be up to +8 pre-epic. I think only real enhancement bonus counts and effective enhancement bonus can go up to 10 pre-epic.

BoA grant a +8 armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus, so they are not in violation of the rules for Epic items.

An attack bonus of +6 or higher, enhancement or not, is on the other hand considered Epic.

marjan
2008-01-10, 05:12 PM
BoA grant a +8 armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus, so they are not in violation of the rules for Epic items.

An attack bonus of +6 or higher, enhancement or not, is on the other hand considered Epic.

Well, if that is your opinion that's ok (it does make sense), but guidelines don't say anything about to hit bonuses (if they do please direct me to the source), and some bonuses clearly go higher than +5.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:16 PM
Well, if that is your opinion that's ok (it does make sense), but guidelines don't say anything about to hit bonuses (if they do please direct me to the source), and some bonuses clearly go higher than +5.

I quoted the relevant rules above.
You can find them in the section for Epic Magic Items.

marjan
2008-01-10, 05:24 PM
I quoted the relevant rules above.
You can find them in the section for Epic Magic Items.


To find the base price of an epic magic weapon, roll on Table: Weapons. Note that the +6 to +10 rows apply only to weapons that provide an enhancement bonus of +6 to +10 or weapons with a single special ability whose market price modifier is +6 to +10. Magic weapons with a total effective bonus of +6 to +10 but that have an enhancement bonus of +5 or less and special abilities whose individual market price modifiers are +5 or less use the table for nonepic magic weapons to determine price.

Still if you don't price this as an enhancement bonus (+X ability) nothing says it has to be an epic item.

Edit: I agree that it is to much pre-epic.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:27 PM
Look here:


Epic Magic Items
While not truly an artifact, the epic magic item is a creation of such power that it surpasses other magic items. Epic magic items are objects of great power and value. The following are typical characteristics of an epic magic item. In general, an item with even one of these characteristics is an epic magic item.

* Grants a bonus on attacks or damage greater than +5.
* Grants an enhancement bonus to armor higher than +5.
* Has a special ability with a market price modifier greater than +5.
* Grants an armor bonus of greater than +10 (not including magic armor’s enhancement bonus).
* Grants a natural armor, deflection, or resistance bonus greater than +5.
* Grants an enhancement bonus to an ability score greater than +6.
* Grants an enhancement bonus on a skill check greater than +30.
* Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th.
* Has a caster level above 20th.
* Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs, or additional value for intelligent items.

An epic magic item that grants a bonus beyond those allowed for normal magic items has a higher market price than indicated by the formulas for non-epic items.

Epic magic items are not artifacts. They are not unique, though they are certainly very rare, and anyone with the proper item creation feats can build them. Even an epic magic item can never grant a dodge bonus, and the maximum inherent bonus that can be applied to an ability score is +5. An epic magic item cannot be created that uses or mimics an epic spell. A major artifact might be able to mimic such a spell, however.

marjan
2008-01-10, 05:30 PM
Look here: Source that shows I'm wrong

Totally missed that and I'm not all that familiar with epic stuff.:smallredface: Thanks for clarifying it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:36 PM
Totally missed that and I'm not all that familiar with epic stuff.:smallredface: Thanks for clarifying it.

The main reason for knowing them is IMHO the need for an easy way to counter different varieties of cheese. :smallwink:

marjan
2008-01-10, 05:39 PM
The main reason for knowing them is IMHO the need for an easy way to counter different varieties of cheese. :smallwink:

But cheese is good for you. It has plenty of A and D vitamins and it will make your bones stronger (more natural armor for you).:smalltongue:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:43 PM
But cheese is good for you. It has plenty of A and D vitamins and it will make your bones stronger.:smalltongue:

My bones?
What kind of an aberration do you think I am? :smalleek:

I stick to popcorn, thank you, no cheese here.

HidaTsuzua
2008-01-10, 05:44 PM
An interesting idea would be to use Craft Contingent Spell for a single use true strike. If you go by the caster level needed to use Contingent Spell, it'll be 1100gp (since craft contingent spell uses the exact same pricing guidelines as items). So you set the contingency to something like saying "hey I'm using my true strike now!" (which is a free action) and suddenly you have a nice dispelable consumable for 1100gp a charge with a max number of charges to your hit die. It'll also take a hour to put on but you can do that during downtime.

Though if crafter caster level can be 1, then it's 100gp which is a bit low in my opinion.

Wooter
2008-01-10, 05:48 PM
My take on a true strike weapon would be a weapon that casts true strike on any enemy it hits. Not possible by RAW, but it amuses me anyway.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-10, 05:57 PM
It'll also take a hour to put on but you can do that during downtime.

It certainly is possible, but it will cost a charge every time you get your +20 and crafting a contingent spell takes a day for each crafting, not an hour.

Idea Man
2008-01-10, 09:06 PM
You want cheese? Craft it as a trap. That would allow you unlimited uses with the "resets automaticaly" option (which can happen immediately). Sure, it could be dispelled easily, but it's dirt cheap to make (500gp x spell level x caster level + 40xp x spell level x caster level).

I've seen the idea for a "healing bed" or somesuch to give bear's endurance to the person laid upon it to aid in making disease checks. It's a totally broken concept, and I do not endorse it. I use it when it suits my fancy, though. :smalltongue:

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-01-10, 09:18 PM
By the rules, you just need to set it up so that the spell is triggered 'when used'. Such effects trigger when the weapon is used to strike...so every time you wield your blade, it triggers and you strike with it. it costs 2k gold x level of spell x level of spellcaster required...so...yeah...2kgold... it is cheap...and that is about the cost of a truestrike bow in the sword and fist book that casts true strike when you draw an arrow.

Technically it should work just the same with a sword...it is the DM's job to say...umm...no...or it works once per encounter, or find some other way of limiting the cheese. by strict rules, it works...the DM needs to say otherwise if he doesn't want that level of pseudo rules abuse.

IMO, it is best used my mid level warriors with 2h weapons and power attack, makes cleave a much better option then since you will be hitting for +20 damage or more

Talic
2008-01-11, 03:18 AM
Now, a weapon that had a minor spell storing function in it (holds 3 levels of spell, discharges on attack. Damage spells affect only the target, enhancement spells affect only the wielder. Thus, if you placed a true strike, and 2 magic missiles (CL 9), all 3 would expend on attack, and it would break down as such:

Longsword, Spell Channeler +1,

+21 to hit (True strike, enhancement), 1D8 + 1 + Str + 10D4 + 10 (weapon damage, enhancement, strength, and magic missile damage, respectively).

After the hit, all charges would be expended, though the weapon could be recast into.

Something like this would strike me as a +3 enchancement bonus equivalent, maybe +4.

SoD
2008-01-11, 04:00 AM
I am assuming that +1 to hit and +1 to damage are worth the same amount. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide.

+1 to hit=300 gp (masterwork, extra 300, +1 to hit)
+1 damage and +1 to hit =2000gp.

Assuming that the +1 to hit stays at 300gp, that makes the +1 damage 1700gp, over five times the cost. These would rise exponentially as the atk/dmg rises.


No, it really isn't. The 'debate' was over before it started.

Apparantly not :biggrin:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 04:27 AM
By the rules

Guidelines, they are just guidelines. The golden rule is to compare to already existing items not use the guidelines blindly and without thought.


and that is about the cost of a truestrike bow in the sword and fist book that casts true strike when you draw an arrow.


That is not what it does. It allows you to use Truestrike, but it requires a standard action and works as the spell normally.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-01-11, 04:44 AM
Ahh...yes...I was confusing it with our homebrewed version of the item...we figured if they could make it 'spell trigger', why the hell couldn't they make it 'on use'...so we did.

Then again, our group has been fairly loose about using rule exploits...but we always know that our DM's will make use of the same loopholes if we go overboard...or just adjust the difficulty accordingly.

Also, our DMs aren't exactly afraid to pull out some homebrew mechanics for oddball situations and give us some crazy crap that requires such out of the box thinking that having massive bonuses to hit isn't always the 'I win' button we wish it was.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 05:21 AM
Now, a weapon that had a minor spell storing function in it (holds 3 levels of spell, discharges on attack. Damage spells affect only the target, enhancement spells affect only the wielder. Thus, if you placed a true strike, and 2 magic missiles (CL 9), all 3 would expend on attack, and it would break down as such:

...

Something like this would strike me as a +3 enchancement bonus equivalent, maybe +4.

Spell Storing does not allow True Strike and Magic Missile to be placed in it. That alone would probably warrant a higher cost than for the normal Spell Storing an restricting it to first level spells does not do much to balance that.

Talic
2008-01-11, 06:23 AM
Spell Storing does not allow True Strike and Magic Missile to be placed in it. That alone would probably warrant a higher cost than for the normal Spell Storing an restricting it to first level spells does not do much to balance that.

And minor spell storing is a +1 Enhancement bonus equivalent. I suggested a +3 to +4. Leaning towards +4 now. This is greater than the wounding effect, a bit higher than Flaming burst, and less than the Coup de Grace enhancement. On par with Brilliant Energy.

Keep in mind, the same effect, by wording, allows a fireball to be stored in it, and when it hits, it only deals damage to the person hit. Further, the spells go off on attack, not hit, so a miss = wasted spells. I worded it similar to the spellsword ability to not allow AoE. Even further, I disallowed the ability to choose which ones go off, preventing 3 true striked hits in a row (at high power attack, I'd wager). It's a use once per fight item for good damage, but only once per fight. Also a good way to get a low level buff and attack at the same time for gishes. Given that, a +1 weapon with this ability, values at a +4 to +5 weapon (leaning towards +5), which puts it at around 50,000. Following DMG advice for 25% WBL on an item, what's the earliest level that would see a +5 equivalent weapon?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-11, 07:25 AM
And minor spell storing is a +1 Enhancement bonus equivalent. I suggested a +3 to +4. Leaning towards +4 now. This is greater than the wounding effect, a bit higher than Flaming burst, and less than the Coup de Grace enhancement. On par with Brilliant Energy.

And that is only an additional +1 over 3 times Spell Storing.


Keep in mind, the same effect, by wording, allows a fireball to be stored in it, and when it hits, it only deals damage to the person hit. Further, the spells go off on attack, not hit, so a miss = wasted spells. I worded it similar to the spellsword ability to not allow AoE. Even further, I disallowed the ability to choose which ones go off, preventing 3 true striked hits in a row (at high power attack, I'd wager). It's a use once per fight item for good damage, but only once per fight. Also a good way to get a low level buff and attack at the same time for gishes. Given that, a +1 weapon with this ability, values at a +4 to +5 weapon (leaning towards +5), which puts it at around 50,000. Following DMG advice for 25% WBL on an item, what's the earliest level that would see a +5 equivalent weapon?


The fact that the spell is wasted whether you hit helps and your example use is benign.
However, I would not be surprised if someone would come along with some broken combo of rays/buffs.
Scorching Ray combined with True Strike yields 12d6 and I am sure that there are far better choices out there.

Saph
2008-01-11, 07:49 AM
Apparantly not :biggrin:

Yeah.

I'm starting to think that they should have left those custom rules out of the DMG altogether, judging by the number of people who ignore the qualifiers and try to make items that exploit the formulas. The writers really ought to have put a big note at the top of the page, bolded and underlined, saying "THESE GUIDELINES ARE FOR DMs, NOT FOR PCs. IT'S SO THE DM CAN PRICE A NEW MAGICAL ITEM, NOT SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO GAME THE SYSTEM. ANY PC TRYING TO USE THIS TABLE WITHOUT READING THE QUALIFIERS WILL BE TARRASQUED."

Or something like that. :P

- Saph

Roderick_BR
2008-01-11, 11:57 AM
As Saph pointed out, the guidelines for magic itens are not perfect, even the rules itself point out that they are not perfected, and a DM needs to check if a spell can be allowed in a case-by-case basis. A continuous effect on a instanstaneous spell and use-activated would be something like spell level x spell caster level x 2000 (actually, times 4000. The way it is written, it looks like 2000 is for an effect both continuous AND use-activated, but a DM can argue that the 2000 is for EACH of these abilities). Since True Strike is a first level spell, and has no need to be cast above 1 caster level, you can get an item that gives you a +20 to attack everytime you swing a weapon, so it's a case where the DM wouldn't allow it.

And +20 for one attack as a first level spell, specially after the rules for touch attacks was created, is simply dumb anyway.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-11, 12:03 PM
While ignore concealment is nice, I don't it's worth 100k. Improved Precise Shot is feat that gives you same benefit and couple of more things but works only with ranged weapons. So I would say 50k for that at most then multiply it by 1.5 as a secondary effect and you get 75k.

Yes, but a ubercharger build isn't going to 1-hit kill something several CR higher with a ranged attack.

marjan
2008-01-11, 12:34 PM
Yes, but a ubercharger build isn't going to 1-hit kill something several CR higher with a ranged attack.

Your point?

Indon
2008-01-11, 12:54 PM
Personally, I'd allow True Strike to be used to activate an 'Accuracy' weapon enhancement, that would provide +2 to hit (insight) for +1 effective enhancement. For a power-attacker, that's actually a little better than a +1 enhancement (since PA can make that into +1 to hit and +2 to damage), but I wouldn't let it scale (with the exception of perhaps making a +4 for 2 with epic CL).

TheMeanDM
2008-01-11, 01:20 PM
words words words.....

So that gives us a final price of 900,000 GP, or 0.9 million gold. Sounds about right, off the top of my head, but I don't play epic levels enough to say for sure.

- Saph

Don't ever let me into a game that you are DM'ing, ok? :smallsmile:

Saph
2008-01-11, 02:25 PM
Don't ever let me into a game that you are DM'ing, ok? :smallsmile:

Be nice. I said it was off the top of my head.

Silvanos has already posted a better estimate, since I didn't take into account the epic-level-item price bump. Personally, if someone asked me for a continuous True Strike item in a game I was DMing, I'd just laugh, but the OP insisted on a figure.

- Saph

TheMeanDM
2008-01-11, 03:18 PM
Continuous True Strike? That's what someone was trying to add to their blade?

HELL NO!

Never, ever, allow that under any circumstances or for any amount of $$$.

Now, if it were usable a certain # of times / day...sure...I would allow that.

There's a formula for uses per day (1-5) in the item creation section.

One thing I would most certainly enforce is that if you want a weapon with that spell ability, you'll need to figure it as being cast by a 5th level Wizard, not as a 1st level wizard...since it takes a 5th level wizard to create weapons and armor.

So, you've got the base cost of said magic weapon (2k, 8k, 18k, 32k, or 50k) and then the cost of the 5th level caster casting the spell, which would be an additional amount on top of that.

Spell level (1) X Caster Level (5) X 2000 (use activated) = 10000gp

Then, if they elect to use it up to 5x per day, then it will cost an extra 10,000. Fewer uses per day reduces the cost.

+1 Sword with True Strike 5x per day = 12,000 + mastework weapon cost
+2 Sword with True Strike 5x per day = 18,000 + mastework weapon cost
+3 Sword with True Strike 5x per day = 28,000 + mastework weapon cost
+4 Sword with True Strike 5x per day = 42,000 + mastework weapon cost
+5 Sword with True Strike 5x per day = 60,000 + mastework weapon cost

I would not ever let it go beyond 5x per day usage.

60k is a lot for 1 weapon. The way I figure it, a 15th level two-weapon fighting Fighter gets 5 total attacks per round...as a full round attack. *poof* there goes his 5 uses for the entire day.

Sure, he *might* be able to Ginsu that first foe he faces...but what if there are more than one? What if he has to fight again later that day?

And as a DM, I have many, many devious ideas about how to lessen/defeat a pretty much "auto hit" (he could still roll a 1 after all--natural failure). Not to mention a few monsters that would love to get their hands/paws/jaws on some nice magical metal.

That's how I might handle it, personally....

Artanis
2008-01-11, 04:08 PM
Just some numbers that're probably pretty redundant by now:

Somebody with Power Attack can turn a constant +20 to-hit into an effect almost identical to a +14 enhancement bonus by taking 7 of that to-hit off (making it +13 to-hit and +14 damage). So, for what it's still worth, IMO such an item should be priced the same as a +14 weapon at the absolute lowest.