Custom item creation guidelines from CRB. You can certainly duplicate spell effects on an arrow if your group uses those guidelines, or if you are the GM and wish to introduce a new item into the game.Back on topic...how exactly are you casting spells or rather cantrips on arrows? The only type of magical arrows my archer would carry are bane arrows, maybe a slaying arrow or two in case.
So far, from what i've seen there is no way to put any spells on arrows, unless it says so directly...such as flame arrows.
So the arrows are being created that way, ok. I thought the spells allowed them to casted on the arrows themselves, in lots of 50.
My DM gets a bit pissed by the many types of arrows I have, even though they are "non-magical"; but specialty arrows like pheromone arrows. So me starting to create custom made arrows would be great for me, but it will only piss off my DM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if a GM allows piecemeal enchantment (i.e. enchanting smaller stacks for less cost) the appeal is much better and as a GM I do allow it as it is essentially a consumable item. Plus the 50 stack thing kind of bothers me. I mean quivers of arrows come in stacks of twenty so I need to get two and a half stacks to enchant? It's like the ten hotdog pack but 8 hotdog bun bag paradox. It irks me.
But for the sake of this specific question, of whether a spellcaster should be able to construct magical items with more power than the spellcaster themselves possess, that's not a metagame question in any conceivable sense of the word. It's a game mechanics issue. That's all.
It is metagaming all day long. Needing a spell that is way above your skill and one that has never come up in game is something that needs to be paid attention to. How does your PC even know this spell exists int he first place if it has never come up in game? You can't sit there and say that your teacher told you about it.
Believe it or not, your character has no Knowledge of the 2 spells per level until you gain a level and add them, unless you have encountered them in game.
Yeah, new thread needed.
I totally disagree with shallow here. Wizards are assumed to have STUDIED MAGIC. That's how they mastered their cantrips and gained their first level spells.
That means they most likely carried around a big book with all the most important and commonly known spells listed in them. Those spells are used all the time. The wizards TEACHING the young wizards certainly know about them.
This is like saying that an Engineer would know nothing at all about Fourier transformations unless they encountered someone on the street using one. Certainly it would never have been encountered in a textbook.
This is pretty much the same as saying that a druid would know nothing about any animal they had not personally encountered. Forget their druid training.
Wait, better. This would be like saying that YOU PERSONALLY would know nothing at all about a tiger unless you actually had encountered one in your daily life.
Weird perspective Shallow.
|
Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane
symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
I see nothing about using Knowledge Arcana for knowledge of spells. Now a DM may say different.
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying
magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells
as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge
and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting
a magic item comes into question. This skill is also
used to identify the properties of magic items in your
possession through the use of spells such as detect magic
and identify. The DC of this check varies depending
upon the task at hand.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires
no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as
it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a
Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions,
and other factors. Learning a spell from a spellbook
takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30
minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook
does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making
a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part
of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the
properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be
identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine
the object.
Now you could use Spellcraft to study a certain magic item and gain knowledge of the spells that were used to create it but you have to actually interact with the spell to gain that like it says.
"Comes into question" happens during in game interaction.
There are ways to gain the knowledge of certain spells "in game" but it takes that little thing called work.
Some people have no problem accepting the advantages of a class but they want to easily dismiss the disadvantages.
Now you could use Spellcraft to study a certain magic item and gain knowledge of the spells that were used to create it but you have to actually interact with the spell to gain that like it says.
"Comes into question" happens during in game interaction.
There are ways to gain the knowledge of certain spells "in game" but it takes that little thing called work.
Some people have no problem accepting the advantages of a class but they want to easily dismiss the disadvantages.
Do you read what you write? /astounded_face
That would cost:
72,000 gp for a +1 distance seeking speed longbow
64,800 gp for 20 +1 bane flaming-burst icy-burst shocking-burst thundering arrows
1,500 gp for a CL 20th scroll of greater magic weapon
0 gp for the divine bond paladin class feature (granting axiomatic and holy)Total cost: 138,300 gp (out of 240,000 gp WBL).
So the dedicated archer is spending about half of his wealth on weapons to use against the foreshadowed BBEG he's been prepping to fight for half his adventuring career. Sounds about right to me.
(Also, I'm being extravagant by bumping flaming, frost, and shocking up to the corresponding burst properties. Scaling them back again and moving thundering to the bow ups the bow to 98,000 gp but cuts the 20 arrows to 20,000 gp. At that point the paladin is spending just under 10% of his wealth on consumables, which also sounds about right to me. That's equivalent to a low-level character carrying around a few potions of cure light wounds.)
The post I responded to mentioned nothing about paladin divine bonds, and I assumed that they got the GMW for free from the party's wizard. Divine bond isn't a given, as it's an optional thing; which the poster didn't mention. To get all of the enhancements on his weapons he mentioned without divine bond, he'd be above and beyond his means.
Incidentally, 138,300 gp out of 240,000 gp for one weapon and a quiver of arrows is goofy expensive. One might think he might wish to invest something in his other areas, such as melee weapons, armors, shields, stat boosters, save boosters, defensive wards, etc. Spending 1/2 your WBL to fight one guy who can render your entire strategy moot with a scroll of wind wall is probably not a good idea; no matter who you are.
GMW is also optional :D
Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane
symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)I see nothing about using Knowledge Arcana for knowledge of spells. Now a DM may say different.
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying
magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells
as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge
and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting
a magic item comes into question. This skill is also
used to identify the properties of magic items in your
possession through the use of spells such as detect magic
and identify. The DC of this check varies depending
upon the task at hand.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires
no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as
it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a
Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions,
and other factors. Learning a spell from a spellbook
takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30
minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook
does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making
a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part
of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the
properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be
identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine
the object.Now you could use Spellcraft to study a certain magic item and gain knowledge of the spells that were used to create it but you have to actually interact with the spell to gain that like it says.
"Comes into question" happens during in game interaction.
There are ways to gain the knowledge of certain spells "in game" but it takes that little thing called work.
Some people have no problem accepting the advantages of a class but they want to easily dismiss the disadvantages.
It also comes into question anytime the Player asks if their character knows something.
The question being.. "have I heard of X before" the answer being "roll a check and see"
-S
Divine bond isn't a given, as it's an optional thing...Divine bond isn't an "optional thing." It's the default 5th-level paladin class ability.
I believe they refer to the option within divine bond to take a horse or to take a temporary magical weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe they refer to the option within divine bond to take a horse or to take a temporary magical weapon.Divine bond isn't a given, as it's an optional thing...Divine bond isn't an "optional thing." It's the default 5th-level paladin class ability.
You are correct sir.
Also, to Cheapy;
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, since you literally cannot FIT that many weapon enhancements onto your weapon without GMW if you're not using some unspecified extra thing. Since GMW is on many spell lists, including those of cleric, and wizard (the two prime core casters), it seems reasonable to assume that you'd be able to pull it off easily enough with your party member.
Holy sword would have been a good option if it didn't erase your other enhancements and only work on melee weapons. XD
That being said, can we all agree that Schrodinger's Knowledge is really stupid? XD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
shallowsoul, I don't know how many threads have to get derailed over this, so this is the last time I'm ever going to bother saying it.
There is absolutely, positively, no mechanic anywhere in CRB that governs whether or not you have knowledge of whether a spell exists or can exist. Any decision allowing, disallowing, qualifying, or restricting such knowledge is a house rule.
If you flub your Spellcraft check to identify a spell being cast, or if you flub your Knowledge (arcana) check to identify the effect of a spell already in place, you do not know what spell was cast/created the effect. This is entirely separate from whether you know that the spell exists; after all, you can have the spell in your book and prepared for use and still flub Spellcraft checks to identify it being cast and Knowledge (arcana) checks to identify it in place.
Any discussion on the subject is up to GM interpretation. If your interpretation of the rules makes you and your players happy, then great for you. So far as I've seen, everybody else is inclined to let a character's knowledge of spells be decided on a more flexible basis.
|
How does he learn about his new spell levels?Well the 2 spells per level is not an excuse to use metamagaming when it comes to the Knowledge skills. Even though you may be taking Wish when you hit 17th level you can't use that future knowledge to help you in any way. You are actually granted the knowledge of that spell the moment you hit 17th and you take it as one of your spells. It's a bad rule unfortunately but it is RAW.
So, despite the fact that spellcasters can cast spells from scrolls that they do not have the spell slots to prepare yet, they can't actually KNOW these spells exist? A 5th level Druid is not allowed to ask around for a scroll of Regeneration just because he doesn't have 7th level spell slots yet?
Or worse, are you claiming a 1st level Wizard is not allowed to ask his colleague about 1st level spells he doesn't have?
|
|
How does he learn about his new spell levels?Well the 2 spells per level is not an excuse to use metamagaming when it comes to the Knowledge skills. Even though you may be taking Wish when you hit 17th level you can't use that future knowledge to help you in any way. You are actually granted the knowledge of that spell the moment you hit 17th and you take it as one of your spells. It's a bad rule unfortunately but it is RAW.So, despite the fact that spellcasters can cast spells from scrolls that they do not have the spell slots to prepare yet, they can't actually KNOW these spells exist? A 5th level Druid is not allowed to ask around for a scroll of Regeneration just because he doesn't have 7th level spell slots yet?
Or worse, are you claiming a 1st level Wizard is not allowed to ask his colleague about 1st level spells he doesn't have?
Metagaming is metagaming no matter how you want to spin it.
I have already posted the Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft skills. Neither one gives you the knowledge that some of you say it does. I posted it directly from the book so I have RAW on my side.
If you want to continue the discussion this then create a thread for it.
Metagaming is metagaming no matter how you want to spin it.
Stupid is stupid no matter how you want to spin it. You're not describing metagaming. You're describing stupid. Incidentally, it requires more metagaming to justify your position that no one knows anything until they get somewhere in the game that calls on that knowledge.
I don't really care how many times you quote Spellcraft or Knowledge skills, because none of that says you get to tell PCs what they do or do not know about. If it's not covered in the rules, then it's not covered in the rules, and it doesn't matter if they know if something exists or not.
==========================================================================
This thread does make me think that a Hawkeye style character, when combined with custom effect arrows would be pretty awesome to play. I think I will use some custom arrows in my tabletop games. I'm excited to try out the cursed arrows. ^-^
|
|
You're telling me that two wizards of equal level must ask each other to list the spells in their spellbook, because a wizard would be metagaming if he asked 'Have you learned Prismatic Spray?' when he himself has not learned the spell?
Metagaming is metagaming no matter how you want to spin it.
I told you, if you wish to further the discussion then make another thread.
As the GM can't I just set the dc to be -6 so they autopass the check of knowing about something they should know about. One possible exception to this is if the BBEG came up with a new spell that you might not know about but still that is pretty rare in actual expirence. How would someone who is not a wizard yet know wizards cast spells so they don't know aobut them and spellcraft is trained only. So why did the pc want to become a wizard agian if they did not know they cast spells.
So the pcs became a wizard without knowing what a wizard really does How do you rationalize that without metagaming? I don't think this is true but this is where you logic ends up.
|
|
As the GM can't I just set the dc to be -6 so they autopass the check of knowing about something they should know about. One possible exception to this is if the BBEG came up with a new spell that you might not know about but still that is pretty rare in actual expirence. How would someone who is not a wizard yet know wizards cast spells so they don't know aobut them and spellcraft is trained only. So why did the pc want to become a wizard agian if they did not know they cast spells.
So the pcs became a wizard without knowing what a wizard really does How do you rationalize that without metagaming? I don't think this is true but this is where you logic ends up.
You aren't making a bit of sense. Just because you can cast arcane spells doesn't mean you automatically know about all arcane spells. You don't know that Prismatic Spray is waiting for you later on in your career without any prior knowledge.
Being a Wizard doesn't mean auto knowledge of everything wizardly.
I have posted what Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft allow you to do. They are straight from the book so if you want to argue RAW then take it up with the devs.
I don't want discussion, I want a straight answer.
Do characters in your game know nothing but what they learn in-game during sessions?
It sounds more like his characters know nothing until they encounter something the DM says trips the "coming into question" clause- and then they get to roll for it to see if they know it.
So their character literally can't know anything until they stumble across it- then they either know nothing or spontaneously have the information beamed into their brains.
-S
|
@Ashiel - I always preferred the Green Arrow character personally, but I agree the concept would be fun to play ... and if we're going that route, why have the ammo enchanted? Why not have an enchanted quiver which would be able to imbue ammunition drawn from it with magical properties for a limited time (1-2 rounds) and only for the one who drew it? It would be a much more expensive item, and you would need to supply the masterwork ammo, but it would fit the build concept more (especially for Hawkeye).
One thing though I have to ask after rereading the magical weapons section, as it does become a potential stop for any magical options. Since the magical properties of the weapon are transferred to the ammo when it is fired, if you do have a maxed weapon (i.e. - it has reached it's limit of +10 in bonuses and enhancements ... this coming from enchantment upon the weapon or character abilities ... I'm looking at you, Paladin's Divine Bond) would using magical ammo have any benefit at all? Would the ammo's inherent bonuses/enhancements be overridden by the weapon and yield no benefit?
If so, then running with multiple ammo types makes more sense rather than maxing out your weapon for one specific scenario.
@shallowsoul - why don't you set up the alternate thread and any parties who are interested can go argue the finer points of what is and what is not metagaming, the functionality of Knowledge (Arcana) / Spellcraft skills, whether Schoedinger's cat really is alive or dead and everything else associated with it and leave this thread to it's intended topic.
I don't want discussion, I want a straight answer.
Do characters in your game know nothing but what they learn in-game during sessions?
You've already been given a factual answer, now what you do with it is up to you.
If you want to continue the discussion then make a new thread.
I am beginning to suspect--nevermind.
Barring bizarre concept-games, I can't fathom playing Pathfinder under such a system. Paranoia, maybe. Or GURPS, since it's certainly adjustable enough to cover characters with brain damage such as those described. Pathfinder . . . doesn't really go very far with such a system, especially if everybody in the world suffers the same kind of dementia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've already been given a factual answer, now what you do with it is up to you.You've given me nothing but cryptic phrases about metagaming.
*hug*
Ssssshhhh sssshhhh it's okay just ignore him. Just pray that he has not spread his misery to others.
@Ashiel - I always preferred the Green Arrow character personally, but I agree the concept would be fun to play ...
Truthfully, it reminds me most of "Speedy" from Teen Titans, who literally has all manner of crazy arrows, such as exploding arrows, entangling arrows, flashbang arrows, normal stabby-arrows, gas arrows, and so much more. :P
and if we're going that route, why have the ammo enchanted? Why not have an enchanted quiver which would be able to imbue ammunition drawn from it with magical properties for a limited time (1-2 rounds) and only for the one who drew it?
It would be a much more expensive item, and you would need to supply the masterwork ammo, but it would fit the build concept more (especially for Hawkeye).
I could get down with this, and I've actually done so. From my other thread, I replicated the quiver of plenty from Baldur's Gate II (spoilered below).
Aura faint conjuration; CL 1st (mundane), 5th (+1), 8th (+2), 12th (+3), 16th (+4), 20th (+5)
Slot none; Price 4,000 gp (mundane), 35,000 gp (+1 bonus), 53,000 gp (+2 bonus), 77,000 gp (+3 bonus), 101,000 gp (+4 bonus), 125,000 (+5 bonus), adamantine +6,000 gp, alchemical silver +200 gp, cold iron +1,200 gp; Weight 1 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
---------------------------------------------------------------------
These magical quivers seem well made and decorated with elvish runes. Each quiver is created with a full set of arrows, and when an arrow is removed, the arrow is replenished in the quiver. Arrows removed from the quiver vanish within 1 round of being drawn from the quiver. Some quivers can be created to create adamantine, cold iron, and/or alchemical silver arrows. Finally, certain quivers of plenty are endowed with exceptional enchantments that bestow an enhancement bonus on all arrows drawn from the quiver. These arrows can bypass magic damage reduction but not other types of special damage reductions as normal magic weapons can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, abundant ammunition, greater magic weapon (if created with enhancement bonuses); Cost 2,000 gp (mundane), 17,500 gp (+1 bonus), 26,500 gp (+2 bonus), 38,500 gp (+3 bonus), 50,500 gp (+4 bonus), 62,500 gp (+5 bonus), +3,000 (adamantine), +100 gp (alchemical silver), +600 gp (cold iron).
A similar item could be created, replacing the enhancement bonuses with the appropriate effects. I don't think I'd have a problem with a quiver producing weapon enhancements based on enhancement bonus (assuming those enhancements were set when the quiver was made instead of when drawn, to avoid always having the perfect bane arrows, for example).
One thing though I have to ask after rereading the magical weapons section, as it does become a potential stop for any magical options. Since the magical properties of the weapon are transferred to the ammo when it is fired, if you do have a maxed weapon (i.e. - it has reached it's limit of +10 in bonuses and enhancements ... this coming from enchantment upon the weapon or character abilities ... I'm looking at you, Paladin's Divine Bond) would using magical ammo have any benefit at all? Would the ammo's inherent bonuses/enhancements be overridden by the weapon and yield no benefit?
Nope. The effects overlap. What that means is that identical effects do not stack, but all separate effects go through. For example, if you fire a +5 enhancement arrow from a +5 enhancement bow it becomes a waste because the +5 enhancement doesn't stack. However, if you have a +3 holy distance seeking speed bow (a +10 weapon) and you fire a +1 flaming shocking merciful arrow, then the actual attack ends up being a +3 holy distance seeking flaming shocking merciful attack. EDIT: And while that mouthful sounds amazing, it's not really all that special, since the majority of magic item enhancements are not very good at all. By the time you could sport such weaponry, the flaming, shocking, and cold would be all but useless. Speed is also usually redundant since you should be hasted. The only effects really worth noting will by the +3 (adds to hit, damage, and penetrates certain DRs), Holy (owns most enemies), and Merciful (adds +1d6 damage and allows you to take prisoners).
|
|
And while that mouthful sounds amazing, it's not really all that special, since the majority of magic item enhancements are not very good at all. By the time you could sport such weaponry, the flaming, shocking, and cold would be all but useless.
On this point I have to disagree. Even if you are looking at only 3.5 points of additional damage per hit per enhancement, that's an additional 3.5 points of damage on average that is done per hit. Got 4 hits with your bow? Great you've bumped up your damage by an extra 14 points on the average. You were using flaming, shocking arrows? Great, it becomes 28 points on the average. That is assuming your target does not have protection from the effects or immunity of course.
I've always been of the school of thought that any extra damage is good damage. I cannot count the number of times that my PCs or my players have been in fights where at the end of a round the BBEG is just a few points from dropping.
And while that mouthful sounds amazing, it's not really all that special, since the majority of magic item enhancements are not very good at all. By the time you could sport such weaponry, the flaming, shocking, and cold would be all but useless.On this point I have to disagree. Even if you are looking at only 3.5 points of additional damage per hit per enhancement, that's an additional 3.5 points of damage on average that is done per hit. Got 4 hits with your bow? Great you've bumped up your damage by an extra 14 points on the average. You were using flaming, shocking arrows? Great, it becomes 28 points on the average. That is assuming your target does not have protection from the effects or immunity of course.
I've always been of the school of thought that any extra damage is good damage. I cannot count the number of times that my PCs or my players have been in fights where at the end of a round the BBEG is just a few points from dropping.
Damage is great, but you need to get what you pay for. The person would have likely gotten more damage is a few of those less worthwhile enhancements like flaming were traded for actual +5 enhancements (+10% to hit adds to DPS in a surprising way). Most of those effects are either near useless at high levels, or commonly immune (the exceptions being Holy and Merciful). Also, like I said, it wasn't very impressive for what it sounded like.
For example, distance and seeking are great enhancements to have but don't add to damage directly and are wasted except in their specific circumstances (extra long range or vs enemy with concealment), so the only other damaging effects listed are Holy, Merciful, Flaming, and Shocking. Well as it turns out, flaming and shocking both increase the damage by +3.5 each, but not as attractive as a single bane arrow appropriate to the creature type and harder to resist.
If you really wanted to pile on the damage, then I'd recommend the following: +1 seeking distance holy merciful bow, cast greater magic weapon, and if your GM allows you to enchant ammo as a melee weapon, then +1 enemy-bane vicious ammo. You end up with something like a +5 weapon that shoots arrows that deal an extra +7d6 non-elemental damage with each shot. It also a lot cheaper than the stacking example I gave before; though it's arguable that you can't put melee enhancements on arrows since they're ammo (but hey, I guess they're improvised melee weapons that can be masterwork so...). In which case, vicious might actually be a better option than bane arrows.
EDIT: That being said, I'm kind of the school of thought that tactics and defenses go a lot farther than raw killing power. I've seen countless PCs who are armed to the teeth get dismantled by enemies far weaker than themselves because the enemies just weren't stupid; or because they neglected their non-damaging options.
Plus, I never actually plan for equipment that's better than +2 weapons, +3 armor, or +4 stat/resist items, because in core you can't get those easily on the market, which means either crafting, questing, or begging for it (I don't necessarily mean begging the GM, but actually finding an NPC who's willing to fork out their time and effort to help you); because the only items that fall into the 16,000 gp GP limit are +2 weapons, +3 armors, +4 ability, and +4 resistance items; which means if you want sweet things like +3 or better weapons, +4 or better armors, +5 or better ability / save boosters, +3 or better natural armor or deflection modifiers; then you need to be able to have a reliable way to get it.
No character I build for my own use expects to have the convenience of high value magic items unless I can craft them myself. If the party has some crafters in it that my non-crafter can piggyback off of, then that's wonderful; and if the GM drops some big candies into the game as treasure or loot, then cool deal; but I don't plan or expect it. You can go from 1st-20th level without laying so much as an eye on a +5 weapon, and you can do so while still curbstomping the opposition if you're smart, or getting curbstomped by the opposition if you're not.
Incidentally, super high value items are also excessively uncommon if you follow the treasure guidelines. Most NPCs, even at 20th level, aren't going to have exceptionally powerful gear to loot off of them. The majority of your loot is likely to come in art objects, gems, consumables, minor to moderate magic items, and the occasional horde. Even then, if you do come across a really nice magic weapon, it's generally going to be something that an NPC is enjoying. That +3 vicious longsword that's in the treasure horde for this adventure? Yeah, somebody better be using that; because the GM sucks big dice if you fight a marilith armed with 6 masterwork longswords while there's a +3 or better longsword sitting in the next room. :P
If the arrow is being fired it's ammo. If it's in your hand being used as an improvised melee weapon, you can do the enchantment from melee. However, you can't fire their vicious arrows because you are using them as ammo, and also aren't taking the vicious penalty.
If the arrow is being fired it's ammo. If it's in your hand being used as an improvised melee weapon, you can do the enchantment from melee. However, you can't fire their vicious arrows because you are using them as ammo, and also aren't taking the vicious penalty.
That seems reasonable, except melee weapons can in fact be ranged, and appear to have the same benefits while ranged. For example, you can make a +1 vicious dagger. To my knowledge, the vicious quality still applies when you throw it, as does ghost touch which is also a weapon property. I had actually never thought of enchanting ammo with melee properties before this thread, however.
I've always viewed magical ammo as something a GM gives out to the players, not as something specific they buy/make...since that IS a waste of resources. But if the GM's giving, you might as well take...
The biggest problem with that is that it's easy to end up with equipment that's not worth as much as it suggests. Overpriced cuts both ways. For example, if you come across 17 +1 flaming arrows (valued at 2822 gp), you'd probably have been better off finding something in the same ballpark in price range, that was actually useful. O.o
I've always viewed magical ammo as something a GM gives out to the players, not as something specific they buy/make...since that IS a waste of resources. But if the GM's giving, you might as well take...The biggest problem with that is that it's easy to end up with equipment that's not worth as much as it suggests. Overpriced cuts both ways. For example, if you come across 17 +1 flaming arrows (valued at 2822 gp), you'd probably have been better off finding something in the same ballpark in price range, that was actually useful. O.o
This is true if you religiously go by WBL guidelines. I never have, so it hasn't been a problem. But it's certainly worth understanding if a GM does follow WBL.
A good thread. Would you consider not requiring the initial +1 enhancement before adding special qualities to magic ammo to a be a good houserule, then? I'm thinking of adding it to my list.
A good thread. Would you consider not requiring the initial +1 enhancement before adding special qualities to magic ammo to a be a good houserule, then? I'm thinking of adding it to my list.
Ashiel and I have both advocated this on multiple threads, including this one.
I will probably start adopting that in my games and see how it goes.
Hmmn.
I'd probably limit +0 qualities to a single quality, personally, though I think it's not a bad idea.
Hmmn.
I'd probably limit +0 qualities to a single quality, personally, though I think it's not a bad idea.
That seems reasonable. To get multiple qualities, it has to be +1.... I can live with that.
|
A good thread. Would you consider not requiring the initial +1 enhancement before adding special qualities to magic ammo to a be a good houserule, then? I'm thinking of adding it to my list.Ashiel and I have both advocated this on multiple threads, including this one.
I will probably start adopting that in my games and see how it goes.
I'd be interested to hear how that plays out, sounds like an interesting house rule.
I'd be curious to see how breaking the rule on magical ammo being destroyed plays out as well. If magic ammo severs the rule about 50% destorying on a miss, and 100% destroyed on a hit, then magic ammo becomes more permanent, and a better investment if you can recover it after most fights ( yeah, that aerial fight with the dragon over the slopes of mount doom... hard to go back and find those magic arrow that dropped, but inside the dungeon? )
A good thread. Would you consider not requiring the initial +1 enhancement before adding special qualities to magic ammo to a be a good houserule, then? I'm thinking of adding it to my list.Ashiel and I have both advocated this on multiple threads, including this one.
I will probably start adopting that in my games and see how it goes.
I'd be interested to hear how that plays out, sounds like an interesting house rule.
I'd be curious to see how breaking the rule on magical ammo being destroyed plays out as well. If magic ammo severs the rule about 50% destorying on a miss, and 100% destroyed on a hit, then magic ammo becomes more permanent, and a better investment if you can recover it after most fights ( yeah, that aerial fight with the dragon over the slopes of mount doom... hard to go back and find those magic arrow that dropped, but inside the dungeon? )
That seems to be a similar principle to how weapons crafted from most fragile materials lose the fragile quality when made magical. That could work.
And if magic ammo STOPS getting broken (without an exceptional event), Locate Object gets a chance to shine!
Fighter: Damn, this swamp ate my arrows!
Wizard: Hand me one you've still got. >castcast< This way...
If magic ammo severs the rule about 50% destorying on a miss, and 100% destroyed on a hit, then magic ammo becomes more permanent, and a better investment if you can recover it after most fights...That's the most elegant magic ammo fix I've ever seen, Seraphimpunk.
If magic ammo doesn't get destroyed then there are balance issues to address.
If magic ammo doesn't get destroyed then there are balance issues to address.If magic ammo severs the rule about 50% destorying on a miss, and 100% destroyed on a hit, then magic ammo becomes more permanent, and a better investment if you can recover it after most fights...That's the most elegant magic ammo fix I've ever seen, Seraphimpunk.
I'm not so sure. You don't get only fifty uses of a magic sword, after all, and that's not unbalanced. Mind you, you cannot stack the properties of a magic sword with, say, a magic dagger the way you can with ammo.
There are ALREADY balance issues to address, most urgently the fact that one pays the same amount of gold for expendable ammunition as one does for durable weapons...
Like I said, you cannot stack effects from two different weapons together, but you can with ammo and a missile weapon. That's a plus for the balance issue. The ammo is expended, and that's a minus.
I would say +1 would be appropriate for this. Or possibly, that unbreakable ammo is standard cost but is made in sets of ten rather than fifty.
|
|
I would say +1 would be appropriate for this. Or possibly, that unbreakable ammo is standard cost but is made in sets of ten rather than fifty.
I wouldn't change the pricing mechanic for a single enhancement. That could lead to confusion when you start stacking enhancements that are priced for 50 arrows.