Is it possible to make one? How would it work? Isn't it a bit silly?
Thoughts please.
|
People often point to the Weapon of True Strike as a broken "loophole" in the rules.
The argument goes something like this - Truestrike is a 1st level spell. An item that can be used an unlimited number of times per day costs 2000gp x spell level x caster level.
Now, since True Strike is a 1st level spell, the True Strike enhancement would cost 2000 gp "by the rules". (Just a warning, I'm going over this by memory, so my numbers might be off).
The rules in this instance are guidelines. Particularly in the case where an item grants a bonus, the rules are pretty clear about charging bonus squared x a particular amount. For example, a magical weapon has a cost of weapon bonus squared x 2000 gp (so a +3 weapon has a price modifier of 18,000.
Now, True Strike creates an insight bonus to attack rolls. That isn't quite as good as damage, but a fair price might be bonus squared x 1000 gp. In this case it would be 20 x 20 (400) x 1,000.
Even at 400,000 the item might be overpowered.
The True Strike spell is "personal", and it is in part balanced by the fact that the people who have access to it are the least capable of abusing it.
So, if you're a DM, don't allow your players to get away with this "Muchkinery". If you've already made this mistake, give EVERYBODY in the world the exact same item. Because, seriously, everybody would buy such an item at 2,000 gp (or at least, everybody 3rd level and above). If you're a player, try to understand item pricing before suggesting it to your DM. Some spells just don't follow the spell level x caster level x fixed amount forumla.
While not as broken as True Strike (the most glaring example), Protection From Evil is also MUCH TOO GOOD following that forumla.
Hope this helps.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm normally the very last person to make a charge of munchkinism, but the weapon of true strike is so far over the line of reasonableness that there is no other way to describe it. DeadDMWalking has summarized the arguments, so allow me to add the editorial. No DM should ever allow it. No player should ever have it. The weapon of true strike is one of the many reasons that the magic item creation section is merely a guideline.
That being said, I suppose if you were willing to pay for it as if it were a +20 weapon, that would be okay.
DDMW, your numbers are correct except you forgot one detail. At 400K, the item is an "Epic" item. That means the cost is further multiplied by 10. :D So we're actually looking at a cost of 4mil. Don't forget your PC will need the appropriate Craft Epic {whatever} feat(s) to make this item, too. :D
As a good alternative, perhaps you can add it as a 3 times a day effect for a +1 or +2 enhancement....
-Neomorte
I'm a DM and I have no intention allowing it. I just heard someone talking about the loophole and wondered what people thought. Glad I'm not the only one. :)
A weapon of true strike is actually not possible under the d20 rules. The reason for this is that true strike has a duration until the next attack, and if you read carefully under the rules of item creation you will see that to be able to make an effect continuous it has to have a duration of at least rounds.
A weapon of true strike is actually not possible under the d20 rules. The reason for this is that true strike has a duration until the next attack, and if you read carefully under the rules of item creation you will see that to be able to make an effect continuous it has to have a duration of at least rounds.
Indeed. I just read it.
Don't ask me which DRAGON this came out of, but I do remember a list of 'war related' weapons and equipment in one of the more recent articles. One of the items was a quiver of endless arrows that allowed you to use True Strike three times per day.
Keep in mind also that if someone was able to make an item of constant True Strike, which it has been proven that they can't (good call Evilash), they could also make an item of constant CLW's and heal for 1d8+1 hp per turn.
|
|
A weapon of true strike is actually not possible under the d20 rules. The reason for this is that true strike has a duration until the next attack, and if you read carefully under the rules of item creation you will see that to be able to make an effect continuous it has to have a duration of at least rounds.
I'm writing this down.
Also, remember activation time and duration. Even if you could create a "constant" True Strike item, making an attack "discharges" the effect and you then have to re-activate the item (a standard action). So the wielder gets +20 to his *first* attack (*not* to any secondary or additional attacks in that round), then he would have to spend his next round re-activating the weapon, then on the third round he gets +20 to a single attack again, and so on. He has to give up a whole round of attacks each time he wants to get a +20 to one attack. Makes it a little less overwhelming.
A weapon of true strike is actually not possible under the d20 rules. The reason for this is that true strike has a duration until the next attack, and if you read carefully under the rules of item creation you will see that to be able to make an effect continuous it has to have a duration of at least rounds.
Well spotted, Evilash. Thanks.
|
A weapon of true strike is actually not possible under the d20 rules. The reason for this is that true strike has a duration until the next attack, and if you read carefully under the rules of item creation you will see that to be able to make an effect continuous it has to have a duration of at least rounds.Well spotted, Evilash. Thanks.
Yes, and no. I think that some people think way too hard about this. What you call it or what spell prerequisites you need are fairly irrelevant.
The question is -- is it possible to create an item (weapon in this case) that will grant a +20 to attack rolls every time.
In theory, yes.
Many of the early posters are right on the money -- 20 squared times 1,000 gp times 10 being an epic item. You might rule that it should be 2,000 gp instead of 1,000 gp but let's go with 1,000 for now. This will make the item valued at 4,000,000 gp. In order for a person (mage) to create this item, it would cost them 160,000 xp. Unless you are 170th level, most mages wouldn't have 160,000 xp just waiting in their pool of xp to blow on this kind of item. In addition, what good is this? All that this would do is basically ensure that you would hit a lot more often. It doesn't do extra damage or give you extra attacks or anything else. By the time a person could afford this item, they should be hitting things just fine and there are better uses of their money and xp than this item.
Is it possible? Sure. It is just incredibly unrealistic and like I said before there are better items that they could invest in that would end up being more effective. (A +10 Longsword has a base value of 2,000,000 gp and it gives +10 to hit AND damage, costs half as much gp and xp and is probably more effective in epic battles.)
Just my 2 coppers...
Let me offer another theory:
Yes, you could make a use-activated weapon of true strike. No, the funky duration wouldn't stop you. That only applies to continuous effects. (DMG285) The problem would be that you would need to spend a standard action each time to activate it. Activate one round, strike the next with only your first strike being true, if you have multiple attacks. Right; Someone else already said that.
However, I see nothing in the rules to stop you from making a Use Activated Weapon of Quickened True Strike. The cost of this is now 90,000gp (9x5x2000 (Caster level X spell level X base multiplier)) to buy off the shelf. If we follow the "no more than a quarter of a character's money should be locked up in a single item" guideline, (DMG199) a player would need to have >360,000gp in loot before he would be expected to have such an item, which is to say: You can have a sword like this by the time you're 18th level, (DMG135) and it's not going to have much more in the way of powers beyond that.
In a more extreme case, a 10th level character might be able to scrape together the funds to pay for the party mage to craft such an item. If a player of mine was that intent on having such a weapon, I'd be willing to let them do it. If it turns out to be game unbalancing, I'd trust any of my players to accept the sit down conversation where we figure out a way to set it right again.
Editing to add:
There's some problems even with the Use Activated Quickened True Strike version. First off, Use Activated normally implies taking an action to activate. Having it go off as a side effect of another action is really a different kind of trigger. Second, even if you were to say that each attack constitutes a seperate trigger (as opposed to saying that a Full Attack Action is a single triggering of the effect, good for one True Strike) you'd be in violation of the current understanding of Swift Actions. Quickened Spells are understood to be Swift Actions if you're playing with such, and you're only allowed one of those a round. It's reasonable to say that an item could get its own fixed swift action in addition to the swift action of the character wielding it, but giving items an unlimited budget of swift actions throws the balance of the game off.
Now, an intelligent weapon that casts True Strike on itself when it sees fit? Munchkinny... but with such roleplaying potential. Hmm....
Now, an intelligent weapon that casts True Strike on itself when it sees fit? Munchkinny... but with such roleplaying potential. Hmm....
Except that true strike has a range of personal...
Now, an intelligent weapon that casts True Strike on itself when it sees fit? Munchkinny... but with such roleplaying potential. Hmm....Except that true strike has a range of personal...
Granted. But I'm willing to fudge that, seeing as how I'm going to make the weapon differently aligned than any character I'd ever give it to. Having a weapon that always hits when it wants to and agrees with its wielder on most counts isn't interesting to me. A weapon that has its own priorities, on the other hand, now that you can weave some stories around.
I thought the DMG said pretty clearly that bonuses to saves, ac and attacks fall into a different category and that you pay according to the attack bonus. The ELH lists a +20 weapon as costing 8 million gp (not sure if they nerfed this in the 3.5 DMG since I use the SRD), so that is the base cost. Then you factor in that this is a bonus like the insight bonus provided by bracers of archery which provide a +1 bonus and cost 5,000 gp. This means that instead of multiplying by 2000 you multiply by 5000, which gives a cost of 20 million gps. Plus you need to add onto this that this is an additional power on the item if its on a sword say that already has an enhancement bonus. That multiplier is 1.5 so the total should be like 30 million! I think this is different than my calculation on the other post but I hadn't thought of the bracers angle!
Is it even possible to make any item that stores a spell with a metamagic feat added to it. I can't think of any non-artifacts that do that. what is a specific example and where is it from?
|
|
I thought the DMG said pretty clearly that bonuses to saves, ac and attacks fall into a different category and that you pay according to the attack bonus. The ELH lists a +20 weapon as costing 8 million gp (not sure if they nerfed this in the 3.5 DMG since I use the SRD), so that is the base cost. Then you factor in that this is a bonus like the insight bonus provided by bracers of archery which provide a +1 bonus and cost 5,000 gp. This means that instead of multiplying by 2000 you multiply by 5000, which gives a cost of 20 million gps. Plus you need to add onto this that this is an additional power on the item if its on a sword say that already has an enhancement bonus. That multiplier is 1.5 so the total should be like 30 million! I think this is different than my calculation on the other post but I hadn't thought of the bracers angle!
Is it even possible to make any item that stores a spell with a metamagic feat added to it. I can't think of any non-artifacts that do that. what is a specific example and where is it from?
I don't get your math at all...
A +20 weapon costs 8 million because it is +20 to hit and damage. It doesn't really matter too much where the bonus is coming from -- we are only talking about a bonus to hit. Bracers of archery don't really apply because they grant the wearer the ability to be proficient in bows -- not really something that is easy to put a price on. The 1.5 multiplier is for "Multiple Different Abilities" that take up a body slot. If your logic were true, magic weapons in general would cost a lot more.
For those of you that are interested, there was an article on the WotC site that talked about a "Ring of True Strike" that explained things fairly well. I still feel that multiplying the price by ten because of it being epic is a good idea, but to each their own.
Here is the site...
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a
The Epic Level Handbook talks about adding metamagic feats to scrolls. There are examples of metamagic feats in Staffs in the Epic Level Handbook. The DMG has examples of metamagic feats in Wands. There are also the metamagic rods.
In asking a simple question... :)
|
|
As I just posted on the 'Munchkin' thread...
I think we all agree that a weapon with permanent True Strike is unbalanced, but does anyone think the problem is less to do with the item creation feats than the spell itself?
+20 bonus?!?!?!
for insight?!?!
I don't know what the authors use to get their 'insight'; I think were smoking crack when they came up with that one.
As I just posted on the 'Munchkin' thread...
I think we all agree that a weapon with permanent True Strike is unbalanced, but does anyone think the problem is less to do with the item creation feats than the spell itself?
+20 bonus?!?!?!
for insight?!?!
I don't know what the authors use to get their 'insight'; I think were smoking crack when they came up with that one.
Nope. In fact, I can't remember the last time that anyone took True Strike as a Spell Known. Anyway, I don't think a weapon of true strike would be overpowered if the DM gave it a +16 bonus equivalency or so.
What about the Bow of True Arrows from Sword and Fist? It's a spell trigger like a wand, so only characters with True Strike on their class list could use it. And spell trigger items always take a standard action to activate unless the spell has a longer casting time. 3.0 cost was $4,000 gps, and I don't feel like looking it up for 3.5. The simple solution is to buy a wand of true strike for just 750 gps, and keep the wand in your off hand.
The pertinent point in the bracers of archery isn't in the weapon proficiency but in the fact that it provides an insight bonus to attack rolls with a bow. Basically true strike on a weapon does the exact same thing, an insight bonus only to attacking with that weapon.
If you look at the DMG and the costs to add spell like abilities they include the 1.5 multiplier, so do the costs to add skill bonuses to armor, they are the skill level times the skill level times 10, times 1.5. i.e. compare the cost of a cloak of elvenkind with minor shadow power to armor. Both add +5 to the skill, one costs 2500gp and the other costs 3,750!
Anyways, the only other officailly possible way to adjudicate the +20 insight bonus under the rules as written is to use the same cost as the attack bonus and multiply it first by 2 since it is an 'attack bonus other' and then multiply by 1.5. So that is basically 24 million.
I understand that many feel that their preconceived notions about the value of magic items should supersede the rules, but I personally don't, its a very common humand problem to skew logic to fit what/how they want things to be, but I don't see any reason why D+D shouldn't be more like real life, I.e. just wishing something were true doesn't make it so.
Also the article in question doesn't use the epic rules as eluded to, frankly I'm surprised that they included that example as the math is pretty clearly wrong, but I think they got into the is the 'ELH core or not question'. Sometimes the game authors in their desire to make things accesible, oversimplify things terribly, since they don't want to assume that people know even the most basic mathematics. To my mind it causes more confusion than it solves.
|
|
If you look at the DMG and the costs to add spell like abilities they include the 1.5 multiplier, so do the costs to add skill bonuses to armor, they are the skill level times the skill level times 10, times 1.5. i.e. compare the cost of a cloak of elvenkind with minor shadow power to armor. Both add +5 to the skill, one costs 2500gp and the other costs 3,750!
Anyways, the only other officailly possible way to adjudicate the +20 insight bonus under the rules as written is to use the same cost as the attack bonus and multiply it first by 2 since it is an 'attack bonus other' and then multiply by 1.5. So that is basically 24 million.
Is this horse dead yet?
Let's take a step back and think smaller --
Let's look at a +2 weapon with a +2 insight bonus to hit. By your logic above, the insight bonus would be 2 x 2 x 2,000 x 2 x 1.5 = 24,000. The +2 enhancement bonus would be 8,000 gp. This would be a total of 32,000 gp. A +4 weapon is 32,000 gp and it gives a +4 bonus to hit AND damage. Thinking larger -- A +20 weapon gives +20 to hit and damage and costs 8 million gp. By your logic, a +1 weapon with a +20 insight bonus to hit costs 24,020,000 gp and give +21 to hit and +1 to damage. Which would you rather have? Which item is more "bang for the buck"?
You are saying that an insight bonus to hit (only) is 3 times as powerful as a bonus to hit AND damage.
I understand what you are saying about the 1.5 times -- but I disagree in this case. The example that you gave about the armor is that way because it takes up a slot. If the bonus was on the armor then I would agree. The bonus in question is only in reference to the weapon in hand. If he changes weapons, the bonus goes away. This fact alone makes the bonus on a ring or on a suit of armor MUCH more valuable.
I still don't see where you are getting the "multiply it by 2". The enhancement bonus to hit AND damage is already at a multiplier of 2,000. A deflection bonus to AC is 2,000. An AC bonus (other) is 2,500. Ultimately these two are basically the same – “other” is rarer and stacks with most everything else – but it certainly isn’t twice as powerful. I really don't see how an insight bonus to hit (only) is twice as powerful as an enhancement bonus to hit AND damage (and I can't seem to find anything about "attack bonus other" in the DMG – I am curious as to what page number in the DMG you are using to justify this).
By your logic above, a ring of true striking would be 16 million gp (20 x 20 x 2,000 x 2). They wouldn't need to multiply by 1.5 because there wouldn't be anything else in the ring. But this would be MUCH more powerful than your 24 million gp weapon because it would apply to ANY weapon the character held and still give the exact same bonus.
Here is a run-down of the facts of this kind of item:
Because this spell gives a definite 'plus' to some kind of ability, it has little to nothing to do with the fact that it comes from a first level spell -- so no one should use the spell level logic to determine value.
There is nothing that I can find (in the DMG or other sources) that have or talk about an insight bonus to hit (only or even partially) put on an item (Bracers of Archery, Lesser provide a Circumstance bonus to hit AND they provide proficiency in all bows). This ultimately leaves the "value" up to interpretation.
So, at this point, I don't know that there is any "officially possible" way to come up with a value. I also don't think that anyone is trying to "skew logic" to fit their needs or wants.
All that being said -- an item like this is really pointless. If the PCs are trying to fight creatures with an AC 20 points (give or take) more than what they are normally able to hit, something is seriously wrong with the campaign. I said it earlier and will say it again -- all that this does is makes sure that you hit more often. It doesn't add to damage and it doesn't give them extra attacks. What good is a longsword that gives a +20 bonus to hit if the creature in question has DR 15/piercing? At the point where this kind of item should become available (whether you think it should be 4 million or 24 million), it shouldn't really change the game much if at all.
I think that yes, with the body placement stacking limitations that putting it on the weapon would be more expensive. The rules on 'other' types of bonuses are designed to be prohibitively expensive so as to prevent munchkinism. :)
Now if you can convince your DM to give you a ring of true striking good luck!