I was designing a magical melee weapon, and i wanted it to cast Slow on the target on each succesfull hit.
It is a lvl 3 spell and the min. CL to cast it should be 5, looking at the table on page 550 corebook i read:
spell level x caster level x 2000.
Then, the note below says "If the continuos item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds,multiply the cost by 4".
So it is spell level(3) x caster level(5) x 2000 x4 ?
That is 120,000 gold only the slowing effect, w/out counting the rest of the weapon.
Did i read the rules right?
If your GM lets you, that sounds about right (depending on whether or not your GM applies the duration multiplier to use-activated abilities), but weapons and armor tend to use the plus-based system instead of use-activated effects in most cases. Depending on the details, this could also be a +3 or +4 equivalent bonus.
It appears so. You should look around for other weapons that do similar things, evaluate their price tag and break out that high school algebra to figure out what's going on. Turn this into a formula, if different from what you did, apply it to what you want to do and share it on here. :D
Bear in mind that, at the level you've got 120K available to drop into items, no one you hit will ever fail the DC 14 save against the slow effect -- so you might as well not bother with it in the first place.
Yeah having items always cast spells on a hit is like a glove of unlimited cure light wounds, just not a good idea.
Look into intelligent weapons for 18,000 g.p an item can cast a 3rd level spell 3 times a day. You shouldn't need to use slow more than that really.
I was considering changing my plans infact.
It appears so. You should look around for other weapons that do similar things, evaluate their price tag and break out that high school algebra to figure out what's going on. Turn this into a formula, if different from what you did, apply it to what you want to do and share it on here. :D
You asked for it :P
It is much lower on power than i intended, but it can be enhanced.Ask your GM if he allows it :)
And i know, it can feel like you already saw it some years ago.
Google doc
I was designing a magical melee weapon, and i wanted it to cast Slow on the target on each succesfull hit.
It is a lvl 3 spell and the min. CL to cast it should be 5, looking at the table on page 550 corebook i read:
spell level x caster level x 2000.
Then, the note below says "If the continuos item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds,multiply the cost by 4".
So it is spell level(3) x caster level(5) x 2000 x4 ?
That is 120,000 gold only the slowing effect, w/out counting the rest of the weapon.
Did i read the rules right?
Yes, that is correct. It's really expensive to add effects to weapons like this, because it's also really strong. Despite what Kirth noted, it's not as unlikely to land the slowing effect as you think. In essence, it gives you at minimum a 5% chance to slow the victim of the hit (they can always roll a 1, even if they have a +infinite Will save).
There's also the fact that slow is a powerful effect and virtually nothing is immune to it. It would be kind of like scoring a critical hit, with no confirmation roll, which forces your opponent to suck for 5 rounds. That's pretty sexy, I think. In fact, it's the main reason that I suggest martials carry disruption weapons, since at high levels you can pound undead 4-9 times per round with disrupting weapons, and every time you hit them it's a 5% chance of killing them outright.
You can definitely get it cheaper making it x/day, but doing so also means that it's less likely to proc against higher level enemies who will usually make their saves (it's hard to rely on people rolling a 1 when you only get 5 or fewer tries).
You asked for it :P
It is much lower on power than i intended, but it can be enhanced.
Ask your GM if he allows it :)
And i know, it can feel like you already saw it some years ago.
Google doc
Oh look, the incomplete flail of ages! :3
We shall let Minsc wield it! :D
imaginative idea that sword is, too bad the way creation is handled today is broken, ask your GM to consider it a +2 weapon modifier with an improving DC based on level of the wielder
I'm not sure why you say it's broken. 95% of complaints against the creation system are due to people using it incorrectly. The other 5% is because it could be expanded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually your math is wrong.
The whole "multiply for duration" bit is actually only for spells that affect the wearer constantly.
You want a weapon that casts slow on the target - you don't want a weapon that casts slow on the bearer constantly, so the 120,000 number is... incorrect.
Alright - so the first thing you want to look at is weapon equivalencies. Haste and slow are pretty much siblings - same level, diametrically opposed effects, they even cancel each other out. So we can assume that a weapon that has a slow effect on a target is essentially as powerful as a weapon that casts a haste effect on a bearer.
The speed property is +3, so that's a good place to start. Now, speed doesn't actually grant the full benefits of haste - you just get an extra attack, which is arguably the most powerful of haste's bonuses, at least for certain classes - at least those classes that would be using such a weapon anyway.
A slowing effect at +3 could cast slow on a target at the minimum DC (14 for a 3rd level spell) for the minimum duration (5 rounds). It doesn't quite grant the full effects of slow (since it affects a single target instead of an area). The minimum cost of such a weapon would be 32,000 gp (for a +4 weapon), meaning that characters could get access to it at... 8th level, assuming they've sold all of the rest of their gear. At this level, you're still looking at quite a few enemies that will fail a DC 14 Will save - most CR 8 creatures' will saves are around +6 - +7, which means they're still failing their save about 30% of the time.
That's pretty good - maybe too good, in fact. However, consider that a wand of slow only costs a third of that, and still affects an area...
Let's consider a separate way of calculating the effect. The item you want mimics use activated, but it's really not - because it's actually a free effect on top of an action you're already taking. Let's keep the math simple for now, though, and pretend it's use activated.
That's 3 * 5 * 2000 = 30,000 gp. I'd be willing, as a GM, to cut that in half, because you're only affecting a single target instead of a bunch of targets - 15,000 gp. However, you're also not using up a body slot with the item, so that doubles the price back up to 30,000 gp. You can cut that price down by limiting the number of charges per day - at 3/day, that's 18,000 gp.
I would actually be pretty okay with that property as a GM - slowing, 3/day can slow a target that is successfully hit, target gets a Will save (DC 14) to negate, duration 5 rounds. You must declare you're using this ability before making the attack, but a miss does not waste a charge. +18,000 gp.
Alternatively, I'd let you playtest the more general slowing property I discussed above, at a +3 enhancement, with the caveat that, as a playtest, it could very well be adjusted (or downright taken away from you) if I deem it to be too problematic.
Either way - it should definitely not cost you 120,000 gp. Consider that at such a price, you can buy a headband of intellect +6 that has ranks in Use Magic Device, and then buy a wand of slow that will allow you to be far more effective at slowing people, and still have over half of your GP left over for more goodies? It's a bit much to pay. The holy avenger costs just over 120,000 gp, and it's a far better weapon than the one you calculated.
Actually your math is wrong.
The whole "multiply for duration" bit is actually only for spells that affect the wearer constantly.
Hah, you're right. I wasn't even thinking about that. Good catch Archmage. :)
That means the correct price is about 30,000 gp. That's much more reasonable. :)
Following archimage's approach and the philosophy of weapon property deign, though, a +3 enchancement equivalent cost seems more approapriate than a straight gp value. The speed enhancement on a weapon costs 30K gp if and only if the weapon is +1 and has no other abilities. If the weapon is already +2, the speed enhancement costs 42,000 gp, and so on up.
@Gandal I know that I'll likely be crucified for even suggesting this, but here are some other ideas.
I agree that for weapons, following the "+" method for cost is the right way to go, since 90% of the available weapon enchantments use that scale anyway.
As for the effect, have you considered messing with the way the effect works? For example, the sword doesn't have to cast anything, it could function much like many magical weapons work in video games: Percentage rolls. Pathfinder is no stranger to this concept. Take Serpents Skull for example, page 57 of souls for smugglers shiv informs you that there is a 25% chance that you get diseased if you don't have shelter, no questions asked. This completely ignores the possibility of a save.
My idea would be consider a similar idea for building your weapon:
"Any creature damaged in melee combat with this weapon with equal or lesser hit dice than the wielder has a 25% chance of falling asleep for 3 rounds. If the creature has more hit dice than the wielder, there is a 15% chance of the creature becoming stunned for 1 round. This ability functions like sleep for all other purposes. If the creature is immune to sleep or mind-affecting spells effects, then then they cannot be affected by this ability."
It's hard to measure, but I'd likely call that a +2 ability. Anyway, what it comes down to is your vision of the ability, and what your DM is willing to allow. I usually come up with what I want, and then as a back up plan, what I know I can get away with :)
Small mathematical note: if the percentage is a multiple of 5%, it can be a d20 roll. 25% is 5 or less on a d20 (or 16 or more). 15% is 3 or less (or 18 or more).
Both Archmage Atrus and Kybrin are good suggestions.
I'm creating the campaign for my weekend games these days, so haven't all the time i'ld like.
This is why i tried to look at what has been already done by rules.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think a close analogue is the dustburst pellet. Like the posited weapon, it afflicts a pretty crappy condition on a single target (blinded and sickened). It costs 192 gold. 50 would be 9200, so a weapon doing the same thing would be 9200. That puts it somewhere in the neighborhood of a +1 enhancement bonus (the bullet also is +1). I would call it +2 and be done with it.
Comparing it to other enchantments... Disruption is close in theme and effect and +2, but I think disruption is pretty expensive at +2. (I would pick holy or keen or spell storing over disruption every time). I think most people would pick holy over the slow. That means it is pretty firmly in line with the other +2 options.
My analysis goes like this - slow really hurts 1) casters who want to move away, and 2) people with iterative attacks or multiple attacks. Casters tend to have decent will saves as do creatures with multiple attacks (lower HD animals being an obvious exception).
At +2 it is moved out of the zone where it is clearly overpowered (low level) and ok where it is likely to show up, mid level.
No, no it's not at all like the dustburst pellet. First of, the dustburst pellet gives a full turn for the target to move away (only needs 5ft) and secondly it's for one of the worst ranged weapons in the game.
No, no it's not at all like the dustburst pellet. First of, the dustburst pellet gives a full turn for the target to move away (only needs 5ft) and secondly it's for one of the worst ranged weapons in the game."follows the target for 1d6 rounds before dispersing."
Ah, saw that now. That's a pretty powerful bullet.
My analysis goes like this - slow really hurts 1) casters who want to move away, and 2) people with iterative attacks or multiple attacks. Casters tend to have decent will saves as do creatures with multiple attacks (lower HD animals being an obvious exception).
At +2 it is moved out of the zone where it is clearly overpowered (low level) and ok where it is likely to show up, mid level.
I will disagree with your analysis, for a couple of reasons:
1) The weapon affects a target every time they're hit. That means that even if the target has a high will save, they will fail eventually. (Even the mightiest heirophant priest can still fumble a will save.) Being able to take only standard or move actions sucks in high level combat. (Solution: Once a target saves, they can't be affected for more than 24 hours?)2) The ones that are affected worst by this weapon are exactly the targets this weapon is meant for: fighters with iterative attacks. Good luck being useful when you're stuck with one attack per round in almost every fight.
I don't know if +3 is too powerful or too cheap - my gut says it's going to end up on the overpowered end of things at +3, but might well be underpowered at +4, but I honestly haven't playtested it. But personally, I would take slow over +2d6 damage against evil targets any day of the week, unless I'm specifically playing a paladin.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I will disagree with your analysis, for a couple of reasons:
1) The weapon affects a target every time they're hit. That means that even if the target has a high will save, they will fail eventually. (Even the mightiest heirophant priest can still fumble a will save.) Being able to take only standard or move actions sucks in high level combat. (Solution: Once a target saves, they can't be affected for more than 24 hours?)
I don't think it is worthless, just not great. It would not be my first 32k gp purchase.
2) The ones that are affected worst by this weapon are exactly the targets this weapon is meant for: fighters with iterative attacks. Good luck being useful when you're stuck with one attack per round in almost every fight.
I understand it is meant for them, I just think the people it is meant to work against are the least likely to be affected. In general, more iterative attacks requires more HD which increase will saves (directly and through wealth/feats). In general, casters have good will saves.
I think a play-test might be helpful either way.
Consider 3 fighters
All have Iron will, weapon focus, weapon, spec, gwf, power attack, furious focus, weapon training 2, 20 str
So attack routine of 10 bab +2 feats + 2 WT - 3 PA +5 str = +16/+11
Damage is 2d6 + 9 pa + 7 str+2 wt = 25 average.
+3 sword is +19/+11 for 28 damage
+1 holy is +17/+12 for 32 damage
+1 slow is +17/+12 for 26 damage
With AC 24, 130 hp, will Save +8, it takes the first two 3.7 rounds to kill it (I ignored crits because I am lazy).
The slow weapon will average 2 rounds of slow over a 4.7 round fight (it takes longer).
If the average creature does about half normal damage while slowed, it is a wash. I think that is a pretty close estimation.
Using the same numbers, if it was a +3 enchantment, the straight enchantment would kill the monster a round and a half faster. So the enchantment is only a wash if the creature is 1/4th effective when slowed. I don't think slow is that debilitating.
Here's something from something I'm working on:
Calcifying: A calcifying weapon partially transmutes the opponent to stone. Each hit deals 1 point of Dexterity damage and slows the target (as the spell) for 1 round. A successful Fortitude save (DC 16) negates this and protects against further calcification from this weapon for the round. A target reduced to 0 Dexterity is petrified permanently. Break enchantment, restoration or stone to flesh can reverse this effect.
Moderate transmutation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, calcifying touch; Price +4 bonus
Edit: Just realized it's written a little weirdly. It should probably only effect a target once per round whether they make their saves or not. I think...
Reading again the properties, seems to me that Speed is too much overpowered (a +3 bouns for just an extra attack and no +4 AC???????).
Even if i told the Slowing weapons cause the target to lose one attack per round and nothinh else,without save, that won't be worth the +3 bonus,maybe not even a +2 (well, for balance i'ld say anyway that such a property should be a +2 bonus).