|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi guys :)
Here is the scenario:
I have some Masterwork Kikko Armour that I have just reinforced (+1).
Down the line I'd like to add the Spell resistance (13) which is the same as adding a +2 enchantment (normally 4,000gp).
So, the question I have is this:
When adding the spell resistance ability to my +1 armour, does it make it a cost of +3 armour (9,000, so 10,000 total) or do you just add the value of another +2 enchantment (4,000, so 5,000 total).
As you can see this is a difference up to double the cost.
What throws me, is that armours go up to +10. "1 Armor and shields can't have enhancement bonuses higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in."
I personally (from the way it is written) believe that you add another +2 enchantment (4,000), as it is still a base +1 armour, not a +3 armour. Otherwise abilities that have a base cost (eg. Glamered: +2,700 gp) would make no sense as you have not added any "pluses". You can add "Glamered" to a +5 armour if you like - it doesn't become the cost of a +6 armour. The cost to add this (Glamered) ability does not scale depending on what other enchantments are already present, which leads me to my conclusion.
Can someone please post a definitive rule on this thanks as I can't seem to find it on the forums (or a link if it's already been answered).
Thanks.
You pay the difference between the current total effective enhancement bonus and the target total effective enhancement bonus.
So, in your example, you're going from 1,000gp of bonus (+1) to 9,000gp of bonus (+3), which will be a cost of 8,000gp.
Yes, you pay the cost as if upgrading it to +3 armor -- but only the difference in cost.
Since you already paid the 1,000 gp to make it +1, you pay an additional 8,000 to add a +2 ability, thus making the armor +3 equivalent.
All plus-equivalent abilities work this way. In contrast, abilities with a defined cost (such as glamered) can be added for a flat fee. So, whereas adding an additional +1 ability costs more if your armor is already a higher equivalent bonus, the cost of adding glamered is always the same.
|
^ This.
Plus, an armor/a weapon cannot have an enhancement bonus higher than +5, but may have additional proprerties with an enhancement cost, up to +10 (for example, a +5 Vorpal (vorpal : +5) weapon is effectively a legal +10 weapon).
Note that if you have a weapon property increasing the enhancement bonus of your weapon while raging or against some targets (like Furious or Bane), your enhancement bonus may go higher than +5 against these creatures (so a +5 Furious, Elven bane weapon will cost the price of a +7 weapon and be +7 while raging ; +9 while raging and attacking elves).
|
|
Then they have worded it in the MOST confusing way.
The most logical (I'm an English teacher with post-graduate qualifications in English Linguistics) way to read what is written is the conclusion I came to:
Base Enchantment +1 = 1000
Optional add-ons:
Ability +1 = 1000
Ability +2 = 4000
Ability +3 = 9000
Why would the SAME ability (pick one) cost you MORE because other enchantments are already on the item? Whereas other abilities (ie. Glamered) are a set, fixed price regardless. The most logical way to read what is written is much like a menu board where the (+) value is a set price.
The ruling you've given makes zero logical sense I'm sorry.
I can just see the ludicrous conversation at the magic shop.
PC: "Hi, I'd like you to add Glamered to my +5 armour of Godly D00M!"
NPC: "Sure, that'll be 2,700gp please".
PC: "Oh, can you also add Spell Resistance?"
NPC: "Ooh, that's gonna cost ya pal. What enchantments did you say were already on there?"
PC: "What difference does that make? You are just adding one ability, like you're adding Glamered."
NPC: "Yeah but this is a rules loop-hole that means we get to charge like wounded bulls - crazy I know, but I don't make the rules."
As I said - ludicrous :)
|
|
Then they have worded it in the MOST confusing way.
The most logical (I'm an English teacher with post-graduate qualifications in English Linguistics) way to read what is written is the conclusion I came to:
Base Enchantment +1 = 1000
Optional add-ons:
Ability +1 = 1000
Ability +2 = 4000
Ability +3 = 9000Why would the SAME ability (pick one) cost you MORE because other enchantments are already on the item? Whereas other abilities (ie. Glamered) are a set, fixed price regardless. The most logical way to read what is written is much like a menu board where the (+) value is a set price.
Take it the opposite way : why would the weapon enhancement table show prices for +6 to +10 weapons if the highest cost for an ability is +5 and the highest enhancement score at a time is +5 ?
It's all wrapped up in game balance, unfortunately, and that makes the reasoning tricky to reverse-engineer.
There's also a bit of psychology involved, too.
The game makes certain assumptions about average attack, damage and AC as you go up in level. Increasing the cost at a geometric rate slows down how quickly characters can achieve certain levels of bonus (if you want players to only be able to afford +10 effective gear at 20th level, then it has to cost more than a 19th level character would be willing to spend).
Also, players expect "more" as they level up. More gold, in this instance. You gain more gold from an encounter at level 15 than you did at level 14. This is another way in which the progression of the game shows the players that they are achieving.
Combine those two factors, and you get the (non-mathematical) reasoning behind it. Remove either of those factors, and the game starts to break down. (Note: it IS possible to design a game with drastically increasing attack and damage and AC, and it is likewise possible to create a game with static treasure progression, but some of the numbers look ridiculous in the first, and players feel like they're not getting anything for their trouble in the second.)
The method used is a balancing act, to both allow AC to not ramp up stupidly over the 20 level range (without crunching the numbers, if it did, at level 20 you'd need to be facing creatures with AC above 50 and hit points in the thousands), and to make it feel like there is progress while levelling up.
Then they have worded it in the MOST confusing way.
You didn't actually cite the rules. Let's do so.
In general, magic armor protects the wearer to a greater extent than non-magical armor. Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses). All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.
In addition to an enhancement bonus, armor may have special abilities. Special abilities usually count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of an item, but do not improve AC. A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10. A suit of armor with a special ability must also have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
Emphasis mine.
And, from the chart:
Armor and shields can't have enhancement bonuses higher than +5. Use these lines to determine price when special abilities are added in.
Again, the intent is very clear. This isn't new, either; this is exactly how things worked in 3.0 and 3.5 as well.
The in-game reason is that most enchantments are more and more difficult to add because it requires more and more powerful binding magic while something like Glamored is just an extra layer of magic tossed on, not integrated into the item.
The mechanics reason is because they want to make it more and more expensive to make one item with lots of benefit. All items cost more as you make it more powerful because there are limited item slots and an ever present need to push for more bonuses.
Yeah, this is one of my few beefs with the magic weapon and armor system in 3.5/Pathfinder. Wish they had changed it. Adding flaming to a weapon is pretty much equally effetive whether added to a +1 weapon, or a +5 weapon. If anything, it's less useful to add it to a +5 weapon, because by the time you can afford a +5 weapon, adding 1d6 to your damage is fairly inconsequential. I'd rather see all of the special abilities have fixed costs with a modifier for stacking fixed cost abilities. Say +5000gp for flaming, then to add shocking to that costs an additional +5000gp (x1.5 for being the second fixed cost enhancement).
SKR actually just addressed this over here, in regards to armor.
Sean's post didn't cover if an item with only a gold price listed doesn't add to the effective bonus. For right now, I'm only able to take people's word on that one, as I still can't see in the rules how that is the case.Plus-based properties costs obey the +10 rule and are priced according to the plus-based pricing chart. Non-plus-based properties have nothing to do with the +10 rule, they ignore it, and are just added to the price of the item. You could add all of the non-plus-based properties (or multiple copies of some of them, like energy resistance acid/cold/elec/fire to a +1 or +10-equivalent item and it would be totally legal.
As for whether a new ability has a plus or a gp value: the purpose of armor and shields is to protect the wearer against melee and ranged damage. If the new property makes the armor better at doing that, it should be a plus-based property; otherwise, it should be a gp-based property. It gets a little blurry for some of them (energy resistance is gp-based but spell resistance is plus-based), but if the summary of the ability is "this really needs to be an armor property" vs. "this could just as easily be a ring, robe, or necklace, it should be plus-based.
(emphasis mine)
|
|
I didn't play in 3.0 or 3.5 :)
I stopped in 2nd ed. I'm coming back to DnD after a VERY long break :)
So you can have +5 armour with +5 abilities for a total of +10.
Oh, AND you can also have:
Glamered +2,700 gp
Slick, greater +33,750 gp
Shadow, greater +33,750 gp
Etherealness +49,000 gp
Undead controlling +49,000 gp
Energy resistance, greater +66,000 gp
Then again, you can have all of those and still effectively have a suit of +1 Ceremonial Robes if you want.
Enchantments should have base costs, regardless of what it's being added to. Of course if a greater version is replacing a lesser version, then you only pay the difference (as it is now with upgrading a +1 to a +2).
So, looking at the original example:
Kikko Armour +1
add Spell resistance (13) - makes it a +3, so 9,000 (minus the 1000 for a completely unrelated enchantment, so 8,000 total).
If you had Kikko Armour +2 and were adding it, it would make it "effectively" +4, so 16,000 (minus the 4000 for a completely unrelated enchantment, so 12,000 total).
It gets sillier as it goes up.
Suggestion for new book:
Enchantment A costs - X
Enchantment B costs - Y
Enchantment C costs - Z
Add up X, Y and Z and you have the cost of your armour as you have paid for three seperate enchantments that have nothing to do with each other except for the fact they are on the same item - which doesn't seem to be a problem for the "Glamered, Slick - greater, Shadow - greater, Ethereal, Undead controlling, Energy (all of them) resistant - greater: Cod piece of D00M +1".
|
|
SKR actually just addressed this over here, in regards to armor.
It gets a little blurry for some of them (energy resistance is gp-based but spell resistance is plus-based), but if the summary of the ability is "this really needs to be an armor property" vs. "this could just as easily be a ring, robe, or necklace, it should be plus-based.
+1 on the energy resistance is gp-based but spell resistance is plus-based. Keep it constant.
So Etheralness doesn't make it harder for people to hurt you, would only ever be found on a suit of armour?
Yeah, not buying that :)
|
|
The system is fine as it is, as long as the christmas tree effect isn't too much a problem. It may be clearer, but it follows a good logic and keeps the balance in line.
Giving a base cost to most abilities would make them so cheap everyone would get them on every weapon ever.
Not if they were priced accordingly.
|
|
Not if they were priced accordingly.The system is fine as it is, as long as the christmas tree effect isn't too much a problem. It may be clearer, but it follows a good logic and keeps the balance in line.
Giving a base cost to most abilities would make them so cheap everyone would get them on every weapon ever.
Better said than done when we are talking about one of the system's fundations. The game assumes a +10 enhancement maximum, with a crazy high GP cost - you don't change this kind of things without repercussions.
There is no way we can simulate this with base prices without hurting balance, unless some properties are so cheap everyone takes them, and others are so expensive that you're better stacking cheap powers and spending your GP elsewhere ; however, such ability-stacking would not provide any benefit in the current system since a +1 Keen flaming burst weapon has the same cost than a +1 flaming/frost/shocking weapon.
It may be confusing, and some prices are off (Invulnerability armor, basically any elemental damage) but right now it's the best alternative.
|
|
Yeah, this is one of my few beefs with the magic weapon and armor system in 3.5/Pathfinder. Wish they had changed it. Adding flaming to a weapon is pretty much equally effetive whether added to a +1 weapon, or a +5 weapon. If anything, it's less useful to add it to a +5 weapon, because by the time you can afford a +5 weapon, adding 1d6 to your damage is fairly inconsequential. I'd rather see all of the special abilities have fixed costs with a modifier for stacking fixed cost abilities. Say +5000gp for flaming, then to add shocking to that costs an additional +5000gp (x1.5 for being the second fixed cost enhancement).
One way to deal with this could be, for example:
Armour Enchantment:
+1 (Spell resistance 13, Slick - lesser)
+2 (Spell resistance 15, Shadow - lesser)
+3 (Spell resistance 17, Energy resistance)
+4 (Spell resistance 19, Energy, Slick - greater)
+5 (Etheralness, Undead controlling)
Etc.
I don't know how powerful each one of those abilities are, this is just a simple table to show how it could be done.
Consider the "base" enchantment to be like a powerboard that you can plug extra things into. It has a certain number of slots (1 extra ability per +1) and a certain amount of power that it can handle.
That's kind of how (thematically) magic items "used to" work way back when. Magic items with lots of different abilities had a special name - Artifacts!
|
|
Beware with spell resistance, by the way : it applies also against friendly spellcasting, and dying because the group's cleric/alchemist/bard rolled low to affect you with his cure spell can be a bit annoying.
LOL, good point.
Stabilise with heal, then strip off armour and "heal" hahaha.
I was thinking of taking it on the buckler for this very reason. Easy to remove when needed.
The reason the pricing system is designed in that way is to allow for a variety of different items at low levels, but still be game balanced at high levels.
If all magical properties were a flat cost, then items could be set at a very high cost for high-level players, and then lower level players could not afford anything, or they could be set at a very low cost, and by level 20, a character could have a sword with 15+ minor effects, because each additional effect would be so inexpensive as to be inconsequential to high level players.
But if make the growth rate for adding additional abilities exponential instead of linear, you create a system where you can have lower level players have access to most of the effects, but that prevents level 20 characters from having all of them.
Example:
Lets say adding elemental damage of +1d6 was a flat cost instead of a +1.
If the cost were 6,000g (cost of going from +1 to +2 weapon), then it is affordable around level 5. As it should be. But at level 20, you could add all 4, adding 4d6 damage for 24,000. If you had 30 Str and your weapon was already a +5 Longsword, you just went from 1d8+15 (average of 19.5 per hit) to 1d8+4d6+15 (average 33.5). You just upped your non-crit damage by 72% for ~15% of your wealth.
If the cost were 18,000g (cost of going from +4 to +5 weapon), then it is appropriately costed for level 20. You get get 4d6 extra damage for 72,000 gold, or 72% extra damage for 40% of your total wealth. But this puts these enchants out of reach of lower level characters.
If you want an in-universe reason for the exponential growth in cost, I would say that concentrating magic into an physical item is difficult and dangerous. The more powerful the magic concentrated into the same space, the more difficult and dangerous it is. So enchanting a swordwith a little bit of magic to make it a +1? Not that bad. Concentrating 3 different spells and a little bit more magic into the same sword, making it a +1 flaming, shivering, defending sword? Thats alot harder. Concentrating the most powerful forces in the universe to make that sword a +5 Vorpal sword? Nearly Impossible.
And the crafter is going to get paid for his effort.
I think another reason for quadratic pricing (it's not exponential; BTW; just quadratic) is to encourage "spreading the wealth" in a group setting.
In a linear pricing model, it might make the most sense to give Bob a +6 equivalent weapon before anybody else even has a +2. But under quadratic pricing, we can upgrade everyone to +2 for less than the price of Bob's +4. It lets everyone enjoy having nice stuff, because it decreases the relative advantage of putting everything in one basket.