|
I know the standard answer is " it is ok if your GM says it is ok"
and my GM is pretty liberal
but
I want to know if it is ok before I ask him so I will not be embarrased, because it breaks some rule I am not aware of.a sword of true strike - the spell of true strike is crafted to the weapon so that after a sucessful hit, the next attack by the weapon holder gets a +20 to the attack roll. If the user has two weapon fighter feat then the off hand attack would get the bonus and never fail unless a 1 is rolled
Back story,
my wife is joining our group ( geeks dream come true) which is at lvl 6
and has 12000 gp to spend
she wants to play a half elf Rogue and I want to outfit her with some cool weapons. My calculation shows that this would add 2000gp to the price
1st lvl spell x caster lvl 1 x 2000she wants the two weapon fighting feat
and so I am going to get her 2 bastard short swordI want them to have a magical power added
so here is my idea
the primary sword
Umm no...and NO. Paying 2k gold for +20 to hit, even if it's every other hit is ridiculous. Even by RAW, you'd have to use the effect of +20 to hit over the true strike spell.
I think "Hell no" would be the correct reply here.
About the only way any reasonable DM would allow a True Strike enhancement on a weapon would be to have the activation require a standard action. Then the attack in the next round could benefit from it.
Otherwise, not a chance in the world.
I could see on a crit, with a limited number of uses maybe. But other then that..hell no
|
|
Heh, it's always amusing when someone stumbles across the 'use activated' option of the item creation rules...
To be serious, a Sword of True Striking would, once a day, as a standard action, cast True Strike. Thus, you could activate the sword, and next round take your True Strike attack. Just like if you were using a wand of True Strike.
Thats far more reasonable.
I think "Hell no" would be the correct reply here.
For these things, you need to look at the numbers-- not what the spell gives, but the numbers it gives.
"Wow, that's cheaper, what a bad analogy" you might say until the person who's got it all figured out frowns-- he can't make his +1 keen holy icy burst longsword a +10 weapon for 25% less now.
Get what I mean?
So for this...
It essentially gives a +20 "untyped" bonus to every other attack. Going by the rules already in the game for AC, it'd be 2500gp x 20 squared.
So, around one million three hundred and fifteen gold pieces for a +20 untyped bonus to every other attack roll with an otherwise nonmagical longsword.
Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
It essentially gives a +20 "untyped" bonus to every other attack. Going by the rules already in the game for AC, it'd be 2500gp x 20 squared.
So, around one million three hundred and fifteen gold pieces for a +20 untyped bonus to every other attack roll with an otherwise nonmagical longsword.
This is close to what I'd do, however, there is this additional bit:
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
In order to make a +20 weapon, you need a Level 60 (!!) caster. In my campaign, the only place such casters live is the M.C.; an example of three such casters.
This effectively makes the weapon priceless.
We're getting a little carried away here, with the level 60 and the million gold pieces.
Remember, the pricing for weapons assumes you get +HIT and +DAMAGE. In fact, it's stated somewhere that weapons cost bonus^2 x 2,000 but armor only costs bonus^2 x 1,000 because weapon enchantments affect two values (hit and damage) rather than only one (AC).
So I would price this like armor instead of like a weapon. Also, since the bonus is only useable half the time, that should be less pricey than a bonus that is useable all the time.
So, more like this: 20^20 x 1,000 x 0.5
Which makes this item only a 200,000 gp weapon, the same price as a +10 sword (well, +5 flaming frost shocking sonic keen). Frankly, for the same price, I'd probably go for the +10 equivalent and know that I can always rely on it. Being able to hit half the time for weak damage, or being able to hit often for great damage. I choose the damage for my 200k gp.
None of which helps the OP create a weapon for under 10k - I agree with everyone else here, there is no way such a thing should be even remotely possible in that price range.
Please explain why this is different from something like a flaming sword? It has a 1st lvl spell crafted to it and when it hits, it can do 1d6 of addition fire damage and it can do it every attack
the added cost was 1 x 1 x 2000or am I missing something from the calculation?
I have bought the armory book, but it is in the mail
I am just trying to figure out rules to creating or buying magic weapons
A flaming sword is using the flaming attribute on every attack. It is activated at the beginning of the fight and lasts the whole fight. It is not that useful if A) you don't hit, or B) your opponent has fire resistance. Also, under the Core rules, it's not duplicating a spell, it merely requires one as a prerequisite in its creation. The formula you used for that true strike weapon is using the general item creation rules for wondrous items and other items that duplicate spell effects exactly.
Many effects rely on hitting with a weapon to work, such as disruption, spell storing, flaming/frost/shocking, etc. A +20 bonus to hit is enough that a low level fighter might hit a very old dragon on something besides a 20 (+1 BAB, say +3 for Strength, maybe +1 Weapon Focus, +20 true strike=+25 to hit). When you think about it, it seems to be a bit too powerful, doesn't it? When PCs at 1st level strive for an AC of 20, an item that is that cheap that grants a +20 to hit is going to be overpowerful. Bonuses to hit are easy enough to come by at higher levels, it's lower levels where they are a little tougher to find. Your item would make combat into a mess, as any barbarian or fighter with that weapon would obliterate low-level enemies as he never misses.
The one true rule of item creation IMHO: the art of pricing items isn't an exact science, it's one part science, one part art, and throw a bit of GM fiat into the mix with a healthy dose of common sense.
Please explain why this is different from something like a flaming sword? It has a 1st lvl spell crafted to it and when it hits, it can do 1d6 of addition fire damage and it can do it every attack
the added cost was 1 x 1 x 2000
It's all about "if" it hits, and the fact that the d6 can roll a 1. It's extra damage, but nothing too fancy.
A sword that true strikes every other hit.. Well, first of all, it'd be invaluable for any fighter or rogue. Their first attack is at their highest bonus, and their second attack at the lower bonus now has a 100% chance to hit and ignores concealment. For any rogue, this means they can be in a pitch black room fighting someone they can't even see, and true strike would allow them to sneak attack that person.
It's a very strong magical effect. Normally, true strike is a sacrifice, a +20 bonus on the next attack for a standard action. The monster could die before you get to it, or it could move so far you can't hit it with any of your attacks. But if it goes off every other attack, even an attack that would normally be at +5 bonus will likely hit a monster with a 30+ AC.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Thank you from saving me from embarrassing myself at the game party
I thought it was ridiculous but could not exain why to my wife, it is a 1st level spell, affecting only attack roll on the next attack ( no damage modifier)
Please explain why this is different from something like a flaming sword? It has a 1st lvl spell crafted to it and when it hits, it can do 1d6 of addition fire damage and it can do it every attack
the added cost was 1 x 1 x 2000or am I missing something from the calculation?
I have bought the armory book, but it is in the mail
I am just trying to figure out rules to creating or buying magic weapons
It's a hard thing, pricing magic items. It's like trying to do algebra with cucumbers and peppers some times. I did make a headband of True Strike for a game once in 3.5. It cost 2,000 gp and allowed you to cast True Strike 1/day. It was a nice "I REALLY need to hit this guy" item and helped turn the tide of a couple battles.
I saw a combat once, where this was used, but was a hulking hurler that had lead balls that were enhanced in this way. Wow was it nasty, and with the throwing anything feat he used them as wonderous items. It was devastating to say the least, so I would go with everyone else here and say no way.
I love this question :p.
I believe there was a rule against spell that have no range. With potions, you can't create a potion that have a range of "personal" since you actually can't "cast it" into the potion to brew it. I thought the same applied to items.
Going by that, no, you can't make it, because it is impossible to make.
|
A wand of true strike is probably a much simpler way to go. The effect is the same ... tap yourself with the wand and then attack next round with a +20 to hit.
Actually, it's probably worth asking why every rogue, bard, wizard or sorcerer doesn't consider a wand of true strike a standard, must have item.
Looking at this idea, true strike on the wielder if she hits, I think it's like a modified version of the spell-storing power for magic weapons. Rather than putting a spell on the target, it puts one on the wielder with a successful hit. The basic version of the power is a +1 equivalent - not too bad.
Unfortunately, you want the sword to be able to do this pretty much all day long without the spell needing to be recharged into the spell-storing weapon. THAT's a bit much.
Frankly, I'd consider making it a once/day power and allow it to be activated with a command word as a swift action. I certainly wouldn't drop the price based on only having one charge per day because the minimal caster level and spell level would make any calculation based on those two factors too small compared to the utility and so I'd probably charge 4000 for it. It would make for a very nice power that probably wouldn't get out of hand.
By point of comparison, the Magic Item Compendium lists a set of True Strike Gauntlets that cost 3500 gp and bestow the true strike spell once/day as a standard action command word activation. I figure stepping that down to a swift would be worth at least an extra 500 gp (maybe more) but wouldn't really drive the price up to the stratosphere since the once/day restriction is already in place.
Sword of True Strike as per the OP (or one if its most common variants, Ring of True Strike) is one of the most frequently desired 'Custom-made Magic Item' since 3.0 .
And, as others pointed out, it is just broken as hell.
For a brief guideline, I always point out to this most useful 3.5 Essay on 'Rules of the Game'.
Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.
Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.
So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.
Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.
And, as always, I tend to point out that this essay does not take into consideration the 3.x Epic Rule of pricing Magic Items with a bonus higher than +5 - which states that the price has to be multiplied x10 - which would end pricing such a monstrous Magic Item 4.000.000 gp...
while I am being creative with create magic weapon questions
is it possible to add cure light wounds to a weapon?
It could be activated by a light tap to a friend or yourself
and do extra damage to undead
again more costly than a wand but no need to have UMD skill or minor magic feat
although those skills and feats allow her to use any wand
Yes it is possible. You could try to use the pricing chart and calculate it out. But I think there is a better way.
In the core rules, under "Magic Item Gold Piece Values", it says the following:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.
Based on that, I would look for similar valued items.
First thing we note is that almost every special power we can give to weapons doesn't have a specific price tag. Instead, almost all of them add an "effective bonus". So a +1 flaming sword costs as much as a +2 sword, and a +1 vorpal sword costs as much as a +6 sword.
Given that, I would rather price the "sword of healing" in a similar fashion. But how much?
On the other hand, a sword of healing could also be used to heal wounds. This is the real kicker. How many times can it do this? Unlimited use-activation? I should hope not. If that's the case, then the entire group will be fully healed after every fight without having to consume any resources. No healing power in the game is capable of so much healing.
So we absolutely must limit it in some way.
Fortunately, the rulebook gives us everything we need. Simply make this an intelligent sword.
Let's say a +1 Undead Bane Longsword "Woundstopper".
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 10
Ego: 5
Alignment: same as your wife's character (this just makes things easier)
Communication: empathy only
Special power: Can cast Cure Light Wounds (CL5) for 1d8+5 HP, three times per day
Cost: 8,000 + 300 + 500 + 200 + 1200 = 10,200 gpv.
This sword is +1 to hit and damage against everything, but it is +3 to hit and damage vs. undead and deals 2d6 bonus damage to undead. Also, 3 times per day it can cast Cure Light Wounds on the wielder or whomever the wielder touches, healing 1d8+5 HP. It's not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" with those mental stats, but it is at least as smart as an average person. It can communicate with the wielder empathically (good or bad feelings about things), and if the wielder doesn't live up to the sword's alignment expectatins, the sword will try to dominate the user, requiring a Will save of DC 5. This is obviously a very low EGO for an intelligent item, but it is designed this way to allow the player to control the sword, rather than the other way around.
I think that doing it this way would be fun. After all, who does't want to have philosophical empathic debates and share her feelings with her sword?
Note, if the price is too high, we could drop the Undead Bane and shave off 6,000 GP from the price, and this would also knock the Ego down to just 3 instead of 5.
|
|
Fortunately, the rulebook gives us everything we need. Simply make this an intelligent sword.Let's say a +1 Undead Bane Longsword "Woundstopper".
INT 10
WIS 12
CHA 10
Ego: 5
Alignment: same as your wife's character (this just makes things easier)
Communication: empathy only
Special power: Can cast...
Very nice idea and very nice item!
Ok, the short answer is "No".
The long answer is "Hell No".
The really long answer is that you have to look at the way spells bind with items in other similar cases. When you make a magic weapon or wondrous item, the spells required to create it do not always translate into the exact replication of the spells effects. Making the spell bind to an item almost always twists or lessens it somewhat.
Ex. When you create an elixir of hiding, it requires the spell "invisibility". The elixir does not turn you invisible, it mearly gives you a bonus to hide at about half the power of the spell.
Ex. Gloves of Arrow Snaring require the shield spell but perform a function that is significantly different.
Note that this is not always the case, a belt of giant strength's effects mirror the permanent effect of the Bull's Strength spell.
The thing you have to realize is that a +20 to hit BREAKS THE GAME for the power level you are suggesting. To even ask for that is akin to asking the DM if he's stupid to his face.
Feel free to tell the DM your idea and let him come to his own conclusions though, if it were me I might allow a limited use of allowing a reroll after activating it for a round "powering it up" or maybe allowing a +10 if it was crafted to act only against a specific type of creature, or the full bonus if it was designed to kill one specific creature, "This sword was made to kill King Leopold of Gradilla" but I would adjust the price to match the effectiveness of a bane weapon or something similar.
I've personally seen such a weapon requested by players on no less than three separate occasions. The general reasoning seems to be "hehehe hey, it's a really low level spell that gives an obscene bonus to hit, so I should be able to permanently bestow my sword/bow/whatever with an additional +20 to hit (past the normal pluses on the weapon, of course) for really cheap"! and when the DM inevitably says "no", they get all upset and don't understand why that's unbalanced. It's loophole-seeking, even if the player doesn't think it is. Thankfully, as people have pointed out, it's not a real loophole.
Great topic! I've enjoyed reading it thus far. :-)
Hello All,
I would actually allow it as a command word activated ability.
Being only able to use it the round after you activate it makes it not so great especially with the kind of foes a 6th level party can expect to face.
As a DM that power really would not bother me too much.
As for cost: it would be 2,000 (+1 weapon) + 300 (masterwork) + cost of actual weapon + 1,800 (1st level command word activated power)+ 3,600 (tripling the 1,800 to reflect the power of a +20 to hit every other round).
So about 7,700 to 7,750 GP depending on weapon.
That is a large chunck of the 12,000 GP the rogue has to spend.
Not a wise investement to me.
Thanx!
Hawk
Use activated is, of course, an absolute no-go, but I've actually allowed an unlimited use, command word activated True Strike weapon in a game before (just to see what happened), with little to no problem. Once you get past the "OH MY GAWD" factor (which isn't easy), the effect on the game is minimal, at best. Even with the bonus, you have an effective hit ratio of about 47.5 percent, which really isn't all that spectacular.
A high crit weapon might cause some problems since the +20 pretty much guarantees a confirmation, but in most cases this isn't much of an issue.
The most effective use for such a weapon is actually to ensure the success of combat maneuvers, but again, having to burn a standard action to prepare is a pretty high cost.
In 3.5 the issue was being able to trade attack bonuses for massive damage using Power Attack, but PF's version of the feat removes this issue, as well.
I wouldn't hesitate to allow a limited charge item at a flat rate of +5K per use per day. In fact, I'd probably encourage it. There are just some times when you really, really want the players to be able to hit something, and short of fudging, this is a great way to ensure that they can do it when they (and the story) really, really need to.
My 2 c.p.
How about this:
Pendants/Bracers of Shield
Cost: 3*1*2000= 6000 For a +4 shield bonus, only works when you have the 2 pendants/Bracers equiped.
How about this:
Pendants/Bracers of Shield
Cost: 3*1*2000= 6000 For a +4 shield bonus, only works when you have the 2 pendants/Bracers equiped.
Nope. Sorry. You have to use the formula for AC enhancements, which makes them much more expensive.
Remember, the FIRST step in creating custom items is to compare the intended effect with existing items, in this case Bracers of Armor +4, at a minimum. Some would also argue that duplicating a "no hands" +4 shield would also require the "animated" property, making the cost that much higher. At a minimum, tho, the item described would cost, at the very least, as much as a +4 Bracers.
Hope this helps.
A wand of true strike is probably a much simpler way to go. The effect is the same ... tap yourself with the wand and then attack next round with a +20 to hit.
Actually, it's probably worth asking why every rogue, bard, wizard or sorcerer doesn't consider a wand of true strike a standard, must have item.
My bet is because they can only attack every other round if they do that. So keep all your attacks, or spend half your rounds giving yourself a massive to-hit bonus? Most players I know would go for the former if only because it's cheaper ;) And at low levels your hit/miss chance against MOST enemies is 50/50 anyway, at least for melee types, a little lower for casters.
|
|
Remember, the FIRST step in creating custom items is to compare the intended effect with existing items...This.
The biggest pitfall in magic item pricing is to immediately go to the table. According to the text, the table only gets used as a guideline when there are no preexisting items with similar effects.
(Incidentally, in one of the 3.0 WotC products, there was a spell-trigger longbow that let the wielder trigger true strike at will as a standard action. Cost: 4,000 gp, I believe. Or possibly 12,000 gp. Either way, not very much.)
Yes but that bow wasn't very powerful. You needed to spend a standard to get +20 to attack and ignore miss chance for ONE attack the next round.
the range for true strike is personal, which tells me the spell itself was only mrant for someone casting it on themself.
you can logically infer the spell was meant to allow your magic using character the ability to hit something with a weapon if he really needed to.
I think this is what causes a lot of confusion when the sword of true strike is brought into play.
Frankly, I've allowed them in my campaigns in the past, and i remember i priced them as having 100 charges (not sure to the actual costs now).
My game was not broken, and as i said earlier, little green men did not jump out of the table and gobble us up. the other players did not feel hosed or complain that thier toes were stepped on. it was them that normally said 'hey, joe, use your sword of true strike next round'.
however, what DID happen, was that they ALL requested true strike weapons, and then they started losing fights.
I honestly think that true strike should be reworked a little bit. For one, I think that somehow it should be a swift action to cast, but i don't think it should be given a flat bonus to hit, but some other way increase the chances to hit.
some examples from Pop Culture to back up a version the spell:
Bard from the hobbit when firing the Black Arrow at Smaug
When Morgaus defeats Arthur in the arena from the show Merlin she could have cast a True Strike on herself.