|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Here's a little tool I made to help me properly format magic items. It's output types are currently fairly limited, but perhaps it'll still be useful to someone. https://sites.google.com/site/archmageomega/home/item-formatter
One question though. I'm slightly confused between the OGL and the Community Use license whether or not I've got the right notices in the right places.
The thing is, I'm not metagame cheesing anything. I'm the GM. I'm not out to get my player's. I'm not out to win anything. What am I cheesing here? How can I be metagaming when I am the metagame?
While I agree that actually using three cloaks is cheesy (though not metagaming as that might be a reasonable if odd tactic in game), I don't agree that using that as a point of comparison is metagame cheese.
So no, no double standard here. I still don't like the way you argue things.
Those people don't post threads on the forum asking for help, they don't need it. Except sometimes for outside input on group drama.
Because you don't go to a game forum to flesh out your concept and back story? You go to a game forum to find out how to make the most out of the rules framework your concept and back story are draped over.
I'm pretty sure that sums it up. The message boards are not a representative sample of gamers and should not be taken as such.
Also, I'm pretty sure most people really have no idea just how strong that rose tint really is.
Edit: As to the question the title of the thread asks, there's no one right way to play the game and you should do whatever is most fun for your group.
I don't think it's realistic to assume that 3 minutes of combat covers it for a wide enough set of campaign types, and it's those days where it doesn't cover it where the difference is going to be especially important too.
As for divine power, so it's ok for a wizard to get other peoples class abilities, but not the other way around? Also, I said a high attack bonus. I do know everyone gets at least some attack bonus.
This has been repeated and repeatedly shot down. There is a huge difference between "spend 1 standard action to get a bonus for a single minute" and "get a bonus, period." So far the only thing everyone agrees on is that a continuous bonus should use the bonus squared pricing.
Let me put that in big bold letters since it keeps coming up so often: The one thing everyone agrees on is that a continuous shield effect should use the bonus squared pricing. So can we stop repeating that point?
Now, the argument is what kind of a discount having your shield only available for 3 minutes every day and having to spend a standard action for each of those 3 minutes is worth. There's also the side effect of making it much more susceptible to dispelling, although that's a somewhat campaign dependent issue, but then so are all of these issues.
Most people (according to a recent survey of posts in this thread) would put in the four digits, although there's not a huge amount of agreement on where in that range it should be.
I also assumed everyone was talking about purchase price.
I imagine a lot of the disconnect here is down to gameplay assumptions. If your group never fights more than one encounter per day, always manages to know about and prepare for the encounter and always manages to finish that one encounter in less than 10 rounds, then yeah, one casting of shield might as well be continuous. Or if your players are all ubermunchkins who'll take every opportunity to squeeze the system for all it's worth then you would probably be hesitant to give them any slack in anything. Or if you only play low magic games where any magic item should be something precious then you might not want any magical trinkets. Etc, etc.
I'm exaggerating here. I'm not saying that anyone's group or game is that bad, but campaign assumptions, which are often left unstated, can drastically affect how you'd price certain items. I've already said my game is a high magic game (and how I'd price the item in a low magic game), but when you're pricing an item for general consumption you need to either state your assumptions or do your best to eliminate them in your prices.
@Bill Dunn, that's not what I meant by use an action. I meant that it actually costs you a standard action to activate without having to say a command word out loud, such as "turn the ring around your finger three times" or something.
There seems to be at least two different arguments here. How about we use air bubble for a while. It's a 1st level spell with a 1 minute/level duration but none of the contentious +X bonuses or personal range to argue about.
How much do you think the following items should be worth:
5/day is priced the same as an unlimited use-activated item, which isn't always the same price as a continuous item. (I will admit that this particular part of the table could be interpreted differently.)
For shield specifically, that means a continuous shield would theoretically be priced the same as 10 uses per day, except that so far no one has disagreed that a continuous shield should use the bonus squared pricing.
Coin-wise, what I did for my game was to leave the relative value of gold and silver coins alone, but change the weight of a single coin. I've got copper at 50 per pound, silver at 75 per pound, gold at 200 per pound and platinum at 250 per pound. That means a 1 lbs. ingot of copper is still worth 0.5 gp, but silver is worth 7.5 gp, gold is worth 200 gp and platinum is worth 2500 gp. (I was going to use mithral coins instead of platinum, but that'd change the price per pound of mithral, which I didn't want to deal with.)
Edit: BTW, the values were taken from the relative real-world values of copper, silver and gold at the time I was working out the details. Platinum on the other hand is/was actually about the same price as gold, so I just made something up for that.
I've given my players this option on top of using Making Crafting Work. Of course, this is for a high magic game.
The second session went pretty well, right up until the end.
The players finished cleaning up the goblins, although the last three goblins released a trapped giant bombardier beetle that KO'd two of the party members. Fortunately the one left had some healing magic and they weren't too far from the next town. The beetle got away.
After resting, two of the players went back to the cave to pick up some of their stuff they'd dropped only to find the bodies of the goblins have vanished. They decided to get their stuff and go without exploring the cave further.
The town elder told them how they've seen movement in the abandoned castle and that some of their livestock had gone missing. A very good gather information roll found a kid who said he'd seen a little blue man riding a giant black spider. A very good knowledge roll said that was probably a mite.
After resting and preparing for a couple days, they set off for the castle. Once there, they did see a skeleton laying out in the open and scattered the bones just to be safe. Inside, they found a number of spiders, mites and centipedes. The mites attempted to use prestidigitation to scare the players off or slow them down with limited success. It didn't take too long to clear the mites out.
In the castle basement, they found an odd hole leading deep underground and decided to see if there was anything down there worth reporting to the king. The tunnel lead into a vast network of caves and the players stumbled into a group of stirges (a random encounter). Unfortunately, a series of bad rolls left one character with 1 con, and another with -1. The remaining player ran back to town and got the local druid to help haul the other two out. They immediately left for the city where the king payed to have the dead character raised (although he put that on their tab, so it wasn't completely free). They sent some people back to the castle to brick that hole up.
The king now has to send away for a new diamond, so it'll be a couple months before such a speedy res is possible again.
The first character death made us reconsider the raise spells. I don't want to ban them, and it won't be too long before they'll be able to afford them on their own anyway, but there should be some consequence to dying.
The dead character's player and I came up with the idea of a table of effects that would apply to the raised character. Most of them are purely RP issues, although there are a couple of mechanical effects. We'll see how that goes next time.
I've already got that set up. The king has already given them 100k each, but that's not exactly in cold hard cash and they can only spend it on building up the town. They have their own personal money they can spend on gear. I'd have no problem letting them put their personal money into building projects, but it won't be easy to go the other direction.
I'm also thinking about putting in some treasures that apply to their kingdom account rather than just their personal wealth. An example would be a vein of silver. Such things would require some investment to develop though.
David knott 242 wrote:
That might work, as long as you don't want to run a sandbox campaign with no end point (or usually even any long term plans on the part of the GM).
Also, there's no reason to assign CRs to deities. Plus, there may be nothing to do here and now, but what about over there where the characters have never been before (say, on another plane)?
Block Knight, I wouldn't mind them saying Golarion (or any other specific setting) only goes up to 35 (or whatever), but if you're going to publish a whole book on epic levels, made to be widely useable even outside of Golarion, then both of those arguments you mentioned are somewhat valid. Everything published by Paizo that isn't setting details is meant to be used in homebrew games as well as Golarion.
If that meant they had to say "Well, here's the progressions for however many levels you want. These have only been tested up to 35 though." that'd be fine.
Also, there are people that would stop playing (or at least lose some interest) if the character advancement suddenly stopped, even if the characters continued to do other stuff. I know, because I'm one of them. Character advancement, in a mechanical as well as story sense, is an important part of the game to me.
All the "NO EPIC LEVLS!!1!" arguments just sound like one-true-wayism to me.
While I may or may not agree if someone said that Paizo doesn't need to produce an actual epic levels handbook (and I definitely do agree that Mythic is looking like a good thing), saying that no one needs levels past 20 is just flat out wrong.
Push/drag weight isn't a very good measure of what kind of damage you can do.
To move 165 tons with a coefficient of friction of 0.6 across a horizontal surface takes about 880,000 newtons of force. If all that force were concentrated into a 2'x2' area, that gives about 2,400,000 pascals of pressure. That's not enough to break human skin (15,000,000 pascals). That's "put your head against a wall and push" though.
Whether or not that could shear the nails holding the wall down is a separate question that I don't quite know enough to answer. (Shear strength is still measured in pascals, but I don't know what area to apply the force to to compare.)
I just want to throw in that not everyone cares about WBL. Some people see it as a guideline for creating higher level characters and not much more. I don't think my group has ever even looked at the WBL table any other time. For such games, there's nothing stopping a crafter from crafting for the group except time, money and how nice of a guy he is (not that I think that's a bad thing). If we make it that far in our current AP, I'll be crafting for the NPCs in the group too, but my character is a crafting specialist so I feel it's balanced overall.
If a year of regular life is CR 1, most humans will not see level 7. If a year of training is CR 2, most trained humans will not see level 8 (or if they keep training into old age, maybe level 9), but they'll hit level 2 or 3 faster.
The idea that XP can only be gained in life-threatening experiences undermines a huge variety of possible games (political games, for example). Obviously the system is set up so that such experiences are worth more, but they should not be the only way to gain XP.
Also, if a wizard school has summoning battles, they probably also have the clerics come by to practice their cure spells afterwards.
There was some question about how a ring of invisibility was supposed to work. If you take everything literally, you have to say a command word, then you become invisible for 3 minutes (which messes with it's intended use), but the ring is priced at twice the expected price, so there's some room to change such details, but there's nothing in the ring's description about any such changes.
Anyway, it'd be a good example item for breaking down all the pricing and usage details.
Okay. I've got to put on my mathematician hat here:
First, a nit pick. It's 5.8 * 10^19, not 58^19. Sometimes that's written as 5.8e19 though. (Type the two into Windows calculator to see the difference.)
Second, both you and JJ sound like you're misunderstanding the concept of infinity, or rather adding a lot of extra baggage to what is, by itself, a simple concept.
For example, why don't an infinite number of demons invade the material plane? Well, they do, but an infinite number of things spread over an infinite volume implies nothing about the density. So, an infinite number of demons invade the material plane, and you might get about 1 per planet. (An infinite number of planets times 1 demon per planet is an infinite number of demons.)
Before the obvious comment, if the world the campaign is on is the only inhabited world in an infinite material plane, that raises more questions on its own than the infinite demons do. But even in that case, an infinite number of demons fighting an infinite number of angels can come out to any number you want. (Infinity minus infinity isn't well defined.)
Now, the apples and oranges thing. You can have an infinite plane of apples. Just apples. Its size being infinite implies nothing about its contents. The infinite plane of apples might actually only have two apples in it. (Just one and it'd be the infinite plane of apple.) No oranges anywhere in sight. An infinitely large plane with just apples in it could not have anything happen there.
If you want to get quantum about this and say that there's a slight chance of an apple spontaneously changing into an orange, well, that's true enough in the real world (assuming an infinite plane of apples existed in the real world), but it's not necessarily true in a fantasy game where an infinite plane of apples could exist. After all, it's the plane of apples. Why would there be an orange there?
If you still want quantum oranges in the infinite plane of apples, there's still a problem. It will happen, and it will happen an infinite number of times, but now you have to talk about the expected density of oranges. Because the probability of such a change is so low, the average orange will be exceedingly rare, as in unimaginably vast distances between any two oranges (on average). So yes, if you accept that quantum mechanics applies to other planes of existence, then anything can happen, but it's not like you'll actually see it happen. Such events will be too far apart.
Again before obvious comments about quantum mechanics being irrelevant, I'd like to point out that the same argument would apply to examples such as why wouldn't some demon skip the war and go hang out in Elysium. Well, either demons don't do that, meaning even with infinitely many demons none of them leave, or that some would, but then you have to consider not how many do (still infinitely many) but how dense the demons on Elysium would be (extremely sparse).
Now, I like infinite planes better because of three things. First, there's no edge. (Ok, so a finite plane can have no edge too by wrapping it around, which is also fun.) Second, because it doesn't matter how far you go in any one direction, there's always more in that direction. (Not that that's ever come up, but I'm imagining a wizard with interplanetary teleportation trying to get as far away as possible.) Third, because paradoxically, an unimaginably large plane is harder to imagine than an infinite plane (but I realize that that's probably only true for mathematically minded people, if not just for mathematicians).
Takes off mathematician hat.
Slightly more on topic, I know that's not how create demiplane works. It would be neat if a mythic version expanded on its own, at whatever rate the devs feel is balanced.
Well, brewing some mythic sake (and then using it to help kill a mythic beast) certainly gained one mythological character a new mythic level (and a nifty new sword, which probably added another level).
Also, if you accept some anime as examples of mythic campaigns, several such characters did have (roughly) daily limits on their abilities at low levels. (Yuusuke from Yuu Yuu Hakusho could only fire his spirit gun once or twice a day until he got stronger. I'm sure I could find other examples.)
Hercules was crazy strong, but he only held up the sky for a little while.
Also, while some mythic abilities draw from the daily uses pool, I imagine not all of them do.
A good example of something already mentioned would be can you really make a ring of three wishes at level 7 (as soon as you get forge ring)?
More generally, can you overcast by using the +5 DC to make a wondrous item that duplicates a spell you don't qualify for yet? For example, a thingamajig of greater create demiplane 1/day could be as cheap as 15,300 gp, something a party could scrounge for by level 5 or 6. (Even if you'd make any particular example more expensive, there are others.)
Do all spells on an item have to be the same CL? (Items in the main books say no, but the question comes up.)
When/how should the price reduction for class/race/etc limits be applied?
Can you make a candy of CLW (or more generally, any wondrous item that duplicates the effect of another craft feat)?
I don't think I've seen any questions about it, but a run through of how the dwarven wizard favored class bonus, the hedge magician trait, the arcane builder discovery and the cooperative crafting feat interact could be useful (really more how does cooperative crafting work with everything else). Edit: Oh yeah, throw the accelerated crafting option and the crafting while traveling option in there too. Which reminds me that there's been some question on whether or not the accelerated crafting option actually lets you get more done in a day, or if it only lets you waste less of your day doing it.
An overview of what is covered by the command-word pricing, use-activated pricing and continuous pricing. (As an example, the sparkwake starknife seems to be priced as a command-word item even though it doesn't need a command word.)
Also, does the duration multiplier apply just to continuous items or to use-activated items too?
Under what conditions do you apply the slotless multiplier? (Lanterns will still work just sitting around or hung on your backpack, but don't use that multiplier.)
How would you price a swift action item, or an item that takes a full round action to use? What about other forms of restrictions?
What if the original spell had a long casting time or other balancing factor?
What kinds of items need a 24-hour attunement period? (The only ones in the book are the non-permanent stat-booters.)
Any guidelines the people who make magic items professionally use for determining what makes for balanced items. For example, no personal range spells, or add some restrictions to any continuous buffs. (Of course, that's a bit beyond what you're asking for.)
Guidelines for allowing the players to more easily make custom items (probably more restrictive than the GM guidelines given in the main book) would be a very nice addition. Of course, I realize that no reasonable guidelines would be enough to completely remove the "GM permission required" tag (not that anything is strictly available without GM permission), but something that would make GMs more comfortable with allowing custom items at all.
There were a lot of questions raised in this thread.
Research material ;D
(Ok, ok... I'll stop there. I've been stuck reading TvTropes for the past few hours. :P And dang it, even after all that, I feel like I forgot one good example of low-level mythic characters.)
Samurai Jack is definitely mythic (and probably good inspiration for a number of martial abilities).
+1 to the following:
Also, a martial character should be able to deflect targeted spells with their hands or weapons. They should probably also be able to do the anime trick of slicing into an oncoming area effect to avoid it without moving.
Oh yeah, and there should definitely be a craft artifact ability in there somewhere.
Uh, yes. It's an actual question. To be more specific, imagine a feat that said "You can scrounge up 1000 gp per day of work up to a maximum of 30% of your WBL." That should be a bit better than any one crafting feat (rough estimate of percent value, no spell requirements, etc). Yes, it's powerful. Would every character ever take it? No. Is it more powerful than Leadership? Not really.
What could you buy with an extra 30%? Well, just as an example, a 10th level character should have around 62,000 gp. If they spend a bit more than 25% of that on a weapon, they could afford a +3 weapon. With 30% extra, if they spent all the extra on their weapon, they could afford a +4. They should gain enough money over the next level to afford that sometime before they level up anyway. That doesn't sound too bad for the price of a feat. (+1 hit and +1 damage with a specific weapon isn't out of line for a feat.)
You've only just now given an actual argument, so now I can actually address that.
Not quite. The game does assume WBL, but only roughly. After all, it's not as if the players suddenly gain 20,000 gp when they advance from level 10 to 11.
Agreed, more or less. (I've heard 20 points about as often as I've heard 15, but I don't think there's a huge difference between the two.)
Agreed, to a point. CR assignment isn't exactly a science. See all the discussions on what creatures are over or under marked.
They may all be stated by the devs, but they aren't as rigid as you make them out to be.
Also, remember that the players are using up finite resources to be able to craft items. Feats are some of the rarest and most valuable resources in the game (the most feat-heavy character, a human fighter, only gets 22 feats by level 20). Many players don't feel it's worth it to take item crafting feats over other feats. (Quite a few wizards will take craft wondrous though.)
Again, the devs made this change intentionally and have stated that magic items are supposed to be easy to craft. They obviously (well, obviously to me) feel that this isn't so unbalanced and doesn't need any changes.
So, I don't feel you've demonstrated that item crafting is objectively broken.
Edit: Ok, so I know that took me a while to type up, but still... Ninja'd x21 :P
Maybe the devs don't acknowledge it because it isn't as objective as you think. I've personally never seen any issues with item crafting. I intend to make a full-on item-crafting specialized wizard in our upcoming Jade Regent campaign, so I'm going to try and go out of my way to get full use out of the rules. Will I break the game doing that? I doubt it, but check back in in a few months.
You keep saying it's objectively broken, but if it is, you should be able to provide objective evidence. So far, you've only provided subjective evidence where you've provided any evidence at all.
Again, I simply can't understand this hate and fear of item crafting. It's no where near as bad as some people make it out to be.
Would you consider a feat that says "+1 WBL if you spend a few days working for the extra money" to be broken?
BTW, the XP table is easier to extend if you double the extra XP needed from two levels back. It's not exact due to the way they rounded it, but it's easier than multiplying by (square root of 2). For example, to get from 9 to 10 takes 30,000 more xp, about twice what it takes to go from 7 to 8 (16,000 xp). (You can tell they rounded from the 32,000 xp expected.)
The simplest suggestion on how to move on is to limit any one class to 20 levels, but you can continue to multiclass or take some prestige classes.
That's all assuming you aren't playing E20 though.
I've always been interested in these ideas, but never really participated.
One thing that might be worth suggesting though is to start from the beginning, literally. As in, work out what happened at the beginning of time first, and then what happened in the next age, etc. No need to worry about the world the players would be playing in until much later. There's a system out there called Dawn of Worlds that's designed for this kind of approach, but I've never tried it and have no idea how appropriate it'd be for a community project.
Edit: If doing the history first doesn't sound like a good idea, I'd vote for top-down second. I know that's my preferred approach and it sounds like it'd work best for a community project, but I'm probably biased there.
While I'm thinking oof it, another suggestion would be to Wikify the whole thing from the beginning.
Ok, before I get started, I just want to give you fair warning that this is going to be a bit ranty and rambling.
I see a lot of posts on here about the interaction of mundane things and magical things. How, for example, a 100 foot free-fall should kill any human outright without magic. How evasion shouldn't let you dodge a fireball if there's nowhere to dodge to. (I'm sure there are tons more examples, but my memory's not all that great.)
What I think a lot of people are overlooking is that in a world with actual magic, there's really no such thing as "mundane" by our definition of the word. It's observable that all life force comes from another dimension of pure light (the positive energy plane to those that actually study this stuff). Dragons can still fly despite their size. And none of this glows when a wizard casts detect magic. Except that it probably does glow, just slightly, just as much as everything else so that it can't really be seen.
So those roots and herbs carefully combined create a tiny connection to the plane of fire, thus alchemist's fire. Or high level people have a stronger connection to the positive energy plane and really can take more physical punishment than lower level people. And none of this is Magic-with-a-captial-M. It's background, everyday stuff, but it just might be magic-with-a-little-m compared to our world.
Lou Diamond wrote:
I just wanted to mention that the AP creators have said that they put double the WBL-suggested wealth in APs (since they don't expect everyone to find everything). In fact, many people complain there's too much wealth (since some people do find everything). I'm not sure how you're finding too little though.
Using the stronghold builder's guidebook, here are some building prices. Note that this assumes your new town is in (or very near) a temperate forest 50-100 miles from a large metropolis (for a total +0% to most prices and 10% off wooden walls that aren't already free). This also assumes that the site is neither particularly rich or poor in materials (other than wood) or defensible positions. A mid-level druid or cleric can potentially offer some spells that could save a bit of money.
It takes one week per 10000 gp to build these. For those without the book, 1 stronghold space is roughly 400 square feet.
Small cottage (1 ss, 500 gp): Basically an empty wooden box.
Farm house (3.5 ss, 3300 gp): Room for a large family (up to 10 people), though not in comfort.
Barn (4 ss, 1750 gp): A big wooden box. Has stalls for 6 large animals.
Town house (3 ss, 1800 gp): Residents in a town house probably don't cook much for themselves. Also many people in a town like this live where they work.
A small inn (7 ss, 6050 gp): Something you might find in a small town. All on one floor. 10 cheap beds. 4 good ones, though one of those is used by the innkeeper.
A shop (4 ss, 1950 gp): The owner lives in the back. Includes work space, though some specific workshops may cost more.
A fancy inn (23 ss, 117860 gp): Stone outer walls, two floors. Something you might find in a nicer part of a large city. Has 14 modest beds (2 are used by the innkeeper and other staff), 14 nice beds and 4 very nice beds. Can feed and house 30 people easily. Needs 3 or 4 people to run efficiently.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
How boring. Do you also tell them heroes don't build castles? Or heroes don't fight town guards? Or heroes don't pick locks? Or...
Anyway, Cheapy, in all fairness, I agree that you can't dismiss the worst case, but I still say you can't write the rules assuming everyone is malicious either. I also think that the common shared wisdom of any group isn't always right. In the case of a true strike item (when appropriately limited) it seems like it was decided long ago that it would never happen (maybe back in 3.0) and has never actually been reevaluated in the current system and given a fair chance. The same goes for the magic item creation guidelines in general.
Whose good idea? Have you ever played one of those EA games that require you to be connected to the internet the entire time you're playing the game even though it's single player only? That's the kind of stuff that happens when you assume everyone's malicious and try to prevent it.
Have you ever bought one of the humble bundles? Pay what you want for DRM free games. Those total up to a million dollars or more over the course of the two week sale. That's what you get when you assume your customers (or players or whatever) are basically decent people.
Now if you just mean you should err on the side of less powerful options, then whose options? Should you make the enemies weaker? That makes the players stronger by comparison. Should you make the players' abilities and gear weaker? That makes the enemies stronger by comparison.
Also, buffing up may not be easier. It depends on the context. If the players have already lost all interest in that option, then no reasonable amount of buffing will get them interesting again, which is where I think the magic item creation system is close to ending up. (See also the monk and the teamwork feats, at least from what I've heard.)
Edit: It may be a good idea for engineers, but this isn't engineering.
Another way to get the XP values is this:
Looking at it this way, you could guess that the XP to get from 0 to 1 is half the XP to get from 2 to 3 (so 1,500 on the medium track).
My pet peeve is people endlessly repeating that "these are just guidelines," or "if you allow 1/day, you have to allow unlimited use." First, the guidelines work very well in 99% of cases. Most of the items in the books follow the guidelines with a few well-known exceptions. Second, the GM can allow partial use of the item creation guidelines without allowing everything automatically.
Is one good hit a day for ~3000 gp and an extra standard action really that broken?
Edit: Also, just because 5/day costs the same as unlimited use doesn't mean you have to allow either both or neither. You, as GM, can say that, for example, personal spells can't be made unlimited, but can be made 5/day. Adjust the guidelines to taste, but don't throw them out altogether.
Get creative with your item creation and you can avoid such a direct comparison to a ring of regeneration. Consider:
Demon Heart Amulet
This blackened iron amulet is shaped like an anatomically correct demon heart. The heart is hollow and has enough space to contain three doses of liquid. While filled with unholy water, the wearer heals 1 hp at the end of each round if they aren't already at full health. Each dose of unholy water is good for 10 hp, to a maximum of 30 hp per day. Any remaining unholy water evaporates at sunrise.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, infernal healing; Cost 600 gp
I have no idea how PDF pricing works, and I'll wait until I actually finish before I worry about it, but I was imagining something like $0.99
Edit due to ninjas: Yeah, it's full writeups like the specific weapons in the core book. I may pull some of the more generalizable ideas out in an appendix, but I really doubt I could make a sizable list of generic weapon abilities.