A more Savage Sandpoint. A new look at an old friend.

Game Master ZenFox42

Yeah "The Rule of Two" was what the GM settled on earlier to help speed things up when there is no per se clear direction for the group to take when faced with a situation.

Now that the group has four players, two votes isn't a clear majority. I was just wondering if anyone is bothered by that. No need to reply if you're not.

I am fine with two or raising it to three. Two is faster.

Evesk - for future reference, when you're Healing someone, you subtract their current Wounds from the roll. Had I remembered that, you would have only healed 2 of Evesk's Wounds.

It was my fault for forgetting, so I'm not going to ret-con that, but I'm letting you know so that in the future, between the two of us, hopefully it won't happen again.

ALL - we got another bite in Recruitment! The new PC is a Ranger, and one thing they get is one free re-roll on *every* Failed Fighting or Shooting roll, which should really help in combat. I'll work him in as soon as I can.

Oh okay so the number wounds basically increases the difficult for the spell.

Divvying up the basement loot (sorry, Crastor, they found this before you showed up) :

A potion of minor protection
2 potions of minor healing

Y'all can decide amongst yourselves who carries these, but the healing potions should be available to whoever needs them when the need arises.

Thieves’ tools (resale : 15 gp)
Silver earrings (12 gp each)
300 gp
10 pp = 100 gp

For a total of 439 gp, or 110 gp each.

Update your character sheets!

About Light :

So, I ignored it in the basement because you weren't going to be there a long time, but (probably not a spoiler) at some point you're probably going to be exploring somewhere where's there's no light, and I'd like to address that now.

As long as one PC is carrying a light source, there is sufficient light to see your "immediate surroundings". Since we're in TotM, I won't put a specific radius on that. But suffice it to say that an archer within their maximum Short Range of the party would *not* be visible to the party.

The PC carrying the light source should not need two hands in combat (two-handed sword, sword+shield, etc.).

Any volunteers to carry and/or to hold?

Available light sources :
Torch : 1 cp(not tracked), 1 lb, lasts 1 hour (can be put out by rain and high winds, FWIW)
Lantern (avg) : 10 gp, 2 lb, 6 hours/pint oil
Oil : 1 sp / pint, 1 lb
Sunrod : 2 gp, 1 lb, lasts 6 hours
Everburning torch : 110 gp, 1 lb

One Everburning torch would be the simplest solution. If everyone contributes, it would cost only 22 GP each. Everyone please let me know if this is/is not satisfactory. If not, please offer an alternate.

P.S. - if anyone's PC has any kind of enhanced vision, please let me know...

It seems like Velrek is in the thick of things and might need to cary one potion. :)

I'm happy to pitch in the 22GP but the guy with the 2 handed sword may not be the best to carry the magic torch.

Jzero can kick in 22 gp for the EBT, and he is a good one to carry it generally, except on the rare occasions he needs to use his bow. FWIW, the torch looks like a burning torch, but the 'flames' emit no heat. So Jzero could tie the torch to a short rope tied to his belt and if he needs to shoot his bow, he can let the torch dangle from the rope, still giving off light and fire his arrows; at least that seems reasonable. Since his hand-to-hand monk style of fighting allow him to use either hand or other body parts in melee, such as elbows, knees, kicks, etc., then he should be able to fight with the torch.

Jzero has plenty of encumbrance left over to carry a healing potion. He is likely to be in the thick of fights too, so having one for emergencies makes sense, although if anyone else wishes to claim the same we can roll.

Reminds me of a Jeff Grubb story where he created a character (thief in the 1st edition system) and named him Highroll (hobbit I think). When it came time to divide loot if multiple people wanted an item, he'd say, "High roll gets it?" If everyone agreed, he'd say, "In that case, Highroll picks up the item and puts it in his pack." :)

Hah! I remember that story! :)

And yes, back int he day we got creative with the old everburning torch. It got affixed to shields, helmets, to the haft of a spear or other polearm, dangling from a belt, etc.

Perhaps we do not need the Ever Burning Torch (or EBT) because Evesk has Halo.

Halo: An Aasimar, as a Limited Free Action, can once per day summon Celestial Light which illuminates an area. The Aasimar basically casts Minor Light as an Innate Power that manifests as a halo shaped light centered upon their head. When this is manifested, the Aasimar gains a Free Reroll on Tests made against Evil creatures and their abilities and powers. This trait replaces Darkvision with Low Light Vision.

However this creates a Minor Light which is not, as far as I can find, outlined anywhere within the guidelines. The Light spell is defined as follows:

Light (Limited)
... Rank: Novice
... Power Points: 1
... Range: Smarts
... Duration: 10 minutes
... School: Evocation
... Trappings: Holy Sunlight

... Light creates a bright illumination in a Large Blast Template. Mobile (+1) The caster can move the template at a Pace equal to their Arcane skill Die Type as a Limited Free Action each round. They can also attach it to an inanimate object when first cast if desired. It cannot be cast on a living being.

Glow (+1 Modifier)
This gives off light of an appropriate color for its Trapping (or caster's choice). This creates a soft light in a Small Blast Template centered upon the target, and lasts until the power expires. It subtracts 2 from their Stealth totals and negates 1 point of Illumination penalities for those attacking the glowing creature.

Okay so maybe the Minor Light is more like a Glow however Light produces the equivalent effect of Daylight within its area while Glow does not further if we compare a Torch to the Blast Templates we get the following:

Torch (4" radius) (8 yard radius) (16 yard diameter)

Small Template (1" radius) (2 yard radius) ( 4 yard diameter)
Medium Template (2" radius) (4 yard radius) ( 8 yard diameter)
Large Template (3" radius) (6 yard radius) (12 yard diameter)

Thus a common Torch is better than even a Large Blast Template making one wonder once more as to what a Minor Light ought to be.

It should also be noted that they do not define the duration of the Minor Light which is basically because they simply never define Minor Light.

My thought is as follows:

The Halo creates dim illmination in a 4" radius that lasts for 24 hours or until terminated as a Free Action whichever comes first.

Still the ultimate question is what will you do as the GM when it comes to this aspect that is not clearly defined.

Addendum: Thus Halo becomes a Minor Light because it does not actually create daylight and in fact creates far less and it also replaces Dark Vision 10" or 20 yards with the equivalence of a Torch that last just as long as Dark Vision would combined with Low Light Vision

Ooo noticed an error -- 4" radius of Normal Light with an additional 4" of Dim Illumination giving a range of 8" when combined with Low Light Vision thus a near to substitution for 10" of Dark Vision. Unless the GM wants to extend it to a 5" radius of Normal Light with an additional 5" of Dim Illumination.

However because it is shareable reducing it to 4" of Normal Light and 4" of Dim Illumination seems quite fair and equally mimics the common Torch.

It took me a relatively long time (maybe 30 minutes) to figure this out, and I got it only when I searched the SWPF Core Rules for "minor power" instead of "minor light" (I would have gotten it much faster if I had thought to search for "innate power", which Daylight is explicitly described as) :

Any "minor" Power doesn't require a roll to activate, and activates as if only a Success had been rolled.

Other than that, the Power acts the same. So your innate Daylight has the illumination and duration of the regular Light Power, 10 minutes. And in the Daylight description, it says you can only cast it once per day.

Now, under Innate Powers, it says that "Creatures do not need to spend Power Points to maintain Innate Powers", but I think they meant that to apply to last the duration of a long combat, not to turn a 10 minute Power into an 8+ hour Power, so I'm not going to allow that. The maximum number of Maintains per use of a racial Innate Power is 2.

So, Everburning Torch it is!

P.S. - while Evesk referenced Halo, that's described as coming from his Daylight ability (in my SWPF Advanced Player Guide book), which is why I addressed it.

Okay so the Halo not only downgrades Darkvision to Low Light Vision but it also downgrades the Daylight spell-like ability from Ranged to Self. Then it gives a minor buff. Then you are downgrading the Innate Power from being 1/day continuous to 1/day maximum +1 continence.

That all being said -- can I make a counter purposal in that instead of capping it at a static 2 how about relating it to Spirit and capping it at half the character's Spirit Die much like the 1/2 die concept that many other powers and what not use? This does basically the same thing to a degree, it still can only be activated 1/day (major limitation) but they can then maintain it for a bit longer with the max continence being basically 2 at a d4 to 6 times at d12 or 20 minutes to 1 hour.

We still need the Ever Burning Torch or get someone to cast that spell on something else -- like maybe my sword ;-)

If no then okay but it did not hurt to ask.

Or all you silly humans could just learn to see in the dark.

Evesk - so, you pointed out all the limitations to Halo (which are built-in to the rules), and proposed that the number of Maintains be Spirit/2 to compensate.

Thing is, that would also affect Daylight, from which Halo is derived, and doesn't have any of the other limitations, which would make it more powerful than my houserule.

And, 2 free Maintains allows for 30 total minutes of use, not 20, so it's better than you thought. If you use it in one combat, and another combat happens relatively soon after, I'll allow that it's still active.

FWIW, Halo only provides a free re-roll on *Test* rolls, not Trait rolls (like Fighting). Just wanted to be sure you were aware of the distinction.

Of the 12 character races listed in the Core and Advanced Player rules, this houserule only affects 2 of them, and none of the monsters.

But, if you feel this is too limiting, you can swap out Halo for its original Darkvision, or pick a different alternate ancestral ability if you wish.

P.S. - you may have just been being facetious, but having a permanent Light spell cast on a sword by an Artificer would cost 100 GP, but by DaRules it must be Masterwork, so an additional 300 GP plus the regular cost of the sword. So the stick is much cheaper.

Okay thanks yeah with all that you have outlined the flavor of a Halo is simply not worth the trade off and it was mostly the flavor I was going for not the mechanical benefits. So yeah I will drop Halo (especially since I have not used it yet) and go back to Dark Vision with the normal Daylight ability that can last up to 30 minutes but only useable 1 per day.

Also would it be possible to use that Daylight ability and have Evesk cast it on himself or his Sword for instance. Aka apply the Modifier Range Touch [-1] and Modifier Mobile [+1] for a no cost adjustment to the Light spell?

Now as for having someone else casting it upon my sword, no I was not being facetious so thanks for that information.

Since DaRules don't say you can't apply Modifiers to your Innate Power, you can.

DaRules say that weapons and armor must be Masterwork, but other items (rings, amulets, etc.) must just be "exceptional examples of their type that cost 50% extra", so I'm imagining some special rare wood (as opposed to just an oak branch) for the Everburning Torch that costs 5 GP for a stick's worth to buy, so +10 GP to the sale price.

Your alt-Masterwork doesn't translate well to SW, because here MW only grants AP+1 to weapons, and reduces the Min STR requirement for shields and armors by one die type. In SW, MW doesn't actually grant *any* bonuses or special abilities like Keen, it just prepares the item to hold magic.

But, I like the 5x cost instead of a flat 300 GP. For every weapon, that's cheaper. But starting with chain mail armor, it's worse than the flat +300 GP. I'll think about that...

Thanks for the info on Modifiers -- so using those modifiers could Evesk cast the Light upon himself then? I mean he is a pretty exceptional example of his type ;-)

-------------------------------------------------

Note Masterwork does not add any of those bonuses in the DnD nor Pathfinder systems. This Masterwork system is anagolous to any system and becomes an add on.

The question is simply can magic add a +1 To Hit, +1 Damage and/or +1 AC or does it only add specific spell-like things to items?

Basically this system augments Masterwork to allow it apply some of the bonuses one could only get via magic thus allowing a PC to add a mundane +1 To Hit, +1 Damage, and/or +1 AC to an object as well as other features that a normal item might not possess.

Yep the x5 cost is cheaper for less expensive items and more expensive for the more expensive items and I am glad you like it. As to me it never made sense that it cost the same 300gp to masterwork a dagger as it does to masterwork a Great Sword?

As the amount of effort and time that it goes into making a Great Sword of the same quality of a Dagger is considerably more which means the amount of Masterwork needed is considerably more and yet you pay the same flat fee for it.

So basically this system simply applied IMO a more logical approach to how Masterwork could work and I thought it was a lot better overall as it gave low level players a means to more easily upgrade their gear (and have stuff they can spend money) ;-) as weapon and armor are still mundane in nature with all the limitations it has.

In the Pathfinder 1st edition rules, the everburning torch is just a stick that has a spell called Continual Flame cast on it. This spell is a 2nd or 3rd level spell that creates the effect of a permanent light of a torch without any heat. It has a material component of 30 gp worth of ruby dust to cast. So the 110 gp is the cost of the ruby dust and the service fee to the 3rd to 5th level character to cast the spell.

Presumably, something similar could be done with the appropriate power in SW, but I'll leave that to others to consider.

Evesk - so, I've analyzed the alt-MW system. I won't go into the gory details, or mention any of the houserules I'd impose on it, except :

Houserule : MW and spells would not stack. It would be way too easy to get a *very* powerful weapon for the vast majority of weapons at only 1/3 the price of only using spells.

First off, bonuses in SW never go above +2 per weapon quality (to hit, damage), because...
A +2 to hit is equivalent to increasing your Fighting or Shooting die by 2 (like d6 to d10).
A +2 to damage is equivalent to increasing both your Damage dice by 1 each.
--> This isn't PF where a +1 typically means a 5% increase, and +2 means 10%.

Either one of these by themselves costs *much* less by using MW than spells, even for greatswords, and it apparently is not difficult to find someone to craft the items.

Increasing Toughness by +1 costs less than using a spell, even for plate armor. Increasing it by +2 costs less than a spell for everything except plate.

Conclusion :
If alt-MW exists, there's never *any* need for spell-created bonuses to weapons and armor, because it can reach +2 easily and cheaply, which is the system max.

So, thanks for the info, it looked interesting and promising, until I dug into it a little deeper.

I may still keep the "adding MW increases the cost by *5 instead of +300". How do you justify that plate armor, which would cost 800 GP under the existing rules, but 2500 GP with the mod?

Jzero - there is no "permanent light" spell in SW. Reverse engineering it, if it costs 110 to buy, it cost 55 to make. I found that a pound of Darkwood costs 5 GP to buy (which is the weight of the torch), so that would make the spell component 50 GP.

One-shot items (scrolls, potions) use the following formula for the cost to make : 25 * (Power's Rank) * (Power's PP)

Which if applied to the Light Power would be 25 * 1 * 2 = 50, which works out. I guess in this case at least, the duration of the Power was extended to permanent for no extra cost?

FWIW, I'm doing an extensive analysis on the magic items in SWPF to see if there's any rhyme or reason to their costs. Just because I'd like to have formulas to calculate the cost of any items the players want that aren't in the book...

Okay first off this Masterwork system was designed for DnD/Pathfinder not for Savage Worlds and so the concept would have to change for Savage Worlds based on the major differences between those systems. I was just presenting the DnD/Pathfinder version and was going to let you extrapolate that into Savage Worlds if it sounded good and the extrapolation was even possible.

Next if you were talking about the DnD/Pathfinder systems then I do not think you understood that while Masterwork and Magic Stack you still could not get a weapon that has more than +5/+5 as the utlimate cap on any weapon whether obtained via Mundane, Magic or a combination of Mundane and Magic would still be a +5/+5. Now yeah you could still adorn it with other magic but the Magic cap was (or should be reduced as well) to a +7 (or it could be reduced to a +5, and/or one could apply a gradient increase for each additional magic plus added to an object much like is done with Masterwork. This would cause making powerful magic items much more costly which all-things-considered they ought to be. Further keep in mind getting better than a Mundane +2/+2 boost is (or should be) much harder to obtain and get very much harder each step up that ladder. But yeah I can see where some GMs would find it a bit too much but then I run giving out magic a lot more different than most GMs as well and again it was designed for DnD/Pathfinder and so I did not explain how the magic side changed as magic in DnD/Pathfinder and Savage Worlds is also drastically different.

So yeah your modifications to fit it into Savage Worlds are well thought out and was something I was leaving up to you if you thought the concept was a viable one.

As for your points about the cap, I am wondering now if the cost of MW per teir in Savage Worlds, due to the mechanics you pointed out, ought to be increased some. Maybe a x7 or x10 per Tier with a cap of maybe only 1 Tier per aspect. So for x49 or x100 (instead of x25) you could get a weapon that had a +1 To Hit and a +1 Damage. While a suit of armor would simply be capped at a +1 Toughness. Keep in mind that in DnD/Pathfinder a +5/+5 masterwork would basically be semi-equivalent to a +2/+2 in Savage Worlds so only using the x5/x25 in Savage Worlds is quite a bit less costly than using the x5/x25/x125/x625/x3125 looking at that maybe you can use that for a rationalization of why the Savage World Multiplier should be higher. Note a direct extrapolation would mean that the 1 Tier increase should cost x15 and a 2 Tier increase should cost x75 which as you can see might make adding Magic more viable for more items than applying Mundane Masterwork. Still then again not everyone has access to magic nor does everyone trust magic and Masterwork still holds a prestige element to it as would something being magical.

As for how I would justify that a mundane increase to Plate Armor costing alot more -- would be for the very reason that you felt that using the multiplier made sense. Do you know how much more effort it takes to make a full suit of Plate Armor now you are making a full suit of Masterwork Plate Armor so that fixed increase was way to low. I am not sure where that fixed 300gp increase should be aimed at to make it viable but wherever that is aimed is where you should kind of base your multiplier off of which is why I said perhaps for Savage Worlds it should be increased. Further if you implement the following paragraph as well then yeah making Mundane Masterwork (max +1 per aspect) for some things is going to be more expensive than the quicker easier method of using magic. Then it becomes a balance or a decision does one apply masterwork to the item or simply use magic to make it better or use both.

Oh and again if you remove the requirement of an object needing to be Masterwork and simply apply that concept that it needs to be made of special materials in order to hold the magic, which does not take Masterwork to do, then the multipler for objects that are receiving magic could be lower than the multiplier used for Masterwork and one would still have the option of combining the multiplers if one wanted to make it out of special materials so it can hold magic and wanted to apply Masterwork to it as well. Yeah just a thought.

Again I still think your adjustments thus far to slide this concept into Savage Worlds are quite sound and I hope my speculation on the topic might have helped to refine that some.

Note I thought there was a Modifier that would extend the duration of a spell.

Still IMO the modifier that would take it from a 10 minute spell to a permanent spell seems like it would be at least a +3 but maybe a +2 as I see the Extended Modifier working as follows for a 10 Minute duration, +1 1 Hour duration, +2 1 Day duration, and +3 Permanent duration. Note this is only applicable to the Light Spell as some modifiers appear to be easier on some spells than on others while other modifiers are simply not allowed on some spells at all.

That makes the math as follows: 25 x Power Rank (1) x Power Points (4) or 100gp making the material component cost a mere 10gp for the material which could have been made of some much cheaper but higher quality wood such as maybe yew wood or oak as I think your cost for the material component far to extravagant when you compare it to the base cost of the mundane material. Note this is also assuming that formulae was meant to calculate the market price and not the cost of making the item. If that formulae was instead meant to calculate the cost then yeah the Everburning Torch is perhaps far to inexpensive or was made in a different way.

Keep in mind if you really limit a spell, such as a only Light Spell that can only be cast with a permanent duration perhaps you could reduce the Power Point cost by an additional 1 point making the cost for the magic to be 75gp. Still more than its current price when the material is added and the cost is doubled but it is closer.

So yeah how feasible are those magic items that they created, I would guess that most of them are not actually feasible all-things-considered (aka not using funky math to make it work) and I would be greatly surprised if even half of them are feasible.

I will parse your MW post and process it tomorrow, but quick question : isn't the point of alt-MW to be cheaper than the magic needed to provide the same bonuses? If so, then it's a balancing act to make it somewhat cheaper, but not so cheap it removes the need for magic. Where's the optimal fraction of (MW price)/(magic price)?

Other than for one-shot items like potions and scrolls, there are *NO* rules for pricing magic items. A *few* items that are just permanent spells sort of follow the formula :

cost-to-create = 1000*(Power Rank)*(total PP put into the Power)+1000

So by this an Everburning Torch would cost 2000 GP!

But if you look at the magic items lists at the end of the Core book, many of them don't even list what Power is used to create them. I'm guessing they provided the items because they were iconic PF items, and priced them according to their overall usefulness and in-game impact.

No the Alt-MW was not necessarily meant to be cheaper it was meant to be a better view of how much Masterwork ought to cost as well as give characters a means to gain access to nicer items earlier on than could later have magic applied to them augmenting them futher.

The issue was basically IMO that the 300gp fixed cost made absolutely no sense when you applied it to both a Dagger and a Great Sword equally. The multiplier system therefore removed this anomoly and replaced it with something that actually made sense.

Also have you ever heard of the Legacy Weapons and Objects presented in DnD (2e I think)? These were magically items that were tailored to a character and that started out mundane but grew in power as the character grew in power and did things to unlock the additional power within their Legacy Item. Personally not only did I find this a phenomenal concept but I have used it frequently to reward some players that have created highly detailed backgrounds or indepth concepts for their character and/or later on if they did some exceptional roleplaying.

Further I have found almost every player has enjoyed the concept of the Legacy Item as it gave them a toy early on that would not just become a use and discard item but something that they could invest playing energy into and keep building it up as they built up their character. And the really nice things is the GM can give one these to a 1st-Level player and it does not unbalance a game at all.

Lastly the GM can make it a fuzzy peach and not denote what powers can be added to the item later on and simply negotiate that with the player so as to help tailor that item even more so to the character that player is playing again without unbalancing the game as things progress.

Hey GM_ZenFox42 would you like me to go through and catalog all of the modifiers that are being applied to the various spells so you can have a better idea of perhaps what a modifier to any specific spell might should be worth based on the overall power amplification it is creating when compared to what has been applied to other spells? If yes can you open a MS Excel spreadsheet or would I need to send it to you as a PDF?

I added the view-only link for the new map to Jzero's header.

Regarding magic items, I'm pointing how things work in PF to give some sense of what is normal in the original system of the adventure path (AP). Since this is the same adventure path as was published originally for PF, I would expect there would be reasonable parallels implied for SW. If SW lacks specific rules for such things, then I'd suggest not fussing too much with finding parallel methods for making magic items at exactly the same cost, as long as it doesn't create any serious balance questions of the sort "If they can do X then why can't I do Y?"

We can always just carry real torches or purchase a few lamps and some oil, but in a world where magic is so well developed, it makes sense that someone would work out a way to have light that doesn't require constant refueling. And at 110 gp, an everburning torch is not exactly something every household could afford. But PCs need something to spend their money on and so maybe just rule that the everburning torch is created in secret by some industrious wizards who don't share the spell they use with anyone.

Bottom line, I am prepared to accept a certain amount of ad hoc availability of magic items without needing detailed rules based explanations of how they come to be, including pricing rules. While PF does allow PCs to eventually have the ability to create their own magic items and detailed rules about how to create each magic item, we as SW PCs don't necessarily need to make magic items to have fun running the adventure.

I would focus on the rules for creating stock magic items like enchanted weapons and armor. The main magic items Jzero might be interested in will be a way to get magic bonuses to his hand-to-hand attacks and maybe some kind of magic that gives him the benefit of some armor but without actually being armor, such as from a ring or amulet. Even that is only something to get eventually if normal advancement doesn't adequately prepare him to fight the monsters that will be thrown at us at higher levels.

Yeah Jzero I see your points and while nice -- the problem comes in when the players have the ability to make those same said items -- you either prohibit players from making certain items or you figure out how they could make that self-said-same item. The latter of course is preferable as that means your system applies to everyone NPC and PC alike and thus is hoepfully balanced allowing the enemy to do similar things to what the players can do.

Stepping away from that causes so many issues from a GMs point view that is becomes a major headache or you have to toss bunch of quality explanations out the window as they can no longer apply and it all becomes all willy nilly with no real rhyme or reason to it. This is why I prefer the structure that puts on logical fences that are applied to everyone NPC and PC alike and if the NPC ends up being able to do something then if the PCs are willing to pay the price that NPC did they can mimic that ability as well.

So when it comes to something minor like an Everburning Torch I do not see the NPCs sacrificing all that much to be able to produce such a thing as it is just a minor item. Someone wants to buy it would at least have some return on its costs at least equal to the cost of the item as part of a say a bigger deal. You make me so many of these and toss those in with that and I will pay you this much for that.

Since so many posts were made recently, I'm going to break them down...

Note I thought there was a Modifier that would extend the duration of a spell.

There is a mechanism to extend the duration, it's called Maintain.

Still IMO the modifier that would take it from a 10 minute spell to a permanent spell seems like it would be at least a +3 but maybe a +2 as I see the Extended Modifier working as follows for a 10 Minute duration, +1 1 Hour duration, +2 1 Day duration, and +3 Permanent duration.

SW created Maintain to deal with extended durations. Its philosophy does not allow for day-long or permanent spells (unless they're inherently permanent), especially at such a cheap increase in PP.

That makes the math as follows: 25 x Power Rank (1) x Power Points (4) or 100gp making the material component cost a mere 10gp for the material. Note this is also assuming that formulae was meant to calculate the market price and not the cost of making the item.

The rules explicitly state that the formula you gave is to calculate the *creation cost* of the item.

I think your last three quotes were trying to rationalize why the Light Power in an Everburning Torch is permanent. Don't worry about it, it just is.

The issue was basically IMO that the 300gp fixed cost made absolutely no sense when you applied it to both a Dagger and a Great Sword equally. The multiplier system therefore removed this anomaly and replaced it with something that actually made sense.

DaRules say that Masterwork melee and ranged weapons add 300 gp to the cost. Masterwork armor costs an extra 150 gp *per piece* (or +600 for full plate).

I'd be willing to drop the weapon cost to 150 gp, so adding MW to the most expensive weapon would cost half as much as adding MW to full leather armor, and MW full plate costs 6.8 *times* as much as a MW dagger. I believe that should be acceptable.

Thanks for the cataloging offer, but the only thing that makes sense to me is to use the modifiers' PP cost, which presumably accounts for their game utility.

I would expect there would be reasonable parallels implied for SW.

I have only purchased the first book which ends with the group at "3rd level" (3 Advancements). I have no idea if the adventures will provide magic items, or the GP to buy your own yet, and if so, how much. I will keep this in mind as I get the later books.

I would focus on the rules for creating stock magic items like enchanted weapons and armor.

That's easy : +1 to hit = 4000 GP, +1 damage = 3000 GP, +2 to hit = 12000 GP, +2 damage = 10000 GP

+1 Toughness = 3000 GP, +2 Toughness = 10000 GP
Toughness could increase beyond this (at an exponentially increasing cost), since it's not a "bonus" added to die rolls.

I have no problem with these being cast on a ring or something similar.

If it ends up the PCs have to pay for it, I'd even allow that the cost of the +1 bonus is subtracted from the cost of the +2 bonus.

Even (magic weapons and armor are) only something to get eventually if normal advancement doesn't adequately prepare him to fight the monsters that will be thrown at us at higher levels.

Yeah, I have no idea how SW designed the AP. Since SW's philosophy is so radically different than PF's (PF makes the PCs more powerful by giving them magic items, whereas SW makes the PCs *themselves* more powerful), I'll try to keep an eye out for how the PC's abilities are progressing compared to the threats they have to face.

When the players have the ability to make those same said items -- you either prohibit players from making certain items or you figure out how they could make that self-said-same item.

For items in the Core rules, they provide the cost and possible spells needed to create every item listed. Since I have yet to find any pattern to the cost of a "complex" magic item (beyond potions and scrolls), it may not be possible for players to create whatever magic items they can think of. Altho I may be on the track of how to put any single Power permanently into an item (if applicable)...

The latter of course is preferable as that means your system applies to everyone NPC and PC alike and thus is hopefully balanced allowing the enemy to do similar things.

I saw a post in a SW discussion board where it was pointed out that applying PC rules for item making to NPCs is not necessarily valid. The PC rules are to keep the gameplay more-or-less balanced, while NPCs could have different or additional rules in order to keep the magic item economy in check. But, all that being said, bad guys *are* PC-level characters.

Someone wants to buy it would at least have some return on its costs at least equal to the cost of the item.

*All* magic items cost half of what their market price is. Now, how much the dealer paid the crafter is unknown... :)

I understand the value of a magic item creating mechanism. I just think we need to temper that with giving the GM a break and focusing on the adventure when considering how much we want to quibble about what magic is available and its costs. Ultimately it is up to the GM, but I'm just saying I'm not worried about overall system consistency.

Thanks GM_ZenFox42 for that feedback much appreciated.

Jzero I do not think anyone is quibbling we are just discussing the guidelines on the side while playing the game. I know this is something that I appreciate players doing when I am the GM and I am sure if GM_ZenFox42 finds it tiresome or out of bounds for them they will say so as they seem pretty on top of things.

All in all I think the GM and we are learning a lot more about the system in general as well as how to apply what is and if there is anything that might should be tweaked to make the game smoother now or later on.

Actually, I think this particular discussion is done - I believe I have resolved Evesk's issues with the cost of "standard" MW items, and I have prices for weapons, armor, and rings that provide permanent +1 or +2 bonuses to Fighting, Shooting, Damage, Armor, Toughness, Parry, and Skills (I've been tweaking the system, so the values I gave to Jzero in my last post have changed a little).

On with the game!

Crastor - do you default in combat to using your shield? AFAICT (Can Tell), DaRules don't require both your hands to be free to cast, just that you're not Bound, so it shouldn't interfere with that.

Yes, my intent is to always have the shield and weapon out unless I am trying to deal with a trap or something similar.

Evesk and Crastor - we are using Theater of the Mind, the map is only for exploration purposes.

.

Yes I understood that part, but I also found a place I can get at least this area sectional map for Rise of the Runelords based on the map we can see. I then set it up in Roll20 which I could provide a link to for everyone. That is if you are wanting to use it. Further I can even give you GM status there so you can control all the NPCs and such. While the players can drop in a Token that represents their character. I also have a link to a online tool that makes tokens out of pictures so players can easily make their own circular token if they want.

So it is up to you, you can do pure theater of mind or I can set up combat maps to help everything be a bit easier to visualize. Aka I am willing to do the work so you can just sit back and focus on the game and the guidelines ;-). So totally up to you.

I really appreciate the offer, but I'm fine using TotM if everyone else is. I saw how much more work it was for PWGM in-game in terms of players asking details about the situation, locating icons, etc., and I wouldn't be able to confirm that someone accidentally moved more than allowed unless I kept numerous screenshots of the previous maps.

Your call you be the GM but usually the other GMs on PbP that I play under seem to trust that the players will not make mistakes or do not feel if they make a minor mistake that it will be a big deal -- but that is a guess on my part based on how I treat it -- still I do mine with an online game so a bit different than those doing it on PbP.

As for questions the biggest questions I get from using it are by folks new to Roll20 on how to get the Token set up and how to check ranges and such all of which I could easily answer. Still it is what it is

Oh note I used to do TotM but after asking my players (more than once) what would make the game more fun for them, they eventually said a map with tokens over doing TotM so I adopted and learned Roll20.

In Pathfinder, it is standard practice to allow what are called Monster Lore Rolls, which are knowledge checks using knowledge skills related to the general type of monster (undead, outsider, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, abomination, vermin, etc.). If the result is sufficient, the GM gives the player some information on what he/she/they might know about the creature.

Does Savage Worlds Pathfinder have anything similar? Looking through the Skill descriptions, only Occult mentions it can be used to check for knowledge of Golarion's monsters.

It might be good to at least describe the Sinspawn so we can properly visualize what we're up against. Maybe you did that in one of Velrek's spoilers. Then it might be good to at least say what folklore says about these so we have something more than just that we're attacking monsters.

We could look up Sinspawns in Archive of Nethys, but that is generally considered meta-gaming.

As for maps, I've made my preference for maps and tokens known, but it is the GM's call and I'll make do with that. I would point out that PWGM was running massive melees with lots of enemies. A small encounter with just five creatures would not be so complicated.

Oh we are fighting Sinspawn I thought we were fighting Goblins with Tridents ??

Jzero - yeah, I realized yesterday that I didn't describe the creatures in detail, just "dog-like humanoid", and that was in a Spoiler. I'll fix that tomorrow, I'm at the end of my on-the-computer day.

Regarding monster knowledge, SWPF doesn't seem to have a good skill for that. I can think of two options : create our own Skill "Knowledge,monster" or use Common Knowledge at -4 (-2 to know the monster's race name, -2 for any weaknesses).

Either way, I doubt many PC's have a very high Common Knowledge, and if we're playing by the rules, it would take 2 Advances just to get Knowledge,Monster up to a d6. Or someone/anyone/everyone could re-work their PC and put creation points into it.

None of these are great options, I'm open to feedback / new ideas.

Well Jzero did say:

only Occult mentions it can be used to check for knowledge of Golarion's monsters

.

Recapping an item within PfSW section so that it does not get overlooked as it was not something I was aware of prior to doing this.

Language can limit any skill that is dependent upon using speaking in a specific language in order to use it such as conveying information, verbal Intimidation, Persuasion, Taunting. Basically with a skill such as this you use whichever skill is lowest when speech is required as part of the action.

This restriction does not apply if one is communicating in their native tongue but only in their native tongue not simply another language that they know.

I'd say use Occult for most creatures, but give anyone an option to use common knowledge at a minus. The target number would depend on how common the monster is.

If someone has faith, that could be used for some of the monsters like undead or demons and other outsiders.

In PF 1E there were about six separate knowledge skills that could give knowledge of certain classes of monsters. It would be hard to one PC to be equally skilled at all of them, with the exception of classes that allowed a lot of skill points, like rogue.

If SW has rules for specialized knowledge, that might give players options as they advance to get better at recognizing some subset of monsters. As long as we have one or two PCs with some chance of knowing things about a new monster, we can get by.

In the meantime, I'd suggest just telling us what local folklore might suggest, so we have some idea but allow for that to be inaccurate, like maybe vampires are not afraid of garlic after all.

I take it jZero you did not look at my Pathfinder for Savage World Skills spoiler as I took all of the monster classes outlined within PF1e and added them to Savage World skills.

Oh we are fighting Sinspawn I thought we were fighting Goblins with Tridents ??

Dude, it says "Sinspawn" in the five spoiler names in the first round initiative post... ;)

Evesk - to be fair, it would have been a whole lot easier to see the monster types scattered among the SW Skills if you had listed only them, and not every possible PF skill.... I didn't notice them either until you said they were there in your last post, and then I searched the web page with the spoiler open for the monster type names.

ALL - I had already started on something similar to what Evesk proposed before I noticed what he'd done. While I *hate* PF's "monster types" and would rather ignore them altogether, the SW Adventure Path dutifully lists the type of every bad guy you're going to run into, so I guess I'll go along with it. I'd much rather have just one skill that covers all monsters, but as I noted in my last post, that would require ret-conning creation points into that skill, and at least this method uses pre-existing skills.

Riffing off of what Evesk did, I came up with this :

Academics - roll at -2 for all monsters
Common Knowledge - [humanoids], -4 for all others
Faith - roll for good/evil monsters and undead [outsiders, undead], -2 for all others
Occult - roll for magical and supernatural monsters [dragons, fey, magical beasts], -2 for all others
Spellcasting - roll for magical monsters [aberrations, constructs], -2 for all others
Survival - roll for natural animal-like monsters [animals, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, vermin], -2 for all others

The -2's allow anyone with any one of these skills to have a chance of knowing the monster's weaknesses.

The things that bug me with this is aberrations aren't all inherently magical, they're more like just really weird animals. But then Spellcasting would only be good for one type. And Outsiders aren't all inherently good or evil (AFAIK), just from beyond this universe.

Regarding knowing whether they're good/evil, if they're outsiders or undead, you automatically know when you make your Faith type roll. For all other types, roll Faith-2 or Common Knowledge-4.

Mechanically, I'll tell you what type they are, and PC's can make whatever roll they want, including the appropriate penalty. Now, I hope everyone won't roll Common Knowledge for every monster, since even with a -4 someone's bound to succeed. Please roll Common Knowledge only if you think your PC would have a reasonable reason to know, thanks!

Sound good?

Thumbs Up from Here

Oh and yeah sorry about missing the Sinspawn -- I know that I can be seemingly blind at times

Yeah, my personal Notice is horrible, like a d4...maybe with a minus...